A Conservative Introduction To Biblical Transmission And Textual Criticism

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Bible documents the creation of the world, fall of man, God calling Israel to be His people, His plan of redemption, and the means by which we are saved from our sins. It records the rise and fall of various empires. The Bible was written over a period of 1,600 years by approximately 40 authors.

          -The Bible is not really a single book, but a miniature library comprised of dozens of books. It contains historical narrative as well as poetry. It records mighty acts of God. It highlights His relationship to creation, with a special emphasis on mankind.
          -The term "canon" is defined as standard or rule of faith. The Greek term means a rule or measuring stick. Therefore, the collection of books which make up the Bible is to function as the spiritual standard of discernment for the Christian church. 

          -The historic Christian position in regards to the Bible is that it is inspired revelation from God. The Bible proclaims itself to be a product of divine inspiration (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16). It contains both human and divine fingerprints.

• On The Formation Of The Old Testament Canon:

          -The formation of the Old Testament canon began when God inscribed the Ten Commandments on two stone tablets. Following this, God commanded Moses to write down the laws to guide the Israelites on how they should live. These early efforts at standardization laid the foundation for the canonization process, which spanned several centuries and was influenced by significant historical events. Despite the lengthy and involved process, most of the books in the Old Testament were widely accepted and not seriously questioned by the majority of Jewish communities. The canonization was ultimately seen as a divinely guided process, preserving the inspired and authoritative texts for future generations.
          -The Jewish Scriptures are organized into the foundational divisions of the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Nevi'im), and referenced as such in Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:29-31. This division emphasizes the foundational nature of the Law and the guiding role of the Prophets. Further, the threefold division of the Law, Prophets, and the Psalms signifies the complete Hebrew Old Testament canon (Luke 24:44).Within this framework, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (not cited in the New Testament) have consistently been part of the historical texts, and Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon (not cited in the New Testament) are solidly classified under poetic writings. This traditional and recognized categorization questions the inclusion of the apocryphal books, which do not share the same established status by the Jews.

          -"On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. ‘These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed." (https://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf)

          -"No longer are there compelling reasons to assume that the history of the canon must have commenced very late in Israel’s history, as was once accepted. The emergence in Mesopotamia, already in the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE, of a standardized body of literature arranged in a more or less fixed order and with some kind of official text, expresses the notion of a canon in its secular sense…The Old Testament as it has come down in Greek translation from the Jews of Alexandria via the Christian Church differs in many respects from the Hebrew Scriptures…It should be noted that the contents and form of the inferred original Alexandrian Jewish canon cannot be ascertained with certainty because all extant Greek Bibles are of Christian origin." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Old-Testament-canon-texts-and-versions#ref597311)

• Divine Silence And Canonical Controversy, Analyzing The Book Of Esther's Absence Of God's Name:

          -One reason that the authenticity of the Book of Esther has been challenged is that it nowhere mentions the name of God. However, we see in the narrative the workings of divine providence, which reverses certain destruction of the Jewish people. Further, the writer may have left out the name of God to convey his own belief that the Jews who did not return to Israel from Persia were severed from covenant blessings. It would be a way of saying that God was not present amongst the exiles. The author may have written in such a way to help foreigners in Persia understand the reasoning behind the Jews observing Purim. He would narrow in on details of the king and write about the Jews without any tone of emotional involvement or interest. That could account for the Book of Esther not mentioning God. There even could have been fears of offending Persians who worshiped other gods, so His name was not mentioned in the narrative.

          -Esther's absence from the Dead Sea Scrolls has also led some to question the authenticity of the text. However, it remains a vital part of Jewish and Christian tradition due to its compelling narrative and theological depth. Its omission could be due to the scrolls' incomplete survival or the specific collection of texts at Qumran, not necessarily a reflection of its authenticity. Esther's themes of courage, divine providence, and the establishment of Purim resonate strongly within the broader scriptural context. The enduring acceptance of Esther in the canon underscores its lasting significance and value in religious history.

• Primary Ancient Witnesses Consulted In Reconstructing And Verifying The Text Of The Old Testament:

          -The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered between 1946 and 1956 near Wadi Qumran, represent a collection of ancient Jewish texts dating from the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD. These scrolls include fragments of nearly every book of the Hebrew Bible, along with other religious writings, shedding light on the Second Temple period and the development of Judaism. They are considered the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures, offering invaluable insights into the textual history of the Old Testament.
          -The Codex Leningrad, completed in 1008 CE, is the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible. It adheres to the Masoretic tradition, which meticulously preserved the text through a system of annotations and vocalization marks. This codex remains a cornerstone for modern translations and studies of the Old Testament.
          -The Samaritan Torah, which reflects the religious traditions of the Samaritan community and offers a variant textual tradition of the Pentateuch. The Greek Septuagint (LXX), a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, completed in the 3rd century BCE. It was widely used in the Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian communities. The Aramaic Targums, paraphrased translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic, providing interpretative insights and reflecting the linguistic context of Jewish communities during the Second Temple period.

• How We Can Know That The Old Testament Has Been Accurately Transmitted:

          -The Jews carefully preserved the writings that they deemed to be of canonical status. Any texts and scrolls that were reputed to have the unique characteristic of divine inspiration were kept in the temples, under the intense care and supervision of the priests who ministered and the scribes. The concept of canonicity was known to the Israelites. The Jews said that such texts rendered the hands clean. Further, Near Eastern scribal practices in religious and political contexts involved meticulous preservation of important documents. Manuscripts would be copied and revised. They were compared, and examined letter per letter. The Jews no doubt venerated their Scriptures. Thus, the closed and standardized text of the Old Testament has been passed down to us in excellent condition.

          -"Many of the prophets did not speak as recognized leaders of the nation. When we read their strong criticism of many of the leaders of the people, we find it hard to imagine how any nation would accept such books as part of its national treasure. It is a phenomenon that can hardly be paralleled in any other nation. Nor was there any lack of attempts to dispute the authority of the prophets during their lifetime." (Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question, contributor Allan A. MacRae, p. 223)
          -"The care of the Talmudic doctors for the text is shown by the pains with which they counted up the number of verses in the different books, and computed which were the middle verses, words, and letters in the Pentateuch and in the Psalms. The scrupulousness with which the Talmudists noted what they deemed the truer readings, and yet abstained from introducing them into the text, indicates at once both the diligence with which they scrutinized the text, and also the care with which, even while acknowledging its occasional imperfections, they guarded it. Critical procedure is also evinced in a mention of their rejection of manuscripts which were found not to agree with others in their readings; and the rules given with reference to the transcription and adoption of manuscripts attest the care bestowed upon them. The Talmud further makes mention of the euphemistic Keris, which are still noted in our Bibles, e.g. at 2 K. vi. 25. It also reckons six instances of extraordinary points placed over certain words, e.g. at Gen. xviii. 9; and of some of them it furnishes mystical explanations." (William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 651)

• On The Formation Of The New Testament Canon:

          -The New Testament Scriptures were being read and circulated in the churches even as the apostles lived (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Revelation 1:10-11). Consequently, it can be affirmed that the New Testament canon was being established in the middle to the later end of the first century. 21 out of 27 books of the New Testament were received as canonical by the end of the second century.

          -Jesus Himself implicitly indicated that there would be the production of New Testament Scriptures in John 14-16. Most conservative scholars agree that the 27 books of the New Testament were completed by the end of the first century, with the epistle of James being the first and Revelation being last in order of completion. Some, however, argue that Revelation was written by AD 70.

          -The four gospel accounts and the Pauline corpus were never seriously disputed. The books of Hebrews, James, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, and Revelation were questioned for a time (even out of this group, only 2 Peter and Revelation were seriously disputed). That is actually good news for us, since it shows the early Christians did not accept any random texts claiming to be of apostolic origin but instead scrutinized them. They did not tolerate the practice of people writing false letters in the name of the apostles. For example, the author of the Acts of Paul and Thecla was disciplined. According to Tertullian, a presbyter from Asia who wrote that text was deposed after confessing to authoring it.

          -The lack of citation of 2 John, 3 John, and Jude from patristic writers may be accounted for by their shortness. Moreover, texts that were cited as Scripture but do not appear in our canon of Scripture were only used in limited parts of the church. They were never unanimously received as canonical. Factors used in the canonization process would include the dating, authorship, theology, and level of circulation of writings in the church. The New Testament canon did not grow over time, but was clarified through church councils.

• Primary Ancient Witnesses Consulted In Reconstructing And Verifying The Text Of The New Testament:

          -The earliest surviving manuscripts of the New Testament are papyri, fragile documents crafted from the ancient writing material derived from the papyrus plant. Some of these papyri date back to the second century AD, offering a glimpse into the earliest textual traditions of the Christian faith. Over time, leather parchment supplanted papyrus as the material of choice for textual preservation due to its greater durability. This transition marked a significant advancement in the longevity and reliability of manuscript traditions.

          -Codex Vaticanus, housed within the Vatican Library, and Codex Sinaiticus, discovered at the Monastery of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai, are two of the most important and complete early witnesses to the Bible. Both date to the fourth century and contain substantial portions of the Greek Old and New Testaments. Codex Vaticanus is particularly valued for its clarity and textual consistency, while Codex Sinaiticus provides key insights into textual variations and the transmission of the scriptures over time. Textual critics and historians highly prize these codices not only for their antiquity but also for the depth they contribute to reconstructing the original content of the biblical texts.
          -Beyond the Greek manuscripts, ancient translations played a crucial role in preserving and interpreting the New Testament. Early versions in Syriac, Coptic, and Latin emerged through intense missionary efforts during the formative years of the church. These translations extend our understanding of the New Testament's textual history, reflecting both the linguistic diversity and theological nuances of early Christian communities. For example, the Old Syriac version offers unique readings that sometimes diverge from the Greek texts, providing valuable comparisons for textual analysis. Similarly, Coptic manuscripts are essential for understanding the transmission of scripture in Egypt, while Latin translations, particularly the Vetus Latina and Jerome's Vulgate, became foundational for Western Christianity.
          -The diverse witnesses, spanning linguistic, geographical, and material contexts, collectively illuminate the intricate process through which the New Testament texts were transmitted and preserved. These artifacts of early Christian history not only verify the authenticity of the New Testament but also testify to the deep commitment of early believers to safeguarding the sacred scriptures. Through meticulous study of these manuscripts and translations, scholars continue to refine their understanding of the New Testament’s development and the cultural forces that shaped its dissemination.

• Textual Variations In Greek New Testament Manuscripts:

          -Causes of unintentional scribal alterations in manuscripts would include poor eyesight, faulty inspection, mistakes in memory, spelling errors, and wrongly viewing inserted marginal notes as corrections of the text.

          -Causes of intentional scribal alterations in manuscripts would include attempts to update archaic grammar and spelling, clarify or harmonize more obscure texts, and protect important doctrines. For instance, differences between the gospels were sometimes reconciled to provide a more unified narrative. An example of scribes protecting key doctrines is the alteration in John 1:18 from "the only Son" to "the only God," emphasizing Jesus' divinity.

          -We have a fragment of John 18 preserved on papyrus that has been dated to roughly 100 AD, helping us to establish an earlier date for that gospel.

          -Some Christians have expressed concern over longer sections, such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, being placed into margins in translations of the Bible. This sort of a reaction is understandable, since people naturally are not comfortable with long-standing traditions, with which they are familiar, being challenged. It would be better to leave such passages, even if brackets are included around them, in the text, due to their long history of textual transmission. Further, regardless of our degree of confidence about the inauthenticity of said texts, there is always the possibility that we are wrong in our decision making.

          -Most manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments have differences in spelling or grammar, which do not pervert the meaning of the text.

          -There are textual variants among manuscripts that read synonymously. For instance, there are manuscripts that render the same passage of Scripture with Christ's name as being "Lord Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ."
          -There are textual variants that can readily be ignored due to being outright irrational or found in poor quality manuscripts.
          -The New Testament documents are almost one hundred percent textually pure. They have much earlier and wider source attestation than any other document of antiquity. Not one variation among these manuscripts has proven injurious to any point of Christian theology. This in and of itself can be seen as miraculous.

• Defining What Textual Criticism Is:

          -The purpose of textual criticism is to accurately convey what was written in the inspired original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible. This process of refinement involves sifting through all the available manuscript data.

          -Biblical criticism has been separated into two main categories: higher and lower (i.e. textual) criticism. The three primary types of the higher form are literary, form, and redaction criticism.

          -It would seem to be common sense procedure to inspect the oldest manuscripts in existence to better reconstruct the original text of the New Testament rather than a harmony of medieval manuscripts. There would be less of a possibility of the former being corrupted because less time passed between the beginning of the church and their production.
          -Textual criticism should be opposed when there are humanistic or anti-supernatural motivations involved. It should be done on the presupposition that the Bible is inspired revelation from God.

          -Some have rejected the findings of textual criticism altogether. These people assert that we must affirm the Textus Receptus as the underlying source for translations of the New Testament and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. Proponents of this view even compare modern textual critical methods to the acceptance of Darwinism by modern secular science, dismissing them as rationalistic and atheistic. However, whenever one says that one set of manuscripts is superior to another, he inevitably uses his reason to evaluate their quality. So, this argument is one that undermines its own validity. It is inconsistent with itself because it confuses preservation with restoration. If supporters claim that one set of manuscripts (like the TR) is superior to others, then they are using modern tools and reasoning (restoration) to make that evaluation. They are not merely preserving an old text, but actually engaging in a form of restoration (critical analysis) by asserting its superiority. Further, while the Bible does teach the inspiration of the original text, it nowhere specifies how it would be preserved. Therefore, the preference for the exclusive use of the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text are based on appeals to tradition rather than factual analysis.

Sufficient Proofs For The Word Of God

"Men crave in these days some demonstration from the unseen world. Here is abundance of such evidence—Here is clear proof of an unseen and almighty intelligence presiding over human history, and showing us that He does so by describing beforehand the whole course of its events. What need we any further proof? The order of the visible world is evidence of the invisible to him who reads history in the light of prophecy! He beholds the hand of God in human experience, and watches the development of the Divine plan in the progress of the world. He knows, moreover, what events to expect, for he discerns his own chronological position in the stream of time; and as nine-tenths of the program have already been fulfilled, he doubts not that the remaining tenth will be in its predicted and fast-approaching season. And further, it is clear that if by so many infallible proofs we are convinced that the Bible as a whole is from God, no difficulties as to the mode of its inspiration, no scientific or critical objections, should be suffered to interfere with our hearty and thankful reception of its revelation. If God has spoken, man is responsible to hear, to believe, and to obey. And lastly, may we say, that to study the Christian evidences, whether of this or of any other kind, is merely to examine the foundations of the house. It is well at times to do this. But it is better to enter and abide in the house! It is infinitely better to avail one’s self of its shelter from the stormy blast, to enjoy its rich and spacious accommodation, to dwell in safety and peace under its blessed roof and to gaze on the widespread prospect from its windows."

Henry Grattan Guinness (1835-1910)

The Biblical Definition Of Repentance

        There is disagreement amongst professing Christians as to what repentance from sin consists of. The main point of dispute centers around whether it involves a change in mind or a change in ways. Scripture does lay out an answer that is not beyond the comprehension of most people, but it does not appeal to many in our culture or to those who preach a watered-down version of the gospel. Nowadays, it is generally assumed that human beings are good as they are. People therefore take offense when they are told that they need to change their ways. The gospel is a message of moral transformation, so its lack of appeal is unsurprising in our kind of environment. Its reception is to be followed by a change of heart from sinful ways to godly living, and the Holy Spirit is the agent of that change.

         Scripture defines the idea of repentance as being more than just thinking differently about our personal conduct. It involves turning from sinful ways to serve the living God. It includes entrusting oneself to Him, who forgives our sins. Repentance is not a work of religious merit, but a change in heart. It is a change in purpose and perspective. Repentance is crying out to God, admitting the futility of remaining in sin. This theme is echoed by the Prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 14:6; 18:30-31). We must repent of our sins or perish in them. Repentance can be accompanied with godly sorrow and grief (Luke 22:62-64), but that is not a necessary component. Further, consider how the men of Nineveh responded to the preaching of Jonah:

         "Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them. When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth and sat on the ashes He issued a proclamation and it said, “In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water. But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.” When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it." (Jonah 3:5-10, emphasis added)

         The response of the people who heard his message was not rejection, but covering themselves with sackcloth and ashes. That is how the Ninevites expressed sorrow for sins such as idolatry, sexual perversion, and deceit. They repented of their sins and so obtained for themselves mercy from God. The narrative contrasts the longsuffering of God with self-righteous Jonah who held the Ninevites in disdain. There was no goodness in them to invite His favor. Observe how Jesus Christ used this event in calling the Pharisees to repentance:

         "The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here." (Matthew 12:41)

         He shamed them for their wholesale rejection of His messiahship. Their reaction to His preaching was diametrically opposed to how the men of Nineveh received the message of Jonah. The Pharisees felt wholly adequate with their standing before God, whereas the Ninevites correctly sensed their unworthiness. Thus, repentance comes only to the humble of heart. It is also clear that Christ Himself viewed repentance as turning from sinful ways. 

          If we define the term repentance to mean a change of mind, then we give an incomplete explanation of that concept. An aspect of repentance is the conviction that sin should no longer persist in our lives. We must recognize that we are spiritually bankrupt sinners, totally in need of God's grace and redemption. Moreover, the word order of faith and repentance in the New Testament indicates that both are inseparable (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). If there is no repentance from sin, then there can be no forgiveness of it by God. If God does not forgive our sins, then we stand eternally condemned before Him. If repentance is removed from the equation of salvation, then the gospel itself falls apart. 

Per Fidem Solam: Romans 3:24 In The Würzburg Glosses, 8th Century

.... Very interesting: Per Fidem Solam: Romans 3:24 in the Würzburg Glosses, from an Irish theologian in the 8th Century:

"23 For all have sinned and do need the glory of God. 24 Being justified freely by his grace [that is, by faith alone, i.e. the faith of belief in Jesus Christ], through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [that is, it is He that has redeemed and it is He also that is the ransom, i.e. by the blood] 25 Whom God had proposed to be a propitiation [that is, it has been set forth in the mysteries of the Godhead, to make atonement for those who believe his liberation would be in the blood], through faith in his blood, [that is, through the faith of every one who believes in his salvation through His blood] to the showing of his justice, for the remission of former sins."

https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/03/per-fidem-solam-romans-324-in-wurzburg.html

Presenting A Different Jesus

"The Jesus being presented in many churches today is different because He is not the One we find in the Bible. The popular Jesus being presented is the one who fills churches to the rafters with fans and not disciples. People are following a genie in a bottle that will grant them all of their hopes and dreams. He is a Hallmark card version of Jesus who is willing to overlook sin and just be a good friend to pal around with. He never makes us feel bad or consider ourselves less than number one.

Many of our modern churches focus on self-improvement instead of dying to self. This is works based nonsense and basically, the same thing practiced among many pseudo-Christian cults including Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism. The logic is if you work hard enough and be good enough, you can earn eternal life.

Instead of lovingly warning people about fleeing the wrath to come, we decide we know a better approach. We attempt to woo people into the Christian life by presenting its features and benefits much like a good salesman. This isn't the biblical model of how to present the gospel and it is certainly not the way to make disciples.

The local church's main purpose isn't to help people improve their financial planning skills, have a better marriage, or to get them connected into activities galore for the whole family. What people desperately need is to hear the gospel to come to the end of themselves and be truly born again. We don't want to present a different Jesus who is a cosmic genie who caters to our felt needs and desires.

Trouble begins when seeker-sensitive hirelings who are not shepherds water down the gospel. They present a different Jesus and this is a deception plaguing many churches today. These preachers may want to improve their image, popularity, or ministry numbers, so they make coming to Jesus about life enhancement, not dying to oneself.

I feel the uneasy tension when [speaking] to people about heaven, hell, eternity, sin, and repentance. The Lord never promised it would be easy to be His disciple but he promised to be with us always and give us the words to say when we testify about Him. It's my deep desire and prayer for each of us to renew our commitment to speak the truth, with love as the motive and do it with boldness as the Holy Spirit directs us. While many are compromising and presenting a different Jesus, I pray the faithful remnant will continue to make Him known."

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/presenting-a-different-jesus-howard-green.html

Does Hebrews 6:4-6 Teach That Apostates Cannot Be Forgiven?

          The passage in Hebrews 6:4–6 has long been a source of theological debate, often evoking anxiety among Christians about its implications. It carries a sense of solemnity, as it appears to suggest that those who fall into sin are irreversibly excluded from God’s forgiveness. However, such a conclusion would be accurate only in the case of individuals who persist in unrepentant rebellion until death. Scripture provides abundant clarity elsewhere, emphasizing the importance of restoring those who have backslidden and aiding them in repentance (Galatians 6:1). True regeneration occurs only when the gospel takes root in the heart and transforms the individual, rather than merely being heard or superficially acknowledged.

          To better understand this challenging text, it is helpful to consider its original context and audience. The epistle of Hebrews was written primarily to a Jewish-Christian audience who faced significant pressure to revert to Judaism under the looming threat of persecution. These believers were at a spiritual crossroads, and the author of Hebrews sought to encourage them to remain steadfast in their faith. The exhortation to spiritual maturity is evident earlier in the chapter (Hebrews 6:1–3), urging these believers to progress beyond foundational teachings and deepen their commitment to Christ.

          A key theme throughout Hebrews is the supremacy of Christ and the New Covenant over the Old Covenant. The author skillfully illuminates how various types and shadows in the Old Testament find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ. He demonstrates that Jesus is greater than Moses, the angels, and the temple itself. Christ is affirmed as the eternal Sabbath and our perfect High Priest, whose sacrifice surpasses all others. Unlike the Law, which exposes sin but cannot save, Jesus fulfills the Law and establishes a New Covenant, one based on His all-sufficient atonement (Hebrews 10:10–14). Consequently, the former customs and rituals of the Mosaic Law hold no saving power.

          Thus, the central concern of Hebrews 6:4–6 is not to assert that God withholds forgiveness from repentant sinners but to warn against a persistent rejection of the gospel. Specifically, those who deliberately abandon the truth of Christ’s sacrifice in favor of Old Covenant practices are rejecting the only means of salvation. Such actions amount to crucifying Christ afresh and bring disgrace to His name. These individuals are without excuse, as they have already encountered the truth yet willfully choose to rely on inadequate systems of atonement, such as the sacrifices of the temple and the Levitical priesthood.

          This passage serves as a powerful reminder to place unwavering trust in the finished work of Christ for salvation. For Jewish Christians, the call was to stand firm in their faith amid persecution, fully embracing the sufficiency of Jesus’ sacrifice. The same remains true for believers today. The gospel calls us to abandon all attempts at self-justification and rely wholly on Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). Those who endure in faith, rather than returning to systems that cannot save, will find eternal life and peace in Him.

The Myth That Roman Emperor Constantine Changed The Sabbath

           Seventh-Day Adventists claim that the Roman Catholic Church changed the Jewish Sabbath Day from Saturday to Sunday during the reign of Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. They argue that we must avoid gathering on that day due to participation allegedly being the mark of the Beast. Typical attempts to substantiate their claims involve the citation of various nineteenth century authors, who simply made guesses regarding the methodology of early Christian worship services. However, any notion of Rome changing the Sabbath Day to Sunday is false. Mandatory Sabbath observance was only meant for Israel. The tradition of gathering on Sundays for worship has been practiced since the first century in correspondence with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

          The text of Acts 20:7-12 very clearly describes Christians as having fellowship on Sunday. People came together and broke bread. The New Testament records the existence of this tradition elsewhere in passages such as John 20:19-20, 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, and Revelation 1:10. The point is that Christians have always gathered on the first day of the week. Constantine therefore could not have made such a change to the Sabbath, even if he wanted to. The tradition of gathering on Sunday can be found in the earliest existing sources outside of the New Testament:

          "But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." (Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Chapter XIV)

          This text speaks of brethren offering pure spiritual sacrifices to God. They were to be done in a state in which people were not at variance with each other. Personal conflicts or grievances were to be resolved, if they existed. Believers set aside time weekly to have fellowship with each other. The "Lord's day" here is a reference to Sunday.  

          "[T]he Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who have descended from Jacob, even although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter XXVI)

          The Gentiles are said to be members of God's kingdom, even though they never previously observed Jewish customs or feast days. Converts from that background were described in a continuous sense as not observing the Sabbath. That is not the basis of receiving the inheritance which God promised to our forefathers.

            "[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death." (Ignatius of Antioch​​​​​​​, Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110])

            This text says without qualification that Sabbath observance is not a part of the Christian life and distinguishes that day from the "Lord's Day."

            It is simply invalid to assert that the Roman Emperor Constantine altered this Jewish day of observance from Saturday to Sunday. No one on earth has the power to change the Sabbath because it was originally instituted by God for the Jewish people. Moreover it was never for outsiders to observe in the first place.

Does Philippians 2:12 Refute Justification By Faith Alone?

          "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12)

          In the Old and New Testaments, the word translated as "salvation" often has the meaning of physical deliverance. It is used in that sense in Philippians 1:19. In Philippians 1:28, it refers to the deliverance of our bodies from the destruction of the wicked. Even when used in a theological sense, the term salvation can be a reference to justification, sanctification, or glorification. 

          The "salvation" spoken of in Philippians 2 is not of redeeming a lost soul, but liberation from disputes and strife. "Working out" refers to the resolving of such problems. Paul urged his readers to put on the mind of Christ. Holy living is the logical outworking of our justification before God. He is the source of our spiritual growth in Christ (Philippians 2:13).

         The phrase "fear and trembling" indicates the proper mindset that we are to have toward God (Psalm 2:11). It does not denote uncertainty as to our standing before Him in Christ. Rather, the expression indicates an attitude of awe and reverence toward one's own Creator. It is with this frame of mind that one lives a life of honorable service to God.

Biblical Evidence Against The Apostle Peter Being The First Pope

• Defining The Issues: 

          -The Roman Catholic Church teaches as dogma that Jesus Christ made the Apostle Peter its first pope and He had built His church upon him. It is also claimed that Jesus gave Peter a unique position of authority over His church, which was meant to get passed on through apostolic succession to present-day popes. This is the underlying basis for Rome proclaiming itself to be the infallible preserver of divine truth, the one true church of God. These claims to authority made by the papacy have been contested by the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches.

• General Absence Of The Papal Office Throughout The New Testament: 

          -The New Testament contains passages discussing the types of offices and qualifications necessary for obtaining such positions in the church (Ephesians 4:11-15; 1 Corinthians 12:28; 2 Corinthians 12:12; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; 1 Timothy 5:1-19; Titus 1:5-9). Yet, the concept of a pope is absent in these contexts. Paul does not distinguish Peter from the other apostles in the lists where that specific role of bishop is mentioned. Further, the New Testament describes individual congregations as being ruled by pluralities of elders (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Timothy 5:17). It says nothing regarding a single human leader rightly claiming to have been bestowed a gift of infallible teaching authority by the Holy Spirit over the entire Christian church.

• General Absence Of Papal Titles Throughout The New Testament:

          -Peter was never addressed by titles of exultation such as are used to honor popes of later times. In other words, he was never called "Pope," "Chief Shepard," "Head of the Church," "Holy Father," "Sovereign Pontiff," or any other religious titles used to honor popes today. Instead, he was simply called an "apostle and servant" (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1) and "fellow presbyter" (1 Peter 5:1). Such titles logically place Peter on the same level of authority as any other elder in the church. The Apostle John also referred to himself as an "elder" (2 John 1; 3 John 1), thereby implying that he had the same authority as Peter. 

           *Some may argue that the Apostle Peter avoided these titles because he was humble and modest. But if that is the case, then why do modern popes refuse to follow Peter's example? The truth of the matter is that the Lord Jesus Christ forbade the practice (Matthew 23:8-12).
          -Jesus is the "Chief Shepherd" of the flock (John 10:10; 14-16), not the pope. Christ is the "head of the church" (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:15; 5:23-25), not the pope.

            *Roman Catholics believe that the pope is the "visible" head of the church and that Christ is the "invisible" head. However, Scripture reserves no such position for any man. The kingdom of God is spiritual and so does not require a single earthly leader to guide it.

• The Apostle Peter Did Not Behave As If He Were A Pope:

          -The Apostle Peter was not a wealthy man as are modern-day popes (Acts 3:6-7). In other words, he did not have a throne, wear a crown, or showcase any other kinds of riches, as successive popes have enjoyed for centuries. Peter did not allow men to bow before him religiously (Acts 10:25-26), but modern popes have accepted and encouraged this kind of behavior. We are not to bow before people to honor their religious office or affiliation (Revelation 22:8-9).

• The Absence Of Papal Office In Contexts Relating To Church Unity:

          -Paul never mentioned the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church as being the means of preserving ecclesiastical unity in passages relating to that very topic (Ephesians 4:4-7; Philippians 4:2-3). Jesus Christ does not refer to a Papacy in His prayer to God for unity amongst brethren (John 17). That should make one doubt whether the papal office existed in the first century, since it claims to have been established by Christ for the very purpose of maintaining unity amongst believers.

• The Apostle Peter Viewed Himself As Having No Supremacy Over The Church:

          -"Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:1-5)

           *Peter did not recognize himself as having an exalted position over other elders in the church, but instead spoke as if he had the same authority as they did. He certainly was not aware of any unique authority bestowed upon him by Christ if he did, in fact, have it. This casts doubt on any idea that Peter was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

• Peter Was Sent By Others To Travel And Preach The Gospel:

          -"Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them." (Acts 8:14)

            *It the Apostle Peter was the first pope, then why would he take orders from men who were allegedly lower in the chain of command than himself?

• The Apostle Paul Worked Harder Than Peter: 

          -"But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10).

           *If the Apostle Peter was the first pope, then why did he not write more Scripture?

• The Apostle Peter Was Only Known As The Apostle To The Jews:

          -If Peter was appointed by Christ to govern the entire Christian church worldwide, then why is it that Paul was the one commissioned to evangelize the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8)? In that same context, the Apostle Peter is only referred to as "one of four pillars," with James being listed as first in order (Galatians 2:9).

• The Apostle Paul Rebuked Peter As Though He Were His Equal:

          -The text clearly shows that Peter and Paul had equal authority because the former boldly confronted the latter for his sin. Peter is not in an exulted position. Any person courageous enough to publicly repudiate the claims of a Roman bishop in later centuries would most probably get himself or herself executed, if done in the manner as Paul did in the text of Galatians 2:11-14.

• Paul Never Mentioned Or Greeted "Pope Peter" In His Epistle To The Romans:

          -If the Apostle Peter was the first pope, then why is it that Paul wrote such a theologically rich epistle to the Romans? How come he never bothered to mention such a prominent figure in his greetings (Romans 16)? Where was "Pope Peter" when everybody else had deserted Paul (2 Timothy 1:15; 4:16)?

• The Apostle Peter Himself Seemed To Be Unaware Of Apostolic Succession:

          -"I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder." (2 Peter 1:13)
          -"And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind." (2 Peter 1:15)
          -"This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles." (2 Peter 3:1-2)
           *How come Peter failed to mention the papal office in the two epistles that he authored or even allude to his potential successors?

• The Apostle Peter Did Not Exclusively Exercise Authority In Church Government:

          -The Apostle Peter was not in charge of the replacement apostle after Judas was dead (Acts 1:23-26). In other words, he did not occupy his supreme authority on this issue of church government like popes would. Instead, all of the apostles nominated two candidates (not Peter alone) and prayed to Christ for an answer (not looking to Peter). Afterwards, they all cast lots to see who the new apostle would be (Peter did not cast any). This passage certainly weakens the Roman Catholic claim that the pope has power over church government.

          -"In Acts 11 Peter is called to answer for his actions in going to Cornelius' house. Does he give evidence of Papal prerogatives here? Does he answer as Innocent III, or Alexander VI? Hardly. There is no mention of his position as Pope. Instead, rather than pleading his position as Vicar of Christ, Peter relates the supernatural vision and direction that had been given to him to proclaim the gospel message to the Gentiles. This no more makes Peter a Pope than Paul's guiding vision in Acts 16." (James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, p. 112)

Altar Calls: An Unbiblical Tradition

        The practice of altar calls, where individuals are invited to come forward at the end of a church service to make a public commitment to Christ, has been a topic of much debate. One of the most significant critiques of altar calls is their historical absence from early Christian practices. The altar call did not become a common practice until the 19th century, primarily through the influence of Charles Finney. His introduction of the altar call was based on questionable theology and a man-centered, manipulative methodology. Historically, the Christian church has not relied on such methods. It has relied on the faithful preaching of the Word, the work of the Spirit, and ordinances to bring about genuine conversion.

        Another argument against altar calls is the potential confusion they create between the physical act of "coming forward" and the spiritual act of "coming to Christ." While the two can happen simultaneously, there is a risk that individuals might equate the physical act with the spiritual commitment. This confusion can lead to misunderstandings about what it truly means to come to Christ, potentially undermining the depth and authenticity of one's faith journey. For example, a person might mistakenly believe that the act of walking to the front of the church equates to a genuine conversion experience. This conflation can dilute the profound and personal nature of a true spiritual awakening, leading to a superficial understanding of faith and salvation.

        Altar calls involve placing pressure on individuals to make a public decision for Christ. This environment, often characterized by emotional music, dimmed lights, and passionate appeals, often leads to decisions driven more by the heat of the moment rather than genuine, heartfelt commitments. There is a significant risk that individuals might respond to emotional pressure instead of true spiritual conviction. Consequently, such decisions may not be deeply rooted in personal faith, resulting in a lack of lasting commitment and spiritual growth. This highlights the importance of allowing individuals to make thoughtful, considered decisions about their faith journey. People ought to be free from external influences that might sway their true intentions.

        The final compelling argument focuses on the significance of adhering to biblically prescribed worship practices, such as preaching, prayer, fellowship, and singing. Introducing new practices like altar calls may shift the focus away from these core elements of corporate worship. God's guidelines for worship should remain the primary focus to ensure that worship practices are aligned with biblical teachings and emphasize what is truly important in the faith. By adhering strictly to these prescribed elements, congregations can maintain a clear and undistracted focus on the key aspects of worship that nurture and deepen faith. This argument highlights the potential risk of diluting worship with practices that, while well-intentioned, may not have the same theological grounding or scriptural endorsement.

        In today's cautious and relational age, many people come to faith over an extended period and often with the guidance of a trusted friend or mentor. The altar call, with its immediate and public nature, does not align with the gradual and relational process through which many individuals come to faith. This method can be seen as too abrupt and impersonal, potentially alienating those who would benefit more from a thoughtful and supportive journey to faith. Modern evangelism often recognizes the importance of personal connections and long-term discipleship. Therefore, relying on altar calls misses the opportunity to engage individuals more deeply and relationally, fostering genuine, long-lasting faith commitments.