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