October 13, 2003 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following is by Dr. Thomas M. Strouse, Dean, Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary, 296 New Britain Ave., Newington, CT 06111 --

Professor Daniel Wallace, Associate Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote an article on his web site in 1997 entitled "Mark 1:2 and New Testament Textual Criticism." He defends the erroneous "mistake" that Mark attributed the citations from Mal. 3:1 and Isa. 40:3 to having been written "in Isaiah the prophet" instead of the biblically accurate "in the prophets" (as we find in the Received Text and in the KJV). His arguments for defending "errancy" in the original follow these lines of reasoning:

1. The "oldest and best manuscripts," including codex sinaiticus and codex vaticanus read "in Isaiah the prophet."

3. He rejects the notions that the errant reading was either accidental (i.e., dittography) or intentional (i.e., first century conspiracy to undermine the text; although note 2 Peter 3:15-16 for the Biblical response).

4. He avers "do we dare call it original? All the evidence points in that direction." Thus he claims that the error was in the original scripture text.

5. He rejects the view that says, "Start with the presupposition of inerrancy."

6. He affirms that "theology must never be divorced from history."

7. He concludes that those opposed to historical evidence are arrogant.

Wallace posits faith in historical evidence over and against faith in Biblical promises of the perfectly inerrant, inspired Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16). One must place utmost confidence, according to him, in textual critics, who as historians, although they usually reject inerrancy, certainly do not have "mere theological convictions" about inerrancy. Wallace would rather defend an errant codex sinaiticus and codex vaticanus behind the modern versions than the inerrant textus receptus behind the KJV. Wallace teaches the liberal, apostate position of "errant inerrancy" relative to the original text of the New Testament. This theological modernism is an example of apostasy at Dallas!

CONCLUDING NOTE FROM BROTHER CLOUD

This is where modern textual criticism always leads, eventually and unavoidably. It has destroyed the faith of every church and Bible training institution it has ever entered. Modern textual criticism is promoted by Evangelicals and even by many Fundamentalists, but it was not invented by them. It was invented in the 19th century by theological liberals and Unitarians; and to this very day the chief fathers of it continue to be the Bruce Metzgers and Kurt Alands and Carlo Martinis, men who deny the infallible inspiration of Holy Scripture. We thank the Lord for men like Dr. Strouse and for institutions like the Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary that stand in the old paths and that approach the Bible strictly on the basis of faith and that do not bow the knee to the "science falsely so called" of modern textual criticism.