Christian Mysticism

mysticism

noun

mys·​ti·​cism ˈmi-stə-ˌsi-zəm 

1: the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics

2: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)

3a: vague speculation: a belief without sound basis b: a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

Mysticism has existed for as long as man has conceived of a god. Christianity was no sooner born than it began to find root in the minds of the new converts. It has been a constant struggle throughout the history of the church and our tendencies toward mystical thought and forms of worship have driven many outside of orthodoxy. In its most subtle forms, it has affected us all in varying degrees. We should be aware of it and its dangers to the faith.  

The popularity of the "Jesus Calling" series by Sarah Young has done much to promote mystical thought and practice within the Church. It almost always comes by some well-meaning though misguided individual. In her popular devotions, she gives daily encouragement from the Savior Himself. The idea is simple, during times of meditation and contemplation, she receives these thoughts from Christ, and she then pens them down in the first person. Christians all over the world are now reading these thoughts as daily devotions as though Christ himself was speaking to her by direct revelation in real time. 

However, long before I heard of Sarah Young and "Jesus Calling" I was doing the same thing myself. In the Christian circles that I was associated with I was instructed by a Pastor to keep a notepad next to the bed; you never knew when you might have a dream from the Lord and need to write it down so as not to forget it. People or ministers would get a "word from the Lord" for you, and it was considered wise to write those words down. You wouldn't want to forget a personal message from God as to miss it when it happens or forget to do it. If you woke up at night and couldn't go back to sleep, you were to assume God wanted to show you something, so you would get up and pray or study to try and determine what he was saying.

Other forms of mysticism I practiced were in times of prayer. If there was a decision I needed to make, I would go spend time in prayer, mostly then speaking in ecstatic Pentecostal (tongue speaking) while expecting some thought or unction that would direct me in the right direction. It is not uncommon for non-Pentecostal Christians during prayer to wait and listen in their minds for God to give them specific instructions as answers to their prayers. Sometimes simple thoughts or events are interpreted as answers to those inquiries. 

In studying the Bible, if a particular scripture seemed to draw our attention more than usual, we were to consider God wanting to show us something about that passage. Whatever understanding could be gained from it during that time would be considered God's instructions or revelation concerning that passage. All of these things are mysticism and should not be a part of Christian worship. 

This all comes from our desire to feel close to God, if we can experience something, a feeling, or a perceived thought from God, we feel as though we have bridged the gap and touched the figure of God! 

It might be asked what good is our prayer if God doesn't answer or speak back to us? The answer of course rests in the fact God does hear and respond to our prayers, He just doesn't engage in mysticism when He does. We as Christians I am afraid are confusing feelings with assurance. It is not necessary to hear something in our head or look for some mystical experience to have an assurance that God has heard us and will answer our prayers. 

Our life that is hidden in Christ in God is not subjective, but a life of objective obedience. The author of Hebrews tells us, Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV

(1)  Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,

(2)  but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

God truly is speaking to us today, He is doing so through His word. The Holy Scriptures is His revelation on the earth today. Our time spent in the word is time spent with God himself. It is a simple and objective way to live, it removes all the shadows and uncertainty of our walk with Him. If we need direction concerning some change in our lives, we can pray to Him and ask him to guide us in His providence. Then we can get up and make our decision with confidence knowing His providence will eventually bring us where He has determined. Romans 8:27-28 ESV

(27)  And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

(28)  And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

Sometimes it might appear to us we made the wrong decision, but all the while God was using an adverse and uncomfortable situation to grow us in grace and assurance. In those times, if we were walking in mysticism and thought we heard some voice in our head or followed some omen we perceived to be from God and it all went wrong; well then our assurance would be shattered and our mind confused because we must have missed God. We get all distracted trying to follow all these perceived and subjective messages instead of a confident walk with God in His word. 

Christian mysticism is dangerous, many well-meaning Christians have been led astray. Many have become disillusioned and confused, even to an abandonment of the faith. It changes the Christian way of life into a life similar to other world religions. There are all kinds of religions promising mystical connections with God. Their testimonies sound intriguing, even desirable, and no doubt they are experiencing something. Christianity is unlike the religions of the world, it is not man trying to get to God, it is God coming to man in the person of Jesus Christ. 

Britannica identifies mysticism as being taught by the Apostal Paul and John stating, "The earliest form of Christian mysticism was the Christ-mysticism of Paul and John. Although Christian mysticism in its traditional expression has centered on the desire for union with God, Christ-mysticism has always been present in the church." They point to such verses as, Philippians 3:8-11 ESV

(8)  Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ

(9)  and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—

(10)  that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,

(11)  that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Such verses in Scripture Christianity are sometimes perceived to be mystical, this is a wrong view of Christianity. This is not Paul seeking some mystical experience with God. It is a response to his own salvation and calling into the ministry. It is Paul recounting His desire to walk in active objective obedience to the highest measure possible. There were outstanding encounters with supernatural gifts and abilities experienced during the Apostolic times, all of which served their purpose ordained by God. However, those experiences were never meant to be the average everyday life of the believer throughout church history. Every time someone has tried to recover those times it has led to unorthodox and damaging practices. 

Peter assures us it is not visions, voices, thoughts in our head, and experiences that are to determine our choices, but the Scriptures. 

2 Peter 1:16-21 ESV

(16)  For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

(17)  For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,”

(18)  we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

(19)  And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,

(20)  knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.

(21)  For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Paul warns us mysticism will always be present with us, 2 Timothy 4:2-4 ESV

(2)  preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

(3)  For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,

(4)  and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

We will turn away from listening to the word and wander off into these mystical means of communication, seeking personal fulfillment in some kind of experience with God. John points us back to fellowship with God through His word and our obedience to it. Real objective life of obedience to God's word does of itself bring experience, great experience of peace and assurance, great grace, and hope of salvation! 1 John 1:6-7 ESV

(6)  If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

(7)  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

May God bless,

David

CBGM and the Bible

 

So what is the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)? I'm not quite sure, it sounds complicated and probably is, however, let's see if we can get it down to a level that even I can understand.

We probably need to start with a little on Bible translations. Until recently Bible translators essentially had three choices of Greek texts: the one based on the oldest and considered by some, probably the best manuscripts called “Alexandrian” manuscripts. They are really old and surprisingly in very good condition. Also the Textus Receptus or TR (used for the KJV) and earlier English translations. The term Textus Receptus is Latin meaning "Received Text". Desiderius Erasmus first published this collection in 1516 and the edition was given the title Textus Receptus in 1633. Erasmus was the author of five published editions from 1516 to 1535. His Greek text was based on seven minuscule manuscripts of the Byzantine text type that he had access to in Basel at the time, and he relied mainly on two of these, both dating from the twelfth century. It seems he did not have a Greek text of Revelation to work from, therefore he translated Revelation from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. Then there is the Majority Text or MT (similar to the TR but differing from it in significant places of especially weak manuscript support). The Majority Text is a Greek text produced by a method within textual criticism that uses “majority rules” to determine which variant is most likely to be original. While the Majority Text method does result in the most likely original reading in most instances, it should not be employed universally or exclusively. The "Alexandrian" text could be found either in the NA (Nestle-Aland) or in the Greek NT published by the UBS (United Bible Societies). The TR and MT are similar because they are both Byzantine texts. Nearly all modern Bible translations were, and continue to be, based on the NA text. The NKJV, as its title implies, has followed the TR with noting readings in the MT and NA. The KJV and earlier English translations used only the TR (Textus Receptus) published by Erasmus as its base. It is from these sources we have our English Bibles today to study and read from. 

As we have discussed before, changes or errors occur by the copiest over time, and in any passage of which there is more than one version in the extant Greek manuscripts, the goal is to determine the original reading, which must have been changed.  Of course, we cannot talk to the scribe who copied the manuscript, he has been dead a very long time. So assumptions are made that he is competent and conscientious unless the manuscript he has produced is a sure nuff mess. The high degree of agreement that we find among the manuscripts tends to confirm these assumptions. The methods listed above have produced the text we are now reading.

These manuscripts we are told disagree in many places, and this is where CBGM comes in. Using this method we now know that the level of agreement between all the passages that feature variants in the General Epistles at least averages about 88% and this agreement they call “coherence”. This understanding has caused them to consider that there were “families” of manuscripts with differing levels of quality. A family of manuscripts would be something like the early (Alexandrian) family and the later manuscripts, would be called the Byzantine family. There are many more Majority Texts and the third family is usually called the Western text. There are much fewer Greek Western texts than the East. This is due to the fact the West adopted Latin early on in the Church and culture while the East continued to use the Greek language for another 1000 years. As you can imagine, there are many more Eastern Greek manuscripts available. However, if we wanted to add the Western Latin texts we could tilt the scales back in favor of the West. 

A characteristic of the Byzantine family is that when there are differences with the earlier manuscripts, the Byzantine readings seem “easier”, sometimes the reading is smoother, and at other times it avoids a theological difficulty or some other problem. This has led some to the conclusion that the Byzantine family was the result of misguided scribal attempts to correct or improve upon the original and therefore was to be rejected. Therefore, many prefer the more ancient Alexandrian manuscripts. Advocates of the Byzantine family have argued that the scribes wisely corrected corrupt readings found in the earlier manuscripts. We know under the rule of Charlemagne libraries were built and scribes were gathered for this very purpose. It is very possible the same occurred with all of the Byzantine family of manuscripts.

Some scholars have argued the claim that we have the original text whenever the two leading manuscripts of the family–Aleph (Sinaiticus or 01) and B (Vaticanus or 03) agree. They are both old manuscripts from the 4th century. Most think that assumption is going a bit too far, they prefer a more contextual approach. For example, a reading found in B (Vaticanus) is taken seriously at the outset because (Vaticanus) is an old (fourth-century) manuscript rated as very high in quality. Whereas a more contextual approach would not consider B’s pedigree, as all-important. The reading is judged to a high degree by how likely it seems to be the original, given the context and any transcriptional issues. It seems that when using CBGM, the manuscripts play no part in the analysis; they are merely the physical carriers of texts, and only the texts they carry matter. Consequently, the date of an individual manuscript is of doubtful or no importance, and users of the method are told to set aside previously held views of the quality of any manuscript, which can get in the way of doing an objective analysis of the text. This is obviously very different and will take some getting used to. However, getting used to it we must, for it appears that CBGM will probably be the future of textual criticism for the forseeable future.

CBGM is basically a computerized database, a collection of all the variant readings in carefully selected Greek NT manuscripts (well over 100 so far) converted to machine-readable code for the purpose of analysis. At present, only the general epistles and Acts are the only ones that have been converted. Because all of this data has to be entered into the system, it looks like it will be a long time before we see a fully revised Old and New Testament produced by CBGM. In the meantime, we get to see slowly, just how efficient and promising it may or may not be.

Coherence is the basis of CBGM, it is the level of agreement between any two texts that are found in any two manuscripts, down to individual characters and spaces. An example would be if I printed this post out on paper, and then copied it with a photocopier, it would produce the same document exactly. It would have 100% Coherence between it and the original. Whereas if I copied the text by hand numerous times, the errors induced by my mistakes would cause less than 100% coherence. If I make very few mistakes, it might be as high as 98% coherence, if I rush it and induce many, it might be as low as 50% coherence. 

Now let us consider how some of these variants or non-coherent changes occur. Obviously, in the example above the variant reading would be a result of a mistake, the amount of mistakes directly relating to my ability to copy by hand accurately and the amount of pain-staking time I wanted to take to do it. Let's add to the equation several people copying the same text. Say 20 people copy it and every year 20 more people copy the text from their copies and so on for a decade. As you can imagine, after a decade you would have some copies with more coherence than others. Some errors would have been induced by accident, the amount depending on the dedication of one or more of the copiers. Some might have been entered purposely, the copier might have considered a better way to say something, or perhaps had access to other copies which had a different reading and he decided to change his copy to the other variant reading. As you can see, there are many ways a variant reading can occur with handwritten material. With our Biblical text, this has occurred for 14 centuries of human history. Surprisingly, the high percentage of coherence we find in our Biblical text gives testimony to the matchless effort and care that has been taken by the scribes who have copied them over the centuries. Since the average agreement among the Biblical texts that feature variant readings is about 88%, the assumption we must make considering our Biblical scribes is they were relentless in making their copy as good as possible.

This is good for CBGM because it is going to associate witnesses (witnesses being the common variant reading in a group of manuscripts) with each other and somewhat build a family tree of manuscripts. For instance, if I have two manuscripts and each has used a different word in a particular passage. CBGM would look for other manuscripts that use these words (these are called witnesses) or similar wording and associate those with many other manuscripts. This association builds the so-called manuscript family tree.  When we find two witnesses that agree with each other in variation units and of course, the remaining text agrees in the high 90% range, then by CBGM reasoning, we are probably looking at two texts that were on a scribe’s desk, the copy he is working from and the one he is making. As the percentage decreases, we are probably looking at a witness a few scribes or more removed from the ancestor to which it is being compared. 

A low percentage of coherence may not necessarily mean we are looking at sloppy scribable work, we may be looking at a manuscript in a particular family that has a large gap existing between it and its ancestor, for many manuscripts have been lost. Another thing to consider is the text we are looking at is older than the manuscript. For example, Codex B (Vaticanus) is originally thought by some to be a fourth-century recension (edited compilation), but the discovery of P75 (‘P’ for “papyrus”) proved that B’s text was at least early third-century. That simply means, though the manuscript we are looking at is a fourth-century manuscript, it is very plausible it was copied from a manuscript written soon after the year 100 AD. CBGM can help us in these determinations.

This diagram is a bit over my pay grade, I'm told it's not as complicated as it looks, probably not to someone familiar with the system, but it also appears to be necessary to have a working knowledge of the original language. You can examine the program yourself and see what you think of it at this link. CBGM

“A” is supposed to represent the A-text, the hypothetical text constructed by the ECM editors in which all the variant readings have been chosen by them. The numbers associated with "A" are the existing manuscripts (Text) that are designated by those numbers. In the case of the manuscript (93), the numeral 5 indicated beside it represents how far it is removed genealogically from "A". Therefore, "A" ranks as its fifth potential ancestor. The same example is demonstrated in the manuscript (6). Witness 1501 indicates that it has the same reading as A, but does not have any of the other witnesses within the box as its ancestor at this level of connectivity. The CBGM is programmed to connect it to its closest ancestor even though that ancestor has a different reading, and this is indicated by the dotted arrow.

The diagram above suggests that the scribe of witness 1501 more likely miscopied witness 424, resulting in what is called “spontaneous” of the variant rather than “inheritance” of it from another witness. For the particular witness of 1501 to have been inheritance, it would have been necessary to have already existed in witness 424. Since it does not exist in 424 the scribe himself must have made the mistake in witness (Text) 1501 of his copy. 

As we mentioned earlier a text can be older than the manuscript it is written on. Codex Vaticanus for instance is a 4th-century manuscript, but the text could have easily been copied from a 2nd Century manuscript. This is important to know with CBGM because in the diagram above, witnesses 1739, 81, 02, & 03 are all demonstrated to be the first descendants of "A" and all appear to have equal value. However, Witness 1739 and 81 are 11th and 12th-century manuscripts. Apparently, CBGM sees the text as close to the original autographs as the others because of its demonstrated high rate of coherence.

CBGM seems to be able to identify scribal changes when more than one manuscript is used while making choices to enter corrections. It also seems to be able to identify these events and suggest possible witnesses used, however, the reason the scribe would choose one variant over another will continue to be known only by the scribe or scribes who entered the corrections. The main objective of the CBGM is, of course, to deal with the contamination found in NT witnesses.  There is no detectable algorithm or routine for employing the age of a manuscript as a criterion, its appraised quality, or any geographical data. 

One of the assurances conservative textual critics and translators have given the public over many years is that we have every word of the New Testament existing somewhere in the thousands of copies of ancient Greek manuscripts extant today. They also assured the public that we have the means to determine the original reading. That may be a bit of an overstatement, but it is a very close reality. It is understood that of all the variant readings that exist in the extant manuscripts available to us, only about 1% are of any real concern or would have a doctrinal effect. With that much assurance, one might wonder why so much effort is exerted and even controversy over CBGM? It is simply because the Christian wants to know what the original autograph said, even if it doesn't change any doctrinal position of the text. Inquiring minds want to know! CBGM has yet to prove how beneficial it can be in acquiring a better more accurate Biblical text, and it does have its nay-sayers! However, it seems to me every available tool at our disposal should be applied in the preservation of the Scripture. I might assume that if a Scribe in the 4th Century had had a computer program like CBGM available to him, he would have made use of it to the extent it was helpful. This genealogical method potentially is another useful tool even for the traditionalist. This of course has been a very basic and general look at CBGM, most of what I have read to prepare this post has been way beyond my ability to understand. However, I felt necessary to post something on it, or at least become somewhat familiar with it. It is exciting to know there is a system becoming available that can look at the text of Scripture in ways the human mind has not been capable of until this age. The use of algorithms and A.I. is changing our world, hopefully, many of those ways will be positive. For a more academic explanation of CBGM, the following link will be helpful. Christian Publishing House Blog.

Hope this has been helpful,

David

Who Changed our Bible? (Part III)

 

Let's take one more look a Bart Ehrman's book, "Misquoting Jesus". One verse Ehrman points to as an issue is Mark 1:41. The larger context reads, Mark 1:40-44 ESV

(40)  And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.”

(41)  Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.”

(42)  And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.

(43)  And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once,

(44)  and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”

The issue is found in verse (41), most manuscripts use (σπλαγχνισθει) translated as "moved with compassion" or as the ESV above reads, "moved with pity". However, Ehrman points out that one of our oldest manuscripts, Codex Bezae, and three other Latin manuscripts read using (ὀργισθείς) which is translated as "becoming angry". Ehrman states, "It is obviously important to know whether Jesus was said to feel compassion or anger . . ."Misquoting Jesus (Page 149). 

Ehrman suggests that if Mark originally wrote about Jesus’ anger in this passage, it would change our picture of Jesus that Mark presents significantly. There is no doubt there are two different readings of the text in some manuscripts, but keep in mind, an accumulation of things such as this is what Ehrman is presenting as evidence the Bible has changed over time as well as his defection from the Christian faith. Really? We are looking at handwritten manuscripts some of which are a thousand years old and we are supposed to be surprised that they don't read exactly the same? We also should remember we are talking about thousands of manuscripts and this is the best he can offer as a reason to doubt the inerrancy of the Bible?

So how does this affect the passage? The passage in question is a revelation of the passion that motivated Jesus to perform the healing of the leper. Was it anger or Compassion? Only the author of the original autograph knows for sure since we obviously have two readings now. Our Bibles render it as Compassion simply because the majority of the known evidence lends to that reading. It is simply the most likely reading, but if most scribes got it wrong and he was really angry, has the Gospel been changed? Do we have a different Jesus than the one that is presented in the scriptures? 

The answer to all is absolutely not, the intent and purpose of the text in question are not the particular passion Jesus was feeling at the time but an acknowledgment of the almighty power of Jesus, and an appeal to his benevolence. If he was angry it would be in character with the Jesus that Mark has presented elsewhere in Scripture, for we see in Mark 3:5 ESV

(5)  And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

One could also speculate the possibility of both passions being present as a motivating factor, compassion for the leper and anger for similar reasons as we read about later in Mark 3:5. Are we to assume because it is not mentioned in Mark 3:5 Jesus was not compassionate toward to man with the withered hand? It appears for Ehrman to have confidence in the Scriptures he requires a perfect flawless copy from thousands of handwritten manuscripts. Obviously, that is realistically impossible and one would appear foolish to suggest otherwise. 

Another point of interest for Ehrman is Matthew 24:36, Jesus speaks about the time of his own return. Remarkably, he confesses that he does not know exactly when that will be. In most modern translations of Matt 24.36, the text basically says, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.  However, many manuscripts, including some early ones, lack (οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός.)  “nor the Son”  so it can be disputed wither it was in the original reading or not. However, what is not disputed is the wording in the parallel passage in Mark 13.32 “But as for that day or hour no one knows it, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, except the Father.” Thus, we know that even if the phrase was not in the original autograph it is nonetheless a true statement confirmed for us in a non-disputed parallel text. In his book, Ehrman lists several examples such as those mentioned above, had he had a desire to he could have listed a seemingly endless collection. What he is presenting is nothing new and anyone who has studied the process of Biblical translation knows it's no easy task. But they also know that because of the meticulous work that has been exerted we can have great confidence not only in our English Bibles but in the Scriptures overall. That is not to say all English translations are equal, but that is another subject altogether.

And of course, Ehrman points out in 1 John 5.7, that virtually no modern translation of the Bible includes the “Trinitarian formula,” since scholars for centuries have recognized it as added later. Only a few very late manuscripts have the verses. The passage made its way into our Bibles appearing for the first time in 1522, even though scholars then and now knew that it was not authentic. 

The KJV reads, 1 John 5:7 KJV

(7)  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 

And the ESV reads, 1 John 5:7 ESV

(7)  For there are three that testify:

The early church did not know of this text, yet the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 explicitly affirmed the Trinity! So the presence or absence of the verse changes nothing concerning the text. They affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity without the benefit of a text that didn’t get into the Greek NT for another thousand years. The early church simply put into a theological formulation what they got out of the New Testament when defining the doctrine of the Trinity in 381. The addition of the extended phraseology of verse 7 by some scribes in the 14th Century changes no understanding concerning the Biblical text. Sure we would feel better about it all if we had a perfect text, but what we do have makes it possible to obtain a very highly reliable text.

Anyone with an understanding of the patristic debates over the Godhead knows that the early church arrived at their understanding from an examination of the New Testament text. The Trinitarian formula found in late manuscripts as well as being included in our KJV of 1 John 5.7 only summarized what they found; it did not add or change any new information. Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" as well as others he has since published is very well done and sufficient to cause many Christians concern and perhaps even doubt the Bible they have trusted for so long. One positive aspect of his work is hopefully those who read his books will continue to investigate and study the source of our Scriptures. In doing so, they will strengthen their understanding of what they are reading as well as their confidence in the accuracy of the Scriptural text. A full scholarly review of "Misquoting Jesus" by Daniel B. Wallace can be found at Bible.org

Ehrman seems to suggest the Scriptures available to us today are producing some evolved form of Christianity. What we must understand is all the variations in our doctrinal views, divisions, and debates are not because our Bibles are reading differently, it is because we are simply coming to different conclusions as to what is read. The weakness is not in the text to communicate but in our understanding and interpretative methods. There were disagreements in the Second Century when there was access to the original autographs, this is nothing new. However, as we read the commentary and sermons from the patristic era, they may be viewing the text in different ways, but the text they are commenting on is the text we are reading. As we read their writings we recognize the text and realize they are reading the same Scripture we are reading nearly two thousand years later. Yes, Ehrman can point out all the variant readings in the ancient manuscripts, but he cannot point to a different Gospel, a different church, or a different Jesus in the second century. We still have the same Gospel and the same Jesus they were writing, preaching, and commenting upon. The Gospel still stands as the same Gospel!

God bless,

David

Who changed the Bible? (Part II)

 

As we continue to examine Bart Ehrman's book, "Misquoting Jesus" and his explanation of the development of the Christian Scriptures. While recognizing his scholarship is excellent, our quest will be not so much to question his scholarship, but his conclusion.

As he is building his thesis, he instructs his readers that the Christian religion is a written religion with the Apostles and followers of Jesus studying the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament, and not long afterward the Chruch viewing the writings of the Apostles themselves as Scripture.

Ehrman reminds us again that many books were being written, competing accounts of the Gospels, and other letters claiming to have been written by the Apostles and early Church leaders. He suggests the average Christian was illiterate and not able to read and the question he says we must ask is, who is reading the books? Ehrman continues to build his thesis chapter after chapter on the difficulty of producing a written work and the great effort in producing copies at this time in history. Every copy would have to be handwritten, of course, the result of that would be no copy would be exactly alike. Different people with different skills and techniques would produce copies which varied, sometimes greatly. 

All of what Ehrman describes is an accurate assessment of the facts as we know them. What we must determine is whether those facts and difficulties actually lead us to the conclusion he has arrived at. His conclusion it seems is that the Bible we have is a product of many rewritings and changes over the centuries resulting in manuscripts nothing like the original autographs. I have written several articles addressing various questions concerning textual criticism, you can review them at the following links.

Dead Sea Scrolls

Reading Horizontally

Contradictions The Genealogy of Jesus

Contradictions The Crucifixion

God Breathed

Ehrman correctly establishes the fact the first copies of the scriptures were likely produced by unskilled scribes, at least for the most part. He even suggests some may have been produced by scribes who could not read. He gives the example of an Egyptian scribe named Petaus, who apparently had learned to sign his name, although he could not read what he had written. In other words, they learned to copy the characters without learning to read and understand them. Of course, there is no way to know if this was ever done with the scriptures, it is really not relevant anyway, we have so many ancient copies to compare and study, that any inaccuracy would be discernable. It does add a colorful addition to his synopsis nevertheless.  

The problems with the handwritten texts that Ehrman is highlighting aren't something that scholars are just now discovering.  The systematic study and practice of the subject he is addressing originated in the 3rd century with the Greek scholars of Alexandria. There was an awareness that many texts had suffered damage because precise textual accuracy and reproduction had not been practiced in the culture. The aim of the librarians of Alexandria was to collect and catalog every extant Greek book and to produce critical editions of the most important together with textual and interpretative commentaries. Many such editions and commentaries did in fact appear. Alexandrian editing was distinguished above all by respect for the tradition; the text was constituted from the oldest and best copies available in the 3rd Century, and the conjectural practice of removing errors was rigidly confined to the commentary, which was contained in a separate volume. Although this precise textual accuracy was for some time not an area of academics, it does not mean there were not good copies available.

 

Fidelity to tradition was the legacy of ancient textual scholarship; the copyist was expected to reproduce his copy as exactly as he could, and the corrections were based on comparison with other copies, a practice that is continued today. A fact not mentioned by Ehrman, of the grouping of manuscripts originating from Alexandria, is that they have a textual accuracy of around 85% among that textual grouping. An explanation concerning the different textual groupings used in our Bible translations and why can be found at this link. Alexandrian Manuscripts vs. Textus Receptus

The majority of these variants are inconsequential differences involving spelling differences, articles with proper nouns, and word order changes. Only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, when this is brought into consideration the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable. The impression Ehrman sometimes gives throughout his book is that of wholesale uncertainty about the original wording, this is certainly not the view of the vast majority of textual critics. It is difficult to imagine that 1% of questionable variants warrant a defection from the Christian faith!

An illustration of this is given by scholar Daniel B. Wallace who gives the following example. [There are approximately 138,000 words in the Greek NT. The variants in the manuscripts, versions, and Fathers constitute almost three times this number. At first blush, that is a striking amount. But in light of the possibilities, it actually is rather trivial. For example, consider how the Greek can say “Jesus loves Paul”:

᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον

᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον

ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον

ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον

Παῦλον ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ

τὸν Παῦλον ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ

Παῦλον ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ

τὸν Παῦλον ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ

ἀγαπᾷ ᾿Ιησοῦς Παῦλον

ἀγαπᾷ ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν Παῦλον

ἀγαπᾷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς Παῦλον

ἀγαπᾷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν Παῦλον

ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον ᾿Ιησοῦς

ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον ᾿Ιησοῦς

ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς

ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς

These variations only represent a small fraction of the possibilities. If the sentence used φιλεῖ instead of ἀγαπᾷ, for example, or if it began with a conjunction such as δεv, καιv, or μέν, the potential variations would grow exponentially. Factor in synonyms (such as κύριος for ᾿Ιησοῦς), spelling differences, and additional words (such as Χριστός, or ἅγιος with Παῦλος) and the list of potential variants that do not affect the essence of the statement increases to the hundreds. If such a simple sentence as “Jesus loves Paul” could have so many insignificant variations, a mere 400,000 variants among the NT manuscripts seems like an almost negligible amount.] 

You can readily see how the omission of such factual information can be both misleading and harmful to the reader. Especially if the data you have presented was done with such scholarly expertise. It is something we all must be aware of when considering any subject. A person skilled in his field can present statements of truth, whether scripture or otherwise, and present them in such a way as to load the scale on one side.  

However, the issues he presents deserve our attention. Is it not a serious matter if our Bibles contain these uninspired and bogus statements? And if they do and it is known by our Biblical scholars, why are they still in our newer translations? 

According to what Ehrman discovered concerning the text, and remember, he is an excellent scholar, it was so earth-shaking it has fractured and dismantled his Christian faith. I will assume since he wrote the book to expose the issue, the examples he gives are the ones most responsible for his defection. So what are these earth-shaking discoveries that are to change the way we read our Bibles?

One he mentions is John 7:53-8:11, this whole section of scripture is thought by many to almost certainly not be a part of the original text but has been added sometime between the 3rd and 5th Centuries. My ESV Bible contains the texts, but insert in brackets [THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT INCLUDE 7:53-8:11] then adds a foot not stating, "Some manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11; others add the passage here, or after 7:36 or 21:25 or after Luke 21:38, with variations in the text." No Biblical manuscripts before the 3rd Century contain these verses. The KJV version and earlier English translations have no such notes identifying the reader of these facts. The reason for this is the material used in the early English translation process originated from source material of the 12th century. The older manuscripts had not been discovered yet and were not available to the translators. However, this verse is referred to as early as 100AD by some of the Paristic writers. So there still remains the possibility of its authenticity, so the inclusion of it with footnotes seems appropriate. Even if the exact location or even the exact book it was written in is not known, it seems the Patristic writers were aware of it and referred to it. 

The question is, does its presence warrant a defection from the faith or place the authenticity of our Biblical texts into question? It seems, except for Ehrman, it doesn't seem to have affected the Christian faith at all. As to the Biblical text, the discovery of the older manuscripts not only revealed this possible scribal addition but has served to solidify the accuracy of the rest of the text. We are more certain now of its accuracy than we were before.

Another text of reference Ehrman mentions is what is called the long ending of Mark. Mark 16:9-20 is also missing from all the earlier manuscripts. David Guzik's commentary has this to say concerning this portion of the text: 

a. The two oldest existing Greek manuscripts (dated from 325 and 340 A.D.) do not contain this section and neither do about 100 other ancient manuscripts translated into other languages. A few ancient manuscripts put asterisks next to Mar_16:9-20 to indicate that it is an addition to the original text.

b. According to their writings, almost all the Greek manuscripts known to Eusebius (who died in 339) and Jerome (who died in 419) did not have these verses.

c. In a few other manuscripts there are two other endings - one shorter, one with some additions.

d. About one-third of the vocabulary is totally different from the rest of the Gospel of Mark and there is a very awkward grammatical transition between Mar_16:8-9.

e. Most contemporary scholars reject these verses as original.

However, like the verses referred to in John, many very early Christian writers refer to this passage in their writings. So they were at least aware of its existence in some form and deemed it quotable.

Papias refers to Mar_16:18. He wrote around A.D. 100, Justin Martyr’s first Apology quoted Mar_16:20 (A.D. 151), and Irenaeus in Against Heresies quoted Mar_16:13 and remarked on it (A.D. 180). 

Unlike the verses we discussed in John, there has been some confusion caused by the inclusion of these verses in the Biblical text. This is the section of Mark that contains the verses (16)  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (17)  And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name, they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; (18)  they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Because of these verses, some confusion has arisen over the nature of baptism and a whole sect of Christianity arose promoting the practice of snake handling and the drinking of strychnine. One could argue that even that could have been avoided by good hermeneutical practice in interpretation, nevertheless, the problems do exist. However, these unbiblical practices don't seem to have existed till the emergence of the Pentecostal movement of the last Century. So the inclusion of these passages does not seem to have had any effect on the Christian faith until recent times. As mentioned before, the discovery of the older text not only revealed the possible issue with these texts but also strengthened the authenticity of the Scriptures as a whole.

Still, it seems Ehrman suggests these variants change what we believe as Christians, in effect change Christianity. Supposedly, if we had the original autographs, we would have a different Christianity. However, the variants he has offered here in discussion whether they were original or later added do not induce any new doctrinal belief or if removed alter a single Christian doctrine. Again, the discovery of these variants which has occurred in the last 100 years or so has only increased our confidence in the accuracy of the Scriptures. 

Next time we will continue the examine some interesting variants in the textual reading and see what we can make of them. Hopefully, we can also take a look at a new technology that is developing that very well may deliver the most accurate reading we have had of the Scriptures since the Patristic age.

Until then,

David

Who changed the Bible?

 

This post will be in response to a book a friend of mine recently sent me. It is by Bart Ehrman who is an excellent Biblical scholar. It seems the premise of the book is detailing how Ehrman, through the study of the ancient text of the Bible was moved from being Christian to an Atheist. 

What he discovered, according to Ehrman, is that we apparently do not know or have any possible way to determine what the actual Christian writings were. He suggests that there have been so many changes over the centuries by the scribes that it is impossible to know exactly what was in the original text. It will be interesting to follow him through his scholastic endeavor and examine his work for our own personal satisfaction. Personally, I do not have the skill or expertise to criticize or praise his scholarship. Fortunately, he is not the only excellent scholar in the field of Biblical criticism, so we are not left at the mercy of his work alone. 

The very first challenge we find in his thinking is the same challenge we find in the first book of the Bible, Genesis 3:1 ESV (1)  Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” The serpent came to the woman and asked her, are you sure God actually said that? I find it interesting that Ehrman is now coming to us and asking us, are you sure God actually said that? Of course, it is perfectly fine for him to ask, as a non-believer that is a very legitimate question. I would only hope our response will be somewhat better than that of Eve.

He begins his journey with a discussion of the Jewish roots from which the Christian faith sprang. From what I can see he gives a fairly accurate assessment of the subject as it is generally understood and accepted. However, when he began to move into the Christian writings themselves it didn't take him very long to begin to cast the doubt, "Did God actually say?" Ehrman stated, "It is not clear how much Paul used scripture [meaning the Jewish scriptures] in trying to persuade his potential converts of the truth of his message;" Being familiar with Paul's writings and the Biblical text myself, I knew this sounded somewhat of an understatement. I had never stopped to recount how often, but it sounded like Paul was constantly referring to the Scriptures, so I did a little research and discovered Romans contains quotes or paraphrases of 84 Old Testament passages. Hebrews which many scholars think could have been written by Paul has 83 references.

Paul's other books with references to Old Testament passages are 1 Corinthians, which contains (26); 2 Corinthians (18); Galatians (14); Ephesians (12); Philippians (6); Colossians (3); 1 Thessalonians (1); 2 Thessalonians (7); 1 Timothy (4) and 2 Timothy (9). Only Paul's two shortest epistles, Titus and Philemon, contain no quotes from the Old Testament. 

It's obvious from these figures that Paul overwhelmingly used the Hebrew Scriptures to support his teaching. In fact, he constantly used the Old Testament as the authority for his teaching! I find it surprising that Ehrman, being the excellent scholar he is would suggest otherwise. My first thought was that he simply doesn't accept the text itself as sufficient evidence, but then he does turn to the scriptures to support his synopsis. He cites 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 ESV (3)  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, (4)  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He kind of leaves it as if that was the sum total of his Old Testament reference. That would seem a bit misleading on his part, but it does demonstrate he does recognize Paul's statement in 1st Corinthians as supportive evidence, therefore, I would think all the other references should have equal value.

Another area of interest is concerning the Gospels, Ehrman suggests there were many gospels at first with only four becoming widely read. Those four of course are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Ehrman's point here seems to be that the only distinction between the four Gospels we have in our Bibles and the other so-called many gospels is that these four became the most popular. He then cites the fact we still have some of the other gospels and lists some of them. Such writings of antiquity as the Gospel of Phillip, Judas, Thomas, and Mary Magdalene. 

I don't want to be too critical here, because he is correct concerning the existence of other pseudo-gospels. However, he is silent on the great chasm between the so-called gospels and the actual four we have in the New Testament. It was not as he seems to suggest a popularity contest, it was a truth contest and the New Testament Gospels won. It really was not a contest at all, you had the Gospels of the New Testament Church and then you had a bunch of writings from Gnostic teachers who were presenting a different Gospel message. None of the Gnostic's writings can be understood as Christian for they veered too far from Christian teaching. We know what the Christian church considered as Christian writings from the early Church Fathers. When they were quoting from writings considered to be authoritative it was from the New Testament and not from the Gnostic writings. If the church had considered these other gospels as Christian material they would have been quoting from them. I'm sure someone with Ehrman's credentials knows this, but we must understand, that the purpose of his book is not to lend support to the Scriptures but to discredit them. All of this information is readily available online, you can read the writings of the church fathers yourself, and you will find them referring to the Gospels and epistles we have in our New Testament, not the Gnostic writings.

This is so prevalent among the patristic writers that it has been said you could reconstruct the entire New Testament from their writings. That would seem to be quite an overstatement, however, even Ehrman states that he along with some help from a few others was able to reconstruct a huge chunk of the Gospel of John using only the writings of Origin (185AD-253AD). Nevertheless, Ehrman explains it would be impossible to reconstruct a New Testament from the patristic writers alone because you would not be able to tell when they were actually speaking from a New Testament text. Ehrman was able to reconstruct that huge portion of John because they had a Greek copy of John as a template.

The point from my perspective is not whether we could reconstruct a New Testament from their writings alone, but that if you can identify the reference of the New Testament text they were reading to the New Testament text we have today, does that not affirm we are reading the same text they were reading in the 2nd century? In support of Ehrman's statement, it seems no one can validate the case of being able to reproduce a New Testament from the patristic writers. However, what has been validated is the Early Church Fathers did confirm enough of the New Testament claims to authenticate the writings of the apostles. From the non-canonical works of Ignatius (35AD-108AD) and Polycarp (AD69-155) who were students of John, and the non-canonical work of Clement (35AD-99AD) who was a student of the Apostle Paul we can determine the following:

Jesus was predicted by the Old Testament as described in the New Testament

Jesus is divine as described in the New Testament

Jesus taught His disciples as described in the New Testament

Jesus worked miracles as described in the New Testament

Jesus was born of a virgin as described in the New Testament

Jesus lived, ministered, was crucified, and died as described in the New Testament

Jesus rose from the dead and demonstrated His deity as described in the New Testament

The early disciples of the apostles confirm the content of the apostolic teaching. If Ehrman is looking to prove the New Testament text we have today is less divine, less miraculous, and less supernatural, he isn’t going to find it in the writings of the first generation that followed the apostles. Instead, he going to find the very same Gospel that you and I know from the writings of the New Testament. The Scriptures didn’t evolve over the centuries and become what we have today. We don’t need to reconstruct the entire New Testament to have great confidence that the writings of the New Testament have been delivered to us accurately. The Early Church Fathers confirm this for us, even if they don’t repeat every line of the canonical narrative.

In "First Clement to the Corinthians," Clement (35AD-99AD) quotes Matthew 18:6 & 7 "Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, 'Woe to that man [by whom offenses come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling block before one of my little ones.'"

Matthew 18:6-7 ESV (6)  but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (7)  “Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!

It is to be understood what Clement is quoting is of course not from the ESV translation, he would be quoting from an ancient Greek manuscript without chapter and verse division, punctuation, letter spacing, or word divisions. However, the portion of Scripture he is quoting is unmistakable. This is an example of what is available to us within the patristic writings that help us affirm the Scriptures we are reading today are the Scriptures they were reading in the 1st and 2nd centuries. 

Another element to consider is the continuity of Christian doctrine and the Old Testament. Ehrman himself points to the fact that Paul used Old Testament authority for his teaching. The data I previously mentioned demonstrates the wide use of the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament writings. However, when you look at the Gnostic writings you lose the Old Testament continuity which you must have in Christianity. 

Take for example the Gospel of Philip which Ehrman mentions. This pseudo gospel states: "There's one name that isn't uttered in the world: the name which the Father gave to the Son. It's exalted over everything; it's the Father's name, because the Son wouldn't have become father unless he had taken the name of the Father. Those who have this name know it, but don't say it; and those who don't have it, don't know it. But Truth brought names into the world for us, because it's impossible for us to learn it (Truth) without these names. There's only one Truth, but it's many things for us, to teach this one thing in love through many things."  In Bible hermeneutics, one means of obtaining a correct understanding of a difficult text is to consider the context in which it rests and look at other texts of Scripture that address the same issue in more detail. It is sometimes referred to as "Scripture interprets Scripture". Christian doctrine is not built upon a single text but upon the context of the whole of Scripture. This is not possible when reading the pseudo-gospels, they have no relation to the Biblical text at all. These pseudo books were not just simply left out of the Bible, it is impossible to put them in the Bible with any continuity or clarity at all. It's like having a bowl of red marbles with one blue nail in the mix, you immediately know it does not belong. 

To understand this pseud-Gnostic writing you would need to be familiar with Gnosticism, for it makes no sense whatsoever within a Christian context. The same is true of the gospel of Judas that Ehrman mentions where it is said to be stated by Jesus, "This is how it is. God commanded Michael to loan spirits to people so that they might serve. Then the Great One commanded Gabriel to give spirits to the great generation with no king – the spirit along with the soul. So the [rest] of the souls […] light [… the] Chaos […] seek [the] spirit within you which you've made to live in this flesh from the angelic generations. Then God caused knowledge to be brought to Adam and those with him so that the kings of Chaos and Hades might not rule over them." 

The same is true of the gospel of Thomas which states, "Jesus said to his disciples, "If you were to compare me to someone, who would you say I'm like?" Simon Peter said to him, "You're like a just angel." Matthew said to him, "You're like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Teacher, I'm completely unable to say whom you're like." Jesus said, "I'm not your teacher. Because you've drunk, you've become intoxicated by the bubbling spring I've measured out." He took him aside and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked, "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things he said to me, you'll pick up stones and cast them at me, and fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."

Then you have the gospel of Mary, "The Savior said, "Sin doesn't exist, but you're the ones who make sin when you act in accordance with the nature of adultery, which is called 'sin.' That's why the Good came among you, up to the things of every nature in order to restore it within its root." Then he continued and said, "That's why you get sick and die, because [you love what tricks you. Anyone who] can understand should understand! "Matter [gave birth to] a passion that has no image because it comes from what's contrary to nature. Then confusion arises in the whole body. That's why I told you to be content at heart. If you're discontented, find contentment in the presence of the various images of nature. Anyone who has ears to hear should hear!"

It doesn't take a Bible Scholar to discern between pseudo-gospels and the Christian Gospels. However, as Christianity was growing in its early stages, these pseudo-gospels were being spread under the guise of Christianity. It was no small task for the Church to confront these false teachings. When a Church had been affected by these pseudo-writings, as you can imagine, it caused great confusion. We find this kind of thing infecting Christian Churches from the very beginning.   

2 John 1:7-11 ESV

(7)  For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

(8)  Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward.

(9)  Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

(10)  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting,

(11)  for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

John is already having to address a Gnostic teaching concerning the nature of Jesus. It seems someone was teaching that Jesus had not really come in the flesh but only appeared to be human. Whoever was bringing this teaching was causing great confusion among the Churches. It was necessary for the Apostle to instruct them in the true understanding of the nature of Christ. Sadly, this continued to be a problem throughout Church history and the only defense against these false teachings was a continual appeal to the apostolic writings as the only authority. These things may have troubled Mr. Ehrman and caused him to stumble in his faith, but they need not have. We will continue to look at the difficulties Mr. Ehrman sees concerning the Biblical text because we need to be aware of these things and why they exist. 

Until then, God bless,

David

God's Sovereignty

 

Sometimes Christians have a problem with the Absolute Sovereignty of God. Many times they confuse it with Determinism. [determinism /dĭ-tûr′mə-nĭz″əm/

noun

(1) The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

(2) A term invented, by Sir William Hamilton to denote the doctrine of the necessitarian philosophers, who hold that man's actions are uniformly determined by motives acting upon his character, and that he has not the power to choose to act in one way so long as he prefers on the whole to act in another way.

(3) In general, the doctrine that whatever is or happens is entirely determined by antecedent causes; the doctrine that the science of phenomena consists in connecting them with the antecedent conditions of their existence. Opposing views like to use the term determinism to impose upon the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God the misconception of a hard, rigid, cold calculated effect.] 

In determinism, it is the philosophy itself that is in control, not God. In their explanation, they take God's Sovereignty and turn it into determinism. They will try and demonstrate that the Calvinist view of God's Sovereignty is the cause of man's sin. Leighton Flowers in one of his videos suggests the doctrine of Sovereignty in the Calvinistic view implies if a man chooses to watch pornography today, God must have determined for him to do so, for all events are determined by God. This is from a man who claims to at one time have been a Calvinist. I am ever amazed at those who profess to have been Calvinists yet have such a misunderstanding of the actual doctrines of the reformed faith. The best way to refute Flowers is from the Scriptures themselves. The following account concerns the shipwreck that is recorded in the books of Acts.

Acts 27:21-44 ESV

(21)  Since they had been without food for a long time, Paul stood up among them and said, “Men, you should have listened to me and not have set sail from Crete and incurred this injury and loss.

(22)  Yet now I urge you to take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship.

(23)  For this very night there stood before me an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I worship,

(24)  and he said, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar. And behold, God has granted you all those who sail with you.’

(25)  So take heart, men, for I have faith in God that it will be exactly as I have been told.

(26)  But we must run aground on some island.”

(27)  When the fourteenth night had come, as we were being driven across the Adriatic Sea, about midnight the sailors suspected that they were nearing land.

(28)  So they took a sounding and found twenty fathoms. A little farther on they took a sounding again and found fifteen fathoms.

(29)  And fearing that we might run on the rocks, they let down four anchors from the stern and prayed for day to come.

(30)  And as the sailors were seeking to escape from the ship, and had lowered the ship's boat into the sea under pretense of laying out anchors from the bow,

(31)  Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, “Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved.”

(32)  Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the ship's boat and let it go.

(33)  As day was about to dawn, Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, “Today is the fourteenth day that you have continued in suspense and without food, having taken nothing.

(34)  Therefore I urge you to take some food. For it will give you strength, for not a hair is to perish from the head of any of you.”

(35)  And when he had said these things, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat.

(36)  Then they all were encouraged and ate some food themselves.

(37)  (We were in all 276 persons in the ship.)

(38)  And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, throwing out the wheat into the sea.

(39)  Now when it was day, they did not recognize the land, but they noticed a bay with a beach, on which they planned if possible to run the ship ashore.

(40)  So they cast off the anchors and left them in the sea, at the same time loosening the ropes that tied the rudders. Then hoisting the foresail to the wind they made for the beach.

(41)  But striking a reef, they ran the vessel aground. The bow stuck and remained immovable, and the stern was being broken up by the surf.

(42)  The soldiers' plan was to kill the prisoners, lest any should swim away and escape.

(43)  But the centurion, wishing to save Paul, kept them from carrying out their plan. He ordered those who could swim to jump overboard first and make for the land,

(44)  and the rest on planks or on pieces of the ship. And so it was that all were brought safely to land.

In verses 22-24 we understand there are things that have not happened, but of necessity must happen. It must happen because God has decreed it to be and not because certain antecedent events determined it to be. These things consist of a number of thoughts and actions of men, some of which are contrary to the purpose God has determined. Flowers suggests the reformed view would assign those contrary thoughts to have been predetermined in their mind by God. He did not get that from any Calvinist confession of faith.  

Notice in verse 21 Paul said, “Men, you should have listened to me and not have set sail from Crete and incurred this injury and loss." Paul had previously discerned this was going to be a dangerous mission. It appears his assessment was common among them but it was determined the risk was worth it. As it turns out, Paul's discernment was accurate. However, God's plan and purpose were still in play. Some of it was revealed to Paul in a visit from an angel to assure him of the coming events. It is laid out in detail as God had determined. 

The decrees of God are not determinism. John 19:23-24 ESV (23)  When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, (24)  so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” So the soldiers did these things, (800 years before this event it was said) Psalms 22:18 ESV (18)  they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. 

You might ask, is that not determinism? No, those soldiers got up that morning and went to work fulfilling their duties like every other day. They had no idea the very words that would later come out of their mouths had been decreed 800 years before. Beyond that, the very thought process as well as the time and place were all perfectly fulfilled in their free and contingent minds, thoughts, and actions. Though it had been decreed by God from eternity, it did not in any way impose a necessity upon them in time such as determinism would. Every thought, word, and action was a real, free, and contingent thought, word, and action. You would ask, how can that be? Because He is the Sovereign Creator who abides in eternity, Isaiah 57:15 ESV (15)  For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: we have no concept of what it means to live outside of time. We have never been and for all of eternity, ever will know what it is to be outside of time. We are finite beings and will never be anything but finite beings, the infinite is beyond our reach. That is why God can decreed from eternity without the effect of determinism. 

Now back to Paul and the shipwreck, he was told he must appear before Caesar, therefore nothing could stop that from happening, however, he was also told God was going to give him the life of all that sailed with him. Then it was explained to him how all the events were going to play out. They were going to be cast upon a certain island, God was sovereign over the wind and the sea current. The ship was going to break apart, God was sovereign over the structure of the ship. Those who could swim were to swim to shore, God was sovereign over their ability to swim successfully. Those who could not swim were to make it on boards and pieces of the ship, God was sovereign over the pieces of the ship. Every man who could not swim would providentially find a piece of the ship next to him as he fell into the deep. Everyman did as he had determined to do as he saw fit for his own survival, yet God was sovereign over every detail and every event. The sailors in their reasonings were contrary to the events God had in place, verse (30)  And as the sailors were seeking to escape from the ship, and had lowered the ship's boat into the sea under pretense of laying out anchors from the bow, (31)  Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, “Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved.”

According to Flowers's explanation of the Calvinist view, God must have determined these men to lie and try to escape in their deception. That is how he tries to turn God's sovereignty into determinism. Men sin because men sin, however, their sin does not thwart God's purposes and many times they find themselves fulfilling God's plan in the very act of their sin. Here they simply find an impenetrable wall in God's providence.  (32)  Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the ship's boat and let it go.

Next, it was the soldiers themselves who had thoughts contrary to God's purposes, again Flowers would suggest God must have put those thoughts in their mind in the Calvinist scheme, however, he is suggesting something that does not exist in any Reformed doctrine. (42)  The soldiers' plan was to kill the prisoners, lest any should swim away and escape. Their plans were against the purpose God had already revealed to Paul, and they found the same impenetrable wall of providence standing in their way. (43)  But the centurion, wishing to save Paul, kept them from carrying out their plan. God turns all events and actions of men to His own purpose and plans. (44) . . . And so it was that all were brought safely to land.

To use Flower's analogy except this time let's do it from a truly reformed position. If a man looks a pornography, he does so by the sure lust of his own nature, yet there are untold thousands of providences in which God may use that very sinful thought and action for His own divine purpose and decree. The man in his freedom to sin is not outside the sovereign purposes of God. That very sin may be the means God uses to bring conviction upon the soul in which to save him. It may be the means of hardening upon a soul obstinant against the law of God in judgment. It may be a means of exposing an illegal organization in a sting operation as a result of the man's sin. God is sovereign in all His plans and purposes. Flowers' association of this doctrine with determinism is to deny God His right over His own creation to do as He pleases. 

The events recorded in Paul's shipwreck are but one example, every recorded event in Scripture demonstrates the same Sovereignty in accomplishing His purposes through the free acts and wills of men. There is no Reformed doctrine that demonstrates Flowers's view of determinism. Men sin of their own selves, yet in their sin God glorifies Himself in His Son and through their sin magnifies His glorious name and accomplishes all His purposes. 

Flower wants to use God's Sovereignty and place it under man's own autonomy. He suggests God in His Sovereignty chose to give this world and its outcome into man's free will and let man determine how things turn out. The problem with his suggestion is we don't find that world in the Bible. 

Man must decide which road to take, he will determine by his own free reasonable mind which way he is to go. However, by doing so He will accomplish nothing but what God has determined and purposed in the world He created. 

Daniel 4:35

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”  

You cannot insert Flowers's view of Sovereignty into the Bible and come out with the same Bible. 

Psalm 135:6

Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.

Proverbs 21:1

The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.

Isaiah 45:7

“I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.”

Isaiah 46:10

“Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’”

Jeremiah 10:23

I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.

You cannot impose Flower's view of Sovereignty into this world and arrive at a Biblical view. Acts 1:16 ESV

(16)  “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

Flower's view would give Judas the possibility of turning to Christ and being saved. He would suggest implying any other scenario would be determinism with God preventing him from being saved. This is such a limited view of God's infinite wisdom and purpose. First and foremost the Scripture must be fulfilled concerning Judas. Psalms 41:9 ESV (9)  Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me. I suppose Flower here would presume some scenario where God foresaw Judas' actions and then spoke them into scripture. But the fulfillment is based upon the Scripture, not the contrary. Judas is the man above standing at the fork in the road, he will choose one way or the other. God does not infuse any evil or intent upon Judas to influence his decision. However, his own nature and sphere of influence will determine his choice. This is not determinism, it is simply Judas being Judas.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 ESV

(24)  And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,

(25)  correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

(26)  and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Christ was faithful in His duty to Judas to teach, patiently enduring, correcting him with gentleness, which we must be as well with all men who are outside the faith. The fact God did not grant him repentance and enable him to escape the snare of the devil is not the cause of his damnation. Judas' own sin and rejection of the kindness and teaching he received from Christ is the cause of his betrayal and damnation. Flowers' would insist God must sovereignly let Judas have control. Judas was a sinner and condemned already, he had no claim on God's mercy. Are we to presume God's infinite wisdom gives such power into the hands of a condemned sinner with a fallen nature and a depraved mind? The only determinism present in Judas was his own determination to do as he did. Could God have stopped him, and turned his heart as He does the heart of a king? Absolutely, but God is under no obligation to stop any sinner from his sin, and here God determines from eternity to use Judas' sinfulness for His own purposes. Are we then so bold as to find fault with God? God forbid! 

Acts 2:22-23 ESV (22)  “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—

(23)  this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God accomplished His eternal purpose in Christ by His Sovereign use of sin, thoughts, and purposes, of those involved, all being contrary to God's plan. They found the impenetrable wall against them as well. As in Paul's shipwreck, God was Sovereign over the acts of men and they could not thwart His plans. 

Flowers' in his double talk eventually comes around and affirms God's sovereignty over the acts and thoughts of men, after he has implied means and definitions never implied or taught by the very system he is critiquing. He suggests R. C. Sproul is wrong in his view of God's Sovereignty, yet his assessment of Sovereignty agrees with Sproul.  "I generally say that there are four ways that God is sovereign. He is sovereign over nature. [Flowers agrees] He is sovereign over history and human affairs. [Flowers agrees] And He is sovereign in His inherent right to impose obligations on His creatures, to say to them, “Thou shalt not do this” and “Thou shalt do that.” [Flowers agrees] Do we believe that He has that sovereignty, that right to command obedience from us and impose obligations on us?[Flowers agrees] Every time we sin, we challenge God’s sovereign right to command what we should do." [Flowers agrees] - R. C. Sproul. As you can see, Flowers' assessment agrees with Sproul, it demonstrates he is not interested in actually understanding the doctrine, but only promoting his scheme of man's atonomy. Notice Sproul never suggests God's sovereignly imposes and determines our sinful thoughts as Flowers suggests, but affirms God's right to command and our freedom to obey or disobey.

Flowers will take a phrase and turn it into an object of his criticism, for example, in the video he quotes R. C. Sproul saying, "There is not one stray molecule in the universe outside of God's Sovereignty". He then positions himself as demonstrating it as a useless statement from Sproul suggesting that his God (Flowers) is Sovereign even over the stray molecules. What does that even mean? If God is Sovereign over the stray molecules, they are not stray molecules! It is simply ridiculous rhetoric of meanless talk presented to discourage in the minds of his listeners any credibility they might find in R. C. Sproul.  

The Calvinistic Methodus confession of faith (1823) states in article 7. Of God’s Providence in the Preservation and Government of the World.

God, in his wise, holy, and righteous providence, upholds and governs all creatures and their actions (a). His providence extends over all places, all events, all changes, and all times (b). His providence, in its operation, is full of eyes to behold, and powerful to perform, and makes all things work together for good to them that love God (c). It overrules the sinful actions of men; nevertheless, it neither causes nor occasions the sinfulness of any of them.

Flowers in his double talk suggests the Calvinistic view is deterministic and according to them his rejection of it is determined by God that he would be determined to reject it in determinism. He spends a lot of time speaking in such rhetorical terms that have nothing to do with the actual doctrine. Using his rhetoric he creates a false dichotomy which he then deconstructs and proves false. 

Flowers rejects the Calvinistic view because he has determined to do so, God has not and did not impose that upon him, no Calvinist doctrine would suggest such foolishness. However, his own rejection of the doctrine will not in the slightest way thwart God's eternal purpose or plan in his life or anyone else's. God is Sovereign and free to use Flowers' own obnoxious objections in any way He pleases to accomplish His plans. 

Flowers states one cannot hold to a view that does not allow people to make choices independently of God's choices, then explains that he is not saying God is not in control. What he is demonstrating is exactly what the Calvinistic 1689 London Baptist confession of faith states. 

PARAGRAPH 1

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;3 in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.4 

PARAGRAPH 4

The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in His providence, that His determinate counsel extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men;11 and that not by a bare permission, which also He most wisely and powerfully binds, and otherwise orders and governs,12 in a manifold dispensation to His most holy ends;13 yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceeds only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.14

Notice paragraph 1 states that no liberty or contingency is taken away from the creature and paragraph 4 states that all sinful acts proceed only from the creature and God in no way imposes those acts upon men. Flowers is talking much about nothing, all he has to do is read any of the reformed confessions to get an accurate understanding of the Reformed position. However, he has freely chosen, to misrepresent, misquote, and redefine statements from reform teachers by inserting definitions and assertions not implied by their statements or the doctrine they are articulating. 

He is doing nothing but inducing confusion and misunderstanding in the body of Christ. I would suggest actually reading what the reformed Church actually believes. I will post some helpful links below. Listen, I can't answer for what Flowers believed when he claimed to be a Calvinist, there are folks by the dozens out there claiming to be something who may or may not know what they are. If Flowers does understand reformed theology, he is seriously misrepresenting it. His assertions concerning reformed doctrine cannot be found in the documents below. He suggests it may not be the intent of Calvinists to imply the things he is saying, but he suggests his assessment is where the doctrine leads. I disagree, I read and studied the reformed doctrines articulated below in the great church confessions and discovered nothing like Flowers is trying to pass off as Calvinism. May these links at least help you understand what they actually are even if you find you disagree with them.

God bless,

David 

1689 London Baptist

Calvinistic Methodist 1823

Belgic Confession 1561

Council of Orange 529 AD

Heidelberg Confession 1563

Midland Confession of faith 1655