2 Tim 4:1-4 and Craig Ledbetter’s lack of exegetical skills

In a previous post, I discussed Craig Ledbetter’s appeal to John 17:17 and Rom 15:4 as “proof” of sola scriptura. In the same lecture, Ledbetter argued that 2 Tim 4:1-4 means that one cannot hold to a doctrine that is not in the Bible (another attempt to argue for the doctrine of sola scriptura). The pericope reads:

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; preach the word, be instant in season, and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables.

Only by claiming that the “word” Paul writes to Timothy about is one-to-one equivalent to the Protestant Bible can Ledbetter and his ilk even claim that sola scriptura is being taught in this pericope. Of course, this is utter eisegesis (one cannot help but see that the characteristics of the false teachers prophesied of Paul fits Ledbetter to a tee).

Protestants like Ledbetter are guilty of the “word of God is the Bible alone!” fallacy one encounters all too often with Protestant apologists.

Fundamentalists often claim that every time the “Word of God” appears in the Bible it refers to the concept of Sola Scriptura, which, of course, is anachronistic with reference to the biblical texts! Furthermore, “the Word of God” does not refer to Scripture, but to Christ, the Law (Torah), God’s creative utterances, and apostolic and prophetic preaching in the Bible. Consider the following--

Luke 3:2-3: “Annas and Caiphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”

Luke 4:44; 5:1: “And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee. And it came to pass that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Genesaret.”

Luke 8:11-15: “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil and taketh away the word out of their hears, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation, fall away. And they which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground are they, which are in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.”

John 1:1, 14: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Acts 4:31: “And when they had departed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.”

1 Thess 2:13: “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”

Heb 11:3: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do not appear.”

Again, this not only shows the utter exegetical bankruptcy of Craig Ledbetter, but also the anti-biblical nature of sola scrptura.

Romans 15:4, John 17:17, and Craig Ledbetter's failure to prove Sola Scriptura

In a series on "cults," Craig Ledbetter, pastor of Ballincollig Baptist Church, cited, as two examples of the Bible teaching Sola Scriptura, Rom 15:4 and John 17:17 (other texts cited include 2 Tim 3:16-17 [post 1; post 2]; Rev 22:18-19; Isa 8:20, 1 Cor 13:8, Acts 17;11, and Matt 4:3,4 which have been thoroughly refuted on this blog). The former verse reads:

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Of course, this is yet another example of the eisegesis supporters of this man-made doctrine of sola scriptura have to engage in. Notice, for instance, that not all the books of the New Testament were written when Paul penned these words--for sola scriptura to be true, there must be a "tota scriptura," that is, sola scriptura cannot be operative during a time of inscripturation. If Rom 15:4 is evidence for sola scriptura, we just jettison any text post-dating Rom 15:4!

Robert Sungenis, while interacting with the arguments of another apologist for sola scriptura, James R. White, wrote the following which exemplifies the impossibility of trying to “prove” sola scriptura from the Bible:

Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [San Goleta, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 1997], pp. 106-67, here, p. 128 n. 24).

When one reads v.5 of Rom 15, we see that Paul did not hold to a sola scriptura mentality:

Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus.

Paul's prescription of patience and consolation (alt. "perseverance and encouragement") is not limited to "scripture" (the limits of which are not discussed in this verse!), but instead two sources: (1) enduring through trials and (2) by reading Scripture for one's encouragement.

That Paul did not hold to sola scriptura can also be seen in texts such as 1 Cor 11:23; 15:1ff; 1 Thess 2:13, 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6 where non-inscripturated revelation was privileged as being as authoritative as inscripturated revelation. This is antithetical to sola scriptura which states that the written word alone is the final authority, and all other sources are to be subordinated to it.

As for John 17:17, this is just another example of eisegesis, which is part-and-parcel of Ledbetter's poor interpretive abilities (as with all fundamentalist, KJV-only Baptists). It reads thusly:

Sanctify them through thy faith: thy word is truth.

All this verse states is that the Father's "word" (λογος) is true; there is nothing said about this "word" being limited to the Bible let alone the limits thereof (the canon issue). Again, another classic example of eisegesis. Furthermore, if John 17:17 is "proof" of Sola Scriptura, it proves too much, as we would have to jettison anything that was written after John 17:17, including the book of Revelation, a text "proof-texted" by Ledbetter (and other members of his church). Such shows the utter eisegetical nonsense many (not all; there are some with more intellectual integrity than Ledbetter and his ilk) have to engage in when they are forced to find evidence for this false doctrine!

Ultimately, the doctrine of sola scriptura is a false, man-made tradition, similar to the Korban rule that the Lord Jesus Christ condemned (Matt 15/Mark 7), and anyone who embraces such a belief falls under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9. It is my prayer that any honest Protestant will reassess this doctrine in light of the Bible itself.

1 John 5:7 (the Comma Johanneum) as a Later Interpolation

The so-called Comma Johanneum (vss. 7f*) is found in Latin manuscripts dating before A.D. 400, the text of which (it varies in details in individual manuscripts) was also taken up into the Sixto-Clementine edition of the Vulgate in the following form: “Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in coelo Pater, Verbum et Spiritus Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra Spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt.” (“For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three who bear witness on earth, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one.”) Although the decree of the Holy Office in 1897 decided in favor of the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum, today its spuriousness is also recognized by Catholic scholars. The passage is unknown to the entire Greek textual tradition. According to W. Thiele (“Beobachtungen zum Comma Iohanneum (I Joh 5:7f*),” ZNW 50 [1959]: 61–73), it is possible that Cyprian already found the text as a part of his bible. “In that case, the home of the famous interpolation is to be sought in North Africa”—so Schnackenburg, who provides an excursus on the Comma Johanneum, pp. 44–46. Also cf. Windisch, with further bibliographical references. (Bultmann, R. K. (1973). The Johannine epistles a commentary on the Johannine epistles (p. 81). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.)

Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudor kai to haima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 1Jo 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 1Jo 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence - both external and internal - is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647–49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] 2473 [dated 1634] and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever MSS he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings - even in places where the TR/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others. (NET commentary on 1 John 5:7)

Does 1 John 5:13 prove Eternal Security?

These things I have written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13)

This verse is often cited in favour of the doctrine of eternal security; often, Evangelicals who hold to some variation of this doctrine will claim that Latter-day Saints are incorrect in claiming that a justified person can lose their salvation through the commission of heinous sins (cf. D&C 20:32).

Firstly, it should be noted that this doctrine is refuted by any meaningful exegesis of many texts from the Bible, such as Heb 6:4-6 and 10:26.

Secondly, this is a classic example of absolutizing a verse and ignoring its overall context. A parallel can be the use of John 17:3 by some groups to preclude the divinity of Jesus Christ (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses; Christadelphians). Indeed, when one examines the context of this verse, it refutes, not supports, the eisegesis of many Evangelical groups. Indeed, the context of this verse is a series of tests and questions from the author of this Epistle to the recipients, showing that the confidence one has is subjective, not objective:

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the word, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth . . . And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (1 John 5:1-6, 8-12 [v. 7, the infamous Comma Johanneum, omitted, as it is a later, spurious insertion into the text]).

Thirdly, 1 John contains warnings to believers that they can fall away from the faith:

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is the antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.  And this is the promise that he hath promise us, even eternal life. These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.(2:22-26)

And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. (2:28)

In many other texts, the inspired authors spoke of confidence, but not infallible assurance, of their salvation and/or the salvation of others. Paul in 2 Tim 1:16-18, speaking of the recently deceased Christian, Onesiphorus, wrote the following:

The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.

Onesiphorus was a great man who, in two cities, was right by Paul's side. It is Paul's desire that Onesiphorus find mercy from God on the day of final judgment. The phrase, "The Lord grant unto him" in v. 18 translates the term δῴη αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος; δῴη is the aorist optative of διδωμι, "to give." Many translations (correctly) render it as "may the Lord grant him" (e.g., NRSV; ESV; NIV; NJB), showing that Paul is not stating absolutely that Onesiphorus will find mercy, which entails the full pardon of sin and overlooking of faults. While Onesiphorus will find mercy at the last day, the point is that he (and all of us) will have to wait until the final day for the complete mercy of God to be applied to him. Indeed, this is the very same Paul who spoke of the possibility that he would lose his salvation and become a reprobate (1 Cor 9:27; cf 1 Cor 4:4-5).

New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall, when summarising the soteriology in 1 John, was spot-on when he wrote:

As might be expected, John affirms strongly here also the doctrine of perseverance. A man born of God and kept by Him cannot sin (1 John 3:9, 5:18), and can overcome the world. At the same time, his progress to final salvation is not automatic. For example, although John teaches that all believers through their possession of the Spirit have knowledge (1 John 2:20), it is still necessary for him to give them plentiful admonition and teaching. He has to urge them to keep the commandments of God (1 John 2:7) and to abide in Jesus (1 John 2:28; cf. also 1 John 2:15, 24, 27; 3:3, 18; 5:21; 2 John 7-11). He knows that they can and do fall into sin. (I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away [Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1969], 186, emphasis added)

As we have seen, the common appeal to 1 John 5:13 to “prove” eternal security is proven to be another example of eisegesis.

Does the Book of Mormon Plagiarise the KJV New Testament?

A few days ago, I was stopped on the street of Cork city by a member of Ballincollig Baptist Church, a fundamentalist, KJV only group which is headed by Craig Ledbetter, an individual who is grossly ignorant of both biblical exegesis and engages in a campaign of deception against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In the course of this conversation, he claimed that the Book of Mormon plagiarised the New Testament of the King James, although he could not give any examples. I gave him my email address, asking him to substantiate his claim. To see his examples of plagiarism (which is nothing short of “parallelomania”), see here.

Numbers 15 and Sola Scriptura

I was recently in a conversation with a member of a fundamentalist Baptist church here in Cork, and one of the issues we discussed was Sola Scriptura, which is both the formal doctrine of Protestantism as well as its weak theological underbelly. In the course of our discussion, he stated that sola scriptura was operative during the time of Jesus and the New Testament Church, and was not a doctrine that came about after the completion of the New Testament. Such is not the historical view of sola scriptura, to be sure—more informed Protestants will state that sola scriptura can only be operative when tota scriptura is in existences—that is, the doctrine can only be put into practice once the totality of scripture has been inscripturated—it is not practiced during a time of inscripturation.

That this (weaker) form of sola scriptura is unbiblical can be seen in many places, not the least is that, during the time of inscripturation of the New Testament, the New Testament authors privileged oral traditions as being just as authoritative as the written Word of God; note the following examples:

Not I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Thess 2:15; cf. 1 Thess 2:13)

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition he received of us. (2 Thess 3:6).

The term translated as "tradition" (or, in the case of 1 Cor 11:2, "ordinances") is παραδοσις, which refers to something that is passed onto another. Such teachings include, for example, Paul's teachings on the Eucharist which was part of oral tradition, as we learn in 1 Cor 11:23f and the identity of the Messiah from the Old Testament (Acts 17).

Furthermore, the entirety of Scripture explicitly teaches the need for an active interpreter of God's word. In Num 15:32-36, we read a story of a man caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Although the people were aware of the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy (Exo 20:8-10; 31:14-15, etc.), they did not know whether this general law applied to this specific situation. What did they do? Did they dispute over the written records they had in their possession and from different denominations, with each one emphasising certain texts over other texts, as one finds in much of Protestantism (compare the debates between Reformed and free-will Baptists, for instance)? No, instead, God, through his divinely appointed spokesman, Moses, gave an explicit revelation on this issue, that that "fine-tuned," if you will, the pre-existing revelation on this matter, namely that it was illegal to pick up sticks on the Sabbath, resulting in this man being stoned.

This is what an authoritative source outside of Scripture does--it "fine tunes" the information contained in Scripture, as well as give authoritative guidance on issues Scripture is silent on (modern examples within the realm of moral theology would include homosexual adoption; transsexual issues; abortion; pornography; test-tube fertilisation; euthanasia).

Metzger and Ehrman on Scribal Errors

The earliest copyists would not have been trained professionals who made copies for a living but simply literate members of a congregation who had the time and ability to do the job. Since most, if not all, of them would have been amateurs in the art of copying, a relatively large number of mistakes no doubt crept into their texts as they reproduced them. It is possible that after the original was placed in circulation it soon became lost or was destroyed, so all surviving copies conceivable have derived from one single, error-prone copy made in the early stages of the books' circulation. (Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration [4th ed.: New York: Oxford University Press], 24)