You heard this in church, just now...the church of which Christ is King

This one here.

Pt. 6 in the above link.

Don't allow your teachers to keep you off the battlefield

The great unrecognized element of the Faith is spiritual warfare. Even those who naively downplay the role or need for spiritual warfare in the life and "walk" of a Christian engage in it, but mainly by means of the defending of the faith, as they see it, in doctrinal debate. That is spiritual warfare, by default, in that the participant sees the importance of defending sound doctrine against forces of ignorance or confusion or willful mischief.

But doctrinal debate and defense does not make up all of spiritual warfare.

What is the main difference between the Christian, to use Bunyan's language, who resides in the Village of Morality and the Christian who is on the Way? The latter is engaged in spiritual warfare against the world, the flesh, and the devil. (Flesh being their own Old Man.)

A real Christian experiences what Jesus experienced.

Regeneration itself provokes the forces of darkness.

Short, to-the-point, accurate

The key to overcoming the premil (and dispensational) way of reading Scripture is twofold:

1) Jesus is at the center of the unfolding story of redemption from Gen to Rev; therefore the national covenant with Israel was only meant to be temporary;

2) the New Testament not only teaches us how Jesus fulfilled all the promises but how to read the Hebrew Scriptures.

rsc

here

Nothing new under the sun...

From The Christian's Reasonable Service, Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711), Vol. 1, pg. 79:

"[When reading the Bible the] second practice to avoid is that of forcing everything into a framework of seven dispensations, as the entire concept of seven dispensations is erroneous."

Emphasis in the original.

Phil Johnson comments on the MacArthur flap

OK, Phil Johnson makes some good points in the first part of this comment regarding the recent MacArthur flap. He's not obligated to make his employer the focus of criticism on his blog. (Well, considering his employer is a teacher of biblical doctrine that may make Johnson's position problematic as a Christian, but...still. I'll give him those general preliminary points.)

Then, he states he will now comment on the flap itself. Here is his comment:

Now, here's my comment:

John MacArthur's premillennialism is not an opinion he developed recently or kept secret until this year's Shepherds' Conference.

John has always been a premillennialist, holding to a pretribulational rapture. It's not a view he recently adopted in secret and suddenly unveiled. It's what he has always taught, and those self-styled experts in the realm of eschatology who seem most shocked and outraged today surely ought to have been aware of where he stood. He has written several books and a couple of commentaries outlining his perspective on eschatology.

Not a good start. This is the equivalent of Phil the running back scrambling quickly out-of-bounds when the nearest player of the opposing team is twenty-yards away from him. Where are you going, Phil?

What caused the buzz in MacArthur's statements was their being made in the context of a rather big movement of Christians awakening to sound biblical doctrine defined as Reformed - covenant, Federal - and, in terms of end times doctrine, amillennial (and not necessarily of the paedo/sacerdotal variety!). MacArthur's statements sounded desperate and overstated. They had the sound of a guy - and a movement - jumping the shark, as they say (and as has been said).

Various eschatalogical hobbyists, cranks, and fanatics representing practically every other conceivable point of view have tried from time to time to persuade John MacArthur that their view is the correct one. Evangelists for diverse points of view have ranged from the relatively new "pre-wrath" position of Marv Rosenthal to Gary North's doomsday-flavored postmillennialism to Harold Camping's unique date-setting, escapist brand of amillennialism to the most fanatical hyper-preterists. But John's opinion on this matter hasn't really wavered at all since the start of his ministry.

Yes, end times doctrine is a confusing hall of mirrors with clowns and distortions and what not, but the fact is: on-the-mark biblical doctrine exists regarding eschatology. Your litany carefully avoids the sound influences and voices and even manages to associate amillennialism with "date-setting" and Harold Camping. Venema, Hoekema, Vos, Berkhof, Calvin - etc. - are conspicuously missing from your list. No, these aren't just writers, but they represent the sound biblical doctrine Christians have been awakening to regarding eschatology. Sound biblical doctrinal understanding is conspicuously missing from your list. It exists, Phil. You just have to come into it. To do that you have to humble yourself first and make yourself capable of coming into it.

Moreover, in all the years I have known John MacArthur, he has never pretended to be "Reformed" in the technical sense of the word. He does say that his perspective on soteriology is essentially Reformed and Calvinistic, because that's a fact. He might even say he thinks many who call themselves capital-R "Reformed" aren't (small-r) reformed enough in some of their opinions.

But, despite the persistent caricature frequently batted around the dark side of the blogosphere, neither he nor I have any wish to coopt the capital-R label "Reformed" in the sense of "Truly Reformed." Nor have we ever claimed that we own the legitimate copyright to the R-label. In fact, to whatever degree the epithet "Reformed" reflects the attitudes and opinions of certain overzealous sacramentalists and puerile "Reformed Catholics," we have every wish to repudiate it as forcefully and explicitly as possible.

No, MacArthur just stated that any "self-respecting Calvinist" is premillennial, dispensational, and rapture doctrine soaked. (I think Phil knows that when the name Calvin is invoked the very heart of the meaning of the term "Reformed" is being invoked as well.)

So for the record, when you hear some of the same people who profess to hate the "Truly Reformed" mentality now breathlessly intoning the verdict that John MacArthur is not "Truly Reformed"—as if they have finally exposed a dark, secret heresy worthy of a major headline at all the "TR watchblogs"—just bear in mind that I have been insisting I'm not "TR" ever since I was first tagged with that moniker. And it should be no surprise to anyone who is moderately sober that the pastor of the church I attend isn't "TR" either.

See above. No, Phil, nobody considered John MacArthur as 'truly Reformed', not prior or after his latest pronouncements. That's not why he's attracting attention regarding this current flap. It's because he claimed Calvin would agree with his historically novel and biblically juvenile millennialism; and he did it while presenting a ridiculously straw man definition of that which he feels threatens him and his books and institutions the most: amillenialism; and he did it in an emotional manner and at an event and in a context of recent history that suggests a road marker has been reached.

Pre-millennialism enters the Stalinist phase

Now having seen his Marxism, I mean pre-millenialism, exposed as a false system, Joseph Stalin, I mean Phil Johnson, has had all comments negative of Marx and his system deleted from the official record.

(On another blog I stated I thought Phil Johnson was astute enough doctrinally to know that MacArthur's pre-millenialism was not Scriptural. I have to take that back. Apparently he can't see that. It requires the Spirit to see sound doctrine though, and for that one must be humble and grateful.)

ps- Gene Cook of the Narrow Mind internet radio broadcast reminded me how disgusting pro-Critical Text people can be. He allowed a pastor to equate the Authorized Version (King James Version) with homosexual pedophilia. These followers of the devil's manuscripts and the modern versions based on them are now as desperate as the MacArthurites in defending the indefensible...

Geerhardus Vos on "Chiliasm", or, "Pre-millennarianism"

This is Vos from his Pauline Eschatology, pg. 227:

"[Belief in pre-millennialism] is, of course, not attained except through a reckless abuse of the fundamental principles of O.T. exegesis, a perversion invading inevitably the precincts of N.T. exegesis likewise, heedless of the fact that already the O.T. itself points to the spiritualizing of most of the things in question. Apart from accidental features, and broadly speaking, Chiliasm [pre-millennialism] is a daring literalizing and concretizing of the substance of ancient revelation. Due credit should be given for the naive type of faith such a mentality involves. It is a great pity that from this very point of view pre-millennarianism has not been psychologically studied, so as to ascertain, whence in its long, tortuous course through the ages it has acquired such characteristics."

Article that sums Geerhardus Vos' work up fairly impressively

This article is worth reading, or saving for when you will value it.

It's for beginners (to intermediate), yet for Vos something like this is very much needed. It's very well written and presented.

For the John MacArthur folks reading this: look what you're missing out on...

The psychology behind what John MacArthur said

John MacArthur made strange statements, everybody agrees. Here is what is happening inside him regarding those statements: it's common when developing and coming upon the threshold of new understanding to be most against something just prior to adopting it.

John MacArthur is on the threshold of adopting the on-the-mark biblical understanding of eschatology. He's on the verge of throwing off the novel and half-baked end times doctrine he's been teaching. It's, of course, particularly difficult for him due to all he has invested in his previous understanding; but that is all worldly nonsense and worth nothing. He'll do some editing of his works and carry on. (One can hope. If not, he'll just be another Bible doctrine teacher that is commonly off-the-mark.)

Listen to this podcast to get a good sense of how and where MacArthur and his type are wrong.

Boston's great book now available on the 'net

Thomas Boston's Human Nature in its Fourfold State is now available on the 'net:

http://www.gracegems.org/28/human_nature.htm

This is really a unique book because it gives the deep, oceanic background history of redemption from a unique angle: the states of man:

Innocence (Adam in the Garden)

Corruption (Adam, and all humanity after the Fall)

Grace (man after regeneration by the Word and the Spirit)

Glorification (regenerated man after physical death)

These are BASIC CATEGORIES that explain at foundational levels most everything you see around you and inside you. (Not an overstatement.)

See this post:
http://electofgod.blogspot.com/2006/08/framing-truth-four-states-of-man.html

And especially this post:
http://electofgod.blogspot.com/2006/08/real-category-mistakes.html

To Phil Johnson

Just getting your attention, Phil. In my inimitable way. (I wrote a 'mean' comment at his blog, now deleted.)

There's truth in it, Phil. John MacArthur is your meal ticket. That's fine. Everybody has to survive. Just don't allow that to determine your theology when you know JM is teaching something off-the-mark.

As for John MacArthur himself... When you've written a thousand books, and founded a score of institutions, based on eschatological doctrinal understanding that is half-baked and simply biblically wrong it makes it kind of difficult to remain light on your feet and develop. Yet, you just simply have to throw that baggage off.

He at least admits Calvin saw things differently. That's a start. He should now humble himself and read the great Calvinist covenant and Federal theologians.

He doesn't have to go and get into sacerdotalism and all that either!

(Understanding of the Word of God comes from the Spirit. Anything to do with the Spirit requires you to be light on your feet.

There are obvious stumblingblocks and vanity in the attaching of one's name to books and institutions. They can make you not only heavy on your feet, but locked in cement.)

He's still petulant, but at least he can no longer deny he's actually been in a learning process...

Comments from Doug Wilson's blog:

Hello Pastor Doug, I'm trying to understand your problem with "merit." Could we not say that Adam and Jesus obeyed by faith and still call the ground or basis on which they were accepted by God meritorious? It would be like me, a new covenant believer, doing good works by faith alone and then holding them up to God as the basis for my justification. I can't do that, but Adam and Jesus could. Their good works, done by faith, were the grounds of their acceptance (or would have been in Adam's case) before God. Any thoughts? Christ is all! Joseph

Joseph Randall - 3/10/2007 8:49:31 PM | Report Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph, no problem with the way you stated it. The problem is with medieval definitions of merit, where it is this "stuff" that can be accumulated. This kind of definition keeps sneaking into the discussion, in my view. The way you can tell it has done so is that grace is squeezed out of the discussion.

Douglas Wilson - 3/11/2007 2:47:16 AM | Report Comment

Doug, just admit you didn't have a clue what you were talking about and leave it at that. Better yet, don't leave it at that, but back down from the teacher's podium and chill for awhile...

Worth reading: the legitimacy of 'Israel'

The true view on Israel (written by a Jew-by-birth, now a Christian by regeneration).

PS: It's possible to know muslims and islam are of the kingdom of satan and that Israel is a fake state not worthy of defending (evangelizing, yes; giving them citizenship in Europe and America - not that they would want that, necessarily, or Europe or America needs it, necessarily - yes; defending no).

Actually, the state exists in God's Plan as is, and so be it; but we don't have to defend it based on false doctrine. Maybe for geo-political reasons, if that is wise for a season or not, but not based on false doctrine.

I said I was done with the Federal Visionaries, but they've lately been exposing themselves...

Doug Wilson doesn't understand Covenant Theology. I mean, he really doesn't understand Covenant Theology. When I first began learning CT I found it confusing (mostly the biblical theology mushiness and inconsistent use of terms by different theologians, etc.), and I said to myself at times I'm surprised that any Christian church leaders would be able to grasp it (yes, I don't have a high opinion of such types). Obviously Doug Wilson is one of those pastors. Look at what he's written here:

Speaking of the law/word of God in the Garden, Clark says [R. Scott Clark, professor at Westminster California]:

"In this case, the formal 'doing' required by the law was abstinence, but the material obedience was loving God and obeying him completely. Those who lived under the Mosaic system will be judged accordingly (2:12-13), and those who did not (2:15) shall face judgment on the basis of the 'law written on their hearts' . . . but they are substantially identical. All human beings live under the same law: 'do'" (p. 244).

Now yikes, as the apostle Paul might say. Again I say yikes.

First, notice that Clark is again confounding the Mosaic covenant with the covenant of works, despite the fact that the Westminster Confession clearly says that the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace.

Now, on a scale of 1 to 10, ten being total understanding of Covenant Theology, this statement by Wilson registers a perfect zero. Doug, allow me to confuse and agitate you further along these lines: there's only ONE way to be saved... WORKS. (And the apostle Paul would agree, Doug.) Either your own works (good luck to Doug and all the Federal Visionaries) or Jesus Christ's. (Hint: accept the latter, if you can.)

My goodness. Doug Wilson says: "How can the Mosaic Covenant be a republication of the Covenant of Works and be part of the Covenant of Grace?" This is like a left-wing 'liberal' saying: "How can the government get more revenue if you cut taxes?" Yes, some things are very difficult to grasp for some people, apparently. The anti-intuitive nature of free market dynamics ("You have to invest money to make money, what? I PUT IT IN MY MATTRESS WHERE I CAN FEEL IT AND SEE IT!!!") and the anti-intuitive nature of God's wisdom and plan of salvation.

Yes, works save, Doug. And the apostle Paul is not confused at all about that.

Doug Wilson, confused amateur theologian and teacher of doctrine to the world 3

No, one doesn't need a seminary education to understand biblical doctrine at the hardcore, biblical level of Reformed doctrine; but it might help if one is going to affect to be a teacher of Reformed doctrine that one could perhaps get the freshman level basics down.

Here, again, is Doug Wilson, furthering the self-outing of his state of confusion regarding the very basics of biblical doctrine:

This has been implicit in what some have already said, but if God foreordains everything that comes to pass, this would include Adam's obedience, had he rendered it. This means that, at least for Calvinists, there is no way for God to "let go" and let the creatures do anything (strictly speaking) for themselves. There is no way out of saying "thank You" to God -- not that we want to avoid it, right? Whatever Adam rendered to God, that would have been decreed by God from before the beginning -- in such a way as to not take away liberty from the creature. But nevertheless, anyone who says that it would be possible for a creature to say, "God, I thank You for the chance to obey, but I cannot thank You for the obedience itself, for that is what I myself did," is not a Calvinist.

This is the voice of the immature man who doth protest too much that he is a worm before God. His tongue proclaims: "I'm a worm, God! I'm a worm!" while his Old Man - still in full control - is saying: "See how much of a worm I am because I admit it? Yeah, so what do these Calvinists have on me? I'm more aware than them that I'm a worm. God has to admit that too. None of them have anything on me."

Also, notice how Wilson, in this current free-fall disintegration, adopts so readily every extreme 'Calvinist' position he's read about. He's a neo-legalist, so he denies merit, or works; he's caught in the midst of a severe lack of understanding of God's sovereignty vis-a-vis man's free will, so he adopts determinism. And he's basing his doctrine on speculation as to what 'would have been' etc., etc., etc., totally missing that pre-fall Adam and fallen man are in two totally different and distinct categories regarding will and sin.

Doug: enroll in Westminster California. Be sure to sign up for one of Professor Clark's classes, just to keep yourself honest. Your vanity, your worldly pride, and your self-will, at this point, regarding doctrine and teaching, will only be defeated - potentially - if you enroll in an actual seminary and are forced to confront your many doctrinal confusions.

Doug Wilson, confused amateur theologian and teacher of doctrine to the world 2

I think we can call this positive free-fall. Or, positive, constructive edited-for-television total screaming flaming disintegration free fall.

Hopefully Doug (and by extension those who have been looking to him for doctrinal wisdom) will come out of this realizing that a) Reformed Theology really doesn't need to be re-invented; and b) if one were to re-invent it it might be a clue it's not you if you've yet to hit on the 'circular' or 'round' concept when re-inventing the wheel...

For reference (because he tends to edit his posts without acknowledgment) here it is:

Christ and the Life of Faith


In my previous post on the Auburn Avenue business, I said something that I think requires a bit more amplification.

I believe that the unfallen Adam was under a covenant that obligated him to obey God completely and entirely. He broke that covenant, and God promised him a redeemer through another kind of covenant, a covenant of grace and forgiveness. The entire remainder of the Scriptures is about the outworking of that covenant of grace -- this second covenant is not a recapitulation of the broken covenant of Eden, except in the hearts and minds of the sons of Hagar, who deliberately misread the Mosaic covenant of grace as though it were according to the principle of works. That misreading continues down to the present.

I have objected to the use of words like works and merit to describe all this because such usage tends to obscure and confuse the gracious nature of all God's dealings with man, whatever covenant we may be talking about.

As with the first Adam, so with the second. But the reason some of our critics get so worked up over this is that if all consideration of merit is excluded from the obligations of the first Adam and the achievments of the second Adam, it is assumed that the merit (which is thought to be inescapable) must be coming from somewhere. And if we are denying that we are justified by Christ's merit, we must be affirming (somehow, someway) that we are justified by our own merit. But none of this follows -- we simply deny that merit can be extracted from a virtous act and stored on shelves. Christ's obedience is ours because He is the father of the new humanity, and His obedience is ours through covenantal imputation.

The division between grace and works is a post-Fall division. It is the result of sin. Sin and rebellion introduced all such fragmentations, and the perfect Man, Jesus Christ did not come into our world in order to participate in our fragmentations, but rather to overcome them. When we confess that Jesus was without sin, this does not merely mean that He never stole, or lusted, or worshipped idols. It also means that He never accepted or lived by false categories. He was the perfectly integrated personality.

I deny that God dealt with unfallen beings on a raw merit principle, and then, after we demerited His favor, extended it to us on a grace principle. Rather, grace and works were not fragmented or divorced prior to the Fall. Adam was expected to obey, certainly, but there is no reason to think that this obedience, had it occurred, would not have been motivated by faith, hope, and love, sustained by the grace of God. As I have pointed out in many places, if Adam had withstood the temptor, it would have been necessary for him to thank God afterwards. This means that this covenant was fundamentally a gracious one.

And as with the first Adam, so with the second. When Jesus obeyed the Father perfectly, this was not raw obedience, teeth gritted, with no motivation of love. In John 17, Jesus made it clear that He and the Father were one, and they loved each other perfectly. Now, this love -- did it have anything to do with Christ's obedience? Any relationship to His willingness to trust His Father? We have no scriptural reason, apart from the demands of a particular systematic schema, to picture Jesus gutting out His obedience to the Father for the sake of a pristine merit.

In a similar vein, after Jesus successfully completed His life and death of perfect obedience, what did He do? He paid his vows to God (Ps. 22:25). "In the midst of the congregation will I praise thee" (Ps. 22:22). "The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand" (Is. 53: 10).

But with all this said, there is still good reason for being extremely wary about any admixtures of faith and love together in our justification. But this is not because faith and love don't go together (they did in Adam, before he fell, and in Christ throughout His life), but because they don't go together in sinners.

When we are presenting the gospel to fragmented sinners, we have to be very careful not to give or allow for any kind of self-righteous "out." C.S. Lewis says somewhere about good writing that it is like driving sheep down a lane -- you have to keep all the gates closed on both sides of the lane, for if there is any way for the sheep to veer off, the sheep will enthusiastically do so. It is the same sort of thing with any allowance at all being made for the religiously smug. All grace all the time is the only thing that can possibly restore us. Self-righteousness, earning, and merit are all in our bones -- detached, divorced, and separated from love. If we give any opportunity for the sinner to boast in himself, then he will do so. Telling him about how his faith needs to work itself out in love is a great way to get inveterate self-saviors to attempt just that. This is not because it is wrong for us to do, but rather because it is impossible for us to do. What is wrong is to kid ourselves after the fact, saying that our faith actually did work its way out in us in love, and that God was tremendously pleased with it, and with us for being so clever as to help out with our justification.

Adam could have obeyed, and had he done so it would have been by grace through faith, and it would not have been detached from any other virtue. Christ did obey, trusting His Father, and neither was this obedience detached from any other virtue. Sin destroyed the possibility of any such integration for us, and sola fide is the only safe way back. But even here we have to be careful -- believing in sola fide the wrong way can be a soul threatening error. In this sense, not only is it a work, but it is a tiny and impudent work -- considered as a work. But we are forgiven, not because we believe in justification by faith alone, but rather because justification by faith alone is true.

Much more can be said about all this. And I am convinced it needs to be, because in this understanding we can find a full harmonization of the currently discordant elements of the TR and FV visions. But I can find no reason why this should necessarily be so.

Doug Wilson, confused amateur theologian and teacher of doctrine to the world

If there was any question whether Doug Wilson and the Federal Visionists were consciously mischievous or merely confused here is some good evidence for the latter:

Two theological comments. A lot of the confusion about faith and works in this debate depends upon the idea that the Fall did not radically distort the relationship between the two. But it was the introduction of sin that introduced all the tension. In this chapter, Horton rightly points out that Christ was exalted because of His obedience. But as the perfect man, Jesus did not divide what God had first joined together in the creation. Put it this way. Did Jesus live His perfect sinless life (which, remember, people, was imputed to us) by faith in God? Or by works? Which was it? When His life and His death are imputed to us, was the foundation of this life faith in His Father or not? Was Christ's obedience faithless or not? Now I agree that Christ's obedience was imputed to us, but where did this obedience come from? Did Jesus gut it out for us on a works principle, or was His obedience grounded in His absolute trust in His Father? The answer is simple. It was perfect obedience, right? That meant that it was not grounded in the actions of the first successful Pelagian.

One can only surmise Wilson is laboring under the notion that Jesus - i.e. God - while not actively sinning in His life was nevertheless infected with original sin. Though the possibilities for different elements of confusion are myriad in this paragraph.

You don't say...

Really...

The Church in Switzerland [i.e. the Roman Catholic church before the Reformation] was corrupt and as much in need of reform as in Germany. The inhabitants of the old cantons around the Lake of Lucerne were, and are to this day, among the most honest and pious Catholics; but the clergy were ignorant, superstitious, and immoral, and set a bad example to the laity. The convents were in a state of decay, and could not furnish a single champion able to cope with the Reformers in learning and moral influence.

And it's the same now with Protestant 'clergy'. Here's how you tell there's no difference from modern day Protestant 'clerics' and the Romanist clerics described above: if they're holding the devil's atheist/Vatican manuscripts in their hands and passing it off as the Word of God.

Yes, clerics of all 'visible churches' (Romanist or Romanist-like Protestant, or whatever): as long as you can't discern the pure and whole Traditional Text Word of God (as in the AV 1611) from what the devil tells you is the 'word of god' (all modern atheist/spiritualist/Vatican championed [per]versions) then you will forever be stench in the nostrils of not only God's elect but of God Himself.

Histories of denominations don't cure alienation and not knowing who you are

The practical way to the read the Bible is as if you are reading of your people, your history, your biography. I.e., once you finally get your hands on a Bible, in the unique way where you value it as the Word of God, you then read it to find out about yourself, your history, what you are to do, and just what is going on.

When you read of the Israelites in the Old Testament you are reading of yourself and your people and your history. When you are spiritual Israel that history is your history. YOU have been brought up out of Egypt (regeneration). Yet even in historical time that is your people. On all levels the Bible gives you knowledge of your biography and your history. Of you and your people.

When you open your Bible and read Psalm 78 you are eager to read it because in it you are learning of your history. The history it recounts is YOUR history.

Then, practically, you live your life as an Israelite now. You now know who you are. You know your history, your people, your faults, your blessings, your past, present, and future.

You're still a stranger and pilgrim in this present world, yet you know who you are and whence you came from. Rather than being ill-defined, or having a hazy notion of who you are and where you are and what is going on, it is ALL right there in the pages of Scripture. Your family history. Your biography. Your past and your future. Rather than living in total alienation you now know who you are and what you belong to and you know your history and future.

This is, practically, how the Bible must be engaged. This is its value, other than regenerating (with the Spirit) you to begin with.

A shallow dupe wearing Protestant clothing can serve the devil very effectively

Discern the devil whatever clothing he is appearing in:

Romanism and Rationalism
As noted, textual criticism actually began in the sixteenth century. The Reformers and the later Puritans were very much aware of this discipline. Believing in the principle of sola Scriptura, they were strong advocates of the belief that God has preserved His Word in the majority of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, which manuscripts were in basic agreement. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, used a handful of copies in which numerous variants existed in an attempt to refute the principle of sola Scriptura. Without an infallible church to tell us what is and what is not the actual Word of God, said Rome, one can never be sure of the true text of Scripture. Romanism favored a few manuscripts with numerous differences, over the majority of manuscripts that were in basic agreement, whereas the Reformers and the Puritans, for the most part, took the opposite stand.41

Therefore, textual criticism over the last century has followed the principles used by Rome (and Enlightenment Rationalism), not those of the Reformers and Puritans. And that practice has led the church astray. We have been told that a few texts upon which the new translations are based are better than the majority of texts upon which the King James and the New King James Versions are based. As this article has shown, however, this is not true. The Westcott-Hort theory is not dependable. As Pickering wrote, it is unproved at every point.

You can say the champions of the Alexandrian Romanist manuscripts and the 'bible' versions based on them (people like James White) are shallow and simply duped, or you can say they are consciously carrying water for the devil, either way effectively they are carrying water for the devil. And on the most foundational and important matter for Christians.