WHERE IS YOUR INCORRUPTIBLE SEED . . . DOCTOR?
Being BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY the word of God . . . the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel preached unto you. -- Peter 1:23-25
A popular T.V. preacher delivered a "muddy water" type apologetic that he designed to leave him on the side of inspiration and even the King James Bible. He went as far as to declare his "preference" for the King James Bible (imagine Billy Sunday declaring that he preferred not to drink booze). However, he was careful to caution his viewers not to get caught up that King James cult. Such language, from a man who always talking about fundamentalists standing together (while he and they compromise together), was quite a surprise. Frankly, we are disgusted at certain leaders, who have, recently engaged in the practice of pleading for love and tolerance on the one hand, while calling others what they want on the other hand, cults, fundamental nuts, religious headhunters, Ruckmanites, and so forth.
Certain fundamentalists, after having their dirty laundry aired, are now scrambling to find ways to convince an awakened laity that they are really for the inspiration of the Bible and that they really do "prefer" the Authorized Bible of 1611. How to hide their unbelief and secret mental reservations and still be conservative is becoming an increasingly serious dilemma for them; for rather than blowing over, this storm is gathering momentum. There is a distinct possibility that before it is all over, certain fundamental leaders and missionaries will lose financial support and be considered neo, liberal, or worse. Desperately, they are looking for someone to champion their cause. The best of their company has fallen on his face, using slander tactics, name calling, quoting certain Christian "Hall of Famers," accusing Bible believers of being followers of men and insisting that the King James translators were not inspired although no one said that they were. It has never occurred to him that following dead men (Torrey, Mache, Westcott, and Hort) is as bad as following living men. As for the scribes, copyists, and translators not being inspired; the apostles were not inspired either. Only the Scriptures are said to be inspired! So much for that straw man argument!
The apostles did not always pen the "inspired Scripture." They sometimes used uninspired scribes! (pause . . .) Romans 16:22 tells us, "Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord." (pause . . .) Why worry about the uninspired scribes, copyists, and translators letting their pens slip and not worry about uninspired Tertius' pen slipping? He wrote down the Book of Romans as dictated by Paul and added words that Paul did not dictate (pause . . .). And what about Jeremiah's uninspired scribe Baruch, who wrote the Word of the Lord as dictated by Jeremiah, who rewrote, after the Original Autographs were destroyed, the word of the Lord with some extra words added (Jer. 36:2, 4, 18, 32)?
Perhaps it has never occurred to our pseudo scholarly detractors that the traditional definition of inspiration lS not an inspired view. The traditional definition of inspiration would not even allow "photo copies" of the Original Autographs to be inspired (if photo copies existed), for they would not be considered "God breathed." Of course, you can make someone look like an extremist, if you make them play by your rules and accept your definitions. Why not let the Scriptures themselves define inspiration? Then, let us see where our detractors stand and how tall.
Second timothy 3:16 informs us that "ALL" scripture is given by Inspiration of God. Is it scholarly to 'believe that the Scriptures that Timothy knew from a child were the Original Autographs? Is it scholarly to believe that the scriptures that are profitable to the man of God for doctrine, reproof, and so forth are the Original Autographs? Is it scholarly to believe that the only Word of God that can divide asunder the soul, spirit, and joints and marrow and discern the thoughts and intents of the heart are the Original Autographs? Is it scholarly to believe that the word, which we are commanded to preach must be the Original Autographs? Is there such a thing as uninspired scripture or an uninspired word of God?
We Bible believers have no trouble with the answers to these questions. We have been born of "incorruptible seed"—the Word of God (1 Peter 1:23, James 1:18). We can place our hands on the incorruptible seed (AV 1611) and have the conviction (not preference) that it indeed qualifies as inspired scripture and the infallible Word of God. Have you been born of "incorruptible seed" . . . Doctor? Can you place your hands on your Incorruptible seed? Prove all things! Where is your incorruptible seed . . . Doctor?
-- by Herb Evans, Bible Believers’ Bulletin - October 1978, p. 3; Flaming Torch - March 1979, p. 6