Dear Brother Whitelaw:

B. You point out that "there are large numerical discrepancies

You add, "The New Testament English versions, (esp. the King James Version) contain Latinisms, transliterations (like ‘baptism’ and ‘deacon’, etc.), and words like ‘Easter’ (Acts), kept there to avoid offending Catholic King James. These we should have the courage to purge."

First, as to First, as to "large numerical discrepancies"—On many occasions I have been faced with problems I could not immediately explain, but I have never seen one that could not be reasonably answered after consulting with Dr. Gill, or with Matthew Henry, or with a godly pastor in whom I know the Spirit of God dwells. So-called "errors" are most often found in the Bible by people who look for problems, but who are not much interested in finding solutions.

Second, I have addressed the nature of Inerrancy on p. 6,9

(God Hath Spoken.) 1.) The doctrine of the Inerrancy of Scripture does not refer to typographical errors, but means instead that Scripture is without error in doctrine and in truth. Even in the shoddy workmanship of a printer, the sense of Scripture is understood. 2.) Neither do transliterations change the doctrine of God’s Word. And, 3.) Neither does the presence of words such as "Easter" make the Bible errant.

Without a doubt, the word "Easter" was used 1.) because Easter has been observed by Christians since the time of the Apostles. (See: Richard Baker, A Summary of Christian History. Broadman Press, 1959,p. 49) And 2.) because Christians do not observe the Passover, but identify with Easter with the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and which occurs at the time of the Jewish Passover.

C. You said, 1.) "Nowhere does the Bible (originals) provide us with a God-given "Table of Contents" or internal statement like ‘This book belongs in the canon’ –not even titles, authors, chapters, verses or date of writing. Nor did there ever exist either in apostolic days, or in Augustine’s day, -not even at the Reformation, -complete agreement on the canon, until mass production printing practically froze it as a subject not to be questioned.

Then you add, 2.) "You surely know (but not in your book) that the ‘canon’ of the Old Testament (and its preferred text) was fixed by the Masoretes at Jamnia about 75 A.D. -men who hated with a passion both Christ and the spread of the Gospel via the LXX (the Septuagint) and therefore chose those Old Testament readings least supportive of the Messianic prophecy that Paul, and Peter, and Jesus Himself used."

First, It is true that the chapters, verses, dates, and titles were added to aid us in understanding, and that they are not part of the inspired text of Scripture.

It is also true no "Table of Contents has been given to men as to which books belong in the canon of Scripture. This belongs to the subject of canonicity, and to the means used to determine which books belong in the Bible. The subject of canonicity is handled on pp. 54-55 (God hath Spoken). It is vital to remember that contrary to Roman Catholic teaching, the canon of Scripture was not determined by the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.), or by that held in Hippo in 419. Instead, the councils only confirmed which books believers had recognized to be divinely inspired.

You state correctly that neither in the days of the apostles, nor those of Augustine, nor those of the Reformers was there complete agreement as to which books belonged in the canon. As Thomas Watson aptly stated, "The best of men are only men at best," and as Flavel observed, "The best of men have feet of clay." So Luther believed the book of James was a recent fabrication of the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, the books of the Bible as we have them today were listed by Athanasius in the 4^th century.

It is worthy of note that some good men wrestled over the inclusion of the Apocrypha. However, the Jews never accepted the spurious writings, and Jesus Himself never quoted from them.

Second, your statement regarding the Masoretes and the Masoretic Text causes me particular concern, for if the Masoretes were such a conspiring lot, and if the Masoretic text is so prejudicial to the truth of God we cannot trust anything they have written. Under each word there might be a scorpion poised to poison our understanding --unless of course we believe the promise of God that He would preserve His Word for ever. (Ps. 12:6,7) TO BE CONTINUED...

Why not send for a copy of God hath Spoken. $6 Ppd.

1.Within Thy Tabernacle, Lord,

Who shall abide with Thee?

And in Thy high and holy hill

Who shall a dweller be?

2. That man that walketh uprightly,

And worketh righteousness,

And as he thinketh in his heart,

So doth he truth express.

Nor to his friend doth hurt;

Nor yet against his neighbor doth

Take up an ill report.

4. His coin puts not to usury,

Nor take reward will he

Against the guiltless. Who doth thus

Shall never moved be.

Text: Romans 11:1-36. The Apostle Paul declared "...Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that THEY WHICH ARE OF FAITH, THE SAME ARE THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM." (Gal. 3:6,7)

The children of Abraham do not belong to one nation, for Abraham is the "Father" of all them who believe. (Rom. 4:16) Neither are people the children of Abraham by birth. The blessing of Abraham came upon Gentiles in fulfillment of all that the prophets testified, and for this reason the Apostle concludes the 3rd chapter of Galatians by saying, "And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." (29) The children of faith are the children of promise.

A proper understanding of the identity of the Jews is critical and for lack of it some of the most familiar names in fundamentalism have asserted that God has two plans of salvation --one for the Gentile, which is by grace; and one for the Jew, which is by works.

In his Systematic Theology, Vol. IV, pp. 248-249, Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary says of the difference between Judaism and Christianity, "Each sets up its ground of relationship between God and man --the Jew by physical birth, the Christian by spiritual birth ...Each has its sphere of existence --Israel in the earth for all ages to come, the Church in heaven."

This is doctrinal heresy because God has but one way by which men are saved: all men under heaven including Jews must lay hold on Christ or be damned. (Acts 4:12) Secondly, the Bible says that Elijah "went by a whirlwind to Heaven." Such doctrinal aberrations were a great embarrassment to Dallas Theological Seminary, so Mr. Chafer’s Theology has been seriously edited.

Some men have averred that the Church is only a parenthesis in God’s plan of redemption, and that God is primarily interested in the Jews. The Apostle Paul says, "Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it," and that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. (Eph. 5:25; Gal. 3:28) Nevertheless, in his book The Rapture Question, John Walvoord writes, "Generally speaking, however, those who distinguish clearly between the Church and Israel have recognized the present age as an unexpected and unpredicted parenthesis as far as Old Testament prophecy is concerned." (6th--Printing, Copyright 1971, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, pp. 23-24)

The great majority of present-day Jews profess to be agnostics or are outright atheists. They remain as adamantly opposed to the preaching of the Gospel as they were in the days of the apostles. These are not the people of God, but as Paul himself testified, they are "broken off" the vine because of unbelief. (Rom. 11:20) It is an absurd perversion of Biblical hermeneutics to call the Jews "God’s chosen people." It is embarrassing, as it is sad that the popular teaching among evangelicals contradicts these words left us by the Holy Spirit and enunciated by the Apostle Paul: "they which are of faith are the children of Abraham." Abraham is the father of the faithful.

There is no denying the fact that God chose the nation of Israel as the place to fix His name and worship in the earth. He did not set His love upon them nor choose them because they were more numerous than other people, for in fact they were the fewest among all the nations; but He chose Israel because "the Lord loved" her. (Deut. 7:7,8) God gave His Law to the Jews that mankind might receive it from their hand. The prophets of old were Jews, and the Son of God, according to the flesh, was a Jew. The first members of the New Testament Church were Jews. (See: Eph. 2:11-17) However, it is not the Jews because they are Jews who are God’s chosen people, but that designation properly belongs to believers and to them only.

In Christ, there is no longer a distinction made between "Jew" and "Gentile", but the same Lord over all is rich unto such as call upon Him. (Gal. 3:28,29) The middle wall of partition has been abolished, even the "enmity" or "hostility" between us. (Eph. 2:15,16)

The word "race" is only found in the Bible with reference to a foot race. The concept of "race" as a division among the sons of men is an evolutionary term designed to prove one "race" superior to another.

The late Sheldon Emry, former pastor of the Lord’s Covenant Church in Phoenix, Arizona, taught that "Jews are not Israelites." He said, "No Jew is a Judean", and taught instead that the white "race", i.e. the people who are of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, or German stock are the Israelites of the Bible. Such teaching forms the theological crux of the "Identity Church."

This position is not new for it was espoused by the late Herbert W. Armstrong, and he espoused it from the British Israelites. Please note, however, that in the Bible, Israel apostatized from the faith and went into captivity 136 years before Judah. It is therefore ironic these people want to be identified as "Israel."

Note again, that the Israel of the Bible was composed of 12 tribes. It seems rather doubtful these people have gotten that far into their study of God’s Word since none has to my knowledge ever attempted to identify the tribe to which tribe they belong!

In his 1828 Dictionary, Noah Webster declares the word "Jew" is "a contraction of Judah" and identifies a Jew as "a Hebrew, or Israelite." It is a great tragedy that among the white supremacists there is a hatred for the Jews and a general disdain for the Bible. Many have no more fear of God than to transform themselves into "ministers" of the Gospel although God has not called them. Their purpose is simply to establish churches to serve as tax shelters, and to promote their own ideas.

Next Month: Paul-- An Israelite, a Benjamite, a Hebrew, a Jew.

_________________________________

CORRECTION! In the last edition, I carelessly stated that Bro. Whitelaw said "Paul cited consistently against the Majority Text" but it should have read "the Masoretic Text." The error occurred because both texts are abbreviated "MT." I apologize.

FRIENDS --The latest on our situation is that my Selectric II typewriter has been in the shop 6 times in the past 3 months. My computer woes may be answered if I could locate a WORD PERFECT 4.1, but with 40 letters on my desk, I am having difficulty in keeping up with correspondence. Pray for us.