Reviews

About the author

avatar

Jason Harris

Jason loves to communicate God's word both in the local church and at conferences and retreats. Jason has been involved with Worship Music since 1996 and InFocus since 2005. Jason has degrees in theology, music, accounting, and research and is currently a PhD candidate and lecturer in the College of Business, Law, and Governance at James Cook University, Cairns. Jason is also a pastor at CrossPoint Church. You can contact Jason at jason@teaminfocus.com.au.

7 Comments

  1. avatar

    David

    Dear Mr Wilberforce/Harris

    I understand what you’re saying. If I don’t buy your book, I’m like the people supported slavery.

    I also understand that you’ve gone completely off your rocker. The one positive thing about this astounding piece of megalomania is that it will help to convince the few remaining people who think you have some credibility that you are now Stark Raving Mad.

    I found this statement interesting: “For those of us holding to the historic doctrine of Scripture…”

    What did Christians historically believe about the preservation of Scripture? The WCF (1644) and LBC (1689) both state:

    “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them.”

    So the historic doctrine of Scripture holds that:

    1. God inspired the original words;
    2. God perfectly preserved those words ever since;
    3. Those perfectly preserved words remain available and identifiable.

    Even one of your own, Kurt Aland, was at least honest enough to admit that your position is not historic:

    “Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original text’.”

    It is either ignorant or dishonest of you to claim to hold a historic bibliology. By your numerous claims of extensive research, we can rule out ignorance.

    Finally, that you have grossly misrepresented Brandenburg’s position in your book betrays the fact that your crusade against what you call “TR-onlyism” has little to do with a pursuit of truth, but of doggedly defending the position you have adopted, even if it means lying to do it.

    Reply
  2. avatar

    Jason Harris

    David, which of Erasmus’ editions of the TR did the authors of the WCF and LBC have in mind when they wrote this?

    Reply
  3. avatar

    Liz

    “I also understand that you’ve gone completely off your rocker. The one positive thing about this astounding piece of megalomania is that it will help to convince the few remaining people who think you have some credibility that you are now Stark Raving Mad.”

    This undoes anything else you’ve written David.

    Speak the truth in love.

    Or not at all.

    Just saying.

    Reply
  4. avatar

    Kezia

    @Liz, I agree!

    @ David, I had trouble even finishing the rest of your comment after that beginning and was disappointed that you continued in the same tone and spirit all the way to the end of it. Insults used in discussions such as this one are usually a sign of incompetence in being able to compose an otherwise convincing argument and they automatically nullify any useful input one may have to offer.

    InFocus encourages open dialogue and even disagreement, but there is, I think, an unspoken expectation that everyone behave maturely and respectfully with one another in a God-honouring manner. There simply is no need and no place for put-downs and insults. It is sad that you seem to feel you cannot engage in discussion without resorting to such.

    Reply
  5. avatar

    Jeremy Crooks

    I find KJV-onlyism incredibly frustrating. Many KJVO advocates have a desire to uplift the authority of the Bible in our lives. I too have that desire. I also love the KJV. I memorised 100’s of Bible verses using that version and it its word echo in my head for the better.

    However, the elevation of a version (any version) to being the single re-inspired/preserved Word of God is faulty. Such a position is neither internally consistent with Scripture nor even with fundamentalist church history. I have lost many a good friend to the KJVO error and I have seen how it becomes such an unhealthy and unnecessary mark of division.

    Thanks Jason for calling out the KJVO error. I just pray that we will not reject the KJV for all the nonsense of the KJVO movement.

    Reply
  6. avatar

    Liz

    “I find KJV-onlyism incredibly frustrating.”

    I’m there with you Jeremy.

    My husband is not a native English speaker so he reads his bible in German and the ESV.

    and I’m pretty sure he’s saved.

    haha

    Reply
  7. avatar

    Jason Harris

    UPDATE: I’ve had someone step forward and offer to help finance the above offer (“If you are an Australian pastor and are unable or unwilling to purchase a copy of this book… please write me a note and I will buy a copy for you”). So the offer stands and I hope you’ll drop me a note.

    Grace to you.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2005-2016 by InFocus. Powered by WordPress. Effective News theme by Themelions Team.