This article continues
In Part One of this article, I addressed the overarching problem of framing in Bryan Ross’ treatment of the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) position. I demonstrated that his critique relies heavily on selective quotation, the collapsing of necessary bibliological distinctions and the imposition of his own doctrinal and philosophical presuppositions onto my position. The result is not a neutral assessment of the PCE, but a reconstructed version of it. He has produced a false narrative that presents my view that is flatter than I have ever claimed, making it ridiculously exclusivist.
In this second article, I will move beyond general framing issues and deal directly with several specific instances where Ross misunderstands, misrepresents or reverses what I have actually said. The aim here is not merely to correct errors, but to show in some detail, that Ross’ objections consistently fail because they are aimed at a position I do not hold.
Pentecostalism
“On April 4, 2001, I then stated to the Elders of Victory Faith Centre a case in favour of this, which was when I fully recognised the correct edition. I then came to understand the meaning of the word ‘spirit’ with a lowercase ‘s’, and its connection to proper Pentecostal doctrine, namely, that the Spirit is to work in the human spirit (such as Christian sanctification and the impartation of knowledge), as well as His Pentecostal filling of it.”
In 2001, I was trying to understand things. This is the very beginning of it all.
I was coming from a position of having a wide margin Cambridge KJV Bible which would be a PCE except it had a capital “Spirit” at 1 John 5:8. That was the issue at that time. I knew very little about editions, really nothing of Cambridge’s print history, at that time.
History has vindicated all of this, for example the letter from 1985 from Cambridge University Press exposes that indeed the lower case “s” on “spirit” at 1 John 5:8 was indeed their normal editorial text.
Norton’s book wasn’t even published yet in 2001. Yet in such times of ignorance, careful study and aligning to Providence is what would show this step to be correct. I only had access to things like D’Oyly and Mant’s 1817 Folio.
Now, when I said about the understanding of “spirit” in “connection to proper Pentecostal doctrine”, I am talking about the set of doctrines that a Christian who happens to be Pentecostal holds. You can see that by my reference to sanctification which is not an exclusive Pentecostal doctrine at all. That is what I was meaning. So the logic goes:
- Providential signs show “spirit”;
- I use a “Full Counsel of God” doctrinal approach which includes Pentecostalism and
- Make a logical, doctrinal and linguistic basic case for “spirit”
That was only to understand why or how it would be possible that the word “spirit” would be lower case.
It is not a statement of the actual meaning or doctrine of 1 John 5:8. I am not saying that anything I said was actually what 1 John 5:8 actually should be explicitly interpreted as. I am only talking about why the word “spirit” would appear in the KJB lowercase and what it might mean.
Now, remember this was a first look, my 2001 very initial thoughts about it.
So to say that “Pentecostalism” (doctrinally) guided me to say that 1 John 5:8 must have some special Pentecostal meaning, or that some sort of Pentecostal “experience” (like a vision or something) guided me to say that “spirit” must have a certain meaning would all be a wrong way of understanding what I said. Nothing like that really happened.
It’s a matter of recording what happened, for posterity. I did it all openly, there’s nothing being hidden. I am recording facts in the information I presented. It is a matter of historical reality that is what I stated in 2001 as recorded in 2013 as presented again here in 2026.
Ross misunderstands this by stating: “Interesting to note the stated reason he accepted the PCE as perfect because the lower case ‘s’ aligned with his Pentecostal theology, even though he vehemently rejects our stating that his position is founded on historicist interpretations of Revelation and Pentecostal theology.”
Historicist
Ross is further wrong by referring to “historicist interpretations”. Clearly I am Pentecostal and believe in Historicism, and as concerning the latter, I do point to a Historicist argument about Revelation 10 where it is pointing to the KJB, and where I use it to further point towards the PCE. This is the same with the “purified seven times” view, it isn’t a central point, but it is a point. The issue is that Ross tries to make the Pentecostalism or the “purified seven times” parts bigger than what they are. Obviously Pentecostalism is in my thinking broadly as a Christian, and the pattern of Historicism and of “purified seven times” are part of a way of how I have understood the PCE’s place in history, but it’s not the most central tenet, it’s just a part of the view.
Ross’ editorialising
Ross writes, “He did not say ‘I set out to study the history and doctrine and became convinced of this.’ Instead, he essentially said, ‘I became convinced of this by divine leading and Pentecostal doctrine then I set about to prove it and build a position.’”
Notice how Ross puts words into my mouth on the basis of his misinterpretation.
In fact, everything shows I was studying and looking at old Bibles. I was aligning to what could be seen in the providential signs pointing to why Cambridge was right with the KJB.
If there was any Pentecostalism, it was not like Ross imagines it. In Word of Faith doctrine we have the following:
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” (James 1:5).
Notice this is about finding the truth, through looking at Scripture and studying phenomena, as in, actual science and general practice.
I was, in fact, using Hills’ method of the Logic of Faith, and was in fact seeing what Burgon said. That’s how it was being looked at, that’s how I was seeing why the PCE was right.
That’s pretty much the opposite of what Ross falsely accuses me of. I was in fact building a position by studying Scripture, examining providences in usage and information. This is very difficult when there is little basis and little actual studies available in that field (as at 2001 to 2003).
This is my stand
Divorced from me, the PCE is indeed commendable to be a standard edition. However, the reality is that I am connected to it in some way.
However, I can understand Ross bucking against it because his identity and emotional commitment is challenged.
Unfortunately also Bryan’s friend Nate has also been bucking about, so there is a challenge for him as well.
The thing is that Ross does do good work, I am sure that there are challenges running a church, and his desire to promote the legacy of William Tyndale is a good thing.
Yet, “A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.” (Proverbs 18:19).
The wisdom of Gamaliel would be good for Ross to consider, “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38, 39).