BiblicalInsights.net

Lydia McGrew has revived an old apologetic for the veracity of God’s Word. In her book, Hidden in Plain View, she references forty-seven undesigned coincidences in the New Testament that form a powerful argument for the integrity and veracity of the Scriptures.  She defines an undesigned coincidence in the following way:  “An undesigned coincidence is a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn’t seem to have been planned by the person or people giving the accounts.  Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle” (12).  McGrew acknowledges that she is building on the shoulders of others who have made this argument in defense of the truthfulness of God’s Word.  She references: William Paley, Horae Paulinae; John Blunt, Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings Both of the Old and New Testament, an Argument for Their Veracity; J. S. Howson, Horae Petrinae and The Evidential Value of the Acts of the Apostles; and T. R. Birks, Horae Apostolicae. I have written a brief review of this book and posted it on my Book Reviews page.  A good Bible student needs to be aware of this powerful argument for the integrity and veracity of God’s Word.

Wayne Jackson wrote an article for the Christian Courier titled, “The Assault Upon Mark 16:16” (online: www.christiancourier.com). In this article, bro. Jackson defends the authenticity of Mark 16:16.  Sometimes individuals remark that if we lost Mark 16:16 (it was not deemed authentic) then, it wouldn’t matter because everything taught in Mark 16:16 is found in other places in the New Testament.  Upon closer examination of this concept, it proves false.  Consider the following aspects of this important, authentic, passage of Scripture.
Its Simplicity.
The passages expresses in the simplest terms the requirements for salvation.  This simple truth needs to be understood by every single person who desires to be saved and go to heaven.  Jesus makes it clear that both belief and baptism are essential for salvation.  Read Mark 16:16 and see for yourself how easy it is to understand.
Its Authority.
The words in the passage are from the lips of Jesus Christ.  Jesus is Lord of lords and King of kings.  His authority is preeminent and unassailable.  Jesus said that His words would not pass away (Matt. 24:35) and that His words would judge us in the last day (John 12:48).  Who could affirm that the words of Jesus are unimportant and if lost would not be significant?
Its Lexical Import
This passage of Scripture is the only verse in the Bible where Jesus connects the words baptism and salvation in such a way as to affirm the essential nature of baptism.  If faith is essential for salvation, then, baptism is also essential.  Many deny that baptism is essential for salvation.  They contradict the plain words of Jesus. Faith is “taking God at His word.”  It is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen (Heb. 11:1).  Faith is trust in God.  We must believe that God is (Heb. 11:6) and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (John 8:24).  Baptism is an immersion in water for the remission of sins (John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38).  The purpose of baptism secures its role in our salvation.  We cannot be saved without the forgiveness of our sins.
Its Grammatical Construction
Mark 16:16 is the only passage in the New Testament where the words believe, baptism and salvation are syntactically connected in such a way as to show conclusively that baptism precedes salvation and does not follow salvation.  The words believeth and is baptized are aorist participles.  The words shall be saved constitute the main verb in the sentence.  The aorist participle indicates action that is completed before the action of the main verb (Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 230).  This shows that baptism precedes salvation.  Both faith and baptism preceded salvation.  This is why Peter commanded the multitudes on the day of Pentecost to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (by His authority) for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38).
Its Textual Authenticity
Mark 16:16 can successfully be defended in regards to its authenticity.  Bro. Jackson mentions several individuals who have shown the evidence for the authenticity of the passage:  Scrivener, Burgon, McGarvey, and Lenski. I might add Maurice Robinson and Dave Miller in Reason and Revelation (http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704).  The works of these men are readily available to the reader.  Since the gospel of Mark is part of the history of the life of Christ and we are forbidden to preach any other gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), let us uphold this passage as part of the holy Scriptures that are able to make us wise unto salvation (II Tim. 3:15-16).
Its Historical Significance In Apologetics
Alexander Campbell used Mark 16:16 in his debate with W. L. McCalla in 1823.  In this debate, held Oct. 15, 1823, Alexander Campbell affirmed “immersion for the remission of sins.”  Douglas Foster remarks that this is “the most explicit statement he had ever made in public” on this topic.  Campbell declared, “The Lord saith, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” He does not say, he that believeth and keeps my commands, shall be saved: but he saith he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.  He places baptism on the right hand of faith.  Again, he tells Nicodemus, that “except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” — Peter on the day of Pentecost, places baptism in the same “exalted place”–“Repent,” says he, “and be baptized every one of you, FOR the remission of sins.” –Ananias saith to Paul “arise and be baptized and WASH AWAY your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord.” –Paul saith of the Corinthians, “Ye were once fornicators, idolators, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, rioters, extortioners, but ye were WASHED in the name of the Lord Jesus,” doubtless referring to their baptism. He tells Titus, God our Savior saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. See again its dignified importance! Peter finishes the grand climax, in praise of baptism–“Baptism doth also now save us, by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.” I have thus, in the naked import of those testimonies, shown, that it is of vast import, of glorious design” (quoted by Douglas Foster in A Life of Alexander Campbell, 71-72).   Alexander Campbell included Mark 16:16 in the Living Oracles (a translation he was instrumental in producing in 1826) even though it was based primarily on the Greek text of Greisbach who, in the second edition of his Greek text (1806), omitted it.
Thomas Warren defended and used Mark 16:16 in his public debate with L. S. Ballard.  In this debate (held July 23-26, 1952), Warren defended Mark 16:16 with the Washingtonian Manuscript housed at the Freer Gallery in Washington D.C.  The Washingtonian manuscript is a fourth century manuscript and so matches, in age, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts that are used to assault the authenticity of Mark 16:16. It contains the verses in dispute and is part of the overall evidence for the defense of these passages.
Garland Elkins used Mark 16:16 in a public debate with Bob Ross that was held in Parkersburg, WV (April, 1979).  Elkins made the grammatical argument on Mark 16:16 noted above about the aorist participles.  This proved an effective means of conveying the truth that baptism is essential for salvation.  These are just a few examples of how Mark 16:16 has been used in public debate to defend the truth about baptism.  It is an apologetic passage of Scripture that refutes the doctrine of faith only.
These observations on Mark 16:16 show that it is a unique passage of Scripture, spoken by the Lord, an authentic passage that has merit as an apologetic against false doctrine.  The loss of this passage would be significant.  Yet, many of the modern translations in use today either omit the passage or cast doubt upon its authenticity.  Perhaps we should reconsider which translation is truly upholding God’s Word in the English language.

The first systematic theology in America to be written from a liberal point of view was published in 1898 by William Newton Clark (1840-1912) and entitled, An Outline of Christian Theology.  Clark’s life illustrates the shift from one biblical view to another.  He was the son of a Baptist minister.  He grew up respecting the Bible.  Studies at Hamilton Theological Seminary confirmed his convictions that the Bible was the inspired Word of God and incapable of error.  He graduated in 1863 and entered the ministry.  He spent 27 years in ministry.  Early in his ministry, his views remained constant until he moved to Newton Center, MA in 1869.  Contact with liberal faculty members at Newton Theological Seminary convinced him that the Bible was not verbally inspired.
In 1880, Clark transferred to Toronto and began reading biblical criticism.  He did not resist the conclusions of higher criticism.  In 1890, he left the ministry and became professor of theology at Colgate Theological Seminary and in 1898, he wrote his systematic theology.  A summary of his views follows.
First, he affirms that textual criticism confirms our general confidence in Scripture, but slays our hope of absolute perfection.  The Bible is not inerrant (p. 107).
Second, he affirms that inspiration is not verbal, nor revelation propositional (p. 107).
Third, he states that God had inspired ideas, principles, and concepts but not words.
Fourth, he argued that the proof-text was inextricably tied to the doctrine of inerrancy (p. 107).
Fifth, he believed that the Scriptures were a very human book, complete with errors of every kind, through which God, nonetheless, still spoke (p. 108).  (The Bible in America, Nathan O. Hatch, Mark A. Noll, “Fundamentalist Use of the Bible,” by Timothy P. Weber, pp. 101-120).
Some observations concerning the above material are in order.
First, if we do not have an inerrant Bible, we do not have the truth of God’s Word today!  This is an important fact.  Inerrancy is equivalent to truthfulness.  If the Bible is full of errors, then it is unreliable and untrustworthy.  Why believe a book that isn’t true?
Second, Clark affirms that textual criticism has destroyed the doctrine of inerrancy.  The correlation between textual criticism and the veracity of scripture is important.  Who can deny that textual criticism has eroded confidence in the veracity of Scripture?  What is textual criticism?  Basically, textual criticism is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with finding and removing errors in the texts of manuscripts.  J. Keith Elliott represents the thinking of theological liberals today.  He states, “The sooner that the language of inerrancy is dropped in the context of textual criticism the better it will be for scholarship” (Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, ed. by David Alan Black, pp. 100-101). Elliott is professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the University of Leeds.  What is the consequence of such thinking?  The Bible is a human work, not inspired of God, not inerrant.  If this is the case, how could we say that it is the word of life? (John 6:63).  Inspiration and inerrancy have a connection to salvation.  John 17:17, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
Third, not only is salvation at stake in this discussion, but so is preaching.  Why preach from a Bible full of errors?  How could preaching a Bible that is not true establish faith in God in the hearts of men?  see Rom. 10:11-17.  Preaching would be in vain.
Fourth, not only would salvation and preaching be in vain, but we could not confidently claim true religion.  True religion is based upon the sure Word of God.  Destroy God’s Word and you have no foundation for true religion.  The Great Commission confirms this.  Disciples of Jesus Christ are made by teaching and preaching the Gospel (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16).  If we do not have a true Gospel, then, we cannot be confident that we are making true disciples of Jesus Christ.  The Gospel, the Word of God and the truth are all synonymous terms.
The doctrines of liberal theologians would destroy Christianity.

     John J. Blunt wrote a book titled, Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings of Both the Old and New Testament, in which he defends the veracity of the Scriptures by giving examples of consistency without design.  He uses internal evidences to show that the writers of the books of the Bible truthfully represent the natural historical events and the miraculous and prophetic events of the Scriptures.  I am hoping to revive this work as a part of the apologetic for the veracity of the Word of God.  My copy was written in 1891.  However, the book has been reprinted and is available through several websites that sell books.  I have written a review of this book and posted it under Book Reviews on my blog.  Please take a moment and read this review.  I hope you find the examples as intriguing as I did!

     As a follow-up to the previous blog, I wanted to give you some information from the book Already Gone written by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer.  A survey of 1,000 20-somethings who regularly attended church as children and teens, were asked, “Did you often attend Sunday School?”  In reply, 61 percent said yes; and 39 percent said no.  The survey found that “Sunday school is actually more likely to be detrimental to the spiritual and moral health of our children” (p. 38).  Children who regularly attend Sunday School are actually:
     1.  More likely NOT to believe that all the accounts/stories in the Bible are true/accurate.
     2.  More likely to doubt the Bible because it was written by men.
     3.  More likely to doubt the Bible because it was not translated correctly.
    4.  More likely to defend premarital sex.
     5.  More likely to defend that abortion should continue to be legal.
     6.  More likely to accept that gay marriage should be legal.
     7.  More likely to believe that God used evolution to change one kind of animal into another.
     8.  More likely NOT to believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
     9.  More likely to question the Bible because they believe the earth is not less than 10,000 years old.
    10.  More likely to doubt the Bible because of secular dates of billions of years for the age of the earth.
    11.  More likely to have heard a minister/Sunday school teacher teach Christians could believe in millions/billions of years.
    12.  More likely to question the earth is young and the days of creation are 24 hours each.
    13.  More likely to believe that dinosaurs died out before people were on the planet.
    14.  More likely to view the Church as hypocritical.
    15.  More likely to have become anti-church through the years.
    16.  More likely to believe that good people don’t need to go to church.    (see p. 39 of Already Gone)
     Belief in the Bible as the Word of God is diminshing among many young people, even those who have attended Bible classes or Sunday School.  These young people are rejecting the historical accuracy of the Bible.  They are rejecting the inspiration and authority of the Word of God.  Why?  Secular humanism (denial of God and His Word) and postmodernism (rejection of an objective standard of truth) have taken their toll on the faith of many children.  What they are taught in the classrooms of our schools is slowly winning out over what they are taught in Bible classes. 
     What can we do about this situation?  Spiritual leaders must continue to teach and to defend the Word of God.  We must be able to prove the case for the inspiration and authority of God’s Word.  Bible classes must not only teach the content of Scripture, but must also provide evidence for the veracity of Scripture.  Bible classes must not be “play time” and “chat times.”  They need to be rooted and grounded in Scripture with an emphasis on the evidences that show Scripture to be valid and believable.

     The inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the Scriptures are vital topics to the Bible student.  Many have given up on the doctrine of inerrancy which affirms that the Scriptures are without error and thus present the truth of God to man.  Some scholars affirm that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant in the original autographs, but hesitate to comment on the apographs (copies of the original documents and translations of the copies).  With regard to the original documents of the New Testament books (27 in all), we do not possess any of the original manuscripts.  We have copies of those manuscripts and we have translations of those copies in various languages of men today.  The question before us is this:  “Are the Apographs Inspired?”  I would like for you to consider the following thoughts.
     First, Jesus referred to a copy of the book of Isaiah as Scripture.  In Luke 4:16-21, Jesus is in a synagogue in Nazareth on the sabbath day.  He was given a scroll of the book of Isaiah (v. 17).  Was this the original autograph of the book of Isaiah?  Or, was it an apograph?  Most scholars believe that the original OT autographs were not in existence in Jesus’ day.  Also, Moses was read in every synagogue on the sabbath day and consequently many copies of the Old Testament scrolls must have been in existence.  Jesus is reading from a copy of the book of Isaiah.  What is His attitude toward that copy?  In v. 21, Luke records, “And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”  Jesus referred to an apograph as Scripture. 
     Second, in Acts 8, the evangelist Philip joins himself to a chariot with a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who was riding in it.  The eunuch was reading from the book of Isaiah.  Was this an original autograph of this Old Testament book or a copy of it?  It was a copy of the book of Isaiah.  Luke, the author of Acts, does not hesitate to call this apograph, Scripture.  In Acts 8:32, God says, “The place of the scripture which he read was this…”   The word Scripture is found 52 times in the New Testament and it always refers to a divinely inspired document and never to a secular document.  Isn’t this proof that the apographs (copies of the original documents) are inspired? 
     Third, I am currently involved in a study of the Old Testament quotations in the Gospel of John.  There are fourteen specific quotations in John’s Gospel that are recognized as quotations while there are as many as 79 allusions to the Old Testament in this Gospel.  Three of the fourteen quotations are from the Septuagint transation.  The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made approximately 250 B. C.  The three passages are: 1:23, 12:38, and 12:40 (see The Greek New Testament, UBS, 3rd ed. p. 899).  John, an apostle, wrote this Gospel account and used these passages from the Septuagint authoritatively to prove his thesis: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (John 20:30,31).  Here is an inspired apostle, using a translation in an authoritative manner to prove the identity of Jesus Christ.  He could not do this, if the translation is not recognized as the Word of God.
     I offer the above information as proof that apographs (where accurately made) are the inspired Word of God.  To say otherwise would mean that we do not have the Word of God today.  Many are affirming this very point.  However, I believe that we have the Word of God today and that we have it in accurate and faithful translations whether English or otherwise.  How could we fulfill the Great Commission if we didn’t?  Consider Rev. 14:6, “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.”  How can you proclaim the everlasting gospel to every tongue (language) without translation of the Word of God into the different languages of men?  Either we have the truth or we are all lost and without hope.  I believe that we have the truth of God’s Word today!