|
SOLA AUTOGRAPHA OR SOLA APOGRAPHA?
A CASE FOR THE PRESENT PERFECTION AND AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
Dr. Jeffrey Khoo
Dean of Far Eastern Bible College and Seminary
Singapore
B.F.T. #3203
What is the use of having a Bible that was only perfect
in the past, but no longer perfect today? Only the autographs (the
original God-breathed scripts penned by the very hand of the inspired
Apostles and Prophets) may claim infallibility and inerrancy but not the
apographs (the copies of the autographs), so it is popularly taught. This
paper intends to answer the question: Is the view that the Church no
longer has the infallible and inerrant autographs but only fallible and
errant apographs a tenable view?
The Sola Autographa view of infallibility and
inerrancy is generally held today by so-called evangelicals and
fundamentalists. The Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), despite its
name, is mostly populated by neo-evangelicals who deny the total inerrancy
of Scriptures albeit in varying degrees. The recent controversy over Open
Theism in the ETS is a case in point. The ETS definition of inerrancy is
so loose that it allows for all kinds of interpretations with regard to
what inerrancy means. This is due to the ETS belief that inerrancy lies
only in the autographs, "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety,
is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs."
The consensus among evangelical scholars is that the autographs are no
longer in existence. As such, an individual who believes that the Bible
contains mistakes may subscribe to such a statement because it can be
said, "I only believe the Scriptures to be inerrant as originally given; I
do not believe that they are inerrant today since we no longer have the
autographs, the Scriptures as originally given." It goes without saying
that the theological confusion found in evangelical (or neo-evangelical)
Christianity today finds its root-cause in such a denial of Biblical
inerrancy in the apographs.
Regrettably, the Sola Autographa view of
inerrancy is also held by fundamentalist (or neo-fundamentalist) Bible
colleges and seminaries. Two recent books-From the Mind of God to the
Mind of Man and One Bible Only?-authored by men from Bob
Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth)
respectively championed such a position. Apart from the pro-Westcott/Hort
and pro-modern versions stance that they have taken, they also contend
that the Scriptures though verbally and plenarily inspired in the
autographs are not verbally and plenarily preserved in the
apographs. It is their assumption, that since God did not choose to
preserve His inspired words perfectly, there can be no such thing as a
perfect Scripture today. Or if there exists a perfect Scripture, there is
no sure certainty of where it truly is.
In the years 2002-3, the faculty of the Far Eastern
Bible College debated this issue of the present perfection of Scripture
which eventually saw the resignation of two of its members who could no
longer take the Dean Burgon Oath. Having rejected the supernatural
jot-and-tittle preservation of the Holy Scriptures, they could only affirm
biblical infallibility and inerrancy in the autographs, but not the
apographs. Such a false view of Sola Autographa as opposed to
Sola Apographa has caused great confusion and hindrance to the
evangelistic-fundamentalist cause worldwide. It is "Fundamentalism's
Folly" as one Baptist pastor-scholar has so aptly put.
Definition of Infallibility and Inerrancy
According to the Chamber's Dictionary, the word
"infallibility" means "incapable of error," and the word "inerrancy" means
"freedom from error." As such, "infallibility" may be deemed a stronger
term for the perfection of Scripture than the term "inerrancy." If the
Bible by nature is incapable of error, it goes without saying that it must
also be totally free from error.
This paper shall use the terms "infallibility" and
"inerrancy" in their pure dictionary sense.
Infallibility and Inerrancy of the Apographa
The Scripture when it speaks of its inspiration and
preservation and consequent infallibility and inerrancy speaks of it in
terms of its apographs. For instance, when Jesus spoke of the
jot-and-tittle infallibility (or verbal inerrancy) of the Scriptures in
Matthew 5:18, He was referring to the Scriptures that He had in His hands,
which were the apographs of the OT Scripture, and not the autographs which
have since disappeared. The canonical OT which was completed by the 4th
century BC had been preserved exact and intact until the time of Jesus
Christ in AD 27. The Apostle Paul when he spoke of the divinely inspired
Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:16 must have thought of them in terms of the
Scriptures then used by the church (AD 64), which were the apographs, for
the non-existent autographs could hardly have served as a supreme rule of
faith and life that is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be
perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim 3:16-17).
Some say that the Apostle Paul meant the perfect
autographa when he spoke of the God-breathed Scriptures in 2 Timothy
3:16. If that was what Paul meant, then a question may be raised: how can
an intangible and non-existent autographa serve as a supreme and
final authority? An authority must be existing, present and accessible or
else it would be no authority at all. An eye-witness who is already dead
and unable to testify is of no use in a court of law.
Others say that Paul meant the apographa, but
argue that the apographa cannot be deemed as perfect or complete.
If this be the case, then how can an imperfect and an incomplete
apographa serve as an all-sufficient guide for the perfect and
complete equipping of the Christian towards godly living? If an
eye-witness is not of impeccable character, but a compulsive liar, what
good is he? His testimony would be utterly discredited. The same goes with
Scripture. If the Church does not have an infallible and an inerrant
Scripture, and have it today, then her supreme and final authority of
faith and practice is all myth. But it is truthful that the Scripture was,
is, and shall be God's infallible and inerrant Word, and thus supremely
authoritative (Ps 12:6-7, Ps 119:89, Matt 24:35, Heb 13:8).
Not only does the testimony of Scripture itself affirm
the perfection of its apographs, the Reformers of the 16th
century, in their declaration of Sola Scriptura, always thought in
terms of the existing infallible and inerrant apographs rather than the
autographs. The great Puritan divine-John Owen (1616-83)-believed in "the
purity of the present original copies of the Scripture, or rather
copies [apographa] in the original languages, which the Church of
God doth now and hath for many ages enjoyed as her treasure." Francis
Turretin (1623-87)-pastor-theologian of the Church and Academy of
Geneva-wrote in his Systematic Theology, "By original texts, we do not
mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of
the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs
which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in
the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration
of the Holy Spirit."
The Protestant creeds reflected the Reformation
doctrine of the infallibility of the apographa as their Sola
Scriptura. It was not enough to affirm the infallibility and inerrancy
of the autographa in the days of the Reformation for the Roman
Catholic Church challenged Sola Scriptura in the Council of Trent
(1545-63) by pointing out the scribal errors, variants and discrepancies
in the extant Scriptures. The Reformers met this serious challenge by
stating unequivocally that the extant Scriptures were infallible and
inerrant by virtue of God's promise to preserve His words to the last
iota. In response to the Council of Trent, the Westminster Confession of
Faith (1643-8) produced a most excellent statement on the continuing
infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, "The Old Testament in Hebrew ...
and the New Testament in Greek ... being immediately inspired by God, and,
by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are
therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church
is finally to appeal unto them." (I:8). The biblical proof-text cited was
Matthew 5:18, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." In the battle for the
sole and supreme authority of the Scriptures over against the Roman
Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, the doctrine of the special
providential Scripture was eventually and necessarily credalised in the
days of the Protestant Reformation.
Although it is admitted that the Westminster Confession
did not specifically use the terms "infallible" and "inerrant" to describe
the Scriptures, their use of the word "authentic" said just as much. They
did not at all believe that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that they
possessed were in any way imperfect or errant. J S Candlish rightly
observed that the word "authentic" did not mean simply that the Scriptures
were "historically true," but that in a literal sense, the existing
Scripture "is a correct copy of the author's work." William F Orr
puts it more forcefully, "Now this affirms that the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament and the Greek of the New which was known to the Westminster
divines was immediately inspired by God because it was identical
with the first text that God has kept pure in all the ages. The idea
that there are mistakes in the Hebrew Masoretic texts or in the Textus
Receptus of the New Testament was unknown to the authors of the Confession
of Faith."
In the local and present context, the Constitution of
Life Bible-Presbyterian Church (1950), states, "We believe in the divine,
verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original
languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word
of God, the Supreme and final authority in faith and life." This 20th
century statement is in keeping with the ancient Confessions, speaking of
the verbal and plenary inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of "the
Scriptures (i.e., autographs and apographs) in the original
languages (i.e., Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek)," as opposed to the
"original autographs" per se.
Although the above statement is true to the reformed
understanding of Sola Scriptura, the 21st century
contention for the present perfection of Scripture requires a clearer and
stricter statement. True Life Bible-Presbyterian Church (2004) has risen
to the occasion, and offers a more definitive statement in her
Constitution, which reads, "We believe in the divine, Verbal Plenary
Inspiration (Autographs) and Verbal Plenary Preservation (Apographs) of
the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and
infallibility, and as the perfect Word of God, the supreme and final
authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Ps 12:6-7, Matt
5:18, 24:35)."
It is historically quite clear that the Reformation
slogan of Sola Scriptura involved a belief in an existing Hebrew OT
and Greek NT in their respective apographs that were not only fully
inspired but also entirely preserved to their last jot and tittle, and
hence absolutely infallible and totally inerrant. The infallible and
inerrant apographs could legitimately serve as the Protestant Church's
supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and life. It ought to
be noted that the 19th-20th century idea of
infallibility and inerrancy as residing only in the autographs was
utterly foreign to the minds of the 16th-17th
century Reformation saints and scholars.
Perfect Autographs, Errant Apographs, and Textual Criticism
The current evangelical view of "inerrant autographs"
is a relatively new one that began in the 19th century in
conjunction with the introduction of rationalistic textual criticism.
Conservative theologians have long identified textual criticism (or lower
criticism) as a threat to the biblical doctrine of verbal inspiration.
Textual Criticism as introduced by Westcott and Hort
treated the Scriptures like any ordinary literature, and sought by human
reasoning and subjective analysis to judge which part of Scripture is
inspired and which part is not. They touted the highly corrupted Codex
Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus as the new standard text, and rejected the
traditional Textus Receptus as the providentially preserved text.
Their revision of the providentially preserved Textus Receptus saw
them cutting out a total of 9,970 Greek words from it in their newly
edited Greek text of 1881. The Westcott and Hort text deleted such
divinely preserved and time-honoured passages as the Pericope de
adultera (John 7:53-8:11), the last 12 verses of Mark (Mark 16:9-20),
and the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7). Their denial of verbal inspiration
as seen in their rendering of 2 Timothy 3:16 was soundly castigated by
Southern Presbyterian theologian-Robert Dabney-as the work of a Socinian
and a rationalist.
The tragedy in reformed scholarship was in B.
B.Warfield's adoption of the Westcott and Hort textual critical theory and
his redefinition of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy to make it apply
only to the autographs. Warfield's novel concept of Sola Autographa
unfortunately caught on, and became the new paradigm in the textual
critical exercise of reconstructing (or rather deconstructing) the
inspired text. The new paradigm of older, harder, shorter readings as the
inspired reading is based on false rules. Based on such false rules, "A
textual critic engaged upon his business is not at all like Newton
investigating the motions of the planets: he is much more like a dog
hunting for fleas." Indeed!
The uncritical acceptance of Westcott and Hort's false
textual-critical theory by Princeton Seminary, and later evangelical and
fundamental seminaries resulted in the Textus Receptus being
replaced by the United Bible Societies and the Nestle-Aland Critical Texts
as the "commonly received" text in NT studies and modern translations.
Over a hundred modern English versions have been birthed by this mutilated
and corrupted text causing much confusion over the infallibility,
inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures. Where is the Bible? Do
modern textual critics have the answer? They are agnostic!
Who are the textual critics that determine which text
is the inspired text that Christians should use? They are the editors of
the current Critical texts, viz, Aland and Metzger among others who are
modernists. Can we expect them to make spirit-guided decisions with regard
to the text? "Who shall ascend into the hill of LORD? Or who shall stand
in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart" (Ps
24:2-3). Can the Spirit of Truth be pleased to use men devoid of the
Spirit to guide them into all truth concerning His Word of Truth (John
16:13)? Georg Luck of Johns Hopkins University has rightly said, "our
critical texts are no better than our textual critics." Jesus said it
well, "Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the
ditch?" (Luke 6:39). Non-spiritual men have produced a non-spiritual text
that formed the basis of a plethora of liberal, ecumenical and feminist
versions that demote the deity of Christ and deny the veracity of the
Scriptures. Is it no wonder that the mainline denominational churches
today are in such a pathetic state, plagued by rampant apostasy and
immorality?
Fundamentalism's love affair with Westcott and Hort,
the modern versions, and textual criticism is truly a classic case of the
unequal yoke (2 Cor 6:14-7:1). The KJV and its underlying inspired and
preserved Hebrew and Greek texts ought to be the Text of Biblical
Fundamentalism. But today, certain fundamentalists are speaking with a
forked tongue: they pay lip service to the KJV as the "very" (100%) Word
of God, but undermine its very source-the underlying Hebrew Masoretic Text
and Greek Textus Receptus-saying that it is not 100% (with much
deference to Westcott and Hort). It goes without saying that this
partnership of the KJV with the Westcott and Hort Text in the classrooms
of fundamental theological colleges and seminaries is a marriage made in
hell. Is it no wonder that fundamentalism today is dying?
The Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Holy Scriptures
There is a vital need today for true biblical
fundamentalists to resuscitate the indispensable doctrine of the verbal
and plenary preservation (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures, and by so doing,
recapture the Reformation battle-cry of Sola Scriptura as found in
the infallible and inerrant apographa of the traditional Hebrew
Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus on which the venerable
KJV is based.
The 19th century Warfieldian concept of the
inerrant autographa as reflected in contemporary evangelicalism
ought to be expanded to include the infallible apographa. According
to Richard Muller of Calvin Theological Seminary, "The Protestant
scholastics do not press the point made by their nineteenth-century
followers that the infallibility of Scripture and the freedom of Scripture
from error reside absolutely in the autographa, and only in the
derivative sense in the apographa; rather, the scholastics argue
positively that the apographa preserve intact the true words of
the prophets and the apostles and that the God-breathed (theopneustos)
character of Scripture is manifest in the apographa as well as in
the autographa. In other words, the issue primarily addressed by
the seventeenth-century orthodox in their discussion of the autographa
is the continuity of the extant copies in Hebrew and in Greek with the
originals both quoad res, with respect to the thing or subject of
the text, and quoad verba, with respect to the words of the text."
It is quite clear that the Reformation scholars believed in the 100%
inspiration and 100% preservation of the very words of Scripture
that God has breathed out, and not simply the doctrines (2 Tim 3:16, Ps
12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35). Without the words, where the doctrines? It must
be pointed out that the current neo-evangelical and neo-fundamental view
of (1) verbal inspiration and total inerrancy in the autographs per se,
and (2) conceptual inspiredness and limited inerrancy in the apographs
contradicts reformed and fundamental dogmatics.
Myron Houghton of Faith Baptist Seminary was precisely
right when he wrote, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" [2
Timothy 3:16]. Another way of saying this would be, all Scripture is
God-breathed,' or all Scripture comes from the mouth of God.' This means
God is directly responsible for causing the Bible writers to put down
everything that He wanted written without error and without omission. But
what of the Bible I hold in my hand? Is it God's Word? Can it be trusted?
The answer is yes! Both truths-the inspiration and inerrancy of the
original manuscripts and the trustworthiness of the Bible in my hand-must
be acknowledged. To affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of the original
writings while casting doubt on the authority of the Bible that is
available to us is just plain silly. Can you really imagine someone
seriously saying, I have good news and I have bad news: the good news is
that God wanted to give us a message and therefore caused a book to be
written; the bad news is that He didn't possess the power to preserve it
and therefore we don't know what it said!' A view of inspiration without a
corresponding view of preservation is of no value."
Ian Paisley, renowned leader of the World Congress of
Fundamentalists and President of the European Institute of Protestant
Studies, wrote likewise, "The verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures demands
the verbal Preservation of the Scriptures. Those who would deny the need
for verbal Preservation cannot be accepted as being really committed to
verbal Inspiration. If there is no preserved Word of God today then the
work of Divine Revelation and Divine Inspiration has perished."
In the battle for the Bible today, there is a need for
Bible-believing and Bible-defending churches and seminaries to produce
statements of faith that affirm the Scriptures to be verbally and
plenarily preserved in the apographs; that all the Hebrew and Greek words
of the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus underlying the
Reformation Bibles as represented by the Authorised Version are the
verbally and plenarily inspired words of God, and therefore absolutely
infallible, totally inerrant and supremely authoritative.
There is also a need to be specific in the
identification of the preserved text. In his discussion on "How to Combat
Modernism-Follow the Logic of Faith," Edward F Hills warned against a
false view of preservation that says (1) the doctrines are preserved, but
not the words (contra Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33), or (2) the true
reading is preserved somewhere out there in the whole body of extant
manuscripts. Such a general and uncertain view would imply that God was
somehow careless in preserving His inspired words. Hills rightly advised,
"It is not sufficient merely to say that you believe in the
doctrine of the special, providential preservation of the holy Scriptures.
You must really believe this doctrine and allow it to guide your
thinking. You must begin with Christ and the Gospel and proceed according
to the logic of faith. This will lead you to the Traditional text, the
Textus Receptus, and the King James Version."
It is by this same logic of faith applied consistently
that D A Waite concluded that "the WORDS of the Received Greek and
Masoretic Hebrew texts that underlie the KING JAMES BIBLE are the very
WORDS which God has PRESERVED down through the centuries, being the exact
WORDS of the ORIGINALS themselves." (Note that Waite is speaking of the
Hebrew and Greek words underlying the KJV, and not the
English words, nor the KJV per se.)
This is not a new view, but a restatement of an old
truth. By believing in the verbally and plenarily preserved apographs, we
are affirming or reaffirming good old Protestant and Reformation Theology.
It is heartening to note that God's people, filled and guided by the
Spirit, are recognising this vital truth of the verbal and plenary
preservation of the Scriptures, and not a few theological institutions
have already taken a declared position for it.
An example of one such institution is the International
Council of Christian Churches (ICCC). In its 16th World
Congress in Jerusalem, 2000, a statement, "On the Word of God Forever
Inerrant and Infallible," was passed: "The first historic doctrine of the
Christian Church presented in the doctrinal statement of this Council of
churches is its belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the entire
Bible ...
God's Word has been given to us directly from heaven by
the Holy Spirit and Jesus, while He was here, said that the Father had
sent Him and had given Him the words which He had delivered to man. Jesus
was explicit when He said, Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words
shall not pass away.' The penalty pronounced on adding to or taking from
the Scriptures was severe judgement from God Himself. ... It is this Bible
that has brought into existence the ICCC. It is through this Bible that
the Holy Spirit has given the faith to the leaders who have established
this Council and has helped them maintain a sure and clear witness to the
Bible's full truthfulness. It is this Bible and its record of past
prophecies that have been seen to be fulfilled in the smallest
level, and every Word of God is true. ... Nothing that the
archaeologists have discovered and will discover will contradict this
Book. ... This Holy Book is the work of our righteous God in making possible
the only salvation that exists and in bringing men and women through the
preaching of the Word in all its foolishness' into God's everlasting
kingdom. The ICCC reaffirms all the statements carefully and prayerfully
worked out ..., all of which are based squarely on this holy and perfect
record which came from heaven, of which God is the Author and that
indeed is why it is called the Word of God."
The Far Eastern Bible College, in a necessary effort to
preserve her original reformed and fundamentalist ethos, has issued a
statement on the Holy Scriptures that was unanimously passed by her Board
of Directors on December 29, 2003. Article 4 of the College Constitution
reads,
4.1 The Statement of Faith of the College shall be
in accordance with that system commonly called "the Reformed Faith" as
expressed in the Confession of Faith as set forth by the historic
Westminster Assembly together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.
4.2 In abbreviated form, the chief tenets of the doctrine of the
College, apart from the Doctrinal Position Statement of the College,
shall be as follows:
4.2.1 We believe in the divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration
(Autographs) and Verbal Plenary Preservation (Apographs) of the
Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and
infallibility, and as the perfect Word of God, the supreme and final
authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Ps 12:6-7,
Matt 5:18, 24:35).
4.2.1.1 We believe the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New
Testament underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to be the
very Word of God, infallible and inerrant.
4.2.1.2 We uphold the Authorised (King James) Version to be the
Word of God-the best, most faithful, most accurate, most beautiful
translation of the Bible in the English language, and do employ it
alone as our primary scriptural text in the public reading, preaching,
and teaching of the English Bible.
4.2.1.3 The Board of Directors and Faculty shall affirm their
allegiance to the Word of God by taking the Dean Burgon Oath at every
annual convocation: I swear in the Name of the Triune God: Father, Son
and Holy Spirit that I believe "the Bible is none other than the voice
of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter
of it, every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it,
every letter of it, is direct utterance of the Most High. The Bible is
none other than the Word of God, not some part of it more, some part
of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth upon the
throne, faultless, unerring, supreme."
The Burning Bush will continue to publish
articles to defend the present perfection of the original language
Scriptures on which the Authorised Version is based. Bible-believing
and Bible-defending pastors and scholars do not hide from alleged
"discrepancies" in the Bible. In future issues, we shall endeavour to
glorify God and edify His saints by explaining these difficult
passages according to a faith-based, thoroughly reformed,
theological-presuppositional approach to the Scriptures-the apographa we possess today contain no mistakes whatsoever!
It is enough just now to close with the words of
Dean Burgon: "I hear some one say,-It seems to trouble you very
much that inspired writers should be thought capable of making
mistakes; but it does not trouble me.-Very like not. It does not
trouble you, perhaps, to see stone after stone, buttress after
buttress, foundation after foundation, removed from the walls of Zion,
until the whole structure trembles and totters, and is pronounced
insecure. Your boasted unconcern is very little to the purpose, unless
we may also know how dear to you the safety of Zion is. But if you
make indignant answer,-(as would heaven you may!)-that your care for
GOD's honour, your jealousy for GOD's oracles, is every whit as great
as our own,-then we tell you that, on your wretched
promises, men more logical than yourself will make shipwreck of their
peace, and endanger their very souls. There is no stopping,-no knowing
where to stop,-in this downward course. Once admit the principle of
fallibility into the inspired Word, and the whole becomes a bruised
and rotten reed. If St. Paul a little, why not St. Paul much? If Moses
in some places, why not in many? You will doubt our LORD's
infallibility next! ... It might not trouble you, to find your
own familiar friend telling you a lie, every now and then: but I trust
this whole congregation will share the preacher's infirmity, while he
confesses that it would trouble him so exceedingly that after
one established falsehood, he would feel unable ever to trust that
friend implicitly again.
"... But I believe that the Bible is the Word of
GOD-and I believe that GOD's Word must be absolutely infallible. I
shall therefore believe the Bible to be absolutely infallible,-until I
am convinced to the contrary."
"No, Sirs! The Bible (be persuaded) is the very
utterance of the Eternal;-as much GOD's Word, as if high Heaven were
open, and we heard GOD speaking to us with human voice ... [T]he Bible,
from the Alpha to the Omega of it, is filled to overflowing with the
Holy Spirit of GOD: the Books of it, and the sentences of it, and the
words of it, and the syllables of it,-aye, and the very letters of
it." Amen and Amen!
"Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the
faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every
one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart
do they speak. The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the
tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said, With our tongue will
we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? For the
oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I
arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth
at him. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a
furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked
walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted" (Ps 12).
"Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom
3:4). Soli Deo Gloria!
B.F.T. #3203
|
