GOD’S HOLY FIRE IIIn my initial article reviewing God’s Holy Fire, the second volume in the Heart of the Restoration Series put out by Abilene Christian University, I stated that it attacks the Bible. The authors, Kenneth L. Cukrowski, Mark W. Hamilton, and James W. Thompson, are modernists. J. D. Bales defined modernism as “the rejection in varying degrees of the inspiration of the Scriptures in order to harmonize the Bible with some aspect of what is assumed to be modern thought.” ( Modernism – Trojan Horse in the Church, p. 23). I intend to show that these men are rejecting the Bible’s teaching on inspiration. Like Abilene Christian, they cannot be trusted to handle aright the word of truth. In discussing the inspiration of the Bible the authors say, “The Biblical writers consulted sources before writing.” (p.35). They refer to Bible references of the Book of Jasher (Josh 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18) as if that proves the writers did research before they wrote. But do these brethren think that the Holy Spirit did not know what was in the Book of Jasher? Paul quoted the poets and the Cretians, but that does not prove that he was not inspired by the Holy Spirit to quote them (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12). If the Holy Spirit could have the apostles and prophets quote the Old Testament, he could also just as easily have them refer to an uninspired work. Peter wrote, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:20-21). The truth did not originate with these Old Testament writers (or the New Testament writers for that matter). It originated with God. They were borne or carried along by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture. They did not gather the facts, organize them, and write them down. They were directed by the Holy Spirit to write. This does not discount the various styles of writing. The Holy Spirit used the vocabularies of the men from various walks of life to write the Bible. The Abilene professors under the same italic statement, write, “Some of the material in 1 and 2 Kings was drawn from the ‘Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel ( 1 Kings 15:31; 16:20; 2 Kings 10:34; 13:8).” But the verses do not teach that the writer or writers of the Kings was quoting from the Chronicles. The verses cited all say that the rest of the acts of a certain king were written in the book of the chronicles of the Kings of Israel. If I were writing a biography on a person and suggested that other details about this person’s life could be found in another source, that does not necessarily mean that I consulted the source before I began to write. Again, the Holy Spirit, who guided the writers of the Old Testament, could refer to another inspired work in the Old Testament just as he guided the apostles and prophets of the New Testament to allude to or quote from the Old Testament. The three professors say, “Ezra consulted Persian archives (Ezra 7:1-26).” Take the time and read the reference that they have cited. There is not one scintilla of proof that Ezra consulted the archives in Persia before he by inspiration wrote the book that bears his name. He quoted the letter from the king Artaxerxes, but it was his letter. But even if he did not pull it from his own “files,” so to speak, the Holy Spirit guided Ezra to write a copy of it. If the Holy Spirit could (and did) bring all things to the remembrance of the apostles concerning what Jesus had said (John 14:26), could not the Holy Spirit cause Ezra to remember every word of the letter from Artaxerxes? Absolutely!
Cukrowski, Hamilton and Thompson quote Luke’s opening words in his
record from the New International Version, which reads: 1:1 Many
have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled
among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first
were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have
carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to
me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that
you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
(Luke 1:1-4) This is an erroneous translation of the first four verses of Luke’s account. It teaches that Luke had to do research before he wrote the book. But there is nothing in the Greek that supports the rendering that Luke “carefully investigated everything from the beginning.” This is a denial of the inspiration of the book. The King James Version faithfully translates these verses this way: 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. There is a world of difference between saying “having carefully investigated everything from the beginning” and “having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first.” A faithful translation would not teach that Luke’s book was based on research, the impression that Luke’s book was based on research, but that it was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. His “perfect understanding of all things from the very first” reflects the inspiration of his work. Foy E. Wallace rightfully attacked the NIV’s rendering of Luke’s opening words by saying: The inspired preamble to Luke is scrambled by substituted terms and phrases inferior to Luke’s language, replacing such significant scriptural phraseology as “those things which are most surely believed among us” and “having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,” with parlance void of the same meaning, lacking literary excellence, perversive of the inspired teaching, and virtually nullifying the inspiration of Luke, making him no more than an investigative writer, thus rendering his “perfect understanding,” - his own claim of eyewitness inspired knowledge “of all things from the very first” – null and void. (AN
EVALUATION OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION,
p. 27. ) | ||||||||