Stay away from Liberal Christianity and Progressive Christianity

Liberal Christianity and Progressive Christianity are two related but distinct movements within Christianity that emphasize adapting religious beliefs and practices to contemporary cultural, social, and intellectual contexts. While they share some similarities, they have different historical roots and emphases.

Liberal Christianity

Origins: Liberal Christianity emerged in the 19th century as a response to the Enlightenment, scientific advancements, and biblical criticism. It sought to reconcile Christian faith with modern thought.

Key Characteristics:

1. Emphasizes reason, critical thinking, and intellectual inquiry in interpreting scripture and theology.
2. Often questions traditional doctrines, such as the literal interpretation of the Bible, the virgin birth, or the physical resurrection of Jesus.
3. Focuses on the ethical teachings of Jesus (e.g., love, justice, and compassion) rather than supernatural or dogmatic elements.
4. Supports the use of historical-critical methods to study the Bible.
5. Tends to be open to interfaith dialogue and pluralism.

Examples: Early liberal theologians like Friedrich Schleiermacher and Adolf von Harnack, as well as some mainline Protestant denominations (e.g., certain branches of Methodism, Presbyterianism, and Anglicanism).

Progressive Christianity

Origins: Progressive Christianity is a more recent movement, gaining prominence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It builds on liberal Christianity but places greater emphasis on social justice, inclusivity, and activism.

Key Characteristics:

1. Focuses on social justice issues such as racial equality, LGBTQ+ rights, environmental stewardship, and economic justice.
2. Emphasizes inclusivity and diversity, often advocating for the full inclusion of marginalized groups within the church.
3. Reinterprets traditional Christian teachings in light of contemporary values and experiences.
4. Often engages in political and social activism as an expression of faith.
5. May incorporate insights from feminist theology, liberation theology, and postmodern thought.

Examples: Organizations like the Center for Progressive Christianity and authors such as Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong, and Brian McLaren.

Key Differences

1. Focus: Liberal Christianity tends to focus more on intellectual and theological adaptation to modernity, while Progressive Christianity emphasizes social justice and practical action.
2. Timing: Liberal Christianity has deeper historical roots in the 19th century, while Progressive Christianity is a more recent development.\
3. Approach to Tradition: Liberal Christianity often seeks to reform or reinterpret traditional doctrines, whereas Progressive Christianity may be more willing to challenge or discard doctrines seen as oppressive or outdated.

Both movements are often associated with mainline Protestant denominations, but they also influence individuals and communities across a wide range of Christian traditions. They are sometimes criticized by more conservative or traditional Christians for departing from orthodox beliefs and practices.

DeepSeek on VPP

For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth

I requested DeepSeek to explain Verbal Plenary Preservation, and I was pleasantly astonished by how accurate the description was. This is particularly remarkable given the widespread misuse and misinterpretation of Scripture Preservation on the internet, social media, and certain church websites.

Here is what DeepSeek says:

Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) is a theological concept primarily held by some conservative Protestant Christians, particularly within certain strands of fundamentalist and King James Version (KJV)-only circles. It asserts that the very words of the original biblical manuscripts have been perfectly preserved by God throughout history, often specifically in the Textus Receptus (the Greek text underlying the KJV) and the KJV itself. Proponents of VPP believe that this preservation extends to every word of Scripture, ensuring its inerrancy and infallibility in its current form.

Strengths of Verbal Plenary Preservation:

1. Emphasis on Divine Sovereignty: VPP underscores the belief that God is actively involved in preserving His Word, which aligns with the idea of God's sovereignty over history and revelation.
2. High View of Scripture: It reflects a high view of the Bible as the inspired and authoritative Word of God, which is a central tenet of orthodox Christianity.
3. Encourages Confidence in Scripture: For its adherents, VPP provides assurance that the Bible they use is completely reliable and free from error.

Criticisms of Verbal Plenary Preservation:

1. Lack of Historical and Textual Evidence: Critics argue that there is no historical or textual basis to claim that the Textus Receptus or the KJV is a perfectly preserved representation of the original manuscripts. The science of textual criticism demonstrates that no single manuscript or translation is without variants or errors.
2. Overemphasis on One Translation: VPP often elevates the KJV to a status that some argue is unwarranted, ignoring the fact that the KJV is a translation subject to the limitations of its time and the manuscripts available to its translators.
3. Ignores the Process of Transmission: The doctrine tends to overlook the complex process of how the biblical texts were copied, translated, and transmitted over centuries, which involved human effort and occasional errors.
4. Divisive Tendencies: VPP can lead to divisiveness within Christianity, as its proponents often dismiss other translations and those who use them as inferior or even heretical.

Who Holds This Teaching?

VPP is primarily held by:

1. King James Version-Only Advocates: These are individuals or groups who believe the KJV is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible, often tied to fundamentalist or independent Baptist traditions.
2. Certain Fundamentalist Groups: Some conservative Christian denominations and independent churches, particularly in the United States, adhere to this view.
3. Textus Receptus Advocates: Those who believe the Textus Receptus is the preserved Greek text of the New Testament, often aligning with KJV-only positions.

Conclusion:

While Verbal Plenary Preservation emphasizes the importance of Scripture and God's role in preserving it, its claims are often seen as theologically and historically problematic. Critics argue that it places undue emphasis on a specific translation or textual tradition, ignoring the broader evidence of textual criticism and the history of the Bible's transmission. Nonetheless, for its adherents, VPP provides a strong sense of confidence in the reliability of the Bible they use.

A Look at the King James Only Debate

 A Look at the King James Only Debate

August 3, 2007

 

 |  No Comments

“GIMME THE BIBLE THAT PAUL USED”
A Look at the King James Only Debate
====================================
by Eric Pement (3/87)

I confess that my natural tendency leans toward King James. A few years ago one of my great desires was to find a T-shirt inscribed with the words, “1611 — Straight from Heaven.”

But favoritism aside, the King James Version is not perfect. Some folks would argue with that statement, and many churches have divided over the “King James only” issue. In brief, the “King James only” stance
asserts that no other translation is truly the Word of God.

THE BIBLE: GOD’S WORD TO MAN

In discussing in what respect the Bible — or any translation of it — can be the Word of God, we must distinguish between the inspiration of the text of the original manuscripts and the inspiration of the wording chosen by a translator working with another language.
The apostle Paul declares that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). The English word “scripture” comes from the Greek word GRAPHE, meaning “that which is written.” The term “is given by
inspiration of God” actually comes from a single Greek word, THEOPNEUSTOS. Literally,  THEOPNEUSTOS means “God-breathed” or “breathed [out] by God.” The terminology used here emphasizes that the written text originated from (or out of) God. The Holy Bible is a revelation from God, not merely a collection of human insights.

While God has conveyed His message to us through human thoughts and words, nowhere does the Bible imply that the languages used in the Old and New Testaments are somehow the languages of Heaven. Hebrew and Greek are human tongues, with both the limitations and the richness that these languages possess. In giving us His word, God used two very different languages (and the thought-forms which underlie them), instead of one language only, which should protect us from the trap of ascribing
perfection to any human language.

INTRODUCING THE KING JAMES VERSION

Probably few people know it, but the King James Bible we universally accept today is not an exact copy of the edition released in 1611. The Bible which circulates as the “Authorized” King James Version is actually
the fourth revision of 1769. A simple way to verify this is by reading John 3:7 in your KJV. The 1611 text read as follows: “Marueile not that I saide vnto thee, Ye must be borne againe.” Similarly, the spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, and use of italics have been changed throughout.

In addition, the original 1611 edition contained marginal notes offering more precise or alternate translations. (For example, it indicated that “a worshiper” in Acts 19:35 is literally “the temple keeper” in Greek.) Also, verses which had poor manuscript support were noted, such as Luke 17:36. All the marginal notes and alternate readings have been removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from “The Translators to the Reader.”

ARGUMENTS FOR THE SUPERIORITY OF THE KJV

Those who argue for the superiority of the King James Version usually stand on one of three platforms:

(1) KJV is better because it is more memorable, popular, etc.
(2) KJV is better because it relies on a better textbase for the NT.
(3) KJV is better because its translation was inspired by God.

The first platform appeals to the beauty of the KJV, the felicity of its cadences and rhythms, its rigorous faithfulness to the original languages, the way the text lends itself to memorization, and to the desirability of having a single version among the English-speaking people.

There is something to be said for this viewpoint. If you can appreciate Shakespeare, you can appreciate the English of the KJV. On the other hand, there are several spots where the KJV could bear improvement.
The KJV translation often confuses HADES (the realm of the dead) with GEHENNA (the punishment of fire); likewise TEKNON (child) with HUIOS (son), and DUNAMIS (power) with EXOUSIA (authority). The deity of Christ is obscured in the KJV rendering of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. And at several points the KJV contains interpolations where there is no corresponding text in any known Greek manuscript.

DOES THE KJV USE A BETTER TEXTBASE?

The second platform concerns the Greek textbase used by the translators of the KJV. Please note: this is strictly a debate over the best manuscripts to use in translating the New Testament. There is usually
little objection to modern translations of the Old Testament, because the Hebrew (Masoretic) text used in 1611 is still considered the standard today.

Many people defend the King James because its translators relied in large measure on a printed edition of the Greek New Testament now known as the Textus Receptus (or “Received Text”). The TR can be traced back to Desiderius Erasmus. In 1516 Erasmus published the first Greek New Testament, based on half a dozen Greek manuscripts and the Latin (Vulgate) translation of the NT. Later, Stephens (1551) and Beza (1598), employing a dozen more manuscripts, still produced fundamentally similar texts. It was their texts which were used by the translators of the Authorized Version.

From the immense body of New Testament material (5,366 Greek manuscripts; over 2,200 lectionaries; over 36,000 citations from the church fathers), scholars have adopted a means of categorizing the various
manuscripts. This provides assistance in determining which wording and spelling should be preferred in cases of disagreement. New Testament scholars have arranged the manuscripts into four main families (or
textbases), based on similar phraseology, spelling and grammatical peculiarities, and other common features.

The Textus Receptus is derived from the Byzantine family (which represents about 95% of all Greek manuscripts). However, it does not truly represent the Byzantine textbase, mainly because the sixteenth-century scholars examined so few of these manuscripts. Most contemporary translations (RSV, NASV, NIV, etc.) rely on manuscripts from the Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean families in addition to the Byzantine texts. Manuscripts from these families are often more ancient, but there are fewer of them than those of the Byzantine tradition. (For a detailed study of this subject, I strongly recommend “A General Introduction to the Bible”, by Norman Geisler and William Nix [Moody Press, 2nd ed., 1986].)

Before proceeding further, I should emphasize that these four text-types are not in great opposition to one another. In over 90 percent of the New Testament, readings are identical word-for-word, regardless of the
family. Of the remaining ten percent, MOST of the differences between the texts are fairly irrelevant, such as calling the Lord “Christ Jesus” instead of “Jesus Christ,” or putting the word “the” before a noun. Less
than two percent would significantly alter the meaning of a passage, and NONE of them would contradict or alter any of the basic points of Christian doctrine. What we have, then, is a dispute concerning less than one-half of one percent of the Bible. The other 99.5% we all agree on!

IS THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION DIVINELY INSPIRED?

The third level takes us into another dimension. At this stage, we hear people saying that the English wording used by the KJV translators was chosen by God.

One way to recognize people coming from this platform is that they totally reject all other English versions of the Bible, even those which rely on the Textus Receptus, because they believe the King James translation is perfect. For example, Tyndale’s translation (1535), the Bishops’ Bible (1568), Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible (1898), the King James II Version (1971), and the New King James Version (1982) are all
based on the Textus Receptus. But a true fanatic will reject all of these translations, even if he’s never seen them, because he presupposes that only the 1611 Authorized Version is true.

If you want to argue for the superiority of the Textus Receptus over the Alexandrian manuscripts, fine. That’s Level 2, and we are still talking about the TEXT being the standard, while the job of the TRANSLATION is to reproduce the thoughts of the text. But in Level 3, the TRANSLATION is the standard, and if the translation doesn’t agree with the text, it’s because the Greek is in error. This is the OPPOSITE of Level 2. On Level 3, the Textus Receptus has mistakes in it, but the KJV translation is perfect.

One well-known defender of this view is Peter S. Ruckman. For example, in “A Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence”, Ruckman has a chapter entitled, “Correcting the Greek with the English.” He claims, “Where the majority of Greek manuscripts stand against the A.V. 1611, put them in file 13” (p. 130). “When the Greek says one thing and the A.V. says another, throw out the Greek” (p. 137).

In Acts 19:37, every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, “robbers of temples,” which the KJV incorrectly rendered as “robbers of churches.” Ruckman defends the KJV reading, saying, “Mistakes in the KJV are advanced revelation” (p. 126). In other words, the Greek has errors, but the KJV doesn’t.

MOTIVATION FOR KING JAMES ONLY

The average believer might wonder how such an extreme defensiveness for the King James Version could come about. I think one of the chief reasons people are unwilling to admit even a speck of error in the King
James Version is to prevent the man in the pew from being at the mercy of the “textual critic.” Too often, they’ve heard lines like this: “Well, you believe XYZ because it says that in your version of the Bible. But you don’t know (a) the subtle meaning of the original Greek word, or (b) that we’ve discovered new manuscripts, and a different word was used there.”

Thus, a number of people from conservative Christian persuasions have decided that “the buck is gonna stop RIGHT HERE,” with the universally distributed KJV. I suspect this is the real reason for their insistence on the perfection of the King James Version.

Rather than respond by pointing to a “flawless” KJV, however, a better solution is to teach the man in the pew how to prove and defend his beliefs from Scripture. In the first place, no major Christian doctrine hinges on one or two verses. The fundamentals of the faith appear repeatedly throughout the body of Scripture, in principle and presupposition as much as in explicit statements. There should be no need to rely on one or two prooftexts to prove your point.

Second, if there is a need to go to the Greek or Hebrew, we must be willing to take the time to learn how to use study helps (lexicons, concordances, encyclopedia, interlinear Bibles, etc.). Make the effort to telephone an instructor at a Bible college or seminary to settle a dispute.  Most of them are glad to answer questions from non-students, so don’t be afraid to look for outside help.

Third, remember that the greatest barrier to doctrinal agreement among Christians is not caused by textual uncertainty (“what does the text say?”), but by hermeneutic and presuppositional issues (“what does it
mean?”). In other words, the main reason for conflict is due to interpretation, not translation.

Finally, every major belief of Christianity can be just as easily proven from the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, or the New International Version, as from the King James. Any
major translation is sufficiently accurate to enable a person to believe in Jesus Christ and receive the new birth through faith in Him. Moreover, most translations accurately convey the character of God, the nature of man’s fall, our need for redemption, the signs of the Christian, and the foundational things we ought to do and ought to avoid to please God.

Bible scholars tell us that the accuracy of the text of the New Testament (excluding spelling variations) is greater than 98 percent. The NT is far more accurate than ANY other ancient writing. In fact, there
is more evidence for the integrity of the New Testament than there is for the works of Shakespeare or any 10 other pieces of ancient literature COMBINED.

On a foundational level, we can be assured that the everlasting and incorruptible truth of God’s Word has been preserved for us in the Scriptures. The real argument for inerrancy, far from being the opinions
of backwoods country bumpkins, rests on the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ and verifiable historical evidence. Accurate and authoritative, the Word of God is a “lamp unto our feet” as we walk the Christian path.

# # #

NOTE: For further reading on the King James controversy, I recommend the following: “The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism”, by D. A. Carson (Baker Book House, 1979); “Demystifying the Controversy Over the Textus Receptus and the King James Version of the Bible,” I.B.R.I. Research Report No. 3, by Douglas S. Chinn and Robert C. Newman (Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, PA, 1979); and “The Truth About the King James Version Controversy”, by Stewart Custer (Bob Jones University Press,
1981).

Computers for Christ – Chicago

Letter to Charred Shit

To Mr. Charred Shit,

I hope this message finds you well. I’m writing to you out of love and concern, not to condemn or judge, but to share something that has been weighing heavily on my heart. As someone who cares about you and our shared faith, I feel compelled to speak honestly about the way your actions have been affecting those around you.

The Bible teaches us to love one another as Christ loved us (John 13:34), to put others before ourselves (Philippians 2:3-4), and to walk in kindness, humility, and compassion. Lately, I’ve noticed that your behavior has been self-centered, hurtful, and even cruel at times. This not only goes against the teachings of Jesus but also harms the people around you—people who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

I understand that we all have moments of weakness and struggle, and none of us are perfect. However, as Christians, we are called to reflect the love and grace of Christ in our words and actions. When we fail to do so, it not only damages our relationships but also tarnishes the witness of our faith.

I urge you to take a step back and reflect on how your actions align with the values you claim to hold. Are you truly living as a follower of Christ, or have you allowed selfishness and pride to take root in your heart? Remember, Jesus said, “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” (Mark 8:36).

I pray that you will seek God’s guidance and ask Him to soften your heart, help you see the impact of your actions, and guide you toward repentance and change. True faith is not just about words but about living a life that honors God and serves others.

If you ever need someone to talk to or pray with, I’m here for you. My hope is that you will choose to walk in love and humility, bringing glory to God and healing to those you’ve hurt.

With love and hope,

Ninja

Charred Shit

The phrase "charred shit" is a colloquial and somewhat vulgar expression that combines two words with strong connotations:

Charred: This term refers to something that has been burned or scorched, often to the point of being blackened or reduced to carbon. It implies that the object has been subjected to intense heat, resulting in significant damage or alteration.

Shit: This is a vulgar slang term for feces, but it is often used more broadly to refer to something of poor quality, worthless, or undesirable. It can also be used as an expletive to express frustration, anger, or disdain.

When combined, "charred shit" could be used metaphorically to describe something that is not only of poor quality or worthless but has also been ruined or destroyed to the point of being unrecognizable or unusable. The phrase might be used in a hyperbolic or humorous way to emphasize just how bad or damaged something is.

For example, if someone were to say, "This food tastes like charred shit," they would be expressing that the food is not only terrible but also seems as though it has been burned to the point of being inedible.

Bible-Presbyterian Church loves the scriptures more than the neighbors

Extract

The love of Scripture and the love of neighbor are two foundational pillars of Christian discipleship, deeply interconnected and mutually reinforcing. This thesis explores the theological and practical relationship between these two loves, arguing that a genuine love for Scripture naturally leads to a transformative love for neighbor, and conversely, that a sincere love for neighbor is rooted in and informed by the truths of Scripture. Drawing from key biblical texts, such as the Great Commandment (Matthew 22:37-39) and the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), as well as insights from theological tradition and contemporary scholarship, this study demonstrates how the love of Scripture and the love of neighbor are not separate obligations but a unified call to live out the gospel in word and deed. By examining the interplay between these two loves, this thesis seeks to inspire a holistic approach to Christian living that embodies the heart of Jesus’ teachings and advances the kingdom of God in the world.

Introduction
The Christian faith is fundamentally relational, centered on love for God and love for others. Jesus Himself summarized the entirety of the law and the prophets in the Great Commandment: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind… and love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). These two commandments are inseparable, and they provide the framework for understanding the relationship between the love of Scripture and the love of neighbor. This thesis argues that the love of Scripture is not merely an intellectual or devotional exercise but a transformative encounter with God that compels believers to love their neighbors in tangible, sacrificial ways. Conversely, the love of neighbor is not merely a social or ethical obligation but a lived expression of the truths revealed in Scripture. Together, these two loves form the essence of Christian discipleship.

Chapter 1: The Love of Scripture as Encounter with God
The love of Scripture begins with the recognition that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, a living and active revelation of His character, will, and redemptive plan (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 4:12). To love Scripture is to engage with it not as a mere text but as a means of encountering the living God. This chapter explores the following themes:

1. Scripture as Divine Revelation: The Bible is the primary means through which God communicates His love, truth, and promises to humanity.

2. The Transformative Power of Scripture: Engaging with Scripture leads to spiritual growth, moral formation, and a deeper understanding of God’s heart for justice, mercy, and compassion.

3. The Role of the Holy Spirit: The Spirit illuminates Scripture, enabling believers to discern its meaning and apply its truths to their lives.

The love of Scripture is not an end in itself but a means of drawing closer to God and aligning one’s life with His purposes. As Psalm 119:105 declares, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” This illumination guides believers toward a life of love and service.

Chapter 2: The Love of Neighbor as the Fulfillment of Scripture
The love of neighbor is a central theme throughout Scripture, from the Old Testament command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) to Jesus’ teachings and parables. This chapter examines the biblical foundation for loving one’s neighbor, focusing on the following:

1. The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37): Jesus redefines “neighbor” as anyone in need, regardless of social, ethnic, or religious boundaries.

2. The Incarnation as a Model of Love: Jesus’ life and ministry demonstrate that love for neighbor involves self-sacrifice, humility, and practical action (Philippians 2:5-8).

3. The Church as a Community of Love: The early church exemplified love for neighbor through acts of generosity, hospitality, and care for the marginalized (Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-35).

The love of neighbor is not optional but a direct response to the gospel. As 1 John 4:20-21 states, “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar… The command we have from Christ is this: Whoever loves God must also love their brother and sister.”

Chapter 3: The Interconnection Between the Love of Scripture and the Love of Neighbor
This chapter argues that the love of Scripture and the love of neighbor are intrinsically connected. A genuine love for Scripture leads to a deeper understanding of God’s heart for humanity, which in turn compels believers to love their neighbors. Conversely, the love of neighbor is rooted in and informed by the truths of Scripture. Key points include:

1. Scripture as the Source of Love: The Bible reveals God’s love for humanity and calls believers to reflect that love in their relationships (1 John 4:7-12).

2. The Love of Neighbor as Obedience to Scripture: Loving one’s neighbor is not merely a moral duty but an act of obedience to God’s Word (James 1:22; 2:14-17).

3. The Reciprocal Relationship: Engaging with Scripture inspires acts of love, and acts of love deepen one’s understanding of Scripture.

This interconnection is exemplified in the life of Jesus, who embodied the Word of God and demonstrated perfect love for humanity through His teachings, miracles, and sacrificial death.

Chapter 4: Practical Implications for Christian Living
This chapter explores how the love of Scripture and the love of neighbor can be lived out in practical ways. It addresses the following:

1. Spiritual Disciplines: Practices such as prayer, meditation on Scripture, and communal worship nurture a love for God and others.

2. Social Justice and Mercy: The love of neighbor involves advocating for the oppressed, caring for the vulnerable, and working toward reconciliation and peace (Micah 6:8; Isaiah 1:17).

3. Community and Relationships: Building authentic, loving relationships within the church and beyond is a tangible expression of the gospel.

This chapter emphasizes that the love of Scripture and the love of neighbor are not abstract ideals but concrete actions that reflect the heart of God.

Chapter 5: Bible-Presbyterian Church loves the scripture more than the neighbors

The Christian faith calls believers to a dual love: love for God and love for neighbor (Matthew 22:37-39). These two loves are inseparable, as Scripture itself teaches. However, a troubling trend exists among some Christians in Bible-Presbyterian Church who prioritize their love for Scripture—expressed through intense study, doctrinal precision, and theological debate such as Verbal Plenary Preservation, Perfect Bible, Perfect Textus Receptus—over the practical, sacrificial love for their neighbors. There are immeasurable dangers in such an imbalance overemphasis on loving Scripture at the expense of loving others, distorts the gospel message and undermines the witness of the church. 

Chapter 6: The Danger of Intellectualizing Faith

One of the primary dangers of loving Scripture more than loving neighbors is the tendency to intellectualize faith. For some, the Bible becomes an object of academic study rather than a guide for living. They may excel in theological knowledge, memorizing verses, and debating doctrines, yet fail to embody the love and compassion that Scripture commands. This approach reduces Christianity to a set of beliefs rather than a way of life.

Jesus reserved some of His harshest criticisms for the religious leaders of His day, who were experts in the law but neglected justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23). They loved the Scriptures but failed to love their neighbors, particularly the marginalized and vulnerable. Similarly, when Christians prioritize intellectual mastery of the Bible over practical obedience, they risk becoming modern-day Pharisees—right in doctrine but wrong in heart.

Chapter 7: The Neglect of the Great Commandment

The Great Commandment explicitly links love for God with love for neighbor (Matthew 22:37-39). To love God with all one’s heart, soul, and mind necessarily involves loving others, as 1 John 4:20-21 makes clear: “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.” When Christians elevate their love for Scripture above their love for neighbor, they violate this commandment.

The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) illustrates this principle. The religious leaders in the story—the priest and the Levite—were well-versed in Scripture but failed to act with compassion toward the wounded man. In contrast, the Samaritan, who may not have had the same level of Scriptural knowledge, demonstrated what it means to love one’s neighbor. Jesus’ message is clear: knowledge of Scripture is meaningless if it does not lead to acts of love and mercy.

Chapter 8: The Hypocrisy of Inaction

A love for Scripture that does not translate into love for neighbor can lead to hypocrisy. James 1:22 warns, “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” Similarly, James 2:14-17 challenges believers to demonstrate their faith through deeds, asking, “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?” When Christians focus solely on studying and defending the Bible without actively serving others, their faith becomes hollow and unconvincing.

This hypocrisy not only damages the individual’s spiritual life but also harms the church’s witness to the world. Non-believers are often more impressed by acts of love and compassion than by theological arguments. As Francis of Assisi reportedly said, “Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” When Christians fail to love their neighbors, they undermine the credibility of the gospel they profess to believe.

Chapter 9: The Misuse of Scripture

Another danger of loving Scripture more than loving neighbors is the potential for misuse of the Bible. When Scripture is treated as an end in itself, it can be weaponized to justify judgmentalism, exclusion, and even violence. History is replete with examples of Christians using the Bible to oppress others, for example the justification of slavery and segregation. In these cases, a distorted love for Scripture led to a failure to love neighbors as Christ commanded.

Jesus consistently challenged the misuse of Scripture. In Matthew 23, He rebuked the religious leaders for using the law to burden others while neglecting its weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Similarly, when Christians prioritize doctrinal purity over compassion, they risk repeating the same mistakes.

Chapter 10: A Call to Balance and Integration

The critique of those who love Scripture more than their neighbors is not a call to abandon the study of the Bible. On the contrary, Scripture is essential for knowing God and understanding His will. However, it must be approached with humility and a willingness to be transformed by its teachings. As Hebrews 4:12 reminds us, “The word of God is alive and active,” and its purpose is to shape us into the image of Christ, who embodied perfect love for both God and humanity.

To achieve this balance, Christians must integrate their love for Scripture with a commitment to loving their neighbors. This integration involves:

1. Letting Scripture Transform Us: Engaging with the Bible in a way that leads to personal and communal transformation, not just intellectual enrichment.

2. Practicing What We Preach: Ensuring that our theological beliefs are reflected in our actions, particularly in how we treat others.

3. Prioritizing Relationships: Recognizing that people are more important than arguments and that love is the greatest evidence of our faith (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

Chapter 11: Conclusion: Rediscovering the Heart of the Gospel

The love of Scripture and the love of neighbor are inseparable aspects of Christian discipleship, each informing and enriching the other. Together, they form the foundation of a life that glorifies God and serves others. This thesis calls believers to a deeper engagement with Scripture and a more intentional love for neighbor, recognizing that these two loves are not separate obligations but a unified expression of the gospel. As we grow in our love for Scripture, may we be transformed into the image of Christ, whose love for humanity compels us to love our neighbors as ourselves.
The gospel is not merely a set of doctrines to be believed but a life of love to be lived. When Christians love Scripture more than their neighbors, they miss the heart of Jesus’ message. The Bible itself calls us to a higher standard—one that unites love for God with love for others. As we strive to live out this dual love, may we remember the words of Micah 6:8: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Let us love Scripture deeply, but let that love always lead us to love our neighbors as Christ has loved us.

Why Verbal Plenary Preservation is a very dangerous heresy?

The concept of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) is a theological position primarily associated with certain strands of conservative Protestantism, particularly within some fundamentalist like Bible-Presbyterian Church and King James Version (KJV)-only circles. VPP asserts that every word of the original biblical manuscripts has been perfectly preserved, without error, in a specific text or translation (often the KJV). While this may sound like a high view of Scripture, it has been criticized as a dangerous heresy for several reasons, particularly because of its potential to divide the church and undermine Christian unity. Here’s an explanation:

1. Elevates a Translation to the Level of Inspiration

• VPP proponents often claim that a specific translation (e.g., the KJV) is not just a reliable rendering of the original texts but is itself divinely inspired and preserved. This goes beyond the historic Christian doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration, which applies only to the original autographs (the first manuscripts written by the biblical authors).

• By equating a translation with the inspired originals, VPP risks idolizing a particular version of the Bible, which can lead to division. Christians who use other translations (e.g., the NIV, ESV, or NASB) may be accused of using "corrupt" or "inferior" Bibles, creating unnecessary strife and elitism.

2. Undermines the Sufficiency of the Original Texts

• The historic Christian faith has always affirmed that the original manuscripts of the Bible were inspired by God and without error. However, VPP shifts the focus from the originals to a specific translation, implying that the originals are insufficient or inaccessible.

• This undermines the work of textual criticism, which seeks to reconstruct the original text from the thousands of ancient manuscripts we possess. By rejecting textual criticism, VPP isolates its adherents from the broader scholarly community and fosters a suspicious attitude toward biblical scholarship.

3. Creates Division Over Non-Essential Issues

• VPP often leads to unnecessary divisions within the church. For example, KJV-only advocates may refuse to fellowship with Christians who use other translations, accusing them of compromising the faith. This creates a sectarian spirit that contradicts Jesus’ prayer for unity among believers (John 17:20-23).

• The gospel itself is not at stake in the debate over Bible translations, yet VPP proponents often treat their position as a litmus test for orthodoxy. This elevates a secondary issue to the level of primary doctrine, fracturing the body of Christ over matters that should not divide.

• 
  

---

4. Ignores the Reality of Textual Variants

• The biblical manuscripts we possess contain minor textual variants (differences in wording, spelling, etc.), none of which affect core Christian doctrines. VPP, however, denies the existence of these variants or claims they have been resolved in a specific translation.

• This denial of reality can lead to a lack of intellectual honesty and a rejection of evidence-based scholarship. It also fosters a defensive posture toward anyone who questions the VPP position, further isolating its adherents from the broader Christian community.

5. Hinders Evangelism and Missions

• VPP’s insistence on a single translation can hinder evangelism and missions, especially in contexts where the KJV is not the most accessible or understandable translation. For example, modern translations in contemporary language are often more effective for reaching non-English speakers or those with limited literacy.

• By insisting on the superiority of one translation, VPP can alienate potential converts and create unnecessary barriers to the spread of the gospel.

• 
  

---

6. Contradicts the Spirit of Christian Charity

• The VPP movement often fosters a judgmental attitude toward those who disagree, accusing them of undermining the authority of Scripture or being influenced by liberal theology. This lack of charity contradicts the biblical command to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3).

• By making VPP a test of fellowship, its proponents risk dividing the church over secondary issues, rather than focusing on the essentials of the faith (e.g., the deity of Christ, the resurrection, salvation by grace through faith).

• 
  

---

Conclusion

While VPP may arise from a desire to uphold the authority and reliability of Scripture, it ultimately undermines the unity of the church by elevating a specific translation to the level of inspiration, fostering division, and rejecting the broader tradition of biblical scholarship. It is a dangerous heresy not because it denies core Christian doctrines but because it distracts from the gospel, creates unnecessary strife, and isolates its adherents from the global body of Christ. The church is called to unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things—principles that VPP often violates.

Ephesians 2:1-10

Ephesians 2:1-10

Made Alive in Christ

1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Colossians 2:1-10

Colossians 2:1-10

1 I want you to know how hard I am contending for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally. 2 My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. 5 For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.

6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, 7 rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.

The Bible is 100% inspired and 100% preserved to the last word and letter, but no single TR is 100% inspired and 100% preserved

The Bible is 100% inspired and 100% preserved to the last word and letter, but no single TR is 100% inspired and 100% preserved.

My statement reflects a nuanced theological perspective often held by those who affirm the doctrine of the verbal plenary inspiration (VPI) and preservation of Scripture (VPP), particularly within certain conservative Christian traditions in Bible-Presbyterian Church. 

1. The Bible is 100% inspired and 100% preserved to the last word and letter.

100% Inspired: This refers to the belief in verbal plenary inspiration, meaning that every word of the original manuscripts (autographs) of the Bible was divinely inspired by God. This view is based on passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All Scripture is God-breathed") and 2 Peter 1:21 ("men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit").

100% Preserved: This refers to the belief that God has providentially preserved His Word throughout history, ensuring that the message and content of Scripture have been maintained without corruption. This is often tied to the belief in God’s promises to preserve His Word (e.g., Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 24:35).

The idea here is that the original text of Scripture, as given by God, is perfect and fully inspired, and that God has ensured its preservation in its entirety across time.

2. Any single TR (Textus Receptus) is not 100% inspired and 100% preserved.

The Textus Receptus (TR) is a Greek text of the New Testament that was compiled in the 16th century, primarily by Erasmus, and later refined by others. It served as the basis for many Reformation-era Bible translations, including the King James Version (KJV).

While the TR is highly regarded by some Christians, it is not considered 100% inspired or 100% preserved in the same sense as the original autographs. This is because:

1. The TR is a reconstructed text based on available manuscripts at the time, not the original autographs.
2. It contains minor textual variations and scribal errors, as do all manuscript traditions.
3. It is a product of human effort in compiling and editing, even if guided by God’s providence.

In other words, the TR is a representation of the preserved Word of God, but it is not itself the original, inspired text. It is a faithful but imperfect copy.

3. Expounding the Tension

The statement acknowledges a distinction between the original, inspired text and any single manuscript or textual tradition (like the TR). While the original text is perfect and fully preserved in the sense that its message and content have been maintained, no single manuscript or textual tradition can claim to be a perfect, word-for-word replica of the originals.

This view allows for minor variations in manuscripts while affirming that the essential message of Scripture has been preserved. It also recognizes the role of human agency in the transmission of the text, which introduces the possibility of minor errors or variations.

4. Theological Implications

This perspective emphasizes trust in God’s providential preservation of Scripture while acknowledging the limitations of human efforts in textual transmission.

It avoids the claim that any one textual tradition (e.g., the TR) is inerrant or perfect, while still affirming the inerrancy and perfection of the original autographs.

It encourages a focus on the overall unity and reliability of Scripture, rather than insisting on absolute uniformity in every manuscript or textual tradition.

Conclusion

My statement reflects a balanced view of biblical inspiration and preservation. It affirms the perfection of the original Scriptures and God’s faithfulness in preserving His Word, while recognizing that no single manuscript or textual tradition (including the TR) is without minor imperfections. This perspective upholds the authority and reliability of Scripture while acknowledging the complexities of textual transmission.

Did we not uphold the perfect Bible, KJV, and prophecy in your name?

Matthew 7:13-23

The Narrow and Wide Gates

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

True and False Prophets

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

True and False Disciples

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Commentary:

Jesus examines our wholeheartedness (7:13–27)

The last section of this amazing sermon is perhaps the most amazing of all. It turns on the place of Jesus in the life of the disciple. The ultimate issue of the Sermon is the authority and identity of the preacher. This is widely discounted by those who think the Sermon on the Mount is a collection of ethical maxims such as might have been devised by any cultivated humanist. Not so. The Sermon on the Mount ends with the most emphatic assertion of the ultimacy of Jesus Christ. What he has said with such power and precision in the Sermon derives from who he is.

And who is he? He is the one who can confidently call God my Father (21). He is the one who can tell us what will stand in the day of judgment (22). He is the one who can declare the tree of an individual’s life bad or good, who can say of the road of life ‘Through road’ or ‘No access’ (13–14). Indeed, as the Fourth Gospel makes so abundantly plain, he is the gate, the door of the sheepfold. He is the way that leads to the Father. He is the true vine, and only by incorporation in him can the branches be really good.20

But we do not need to go to the Fourth Gospel to find Jesus’ explicit claims to be the Beyond. They are very plain here. People prophesy in his name (22), and that was something which in Israel was done only in God’s name. People call him ‘Lord’ and are not rebuked for it. Someone can be rejected from the kingdom of heaven if he or she does not know Jesus and is not known by him (23). Jesus inherits that character of God Almighty referred to in the Old Testament: he is the Rock.21 Any ‘house’ of someone’s life built on him will stand. Any house built on anything else will crash in ruins. What claims! Was there ever such a paradox between the sanity and profundity of the teaching in this Sermon and the lunacy of the preacher’s claims if he is not what he claimed to be? Jesus calls for humankind’s unalloyed adherence. He is the eschatological Judge. And he claims the place reserved for God in their lives. That is how the Sermon ends.

This devastating challenge is brought home in three main ways. First, the gate and the road. That image (7:13–14) poses the question, ‘Have you gone through the gate? Are you on the road?’ You cannot get on to the road until you have gone through the turnstiles. And they are not roomy. No room for baggage, for pride, for irresolution. Enter! Notice how here, as so often in the teaching of Jesus, we are challenged to decide. There is no comfortable middle ground embracing most of us, and leaving on either side the very good and the very bad. How comfortable it would have been were that the case! But Christianity is not about being very good, or very bad, or very comfortable. It is about being in God’s kingdom or staying out. It is about allegiance to God, or rebellion. It is about being on the road that starts narrow but opens out into the life of heaven, or staying on the broad road of our self-centredness until it contracts to a dead halt in final destruction. An awesome choice. And we find that at the end of the Sermon we are not permitted merely to admire the teaching; we are challenged to bow to the preacher. Have you entered in? Are you on the road?

Secondly, the tree and its fruit (7:15–23). How can you know if you are dealing with a disciple of the kingdom or not? You can tell from the fruit of his or her life. The question is not only ‘Have you entered in?’ but ‘Is there real change?’

A profession of faith that makes no difference to the way we behave is barren and will never save anybody. There must be fruit, consistent, attractive fruit on the tree of our lives. Fruit that will show there is a Gardener at work. Fruit that will satisfy the hunger of the passer-by. How evil are the fruits to be found in many professing Christians!—an arrogance that alienates; an externalism that does not touch the heart; a separation between religion and life; a faith that makes no demands, or that consists in legalism; a religion that takes refuge in charismatic jargon about prophecy, or miraculous healings, or the driving out of demons, but may not even really know Jesus, and does not really do the will of the heavenly Father (22–23). Matthew may well have had in mind wild, charismatic ‘prophets’ current in his day, as he recorded these words of his Master. I fear that so much that passes as Christianity will shrivel up in the day of judgment and be found to be bogus and worthless. People judge the tree by the fruit. The awesome truth Jesus teaches here is that so does God! If the fruit is not real, we may take leave to doubt the nature of the roots.

Thirdly, the wise and foolish builders (7:24–27). The final way Jesus presses his claim brings us to the end of the Sermon. In this age of permissiveness and pluralism (which we forget was much the same in Jesus’ own day), his claims stand out sheer and stark. He does not agree that it does not matter what you believe in so long as you are sincere. He does not allow that we are all climbing up to God by the route of our choice. He does not fit in with our shallow pluralism. Instead he says there are only two ways we can build. Not many ways, just two. We can either build on him and his teaching, which we will find is as solid as rock; or else we can build on any other religion or philosophy in the world, and we will find that it is sand, and in the last day it will spell ruin.

This last image is meant to follow up the previous two. The question is not only ‘Have you entered in?’ and ‘Is there real change?’ but ‘How do you build?’ He wants the hearers to ask themselves whether or not they are building on the only foundation that will bear their weight.

In our postmodern, relativistic and plural culture, how do Christians justify this exclusivism, which seems to be so arrogant? It is not that we are defending Christianity and saying it is better than anything else. Often it is not. Often it is shoddy and does not stand comparison with the ethos of what is best in other faiths or in liberal humanism. No, it is not the religion of Christianity that disciples are concerned to vindicate. With Dietrich Bonhoeffer, we believe that Jesus Christ came to destroy religion. Religion, if conceived as a human attempt to become acceptable to God by whatever system of beliefs and practice, is a beggar’s refuge. It will not keep out the wind and the hail. What Jesus offers is totally different. It begins not from our reaching up, but from God’s reaching down. It is not a religion at all, but a revelation and a rescue. Jesus is the revelation of what God is like; never has there been such a true likeness. The King has come to bring in the kingdom. He is no less than God’s rescue for men and women lost in self-centredness and sin.

I could never claim ultimacy for Christianity as a system. I do claim it for Jesus Christ. In him God has broken with blinding light into our darkness. In him God has provided for sinners a way back to himself. The question is, how shall we respond? ‘But’, you say, ‘what about those who have never heard the gospel?’ Let us leave those who have never heard to the God who came to rescue those who had never heard. They can safely be entrusted to his justice and his love. The Judge of all the earth will do right.22 And the one who loved them enough to come for them and die for them will not wrong them. Of that we can be sure. The end of Matthew’s Gospel tells us one thing we can do if we care about them. We can go and tell them the good news of Jesus and the kingdom (28:19). And the end of the Sermon here informs us of the other thing we can do if we really care. We can make sure that we personally are wholeheartedly committed to Christ. Until we are sure where we stand ourselves, we shall be no use at helping others.

So, we must build on the Rock. How? Jesus’ reply to that question is the heart of Old Testament religion. We must hear and obey. Not just hear, but obey. The theological and religious world is full of hearing; it is overloaded with God-talk. What will thrill the heart of God and make the pagans realize that the gospel is true is practical, generous obedience—obedience that transforms our characters (5:11–12), affects our influence (5:13–16), shows itself in practical righteousness (5:17–48), touches our devotional life (6:1–18), radically alters our ambitions (6:19–34), transforms our relationships (7:1–12) and marks us out as totally wholehearted servants of the King (7:13–27). That is what Jesus is looking for. That is the mark of the disciples he calls. That is the kingdom manifesto detailed with immense authority at the outset of his public ministry.

Michael Green, The Message of Matthew: The Kingdom of Heaven, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 109–110.