A commenter on Kent\u2019s blog takes me to task<\/a> for my arguments, I give a smart alecky reply<\/a>, which Kent takes umbrage at<\/a>. So there we are.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Well, let me give a little more serious attention to Paul\u2019s arguments (Paul is the commenter).<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s arguments can be summed up this way:<\/p>\n Paul the commenter then goes on to add several points that he calls his presuppositions in coming to his argument. Among them are these:<\/p>\n (4) The Bible promises that God would make His Words generally available to every generation of believers (Deut 30:11-14; Isa 34:16; Isa 59:21; Matt 4:4; 2 Pet 3:2; Jude 1:17). (This is general availability, not necessarily to every person on the planet.) Certainly, we are told that for around two millennia in history only one small nation had the true and pure words of God, \u201cHe sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD\u201d (Ps 147:19, 20 cf. Rom. 2:14). I\u2019d like to deal with these arguments one by one:<\/p>\n I would like to see, first of all, how my comment (see link above) posits idealism. It seems to me that the commenter is arguing with someone else and is just using my name to address his post.<\/p>\n I would also like to suggest that the commenter is arguing against a straw man here. I don\u2019t think anyone on the non-KJO side is attempting some kind of Platonic idealism where there is a sure word of God off in heaven or somewhere and that what we have is only a limited, imperfect, and flawed facsimile. [I suppose that perhaps someone somewhere has made such an argument, but I don\u2019t think it is the view of anyone who is dealing with the subject seriously, especially from a fundamentalist perspective.]<\/p>\n So on this point, let me just say that I categorically reject idealism and find the charge laughable. I also am a little amazed that my reaction to the argument (\u201cbaloney\u201d) is name-calling, but that the charge of idealism is not. But whatever.<\/p>\n On this point I will concede that I am arguing from inference. Certainly such an argument is weaker than a plain declarative statement from the Lord. However, I urge you to read 2 Ki 22 and 2 Chr 34 and judge for yourself. Did Josiah and his men discover something that had lain dormant and unknown for some time, or was it just an old antique they found and thought Josiah might find it interesting? How does Josiah\u2019s reaction square with that interpretation? I think he was in shock.<\/p>\n Notice also that they had to go searching for a prophet at that time to get an answer from the Lord about what they read. They search and can only come up with a woman, Huldah, who tells them judgement is surely coming but not in the days of Josiah. This is a passage egalitarians seize on, but the fact that we have a prophetess, not a prophet ought to speak volumes about the state of the Word in Israel at the time.<\/p>\n Paul the commenter says that Josiah \u2018didn\u2019t bother\u2019 from the beginning of his reign to follow the Mosaic command for the king to read the law personally (Dt 17.18). Uhh\u2026 how old was Josiah when he began to reign? \u2026 8 \u2026 how old was he when the scroll was found? \u2026 18. Are you wanting to claim that this young man knew the command? Then why the unfamiliarity with the law once it was found?<\/p>\n On this point, let us say that the Word was not unknown completely, but how well was it known? Perhaps they only had the Westcott-Hort text, since Josiah responds to the specific statements of the newly discovered book of the law with such great surprise. Obviously, someone had left out the judgement bit, since Josiah knew nothing about it. That\u2019s that \u201clonger ending\u201d of Deuteronomy causing trouble again!<\/p>\n Ok, I did say I was going to give a more serious reply, didn\u2019t I? Let me simply say here that we are both making arguments from inference here, not explicit revelation. Very hard to make a sticking point without more data. I think my explanation fits the facts better, however.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s look at each passage: Dt 30.11-14 \u2026 here the revelation is that God\u2019s blessing will attend those who take God\u2019s word to heart and treasure it \u2013 it is not a promise that God\u2019s word will be available to every generation of God\u2019s people.<\/p>\n Isa 34.16 \u2013 read the context. Isaiah is prophesying judgement on Judah. He says none of these words of prophecy shall fail, look them out in \u2018the book of the Lord\u2019 (presumably the Law). No promise to make the word generally available.<\/p>\n Isa 59.21 \u2013 again read the context. This is a prophecy of the coming of the Redeemer to Zion, when the nations will come in like a flood and the Spirit of the Lord will stand up against them. That would be Armageddon, I think. The promise is that the words of this prophecy are established, they will not fail, they stand from generation to generation until it happens.<\/p>\n Mt 4.4 \u2013 the passage I complained to Kent about\u2026 It has nothing to do with the Word being available to every generation, instead it is the Lord replying to Satan in the temptation that man\u2019s life doesn\u2019t consist in having material needs met, but in the life he gets from the Word of God. There is no promise here of generational preservation, just a promise that the Word is the source of life (I say \u2018just\u2019, but it is no light promise!).<\/p>\n 2 Pt 3.2 \u2013 be sure to read 2 Pt 3.1 also. Peter is stating his reason for writing, that the people might remember the words spoken before. No promise of general availability here. Instead, a bit of concern that the word might be forgotten without this reminder.<\/p>\n Jude 1.17 \u2013 this is an admonition to remember the words, not a promise that the words will be generally available.<\/p>\n ~~~ I really would like to see a passage that explicitly makes the promise that God\u2019s word will generally be available for God\u2019s people. Do you know that God judges his people when they sin? Do you know that God sometimes might judge them by withholding even his word from them? God will even hide his word from people when they are hearing it spoken or seeing it \u2018live\u2019 before their eyes (Isa 6.9-10).<\/p>\n 2 Pt 1.19 \u2013 a passage often misunderstood! Peter is admonishing his readers to take heed to the written word, it is a more sure word of prophecy even than Peter\u2019s memory of the mount of transfiguration \u2013 the written word is more sure than Peter\u2019s experience, so pay attention to it. Nothing about certainty as to the words of God.<\/p>\n Lk 1.4 \u2013 Luke says to Theophilus that his purpose in writing is that Theophilus might know the certainty of those things he has been instructed in, i.e., the gospel record, the preaching of the apostles. This is not a promise about certainty of as to the words of God, but a promise of certainty concerning the kerygma, the gospel preaching. (That is not to say we are not certain about the words!)<\/p>\n Pr 1.23 \u2013 not a promise about specific words being preserved into perpetuity, but a promise that if you pay attention to wisdom\u2019s reproof, God will make known his words to you (among other things). <\/p>\n Pr 22.20-21 \u2013 the writer has given excellent counsels and wisdom so that the reader might know the certainty of the words given, the reliability and wisdom of their meaning. This is a promise that God\u2019s words are true, not certainty as to the words of God.<\/p>\n Dan 12.9-10 \u2026 the words are closed and sealed up\u2026 what words? the words of the prophecy that Daniel didn\u2019t understand. Daniel inquired after them and God told him, \u201cIt\u2019s not for you to know.\u201d This is no promise of certainty as to the words.<\/p>\n ~~~ I feel like Dr P\u2019s famous saying \u201cI speak as a fool\u201d! Do I suggest that God\u2019s words are uncertain or that God hasn\u2019t certainly preserved his words? No! But I suggest that the KJO position here and elsewhere overstates its case by straining at Scriptures, attempting to make them say what they do not say.<\/p>\n God can do whatever he wants to do<\/strong>. I am not arguing against the doctrine of preservation. I wholeheartedly embrace it. I just think the KJO understanding of it over reaches by trying to prove too much. The Scriptures themselves to not make the case they are making.<\/p>\n The KJO position is no doubt presuppositional. But it\u2019s presuppositions are not based in revelation, but based in unprovable assumptions the KJO crowd makes. The opposite view is likewise based on presuppositions. What we have here is a case of dueling presuppositions. Let\u2019s let the Scriptures speak truly and plainly in all our argumentation about this. Let\u2019s not press more meaning on the passages than they contain.<\/p>\n If you can make the KJO argument from the statements of Scripture, have at it. So far it hasn\u2019t been done.<\/p>\n Anything else\u2026 any other kind of argument\u2026 making Scriptures say what they do not say\u2026 IS BALONEY!<\/p>\n I regularly read the blog of my friend Kent Brandenburg. He often posts here so we have a mutual admiration society thing going. However, we do disagree at some key points. He is blogging lately about \u201cThe Erroneous Epistemology of Multiple Version Onlyism\u201d. I usually don\u2019t enter into the debates on this subject as I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[71,110],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2fYWj-jo","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1202"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1202"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1202\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
(5) The Bible promises there will be certainty as to the Words of God (2 Peter 1:19; Luke 1:4; Prov 1:23; Prov 22:20-1; Dan12:9-10; 1 John 2:20).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n1. My supposed idealism<\/h5>\n
2. Was the Bible ever hidden from Israel and did God fail thereby to preserve his word?<\/h5>\n
3. Josiah\u2019s reformation evidence the word was known<\/h5>\n
(4) The presupposition of God promising to make his word generally available to his people<\/h5>\n
(5) The presupposition that God promises certainty as to the words of God<\/h5>\n
![\"don_sig2\"](\"http:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/04\/don-sig21.png\" "\\"don_sig2\\"")
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"