The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his059/bbb0490x.lzh/BBB0490X.TXT

Text File | 1991-06-30 | 6KB | 97 lines

BBB:The ACID Test

   Modern apostate fundamentalists like Robert Sumner, Hymers, Hutson,
Hobbs, Hudson, Horton, and Huckleberry Hound, have been having a time
of it lately, trying to stem the rising tide of Biblical scholarship
that has assailed them in the last couple of years, and overthrown
their "Christian scholarship." We give you here an acid test that was
put together in the laboratory by Cmdr. Robert E. Long, United States
Coast Guard, retired. This gentleman has had some correspondence with
Bobby Scumner, Hymers, Waite, Bob Jones, Hutson, and others, and here
is what he says.

   (The following was sent directly to Gary Hudson, the young man we
recently hired to do our proofreading for us, at twenty dollars a book.)

   "Your work `Why I Left Ruckmanism' gives no evidence that you
started with a Biblical basis or principle to prove the AV is in need
of correction. Hence, my comment and observation that it was
"unbiblical and without substance." I have already given sixteen
reasons for believing the AV is the preserved word in the English
language, plus numerous references to scripture explaining the
supporting overwhelming evidence. I have not been able to get anyone
that holds your position to comment on them or to correct my hypothesis
I set forth to answer the question at hand. I am open to correction,
and have requested to be corrected where I was wrong. But again, I
insist on Bible references in accordance with 2 Timothy 3:16 before
accepting correction. It should be known that you, nor anyone that
agrees with your position (that God has given His word in the Hebrew
and Greek languages only), which Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 disprove,
has provided even one verse of scripture for the base of your approach
to the question."

   Isn't it amazing? Here these little pipsqueaks like Sumner, Hymers,
and Hudson run around the country talking about challenging people and
nobody dare taking them on. They have been sacked so many times it
would take you twenty minutes to get the potatoes out of the bags.

   Brother Long goes on to say, "Scholarship and intellectualism alone
will never answer a spiritual question satisfactorily, nor should you
ever derive doctrine apart from scripture, as you have apparently done.
Why not start by searching the scriptures, English or Greek, and then
support your conclusion with scholarship, and when you cannot reconcile
the two, simply believe the Bible with no concern for those that say
you are "anti-intellectual." Do not neglect the fact that God will
require an element of faith with any spiritual discernment."

   Oh, Brother Long has their number. They are more afraid of being
called "anti-intellectuals" than they are of dying and going to hell or
facing Christ at the Judgment Seat.

   He continues, "Now here is the additional overwhelming evidence you
asked for. God has already answered the question and it really does not
matter what you or I believe. This is what God Himself has to say about
His word. 1. His word nourishes the soul (scripture). 2. His word has
no copyright privileges (scripture). 3. His word quickens (scripture).
4. His word is a lamp (scripture). 5. His word is right (scripture). 6.
His word keeps you from sin (scripture). 7. His word is true
(scripture). 8. His word is a joy and rejoicing to the heart
(scripture). 9. His word is a shield (scripture). 10. His word is
upright, and truth (scripture). 11. His word stands (scripture)." And
then in addition to that, Brother Long has included one or two verses
after each of these points, "God's words are magnified, gracious,
sound, profitable, for our learning, holy, cleansing, faithful, able to
save, sure, incorruptible, and alive." He then says, "if a text does
not meet all these requirements, then it should not be preached. The
fruit of the text will tell you whether the Holy Spirit is bearing
witness to it, and I might add that we have no authority to preach
anything less than the word of God, and that anything less carries no
authority. Does the AV qualify from a strictly Biblical point of view
to be the word of God? Does the Holy Spirit of God bear witness to the
AV? Is not the answer an overwhelming yes? This will be my last plea
for your prayerful consideration. I am requesting that you please take
a fresh and serious re-evaluation of your doctrine." Then Brother Long
sent five questions to Hymers, Sumner, Waite, Combs, Bob Jones and
Curtis Hutson. "1. Does the Authorized Version as we have it today, and
as it stands alone, contain any doctrinal error? Yes or no. 2. Does the
Authorized Version as we have it today meet the requirements of the
aforementioned scripture references? Yes or no. 3. Do the Greek and
Hebrew texts that you believe are the "preserved" word of God meet the
requirements of the same verses of scripture? Yes or no. 4. Am I right
to require Biblical references for your position and doctrine? Yes or
no. 5. Do you preach and teach the Authorized Version? Yes or no.
Simply circle your answer. Clarification with scripture references is
desired but if you feel it not necessary, I will accept your answers
without them. This request is also kindly made to those gentlemen sent
copies."

   There it is. You say will you publish those answers when Brother
Long gets them back? No we won't. You say why? Because he won't get
them back. I have never known an Alexandrian in my life that can answer
a clear cut question, yes or no, where that question dealt with final
authority. Alexandrians are pragmatic humanists, every one of them,
they are anarchists at heart, and when it comes to the matter of
absolute authority, which Brother Long has put to them, they will not
face the issue, for they are their own authority, they are their own
gods, as we have demonstrated over, and over, and over again.