The Power That Overcomes

Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we come before you this morning from many different places. Wherever we are, we ask that you meet us here now.

Help us to see our own struggles and our own need for a faith that depends utterly on you. Quiet the arguments in our minds and the distractions in our spirits, that we might hear from you today. We ask this in the mighty name of Jesus. Amen.

The title of the sermon this morning is “The Power That Overcomes.” Scripture Reading: Mark 9:14-29 

Introduction: The Argument in the Valley

Good morning, church. If you have your Bibles, please turn with me to the Gospel of Mark, chapter 9.

Just before our passage today, we have one of the mountaintop experiences of the Bible. Jesus took Peter, James, and John up a high mountain, and He was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, and He spoke with Moses and Elijah. It was a moment of divine confirmation, glory, and awe.

But now, in verse 14, they descend from that mountain-top glory and immediately step into a scene of chaos, confusion, and conflict. They find an arguing crowd, frustrated disciples, and a desperate father with a suffering son. It’s a stark reminder that our Christian life isn't lived only on the mountaintop; it’s lived in the valleys where real human suffering and spiritual battles rage.

I. The Reason for the Argument (v. 14-18)

The text says that when Jesus arrived, He saw a great crowd around His disciples, and the teachers of the law were arguing with them. What was the argument about?

The context tells us. A man had brought his demon-possessed son to the disciples for healing, and they had utterly failed. The argument, therefore, was almost certainly about authority and power. 

The crowd was amazed when Jesus arrived, but the father was desperate. He steps through the controversy and gets to the heart of the matter: "I brought my son to your disciples, but they could not heal him."

II. The Nature of the Battle (v. 17-22)

What kind of evil spirit are we dealing with here? This wasn't a minor affliction. This was a powerful, destructive, and violent evil spirit.

• It robbed the boy of his speech.

• It threw him into convulsions.

• It made him foam at the mouth and gnash his teeth.

• It tried to destroy him by throwing him into fire or water.

This spirit was characterized by its desire to cause the boy to lose the power of hearing, it desire to distort, and destroy. It sought to isolate the boy from communication, to twist his body and life, and ultimately to annihilate him. This is the ultimate aim of the enemy in our lives: to isolate us, distort God’s truth and image in us, and steal, kill, and destroy (John 10:10).

The father’s plea is one of the most saddening in Scripture: "But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us." He’s saying, "I’ve almost lost hope, but if there’s any possibility… please."

III. The Source of Authority (v. 23-27)

Jesus’ response is breathtaking. He doesn’t say, "Well, let’s see what I can do." He immediately reframes the entire issue from the man’s "if you can" to the real question: " ‘If you can’? Everything is possible for one who believes."

Jesus redirects the focus from His ability—which is absolute—to the man’s faith. He is inviting the father out of the paralysis of doubt and into the possibility of belief.

The father’s beautiful, honest cry becomes a model prayer for all of us: "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!" He confesses the little faith he has while asking Jesus to fill the gaps. And Jesus honors that honest, struggling faith.

What happens next is a masterclass in authority. Jesus doesn’t perform a long ritual. He doesn’t plead with the spirit. He simply commands it. "You deaf and mute spirit," he said, "I command you, come out of him and never enter him again."

Did Jesus have the authority? Absolutely. The spirit has no choice but to obey its Creator. It shrieks and convulses the boy one last time, a final act of malice, and then it leaves. The boy lies so still that the crowd thinks he’s dead. But Jesus, full of compassion and power, takes his hand and lifts him up—whole, free, and restored. Where the spirit brought death, Jesus brings resurrection life.

IV. The Secret of Their Failure (v. 28-29)

Later, in private, the disciples ask the question, "Why couldn’t we drive it out?"

Jesus’ answer is simple and profound: "This kind can come out only by prayer."

Their failure was not a lack of technique. It wasn't that they forgot the right words. Their failure was a lack of a dependent relationship. Perhaps they had begun to trust in the gift of authority rather than the Giver of that authority. They had been sent out and given power (Mark 6:7), but they may have started to rely on that past commissioning rather than on a present, moment-by-moment dependence on God.

Jesus says this kind of deep-seated, powerful stronghold of evil only submits to a power greater than itself—the power of God, accessed through prayer. Prayer is the posture of total dependence. It is the declaration that "I cannot, but God can." The disciples had likely moved from prayerful dependence to a self-reliant habit.

Let me give an Illustration: Imagine a skilled surgeon or doctor. She has all the right tools: a scalpel, clamps, and monitors. She even has the textbook knowledge of anatomy and procedure. But one day, in the middle of a complex operation, the power goes out. The lights go dark. The life-support machines flicker and die. In that moment, her tools and knowledge are rendered almost useless. Why? Because she has been severed from the source of power that makes everything else work.

This is what happened to the disciples. They had been given the tools—the authority to drive out demons. They had seen the procedure—they had watched Jesus do it. But in this moment, they were operating in their own strength, disconnected from the ultimate source of power. They had the tools, but they had forgotten to plug into the power source of prayer.

Application: For Our Lives Today. So, what does this mean for us? 

1. Should the church continue to drive out demons? Yes, but we must understand our role. Our authority is not our own; it is derived solely from Jesus Christ. We do not command in our name; we command in His name and under His authority. The church is called to continue Jesus' ministry of setting the captives free (Luke 4:18). This involves both the proclamation of freedom from the guilt of sin and, at times, the demonstration of power over spiritual oppression.

2. How do we apply this to our daily lives?

• Cultivate Honest Faith: Like the father of that boy, bring our mixed-up faith to Jesus. "I believe; help my unbelief!" is a prayer He will always answer. He honors honest struggle more than pretended certainty.

• Rely on Prayer, Not Formula: We must fight the temptation to reduce our faith to a formula. The power is not in our methods, but in our connection to the Source. Stay rooted in prayer—not as a last resort, but as a first response.

• Bring our Battles to Jesus: Whatever "spirit" we are facing—be it addiction, despair, anxiety, bitterness—it is a spirit that seeks to deafen us to God’s voice, distort our identity, and destroy our life. Do what the father did: bypass the arguing crowd and bring our problem directly to Jesus.

• Point to the One with Authority: When we experience victory, we must be like Jesus: we take the hand of the broken and lift them up. We point them not to our power, but to the power of Christ. We are merely the channel of His grace.

As a conclusion: The argument in the valley was settled not by a better theological debate, but by the powerful, compassionate authority of Jesus Christ. The disciples’ failure was cured not by a new technique, but by a call back to prayerful dependence.

Church, we live in a world full of arguments and deep suffering. The answer to both is the same: bringing people to a direct encounter with the living Christ. He is the one with all authority. He is the one who commands the waves and the demons, and they obey. And He invites us, His often-failing disciples, to partner with Him in His work—not from a place of our own strength, but from our knees, in prayer, fully dependent on Him.

Let us pray: Lord Jesus, we thank you for your Word. We thank you that you are not a distant God, but one who steps into the chaos of our lives with authority and compassion.

Today, we confess that so often, we are like the disciples. We try to fight our battles with yesterday’s faith, relying on our own strength and understanding. Forgive us for our self-reliance. Forgive us for our prayerlessness.

And so, we echo the cry of the father in this story: “We do believe; help us overcome our unbelief!”

Fill the gaps in our faith. Bring us back into the power source of a living, moment-by-moment relationship with you.

We bring before you now the specific “evil spirits” in our lives—the addictions, the despair, the anxieties, the pride that seeks to distort and destroy us. We command them to flee in the mighty name of Jesus, and we ask for your healing hand to lift us up, to make us whole, and to set us free. Send us out from this place, not in our own power, but in yours, empowered by your Spirit and dependent on your strength. It is in your victorious name, Jesus, we pray. Amen.

Self-help with God’s help is the best help ???

The statement “Self-help with God’s help is the best help” tries to combine human effort and divine support. On the surface, it sounds positive—it recognizes that we must take responsibility for our lives while also depending on God. But the problem lies in how it frames the relationship between human effort and God’s role.

Possible Problems with the Statement

It makes self the primary focus.

The phrase begins with “self-help” and positions God’s help as something added on. This can make it sound like I am the main agent of change, and God is just a helper. In many faith traditions (especially Christianity), this inverts the order: God is the true source of strength, and we participate by cooperating with His will.

It risks implying independence from God.

If “self-help” is seen as sufficient with only a little boost from God, it downplays our complete dependence on Him (“Without Me you can do nothing” – John 15:5).

It may promote a works-based mindset.

It can suggest that God’s help is conditional upon how well we help ourselves, instead of being rooted in grace. While effort and discipline matter, they are not the foundation—God’s grace is.

It doesn’t acknowledge that God sometimes works beyond or without our effort.

The Bible shows times when God delivers, strengthens, or transforms people who were powerless to “help themselves.”

A More Balanced View

Partnership, not hierarchy: A better way to phrase it might be, “God’s help, with our cooperation, is the best help.”

This keeps God at the center while acknowledging that we do have a role: to act responsibly, use our gifts, and respond to His grace.

The truth is not “self-help with God’s help” but “God’s help, with our trust and cooperation.”

“The Lord Will Raise a Standard”

Scripture Text: Isaiah 59:19

Theme: When the enemy floods the church with deception or division, the Spirit of the Lord raises up Christ as the true standard for His people.

In a battlefield where soldiers rally when a banner is lifted high. The banner tells them where to gather, who they belong to, and under whom they fight.

Isaiah uses that imagery to show us that when the enemy comes in like a flood, God Himself raises His banner, His standard, to protect His people and glorify His name.

1. The Reality of the Enemy’s Flood

“When the enemy shall come in like a flood…”

The enemy often overwhelms—false teachings, pride, divisions, worldliness.

Debates like Verbal Plenary Preservation, Perfect TR, or KJV-Onlyism—when elevated to gospel level—become floods that distract from Christ.

Gnosticism in early church is similar flood, secret knowledge, elitism, “we know better.” The same spirit resurfaces today.

We should not be surprised when floods come—Jesus warned that false teachers would arise (Matthew 24:24).

What “floods” are threatening our church or our own walk with Christ?

2. The Spirit of the Lord Raises the Standard

“…the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.”

The “standard” (Hebrew nes) is the banner, rallying point, signal of victory.

This is not human cleverness, but God Himself taking action through His Spirit.

In Christ, God has raised the ultimate banner:

John 12:32 – Jesus lifted up on the cross draws all people.

Isaiah 11:10 – The Root of Jesse stands as a signal/banner for the peoples.

2 Corinthians 4:5 – We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord.

When arguments arise that exalt human opinions or translations above Christ, the Spirit raises Christ Himself as the banner: His cross, His Word, His gospel.

Our calling is to rally under that banner—not under a man, not under a version, but under the crucified and risen Lord.

3. The Standard in the Church Today

How does God raise this “standard” when floods come? Three ways:

Faithful Preaching of Christ

God raises pastors and teachers who center their sermons on Christ and the cross.

Humble Christlike Living

God raises up believers whose humility and mercy rebuke the pride of elitist teaching.

Unity of the Church in the Gospel

God raises congregations that refuse to be divided by non-essentials.

By way of application,

Am I rallying under Christ’s banner, or am I waving my own?

Do my words and actions promote unity under the gospel, or do they divide?

4. Fear of the Lord and Glory to His Name

“So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun.”

When God raises His standard, His glory is revealed from east to west.

The nations see not us, not our arguments, but Christ lifted up.

The end goal is not winning a debate—it is the glory of Christ across the earth.

The true church fears His name, not the name of a movement or translation.

Conclusion

The enemy will come like a flood. False teachings and divisions will always press in.

But we have hope, the Spirit of the Lord raises a standard. That standard is Christ lifted up, Christ proclaimed, Christ embodied in His people.

Our call is rallying under the banner of Jesus, not under man-made flags.

Illustration:

In a battle where soldiers, scattered and afraid, saw their flag rise again on the hilltop. It gave them courage, hope, and unity. In the same way, when the church feels overwhelmed, look up—Christ is our Banner.

Closing Prayer

Lord God, we thank You that when the enemy comes in like a flood, You raise up Your standard against him. Forgive us when we have lifted up ourselves, our ideas, or our preferences instead of Your Son. Teach us to rally under the cross of Christ, to live humbly, to preach faithfully, and to walk in unity. May Your glory be known from the rising of the sun to its setting, as Christ is lifted up in our lives and in our church. In His precious name we pray, Amen.

Isaiah 59:19

1. Exposition of Isaiah 59:19

Isaiah 59:19 (KJV) reads:

“So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.”

Other translations, like the ESV, render the second half differently:

“…for he will come like a rushing stream, which the wind of the LORD drives.”

The Hebrew word here, נָס (nes), is often translated as “standard,” “signal,” or “banner.” It is a military image: when the enemy comes in, the Lord raises His banner to rally His people, to signal His presence, and to resist the onslaught. The heart of the verse is this: when opposition rises like a flood, God Himself intervenes. He raises His banner, His standard, His Spirit, to protect His people and glorify His name.

2. Applying This to the Church Today

If movements such as Verbal Plenary Preservation (as an exclusive doctrine), Perfect TR, or KJV-Onlyism elevate human tradition or a single translation above Christ Himself, they risk becoming tools of division—an “enemy within” that disrupts unity and distracts from the gospel.

Isaiah 59:19 reassures us: when such errors flood the church, the Spirit of the Lord raises a standard against them. God is not passive; He actively guards His people.

3. What Is This “Standard” in the Church?

The standard God raises is not a human invention, nor another debate, but the Word of God rightly proclaimed and Christ Himself exalted. Here are three ways this “standard” may appear in the church:

Faithful Preaching of the Whole Counsel of God

When the enemy floods in with prideful teaching that exalts human traditions, the Spirit raises up humble pastors and teachers who faithfully preach Christ and Him crucified. This preaching draws people back to the central gospel, away from needless divisions.

The Mandarin Congregation in Calvary Pandan begins to split because of arguments over Bible versions. But the Spirit empowers a pastor to open the Scriptures, showing that the true authority is not in one translation, but in the living Christ revealed through the Word. Hearts are softened, and unity is restored under Christ’s banner.

The Banner of Christ’s Humility and Mercy

The “standard” is also the life of Christ embodied in His people—servants who show humility, mercy, and love. When prideful voices dominate with “secret knowledge” or elitism, God raises up believers who quietly live out the gospel, proving by their fruits what is true.

In a seminary classroom, some students boast of their knowledge about manuscripts and translations. But another student, filled with the Spirit, stands out by his humility, kindness, and Christlike character. His life itself becomes a rebuke and a reminder of what matters most: Christ in us, the hope of glory.

The Unity of the Church under the Gospel

The Spirit raises the church itself as a standard, when believers together refuse to let non-essentials divide them. They rally around the cross, not around personal preferences.

A Synod decides: “We will not let translation debates fracture our fellowship. We affirm the authority of Scripture in faithful translations, but our focus will remain on preaching Christ, making disciples, and living the gospel.” That decision becomes the banner of the Spirit against the flood of division.

4. Conclusion

Isaiah 59:19 shows us that when falsehood, pride, or divisive teachings rise up like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord Himself raises a banner. That banner is Christ exalted, the gospel proclaimed, humility embodied, and the unity of God’s people preserved.

If KJV-Onlyism or similar movements become an “enemy” by distracting from Christ, then God’s response will not be another ideology, but the lifting up of Christ as the true Standard.

As Jesus said in John 12:32: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” That is the ultimate “standard” God raises—Christ crucified and risen, drawing hearts back to Him.

A Pastoral Message of Admonition and Appeal

Beloved followers of the Way,

Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I write to you with both concern and love, mindful of Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 4:5: “For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.”

The apostle is clear—our calling is not to promote ourselves, nor to build followers around our own ideas, but to exalt Christ alone as Lord. The church is not sustained by human arguments, intellectual pride, or claims to special knowledge. It is upheld by the gospel of Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, proclaimed in humility and in truth.

Yet it grieves me to see how secondary debates over Bible translations and human theories are being elevated above Christ Himself. When positions such as “Verbal Plenary Preservation,” the “Perfect TR,” or exclusive allegiance to one English translation are presented as tests of true faith, they risk becoming burdens that divide the body rather than doctrines that unite it. These positions may be borne out of zeal, but zeal without humility and gospel-centeredness can unwittingly mirror the very gnostic spirit that Paul and John warned against—a spirit that exalts secret knowledge, human certainty, and rigid sectarianism over the simplicity of Christ.

Brother, hear the Lord’s call: return to the pure gospel. The church does not exist to defend human systems or to magnify a particular translation. The church exists to proclaim Christ crucified, to preach the Word faithfully in the languages of God’s people, and to serve one another in love.

Paul himself, once a Pharisee of Pharisees, could have boasted in many things. But in Philippians 3:8, he says: “I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” This is our posture too: to lay down pride, to count as loss our intellectual trophies, and to lift high Christ alone.

Please consider: are your words pointing others to Christ, or are they drawing attention to your own certainty, your own positions, your own cause? If the latter, then repent and return to the humility of Christ, who came not to be served but to serve. Let us be servants of one another for Jesus’ sake, not masters over one another in debates that fracture His body.

As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:6, “For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” That is the true treasure—the glory of God revealed in the face of Christ, not in the promotion of ourselves or our own theological constructs.

I plead with you, in the love of Christ: return to the Lord’s simple call. Set aside divisive speculation. Fix your eyes again on Jesus, and let your teaching, your life, and your ministry exalt Him alone.

With sorrow and hope,

A Pastoral Appeal for Grace and Unity

Leaders in Christ,

I write to you with deep respect for your devotion to God’s Word and your love for the Lord Jesus Christ. The care you show in guarding the Scriptures and your commitment to the truth is evident, and for that I give thanks. At the same time, I come with a heartfelt plea for grace, rooted in the gospel we all cherish.

Our Lord Jesus prayed that His people would be one, even as He and the Father are one (John 17:21). The apostle Paul reminds us that in Christ there is “one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:4–6). While differences in translation preference are real and sometimes deeply felt, I urge you in the Spirit of Christ to extend forgiveness, acceptance, and love toward brothers and sisters who read from the NIV or other faithful translations of God’s Word.

The gospel itself teaches us: “Forgive as the Lord forgave you” (Col. 3:13). We know that none of us comes to God by the purity of our works or the perfection of our knowledge, but only through the mercy of Christ. In the same way, may we not withhold fellowship or acceptance from those whom Christ has already welcomed. If God has poured His Spirit upon men and women reading the NIV, drawing them to repentance, faith, and holiness, can we not also embrace them as fellow heirs of grace?

Leaders, I am not asking you to abandon your convictions, but to adorn them with charity. Hold fast to your love for the King James Bible, but let that love be accompanied by patience and gentleness toward others who also seek to know God through His Word. In doing so, your testimony will shine even brighter—not only for your faithfulness to Scripture but also for your reflection of the love of Christ.

May the Lord strengthen you, fill you with His peace, and grant you joy as you shepherd His people in the spirit of unity.

With respect and love in Christ,

Lawrence Wong

Wrong Tradition

The KJV-only position—that the King James Version is the only true or valid Bible translation—is a tradition that arose in the last century, mainly in reaction to modern Bible translations. While the KJV is a beautiful and historically important translation, the idea that it is the only inspired or preserved Word of God is problematic for several reasons:

Why KJV-onlyism is a wrong tradition

It elevates a translation above the original texts

The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The KJV is a translation, not the original. To claim that one English translation is more inspired than the God-breathed originals is backwards—it makes the translation the standard rather than the Scriptures themselves.

It confuses preservation with one version

God promised to preserve His Word (Isaiah 40:8), but preservation does not mean through a single 17th-century English edition. The Word has been preserved through thousands of manuscripts and translations in many languages, allowing God’s truth to reach all peoples.

It ignores the need for clarity in language

English has changed dramatically since 1611. Words like “let,” “prevent,” “conversation,” or “quick” don’t mean the same today. If people misunderstand God’s Word because of outdated language, the translation becomes a barrier rather than a blessing.

It repeats the mistake of clinging to tradition over truth

Before the Reformation, the Latin Vulgate held the same place of untouchable authority in the Western church. Many leaders said, “The Vulgate is the Bible.” Reformers like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, and others challenged this by returning to the Hebrew and Greek, translating into common languages so that people could understand God’s Word.

In the same way, KJV-onlyism repeats the same error—it insists on one traditional version rather than encouraging ongoing faithful translations from the original languages.

Why I do not follow KJV-onlyism

I don’t reject the KJV itself—it is still a faithful and beautiful translation—but I reject the tradition that says it alone is the Bible. My reason is simple: I want to follow the example of the Reformers, who left the exclusive reliance on the Latin Vulgate. They understood that the authority lies in God’s Word as given in the original languages, and translations must serve people by making that Word clear and accurate in their own tongue.

Just as they did not stay bound to Jerome’s Vulgate, I do not want to be bound to the King James Version alone. I honor it, but I also embrace other faithful translations that help God’s Word shine with clarity for today.

KJV-onlyism is like clinging to the Latin Vulgate in the Middle Ages—it confuses tradition with truth. I don’t follow it because I believe God’s Word is greater than any single translation, and like the Reformers, I want Scripture to be understood clearly in the language of the people.

Since All Bible Translations Are Imperfect, How Can We Speak of an Inerrant Bible?

Answering Bible Difficulties – Question 31

Original: 

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/bible-difficulties/question31-how-can-we-speak-of-an-inerrant-bible.cfm

It is objected that the Scripture today cannot be called inerrant because each translation made from the original is imperfect. Indeed, no matter what language the Bible is translated into, there will always be imperfections. How, therefore, can the Bible today be spoken of as the inerrant Word of God when most people read it in an imperfect translation?

Response

We respond to this accusation with the following points:

The Message Comes Through in Translations

Admittedly, there is no translation of Scripture that is perfect. Each has its deficiencies. Those who translate the Scripture recognize this. Yet the meaning of the passages can be adequately communicated from one language to the next. For example, a simple comparison of good English translations of Scripture will demonstrate that the meanings of each passage will be shown to be the same, even if the wording is different. The message of Scripture comes out crystal clear.

Translations Have More Things Right than Wrong

With respect to the major Bible translations that have been produced, there is much more right with them than things that are wrong. The things that are wrong are usually insignificant and they do not affect the central message. Consequently, people can read these translations with the confidence that they are reading the Word of God.

A Lesson from the New Testament and the Septuagint

An example of how an imperfect translation can still be the inerrant Word of God is found in the usage that the New Testament writers make of the of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The New Testament quotes the Septuagint about one hundred and sixty specific times. Thirteen of those times, when quoting the Old Testament, the New Testament writers call the Septuagint, “Scripture.” This shows that the Septuagint, an imperfect Greek translation of the Hebrew original, is still considered to be Holy Scripture.

These quotations are as follows:

Matthew 21:42

Jesus cites the Septuagint when speaking of His predicted rejection by His own people—the Jews. We read in Matthew:

Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’s doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes?’” (Matthew 21:42 NKJV)

This cites Psalm 117:22-23 in the Septuagint. It is Psalm 118:22-23 in English translations. Jesus believed the Septuagint could be equated with Scripture.

Luke 4:18-19, 21

The Septuagint was cited by Jesus when He read from the scroll of Isaiah in a synagogue in Nazareth. It reads as follows:

Now Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on him. Then he began to tell them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled even as you heard it being read.” (Luke 4:16-21 NET)

Jesus is citing Isaiah 61:1-2, He called the passage from which He read “Scripture.” Again, the Septuagint is considered to be Scripture.

John 13:18

When Jesus said the Scriptures predicted His betrayal by one who was close to Him He cited the Septuagint. We read the following in the Gospel of John:

I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.’ (John 13:18 NKJV)

This cites Psalm 40:9 in the Septuagint (Psalm 41:9 in English translations). The Greek text of the Old Testament is cited here, and declared to be Scripture.

Acts 8:32-33

When leaving Jerusalem, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament about the prediction of God’s suffering servant. The Bible records it as follows:

Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer, so he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.” (Acts 8:32-33 NRSV)

This is citing Isaiah 53:7-8, in the Septuagint.

Romans 4:3

Paul quotes the Septuagint when referring to the faith of Abraham. He said to the Romans:

For the Scriptures tell us, “Abraham believed God, so God declared him to be righteous.” (Romans 4:3 NLT)

The passage cited is Genesis 15:6 and it is called Scripture.

Romans 9:17

Paul cites the Septuagint when speaking of God’s reason for the raising up of the Pharaoh of Egypt. He wrote to the church at Rome:

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” (Romans 9:17 ESV)

The New Living Translation says:

For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, “I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you, and so that my fame might spread throughout the earth.” (Romans 9:17 NLT)

Paul is citing Exodus 9:16 in the Septuagint and calls it Scripture.

Romans 11:3-4

The Septuagint is cited when referring to Elijah’s complaint that all the prophets had been slain. We read the following in the Book of Romans:

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” (Romans 11:2-4 ESV)

Here, Paul is citing 1 Kings 19:10,14, and 18 in the Septuagint translation.

Galatians 3:8

Paul quotes the Septuagint in the passage that says Gentiles would be blessed through Abraham. He wrote the following:

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.” (Galatians 3:8 NRSV)

The passage cited is Genesis 12:3. Paul cites the Greek text rather than the Hebrew text.

Galatians 4:30

The illustration that the promise of the inheritance will come through Sarah, rather than Hagar, is quoted in the Septuagint. Paul wrote:

But what does the Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” (Galatians 4:30 TNIV)

Here Paul is citing Genesis 21:12 in the Greek text.

1 Timothy 5:18

Paul quotes the Law of Moses in the Septuagint version. He wrote the following to Timothy:

For the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves to be paid.” (1 Timothy 5:18 NRSV)

Deuteronomy 25:4 is cited here in the Greek text.

James 2:8

James cites the Septuagint with respect to loving one’s neighbor. He wrote:

Yes indeed, it is good when you truly obey our Lord’s royal command found in the Scriptures: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (James 2:8 NLT)

James is citing Leviticus 19:18 in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

James 4:6

James quotes the Septuagint concerning God blessing the humble. He said:

He gives us more and more strength to stand against such evil desires. As the Scriptures say, “God sets himself against the proud, but he shows favor to the humble.” (James 4:6 NLT)

The passage cited here is Proverbs 3:34 in the Septuagint.

Each of These References Calls What They Are Citing “Scripture”

We find the evidence convincing. On a number of occasions, the New Testament writers, in citing the Old Testament, cite the Greek text, the Septuagint, instead of citing the Hebrew text. The Septuagint is called “Scripture” in thirteen passages where it is cited.

Conclusion: the New Testament Writers Believed They Were Citing Scripture When Quoting the Greek Old Testament

Therefore, the New Testament teaches that the Septuagint, a translation, is Scripture. Since all Scripture is divinely inspired, then the Septuagint, along with other Bible translations, are divinely inspired in the sense that they convey God’s truth.

Summary – Question 31
Since All Bible Translations Are Imperfect, How Can We Speak of an Inerrant Bible?

The imperfections of Bible translations are used as an argument against an inerrant Bible. Since all translations are different, how can anyone speak of an inerrant Bible?

However the problems with translations have nothing to do with the original. It is admitted that all translations have their problems. Yet the message still comes through loud and clear. The real issue is the text behind the translations. Is it error free? The evidence says that it is.

In addition, the New Testament cites the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, and calls it Scripture. Therefore, it is a biblical idea to call a translation of the Bible “Scripture.”

The Bible Movement Story (1837-2017)

 

Pastors, Choose Gratitude Over Grumbling

November 9, 2020  |  Dustin Crowe

Original posting: 

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/pastors-gratitude-grumbling/

Having a tough year?

As church members choose conflict over peacemaking, appear more excited about politics than discipleship, give more weight to a pundit’s off-the-cuff opinion than your studied convictions, fall for sin rather than follow Scripture, reject the counsel of friends to pursue idols you know will hurt them, make time for school programs and sporting events but skip church, and criticize your leadership for recent decisions, groaning over such grievances and burdens feels natural.

You’re not alone. The invitation to murmur against your church tests all pastors and staff. But don’t get stuck there. Be careful not to grow accustomed to an irritable posture toward God’s people.

Moses’s Example

Moses never served as a pastor, but he did lead God’s people. Like you, he knew what it was like to lead sheep who bite, kick, and stray. So you probably get why he sometimes threw up his hands in dismay or smashed stone tablets. You might never say or do what Moses did, but you understand how he got there.

In Numbers 11, there’s already a beef between Moses and Israel. Israel regularly aired their criticisms against Moses’s provision, direction, and competence. And he fell prey to outbursts of anger for their stubbornness.

During one trial in the wilderness, an unhappy group appropriately called “the rabble” (Num. 11:4) spread complaints and stirred division that spread like a cancer. They moaned about how much better things were under different leadership. Despite God’s clear favor upon Moses, they wanted him out. They’d rather serve Pharaoh as slaves than follow Moses as free men and women. (Fortunately for Moses, email, online petitions, and social media didn’t exist.)

The continual complaints eventually crushed Moses. He responded by grumbling against the ones God put under his care (11:11–14). He asked God why he got stuck with them. He was annoyed and exasperated. The root of bitterness deepened. The divide between leader and followers widened. And the burden of leadership in ministry felt like too much to carry.

Every pastor knows the temptation to focus on troubles in his church. We can gravitate toward grumbling about the difficult people and the discouraging problems. When we do so, or at least when we stay there, our trust in God begins to weaken, and our love for the people wanes. Before long, we burn out––or we burn bridges––as we minister from a posture of irritability rather than grace.

Paul’s Example

Paul wasn’t sheltered from tough situations or trying people. He went toe-to-toe with false teachers, experienced apostasy and betrayal, knew slander and gossip, and worked through conflict and division. People questioned his apostleship, favored other leaders, and badmouthed his authority and gifting.

But what stands out from Paul’s letters is the way he consistently chose gratitude over grumbling. He oversaw sinful congregations and imperfect parishioners, but this didn’t overshadow the good work of God. And by keeping his eyes on the good gifts and growth, he found reasons for thanksgiving.

One example comes from Colossians. Paul says when he thinks of the church there, he gives thanks for them (Col. 1:3). Don’t you want that to be true of your mindset toward your church?

At the forefront of Paul’s mind isn’t the false teaching, a divisive faction in the church, or unhealthy practices of asceticism. Paul eventually addresses these issues, so he isn’t ignoring them. But his first thought is thankfulness. His knee-jerk response to the church is celebration rather than complaint.

He thanks God for the Spirit-produced work of faith, love, and hope (1:4–5). He gives thanks for how the gospel of Jesus turns strangers into family (1:2), grants them an eternal inheritance (1:5), and ripens into fruit spreading out to the world (1:6). None of this is their work or Paul’s work; it is God’s. Paul knows this, and is grateful for the small and big things God is accomplishing in their midst.

Paul can take on a posture of thankfulness to God for an imperfect church because he trusts it is God who’s ultimately responsible for the church’s well-being. Yes, Paul has a role to play. Yes, he will encourage and admonish, teach and warn (1:28). But the church is Christ’s bride alone. The good work started in them is the work God will be faithful to finish (Phil. 1:6). Paul doesn’t put all the pressure of their growth, health, or perseverance on his own shoulders. He feels a healthy weight of responsibility and does what he can to shepherd them, but he entrusts them to God and lets him carry this weight.

Thanksgiving gives us a zoomed-out perspective. While it’s easy to focus on faults, failures, and frustrations, which leads to discouragement, by choosing to give thanks we open our eyes to how God is at work in and among his church. Prioritize gratitude for what God is doing rather than grumbling about what he isn’t doing. This isn’t simply being optimistic or tapping into positive thinking. It’s resting and rejoicing in the blessings of God we might be overlooking.

Practical Ways to Give Thanks

I’ll conclude with eight practical ideas to spur your gratitude for the church where God placed you.

Recall God’s faithfulness and power throughout this church’s history.

Thank God for saving his people through the redemptive work of Christ. Even if you struggle to see much fruit, the gospel always gives us cause to exult in the mercy, grace, and love of God.

Observe how God is at work. Don’t minimize small blessings, steps in maturity, or minor growth. See and celebrate these things.

Build thanksgiving for your church into prayer times, testimonies, and conversations among elders and staff. Just like grumbling spreads, so does gratitude.

Cultivate an environment where people share how God is at work in their lives or what he’s teaching them. Sometimes we don’t know what God is doing because there aren’t opportunities for people to share these things.

Live by faith as you pray with thanksgiving. Serve, preach, pray, teach, visit, shepherd, disciple, and fulfill your ministry by thanking God for what he will do before you even see the fruit of it.

Talk with those new to your church. These people often are there because they see signs of health. They can be some of the most refreshing voices, because they’re quick to share how they see God at work or why they’re thankful for your church’s ministry.

As you feel irritation and discouragement when you think about the church, redirect your heart away from grumbling and toward gratitude. Number your blessings. And thank God that you can entrust this church to his loving, wise care.

How Martin Luther Refutes KJV-Onlyism

1. Luther went back to the originals, not just a translation

KJV-Onlyists often argue that one translation (the 1611 KJV) is perfect and final.

Luther refused to rest on the Latin Vulgate, the “authorized version” of his day.

Instead, he studied the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament (especially Erasmus’s Greek edition).

This shows that translations are secondary — the source texts are primary.

If Luther were alive in 1611, he would not have accepted the KJV as “the only Bible,” but would have tested it against the original Hebrew and Greek.

2. Luther himself made multiple revisions

Luther revised his German Bible repeatedly (1522 NT → full 1534 Bible → later editions up to his death).

Why? Because he knew no translation is perfect and improvements are always possible.

If there could be only one “perfect” Bible in one language, Luther’s constant revisions would make no sense.

This undermines the KJV-Only idea that a single 17th-century English translation was finalized by God and is beyond correction.

3. Luther believed Scripture is infallible — but only in the originals

Luther: “The Scriptures cannot err. It is certain that the Scriptures cannot disagree with itself.” (WA 7, 97)

He made clear that God’s Word is without error, but when faced with difficulties, he confessed his own ignorance rather than blaming the Bible.

Importantly, this inerrancy applied to the Hebrew and Greek texts, not to any one translation (not even his own).

KJV-Onlyism wrongly transfers inspiration and inerrancy from the originals to a single English version.

4. Augustine + Luther together

Augustine: “I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.”

Luther agreed with Augustine’s principle — the canonical writings themselves are without error, not later translations.

This is exactly opposite to the KJV-Only claim that God preserved His perfect Word only in the 1611 English version.

5. The spirit of the Reformation

The Reformation principle was: “Back to the sources” (Latin: ad fontes).

Luther insisted on Scripture in the language of the people, but always grounded in the Hebrew and Greek.

If KJV-Onlyism were true, the Reformers would have declared the Latin Vulgate (or their own translations) as the only perfect Bible — but they did not.

KJV-Onlyism actually resembles the medieval Catholic insistence on the Latin Vulgate as “the Bible,” which Luther rejected.

Conclusion:

Martin Luther proves that the Bible itself (Hebrew + Greek originals), not any single translation, is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. He valued translations — and made one himself — but he never claimed perfection for them. His approach completely dismantles KJV-Onlyism, which wrongly elevates one translation above the inspired originals.

Is KJV "inerrant and infallible"?

1. The historic Christian position

"Inerrant" and "infallible" apply properly to the original writings of Scripture (what Moses, David, Paul, etc., actually wrote under inspiration).

Translations, including the KJV, are trustworthy to the degree they faithfully represent those originals.

2. The KJV specifically

The KJV is not inerrant in itself, because it is a translation. Translators had to make choices, and like all human works, those choices sometimes reflect the limits of the manuscripts and scholarship of their time.

However, the KJV is a faithful, reliable, and accurate translation overall, and for centuries God has used it powerfully to bring people to salvation and to build up the church.

3. KJV-only view

Some Christians (the “KJV-only” position) claim the KJV itself is uniquely inerrant and infallible, even more than the Hebrew and Greek texts.

This position is not historically or theologically mainstream. It arose mostly in the last 150 years.

So, the mainstream answer is:

The KJV is God’s Word in English, but it is not inerrant and infallible in the same way the original manuscripts are.

A Critique of "Beyond Versions"

Critique of "Beyond Versions"

S.H. Tow's Beyond Versions is not an academic or neutral examination of Bible translations but a highly polemical and theological manifesto for the King-James-Only (KJVO) movement. Its primary purpose is to defend the Authorized Version (KJV) as the only legitimate English Bible and to vilify all modern translations, particularly those based on modern textual criticism, as corrupt, satanic perversions.

The book's methodology is fundamentally flawed. It operates from a predetermined conclusion (the KJV is perfect; all others are corrupt) and selectively uses evidence, often out of context or based on misrepresentation, to support this claim. It relies heavily on emotional language, conspiracy theories, and ad hominem attacks against scholars like Westcott and Hort rather than engaging in sober textual analysis.

Its value lies not as a scholarly resource on textual criticism but as a case study in a specific, highly conservative theological perspective that exists within certain segments of Christianity.

Defining the Author's Bias Against the NIV

Tow's bias against the New International Version (NIV) is extreme and multifaceted. He does not see it as a different translation with strengths and weaknesses but as an intentionally "corrupt," "demonic," and "ecumenical" tool designed to undermine core Christian doctrines. His bias is characterized by:

Theological Suspicion: Tow believes the NIV is part of a deliberate, Satan-led conspiracy to create a one-world, ecumenical church (OIKOUMENE) that waters down the gospel. He attributes malicious intent to the translators.

Textual Rejection: He rejects the Nestle-Åland/UBS Greek New Testament critical text (the basis for the NIV) outright, considering it the corrupt "fruit" of the allegedly heretical Westcott and Hort.

Methodological Hatred: He condemns the NIV's use of "Dynamic Equivalence" (a translation philosophy aiming for thought-for-thought clarity) as "demonic deception," insisting only a strict "Formal Equivalence" (word-for-word) method like the KJV's is valid.

Doctrinal Gatekeeping: He judges the NIV solely through the lens of whether it perfectly preserves the specific doctrinal formulations of 17th-century Reformed Protestantism as found in the KJV. Any deviation, however minor, is labeled an "attack."

Refuting the Author's Claims with Actual Facts

Here are factual rebuttals to several key accusations Tow makes against the NIV:

1. Claim: The NIV removes "through his blood" in Colossians 1:14, attacking the doctrine of atonement.

Fact: Colossians 1:14 in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts (like Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) does not contain the phrase "through his blood." This phrase was added in later manuscripts. The NIV, along with almost all modern translations (NASB, ESV, CSB, NRSV), correctly translates the older, more authentic text which reads: "...in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The doctrine of redemption through Christ's blood is abundantly clear throughout the rest of the NIV (e.g., Ephesians 1:7, Romans 3:25, Revelation 5:9).

2. Claim: The NIV changes "only begotten Son" (Greek: monogenes) to "one and only Son" in John 3:16 to deny Christ's eternal generation.

Fact: While "only begotten" is a traditional translation, modern scholarship overwhelmingly agrees that monogenes primarily means "one of a kind," "unique," or "only." The term emphasizes Christ's uniqueness and special relationship to the Father, not a physical "begetting." Translations like "one and only Son" (NIV) or "only Son" (ESV) are widely considered more accurate to the Greek meaning. The doctrine of Christ's divinity is in no way diminished.

3. Claim: The NIV has a "pro-gay bias" because it translates Hebrew words (qadesh) as "shrine prostitute" instead of "sodomite."

Fact: This is a gross misrepresentation. The Hebrew term qadesh (male) and qedeshah (female) refer specifically to cultic prostitutes involved in pagan Canaanite religious rites, not to homosexuality in general. The translation "shrine prostitute" is a more precise and scholarly accurate term. The NIV is unequivocal in its condemnation of homosexuality in passages like Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, where it uses clear, modern language.

4. Claim: The NIV denies the Virgin Birth by translating "Joseph his father" in Luke 2:33.

Fact: This is a deliberately misleading reading. Luke 2:33 (KJV) says: "And Joseph and his mother marvelled..." The NIV says: "The child’s father and mother marveled..." The context is clear: Joseph is referred to as Jesus's legal father in the eyes of the community. This in no way contradicts the Virgin Birth narrative presented just two chapters earlier in Luke 1:34-35, which the NIV translates clearly and faithfully.

5. Claim: The NIV translators were unregenerate heretics, including a "self-confessed lesbian."

Fact: This is an ad hominem attack with no verifiable evidence provided. The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) for the NIV comprised over a dozen evangelical scholars from a wide range of denominations and countries, all committed to the authority of Scripture. Attacking their character is a rhetorical tactic to avoid engaging with their actual scholarly work.

Weaknesses of the Book

Lack of Scholarly Rigor: The book completely ignores the science of textual criticism. It dismisses the entire field of study that has uncovered older, more reliable manuscripts since the 17th century.

Conspiracy Theory Framework: It frames the history of Bible translation as a grand Satanic conspiracy led by Westcott and Hort, whose characters are assassinated with unsubstantiated claims about their personal beliefs and affiliations.

Straw Man Arguments: It consistently misrepresents the translation choices of modern versions, attributing malicious doctrinal intent where the goal is actually textual accuracy or modern clarity.

Inadequate Definition of "Preservation": It equates "divine preservation" of Scripture with one specific set of manuscripts (the Textus Receptus) and one specific translation (the KJV), rather than acknowledging God's providence in preserving His Word through a multitude of manuscripts and faithful translations throughout history.

Hyper-Polemic and Uncharitable Tone: The language is inflammatory and fear-based ("Servants of Satan," "Doctors of Deceit," "perversions"), designed to alarm rather than educate. This tone prevents any meaningful dialogue.

Dated Scholarship: Its arguments are rooted in a late-19th and early-20th century polemic against the Revised Version and are not responsive to the last century of archaeological discoveries and advances in linguistic and textual scholarship.

Conclusion

The author's bias is evident throughout the retrieved book. He describes the King James Version as "the greatest translation of all time", while at the same time using emotionally charged language to label modern translations as "a corrupt Bible," "counterfeit," and "a perverted text". This language reveals a clear and unscholarly preference for the KJV and a corresponding prejudice against modern translations. The author seems to be operating from a "King James Only" perspective, which posits that the KJV is the only true and accurate English translation of the Bible.

Beyond Versions is a work of theological polemic, not a reliable guide to Bible translation. Its critique of the NIV is based on a presupposed KJV-only ideology, misrepresentation of facts, and a rejection of modern biblical scholarship. A robust defense of modern translations like the NIV can be mounted on the grounds of textual accuracy (using older, better manuscripts), translation philosophy (balancing accuracy with clarity), and scholarly integrity (the work of hundreds of devout Christian scholars across denominations).

Paused for a glass of wine

Calvin on wine/drinking

Calvin wrote: "Certainly ivory and gold, and riches, are the good creatures of God, permitted, nay destined, by divine providence for the use of man; nor was it ever forbidden to laugh, or to be full, or to add new to old and hereditary possessions, or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine.” 

— Institutes, Book III, Chapter 19 (on Christian liberty / the Christian life).

This sentence from John Calvin's Institutes can be understood as a statement about Christian liberty and the goodness of God's creation.

In simple terms, Calvin is saying that God created good things for people to use and enjoy. He is pushing back against the idea that Christians must live a life of extreme self-denial. Instead, he argues that things like:

• Riches (ivory, gold, etc.): These are not inherently evil. They are created by God and are meant to be used by humanity.

• Laughter and enjoyment: It's okay to have fun and be content.

• Having enough to eat: It is not a sin to be "full" and satisfied.

• Acquiring possessions: It's fine to inherit or gain wealth.

• Music: Enjoying music is perfectly acceptable.

• Drinking wine: This is also allowed.

The core message is that God has given people these blessings to use and appreciate. The key is to do so without excess, recognizing them as gifts from a generous Creator. Calvin is making the point that the Bible never prohibits these things, so we should not create new rules that God himself did not establish. He argues that the focus should be on the proper use of these gifts, not on abstaining from them entirely.

Calvin said, “We are nowhere forbidden to laugh, or to be satisfied with food, or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine.” Why not?

You'd better take a break to drink a glass of wine, which you love very much, and then you will resume writing. As a Presbyterian pastor, you follow John Calvin. Do not fight and quarrel, yet you always fight and quarrel. Fighting and quarreling are bad for your health.

Theological and historical scrutiny

We should not interpret scholarly or theological critiques of the doctrines of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), KJV-Onlyism, and a "Perfect" Textus Receptus (TR) as personal attacks. 

Instead, we must recognize that these doctrines are themselves human interpretations (personal views), and, like all interpretations, they must be subject to rigorous examination and testing against the available evidence.

1. Why These Are Called "Personal Views" or "Interpretations"

Proponents of these positions often present them as undeniable, objective facts of faith. However, we correctly identify them as interpretive conclusions for several reasons:

• They Are Not Explicitly Stated in Scripture: The Bible makes claims for its own inspiration (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:16), but it never explicitly promises that its words will be perfectly preserved in a specific manuscript family or a 17th-century English translation. VPP is a deduction or inference that proponents draw from verses about God's Word enduring forever (e.g., Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 5:18). This deduction is an interpretation.

• They Are a Response to Historical Developments: KJV-Onlyism and the defense of a "perfect" TR are largely modern phenomena that arose in reaction to the scholarly field of textual criticism and the discovery of older, more reliable manuscripts (like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) in the 19th century. They are a specific, historically situated interpretation of church history and textual evidence.

• They Involve Selecting and Weighing Evidence: To hold these views, one must interpret the vast field of textual data. This involves prioritizing the Byzantine text-type (used by the majority of later manuscripts) over the often-older Alexandrian text-type. This is a scholarly judgment call, not an incontrovertible fact.

Because they are interpretations, they fall into the category of doctrine or theology that must be tested, not an unquestionable foundation of the faith like the divinity of Christ or salvation by grace.

2. Why They "Must Be Scrutinized"

The call for scrutiny is not an attack but a fundamental principle of sound theology and intellectual honesty (1 Thessalonians 5:21—"Test everything; hold fast what is good"). Here’s why scrutiny is essential:

• Historical and Manuscript Evidence Demands It: There is simply no historical evidence for a "perfect" TR. The printers of the TR itself (Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza) acknowledged that their Greek texts were compiled from a limited number of late medieval manuscripts and contained obvious errors and variations among themselves. Scrutiny reveals these facts.

• The Nature of Textual Transmission Demands It: We have over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts. They contain variations (most minor, like spelling errors). The doctrine of a "perfect" preserved text must explain away this reality. Scrutiny asks, "Which specific manuscript is the perfect one?" The answer is always an evasion—it's the "text underlying the KJV," which is an abstraction, not a physical, perfect manuscript.

• To Avoid Circular Reasoning: The argument often becomes circular: "I believe the TR is perfect because God promised to preserve His Word. I know God promised to preserve His Word because I see it perfectly preserved in the TR." Scrutiny breaks this loop by asking for external, verifiable evidence for the initial premise.

• To Ensure Accurate Doctrine: The goal of scrutiny is not to destroy faith but to strengthen it in truth. If a doctrine is built on a shaky historical foundation, it risks creating a "house of cards" faith that collapses when confronted with evidence. A faith that can engage with evidence is robust.

3. Why We "Should Not Take It Personally"

The critique is aimed at the ideas, not the people who hold them.

• Separating Identity from Ideology: People often intertwine their beliefs with their personal identity and faith. A critique of KJV-Onlyism can feel like a critique of their love for God, their family tradition, or their spiritual journey. The speaker is pleading for separation: "Your worth and faith are not defined by your stance on textual variants."

• The Goal is Truth, Not Victory: Theological and historical scrutiny should be a pursuit of truth, not a personal debate to win. The moment it becomes personal, defensiveness takes over, and learning becomes impossible.

• Acknowledging Sincerity: One can (and should) acknowledge that most adherents to these views are deeply sincere, love God, and reverence the Bible. The critique is not that they are "bad Christians," but that their historical and textual conclusions are, in the critic's view, flawed.

Conclusion

We plead for mature, evidence-based theological engagement. 

• VPP, KJV-Onlyism, and a "perfect" TR are human-derived systems, not self-evident biblical truths.

• As human-derived systems, they are open to—and must undergo—critical examination based on history, manuscript evidence, and logical consistency.

• Our examination is a normative process for all doctrine and should not be construed as a personal attack on the character or faith of those who hold these views.

In short, it encourages moving the discussion from an emotional defense of a personal identity marker to an intellectual evaluation of a historical and textual thesis.

PS: It's a different matter entirely when someone attacks and separates a church!