Mark Ward seems to have turned his
attention somewhat to both the idea of translating the Bible into every
dialect, and yet in arguing that, is also venomously arguing that English is
not special, there is no perfect English translation, etc.
I am sure God has a lot to do with
English. Interestingly, for someone who claims usage determines meaning, there
is a blindness to English usage for the Gospel determines or indicates God’s
That God both
made and designed all languages, yet somehow God has not designed English in
any special way any more than any other, does that make sense? The same God who
designs is the one who can use one above another. The clay cannot backchat the
we see both the wide use of English and that we have such a good Bible, the
King James Version. How much better it is that we
have English as a means of reaching more people everywhere, and how much
benefit is it for this to occur, both naturally (i.e. for commerce) and
spiritually (allowing others access to the best Bible in the world)? English has been used of God, and that the KJB is perfect,
are not statements based on arrogance, but providence and, more importantly,
Bible doctrine. Yes, there are verses and passages which point to these
concepts. (I know full well that the modernistic methods of hermeneutics will
of course seek to dissuade of this truth.)
And yes, while
it has been laudable to bring translations and Bible teaching to the various
nations and tribes in the past, it is true that the best Bible and the BEST
THEOLOGY exists in English. So the nations of today into the future are being
served better by this. God does choose instruments.
You know very well that Jacob was preferred over Esau. So likewise the Jacobian
Bible over the pride and so called “wisdom” of Edom.
God used Hebrew, Syriack and Greek once upon a time does not mean or require
continuous favour with those languages or manuscripts. No Scripture teaches
that, and Providence itself shows the opposite. The Reformation was in fact all
about translation, not retention of Latin or Greek, for then would not the
Gospel preaching have been accompanied by teaching Greek and Latin etc. to the
masses? But now those former things are left behind, they have waxed old and
are ready to vanish away. What was before in multiple
languages of Hebrew and Greek is now in one, English. The twain are made one,
better than what we had before. The God who is able to speak
any language (Acts 2) is also the God who has one message to be made known to
the nations, and, as it says in Zephaniah 3:9, turn them to A pure language.
Again, while Isaiah 28:11 is taken (as by Paul) to speak of the speaking in
other tongues, it is also shown that the same passage says ANOTHER tongue,
meaning one language. Ironically, the Pentecostal movement today both has
arisen and perpetuates from one language group, being the English-speakers.
that the languages of Hebrew, Syriack and Greek (and those places in the Gospel
where it is clearly Hebrew not alleged “Aramaic”) are not spoken today, how
more obvious is it to have God’s words in a living, present and powerful
admits, “You have to encounter God’s Word in translation.” And there is one
key, blessed language: Biblical English. (This is not to say that other
translations are evil, no, the God of grace has allowed imperfect translations,
and that which has been helpful for the various non-English speakers of the
world is not to be anathemised though the progress towards the universality of
one English Bible as a final standard is coming to pass.)
To argue that
other language groups have “claims on our conscience” is a perverted doctrine.
Yes, the Gospel should go to nations, but that should not be a reason to
disparage or wear a black arm band about English. That’s what woke people do,
they apologise for English, they try to “revive” neo-Hebrew, Welsh or
Australian Aboriginal constructs in line with an antichristian anti-English
view. So to call God’s plan of the
excellence of the Bible and the spreading of the Gospel in English as “arrogance”
or “chauvinism” is surely misguided. As if to prove the common
foundation of Infidelity behind wokery and this attack on English, we have Mark
Ward suggesting something that sounds suspiciously like open borders and
promoting illegal immigrants. This indicative leftwing ideology is antithetical
to what is found in the proper interpretation of Scripture.
We note the
reality of foreigners learning English, and the education of people who
interact with Biblical English (the KJB), yet Mark Ward, driven by something
(?!) admits that such views make him angry! All families/nations of the
Earth are to be blessed, and Christ Jesus coming to the nations today is going
to be a unitary Gospel which has, under God, its highest expression in the
English-speaking peoples. This is evident both historically with missionary
endeavours in recent centuries, but is also evident as far as what is the Holy
Ghost destiny evident (or “manifest”) among us. Mark Ward’s call to arms to
try to topple the supremacy of English is an attempt to attack the power of the
truth in English in its world reaching power.
The article “Borrowing from the KJV Bank and Trust” by Mark Ward is full of all kinds of problems. For example, the major thematic framework Ward uses to talk about the King James Bible is by Tolkien’s ring analogy, and not by a Biblical analogy. (The title of the “bank and trust” is mixed metaphor to this theme.) As usual, Ward does what Burgon accused the Infidels in his day of doing, which is, to treat the Bible as just a natural, human book, in this case, Ward views the King James Bible’s existence as being a natural, human phenomenon. He deliberately doesn’t recognise any providences, prophecies or anything else about its coming to be or its future, and in fact mocks the idea of supernaturalism altogether as if that angels sang as the KJB came abroad in some beatific birth. The KJB, in Ward’s view, is rhetorically the product of realpolitik, gritty urban chance and human contrivance. Of course the KJB appeared in a time of opposition — opposition from the Romanists, and opposition from the hyper-Puritans — but that is not to be analogous to the oppositions to modern translations (given that, of course, people will be inclined perhaps to resist something because it is new — but this is an entirely natural argument). And seeing that Ward thinks that things must be won by parley, it seems he is actually advocating a strange doctrine of “victory thorough adversity”, or to paraphrase it according to Heraclitus, “War is the parent of all things, some translations are made commercial successes, and some are critically acclaimed though parley.” Rather, the parley is for the truth of the KJB to stamp out opposition, just as the KJB was said to be able to do to others in 1611, so likewise it would equally best newfangled works of today. Ward then says that the KJB is the LXX of today, as if the KJB, which was the product of much deliberation and many former works, is the same as the LXX which was made hastily as the first ever translation. And so he misuses the analogy, for the KJB translators never thought that their work was just another LXX (unsound, needing much correction, etc.). No, that view is an entirely modern, unhistorical one, as championed by the likes of Mark Ward. Many indications from the KJB’s dedication and preface show that the KJB men thought that their work was right and proper, not needing intermeddling. The major problem is that Ward thinks that the increase of knowledge of these days must therefore require the modern man to leave the KJB behind. This principle of Infidelity is actually rejected in Scripture, “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:7). For, once having accomplished the pinnacle, no new things can ever exceed it. Mark Ward also ignorantly, and one would almost have to say deceptively, claims that the KJB in most common use today is from 1769. This is simply not the case in any way. In fact, the editions of the KJB in use today derive from editorial work AFTER 1769, so that the standard Oxford edition available today comes from or after Queen Victoria’s time. Also, this wrongly implies that somehow the text and translation of 1611 is different to 1769 or today, which is simply not the case. The most common Cambridge editions today come from the twentieth century. Ultimately, Mark Ward argues for a plurality where the KJB is “tolerated” as one of many translations, and should be recognised (seemingly reluctantly) for its success, dominance and historical place. It is pretty obvious that Mark Ward is making a case not to annihilate the KJB. But since when has that even been an option? Since when has there been a genocidal intent against it? (In this he bewrays the true intention of his side in this “parley”.) He seeks to impose a plurality, as if he is saying, “Oh, you can have the KJB, but as long as you accept all these other translations as well — the KJB is just one of many.” In that view, the KJB cannot be removed but it can be destroyed by being made less special. Mark Ward would do better to apply his skills in the mathom house to the language, philological history and provenance of the modern English Red Book translation, which ironically, has its best text in a single volume as published by HarperCollins.
David O’Steen is an American preacher and author at Hope Bible Church in Jackson, Georgia.
Recently he made a video talking about the Pure Cambridge
Edition of the King James Bible. Some of his basic facts were generally right, but
he made some incorrect statements which we will go through.
David knows that there are typographical errors in the history of the printing of the King James Bible and that spellings have altered since 1611. However, he implies that the Pure Cambridge Edition position is pedantry. His belief is that all variations in editions are concurrently true.
Further, one reason why David is very suspicious of the Pure Cambridge Edition is because I am a Pentecostal from Australia. It is obviously a bitter pill that I am Pentecostal because there is a huge divide between King James Bible only Baptists and Pentecostals in the United States.
Note that I did not invent the Pure Cambridge Edition, it was printed by Cambridge for decades in millions of copies before I was ever born.
David says that whether the
word is spelt (or, spelled as they say in the USA), “ancle” or “ankle” it means
that same thing. The answer to that is simple. Yes, it does have the same
meaning, but we are talking about exactness and God’s use of English, not how
we use English in our own usage.
Well of course no doctrinal collapse or whatever is there just because of a “c” or a “k”. That’s not the point, the point is that we should stick with God’s way, not our own heads. We should not diminish ought from the Scripture.
The Pure Cambridge Edition, which arose maybe in the late 1920s, is clearly called “pure” in relation to editorial standards. That is, in relation to typographical accuracy, a deliberate scheme of spelling, etc.
What David wrongly does is
conflate the editorial issue with the translation and textual/version issue.
There are three levels here: TEXT, TRANSLATION and EDITION. The first two go
together: the correct TEXT is the King James Bible, gathered from the TR
variants and set forth in 1611 and beyond. The correct English TRANSLATION is
the King James Bible which was made in 1611, improving upon the Bishops’,
Geneva and other translations. The same TEXT and TRANSLATION have been printed
throughout all normal and proper editions. Thus, the Oxford Edition is indeed
the pure and correct TEXT and TRANSLATION. However, due to some editorial
variations and typographical errors, the Oxford Edition is not quite as pure
EDITIONALLY as the PCE is.
David knows that the
variations in editions are not intentional corruptions of the King James Bible
itself, but have arisen through circumstance, accident, poor editorial
decisions, etc. However, editorial variations are still deliberate. Surely the editors
at Oxford knew that the Cambridge editions were spelling some words differently
and had some tiny variations in wording. But the Oxford people stuck to their
tradition. Having said that, the potential for misreading or for error in the
detail is therefore possible with an edition that might have typos, misspelled
words and worse, editorial changes that are actually wrong. These wrong changes
are not going so far as to change the translation or version itself, but still
pose impediments as to what is correct, precisely and accurately.
No one should think that a
Bible with typos is as good as a Bible with no typos. No, it is proper and
godly and orderly to get rid of the typos.
David makes a comment about some young Christian who gets a King James Bible and it happens not to be PCE. Let me say right now that God’s grace is sufficient. I don’t think anyone is (or should be) ripping that Thomas Nelson or whatever out of his hand or calling other editions the work of Satan or whatever. The PCE position is a nuanced one, whereas often a Christian would be so ignorant that he would think that getting an ESV was fine. If the Body of Christ was limited to only King James Bible users or PCE supporters rather than all born again believers today, such a distinction measure at this time would be a damnable heresy. I would to God a Christian read an Oxford KJB rather than the NIV. But there is a better thing than just “any edition” of the KJB.
David then looks at the list of 12 test places of the editions of the King James Bible (the list is on bibleprotector.com). He seems to think that the PCE issue is one where we are saying that there are deliberate and evil corruptions, and that unless you have a PCE, your King James Bible is corrupt. This is clearly NOT what is being said by me on my website or any video I make. Purity is about refinement, not about saying that things less pure are the work of Satan. (The Geneva Version was less pure than the KJB, but the Geneva Version was not the work of Satan.)
David tries to argue that the differences in the tests don’t matter. But they do. Now he rightly says that things to do with the Holy Ghost are not always with a capital “S” on the word “Spirit”.
But then he makes a huge
blunder. David says he thinks that I am saying that the word “spirit” (such as
in Acts 11:28 or 1 John 5:8) is not something to do with the Holy Ghost. This
is simply not true. It is evident that while David has seen that there are variations
in these things from 1611 and that the word “spirit” is plenty of times lower
case today, he has not understood anything about what I have explained on this
(It is very easy to go online
and find the basic information and some semi-negative report about me being a
Pentecostal and then just base a flawed conclusion on these points.)
I have quite extensively talked about the “spirit” case issue, including how the Holy Ghost is meant or his work, and why it is precise to use lower case “s” on the word “spirit” on occasions.
The problem is that David is taking a sort of ultra-simplistic approach that basically it doesn’t matter whether it is capital or lower case, because it just must mean the Holy Ghost. But the case difference gives nuance and is entirely deliberate. Editors like Blayney in 1769 knew full well to capitalise deity or that usage should be editorially consistent, yet these learned editors deliberately chose to have the word “spirit” lower case in places, because as we are able to discover today, there is a meaning difference in the case usage.
Laughably, David uses the
Donald Waite argument that since Hebrew or Greek did not use the case of
letters, therefore it mustn’t be an issue in English either.
By David’s logic, then, whether “god” or “God” doesn’t matter. And “Word” and “word” don’t matter either. Why not then have “dAVID” if letters don’t matter?
And likewise, if spelling is no issue, why not today have “Iesus Christ” or “Sonne of God”?
No, rather, worlds of meaning hang on capital and lower case. Just look at the issue around the word “god” in the story of the fiery furnace.
David brings up examples where one place has “Spirit” or “spirit”, and whether another nearby or parallel passage as the other. These are exact things, and I explain them on my website. The issue is not about fake uniformity, but about what exactly the word “spirit” means as is different to “Spirit”. I discuss this in detail elsewhere, but it seems to me that David completely has ignored this, and instead tried to draw his own negative conclusions about me and reinforce his own belief that variations in editions don’t matter.
David thinks the difference of
“spirit” or “Spirit” both being present, somehow must be an “inconsistency”.
Not so, but rather precision. I make points about this issue on my website and
in youtube videos.
Now, it gets more and more
ridiculous with David when he tries to justify the two different wordings. He
begins the mental gymnastics by trying to say that both the “or” and “and”
readings of Joshua 19:2 are correct.
A quick question should be
asked, seeing as God inspired and gave one word, how can it now be two? How is
it that now all the “legitimate” variations in editions are all to be accounted
as correct and true? No, the whole KJBO argument versus modern versions is that
only one set of words is right, so obviously the same must be with editions.
Only “and” or “or” can be correct at Joshua 19:2. It is pretty easy to see that
the word “or” is correct because Sheba has two names, whereas saying “and” creates
a distinction which then messes up the total number of towns listed in that
In another example in Jeremiah 34:16, the PCE says “ye” and the Oxford says “he”. Where each word has a different meaning, and worlds of meaning hang on the grammar or words, to say “ye” is not to say “he”. There is different information conveyed by these word differences. They are not concurrently true.
In another example, David tries to reconcile “flieth” and “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16. But these are two different words. David then gives this crazy explanation that people are saying that the cankerworm could fly. (In fact, the cankerworm does change to a flying insect, e.g. a moth.) He then strains to explain how both could be correct. But once again, seeing as each word has a different meaning, and meaning itself must be precise with God’s words, the “additional information” (basically an “advanced revelation”) that David tries to concoct by adding the “fleeing” to the “flying” is incorrect, since it can and should be only one or the other. (Otherwise would not God have said in Hebrew that the cankerworm flees and flies away?) David says, “the point is the same” … but how can flying and fleeing be the same? He really knows this because he then tellingly says that if you think it is one or the other, write what you think it is in the margin. And now we see that David has come to where the modernists are at: deciding God’s truth for themselves, deciding what variation they would like to choose as their preferred one. He says don’t throw the Bible away because it hasn’t got it the way you think it should be. Maybe stick with the PCE and that’s it after all!
In the example of “further” and “farther”, David clearly has no knowledge from either the dictionary or myself on the clear and distinct meaning of these two words. They are not synonyms. They are not complementary information. No, it has to be one or the other, and the PCE is right with “further” at the place in Matthew. When elsewhere the PCE has “farther” that also is correct in its place.
In the example of “bewray” and
“betray”, David knows nothing about these being two completely different words
with completely different meanings. But David is wanting to make all variations
concurrently correct … is he suggesting maybe that we should get a KJB that has
all the variations present, maybe as marginal notes, so that only then we can
have the “full” picture?
David rightly says that the 1769 is just as much KJB as the 1611 Edition. Yes, that is my point too. But we are not talking about the VERSION-TEXT or the TRANSLATION, we are talking about eliminating typos, using proper (Biblical) spelling and having editorially resolved what is the right word/spelling in every place.
“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4).
Every word means every single
word, not all the variations. God’s mouth did not produce variations like, “bewray”
AND “betray” at a place. No, God’s word must one or the other.
David falsely says, “Don’t let
a Pentecostal from Australia undermine your faith.” This is blatantly wrong! I
am encouraging faith in God’s words. Did I ever once go to the USA and tear up
Oxford Editions? No, I am about encouraging faith in God’s words, and that we
should have and know them.
I have plainly said that the Oxford has the pure and perfect text and translation, because the KJB is the right VERSION and the right TRANSLATION.
But, it is Biblically
consistent to have the proper words and their meanings in a proper edition.
“Have not I written to thee
excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the
certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth
to them that send unto thee?” (Proverbs 22:20, 21).
Of course, as David says, no one should be getting hung up. I know some people are like, “This Bible’s printer missed a full stop here” which if taken to an extreme can be unbalanced and sort of so-called mental illness territory. No, the Pure Cambridge Edition is one for the Church, to have a consistent edition, to have precision to the words, a proper tradition, a uniformity in usage.
Any true believer in Christ
should be seeing that the common heritage of God’s words is important. The
issue being discussed here is not about Pentecostalism or Independent Fundamentalist
Dispensationalism, it is about simply whether we believe God’s words and
believe that God has provided His words exactly and precisely, and that His
providence and power is such as to ensure that we’ve had the King James Bible
properly edited over the years and typographical errors resolved. If we know we
have something right then it makes it impossible for the devil or anything to
change even one jot or tittle in KJB on us.
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32).
David Daniels, from Chick Publications, made a video (8
April 2021) where he discussed the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James
Bible. Daniels has made various good videos and his ministry has been generally
helpful. He also wants to stick with the King James Bible, which is laudable.
WHAT IS PURITY?
Daniels begins by asking whether people should throw away
their King James Bible if it is not a Pure Cambridge Edition.
My answer is that no one should be throwing out the King
James Bible. Of course, we should use the Pure Cambridge Edition.
Would anyone use a book with typographical errors when they
have another printing of that same book which doesn’t?
What Daniels does is confuse the purity of the version and
translation of the KJB and then apply that standard as if someone is saying that
the KJB printed by Oxford or wherever is not a pure version and translation.
No, the King James Bible is a pure version and translation in all its normal historical
Typographical errors don’t invalidate the version and translation
of the KJB. But you wouldn’t want to use unstandard and bad printing when you
have the option for good. The word “pure” in “Pure Cambridge Edition” is
talking about correct spelling and typography. It is a different measure or kind
of purity than when talking about one version/translation versus another.
WHAT ARE EDITIONS?
Daniels says that the Pure Cambridge Edition is one that matches up to 12 particular verses having particular lettering or spelling. While this is fine for detecting what is a Pure Cambridge Edition, the reality is that there are whole lists of specific differences between current editions. See bibleprotector.com/editions
There are many editions of the King James Bible since 1611,
and so on analysis there are many variations is spellings, punctuation and so
on. And if you start by comparing the first King James Bible ever printed in
1611 with any other edition, you will always find variations here and there.
None of these are causing the loss of God’s words, but
obviously correcting typographical errors and the standardising of the spelling
and grammar has been a good thing.
There are a line of corrections from 1611, 1629, 1638 to 1769 and beyond. The Pure Cambridge Edition is an approximately 20th century correction of the Cambridge adaptation of the 1769 editorial corrections (which took place in the 1830s under Thomas Turton).
DO CAPITAL LETTERS MATTER?
Daniels goes on to have a look at some of the examples,
particularly around the fact that the Pure Cambridge Edition is getting the
word “Spirit” right when it is capital or lower case. A difference in capital
or lower case has a difference in meaning.
In fact, in general, changing a word in any document may
change some sort of meaning. Not that the actual word of God is changed, but
the potential for misunderstanding arising from an editorial inconsistency is
It is obvious we wouldn’t accept a typo like “Jesus” for “Judas”
or vice versa.
Doctrines or doctrinal precision matters, and that is why
words, lower case and capital matter.
Saying that the case of letters does not matter, or that
because in Greek the Bible was written in all capitals (uncials) or all lower
case (minuscules) … the Bible has been translated into English, and clearly
capitals do matter.
Would Daniels accept a King James Bible printed without
capitals? Would he accept one that always put “god” instead of “God”? I don’t
SOME OTHER EXAMPLES
Daniels is not understanding the differences in words, so
when he comes to the examples of “flieth” versus “fleeth”, “further” versus “farther”
and “bewray” versus “betray”, he thinks there is no real difference.
But there is. I have written about these before, and information is also in my booklet “Glistering Truths”.
Simply, the word “flieth” means both to flee and to fly
away, as the cankerworm turns into a flying insect. Whereas “fleeth” does not
have the meaning about the flying insect.
Again, “further” means more far, whereas “farther” simply
means a choice out of two options, the nearer and the farther. Correct grammar
dictates proper usage.
And as for “bewray” this is a word from Anglo-Saxon meaning to convey inadvertently. Whereas “betray” is from French, and means to trade for. Very evidently these are two different words with two different meanings.
Daniels needs to recognise that distinct words have distinct
meanings. To ignore or deny this is simply anti-intellectualism.
IS DANIELS SERIOUS THAT HE WON’T USE AN EDITION CALLED PURE?
Daniels said, rather strangely, that he wouldn’t use an
edition called “pure”.
Would he use an edition with no name?
Would he use a mid-twentieth century printed Cambridge KJB?
Conversely, would he use a grossly misprinted edition? What
if it was called “The Grossly Misprinted Edition”?
Many Christians who love and use the King James Bible have
realised that words and letters do matter, accuracy matters, and there is
everything good about everyone using the same edition and knowing that it has
every editorial choice right.
The answers here address any concerns, clear misconceptions and
really explain why it is good to use a particular standard edition of the King
Ecclesiastes 12:10, 11
10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that
which was written was upright, even words of truth.
11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails
fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one
Lord Acton has famously stated, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men …”
People take this statement as the highest wisdom in politics, and various Christian writers and thinkers proclaim that this statement is an essential truth.
But is it? After all, Lord Acton was a Roman Catholic of the strongest variety.
Roman Catholicism and much of Protestantism erroneously teaches that the saintly Christian man is still substantially evil, flawed and under the yoke of sinfulness. Even if so to a lesser degree. But the Scripture shows:
“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10).
“Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.” (John 8:34).
What does that say of Lord Acton’s ultramontane views and his contemporary powerful popes? It is not the power that corrupts, but bad men, when they obtain power, do bad on a grander scale.
“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” (Proverbs 29:2).
Therefore, it is not authority, not wielding power which corrupts. It is sin which corrupts. But if a person is righteous, then, as the Scripture in Proverbs 29:2 quoted above states, the people rejoice.
In other words, it is good for good people to have power, and maximum power must therefore lead to maximum good.
Constantine or Theodosius did much good, as did the Protestant monarchs. Nothing has changed in this principle, therefore it is highly desirable that good people be elevated to good positions.
“He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them.” (1 Samuel 2:8).
So those supposed Christian political thinkers who raise up the human ideology over the Spirit-led Biblical view are either deceived or, worse, deceivers.
Here’s a quote showing the mistaken consequences of reasoning that power must be in some way corrupt:
“Since power corrupts and government power tends to naturally corrupt, if a society safeguards freedom of speech, its government becomes far more accountable to the people. Freedom of speech allows people to speak out and criticise the government when they think it is going awry. Consequently, freedom of speech ought to be viewed as a fundamental mechanism against the concentration of power.” (Augusto Zimmermann).
The flawed logic is that government power must be corrupt, and that the only way to deal with this is a form of libertarianism. In other words, allowing unBiblical and anarchic licence to say whatever is essentially a justification for anti-authoritarianism.
It is ridiculous to posit that the concentration of power is a bad thing, else one must reject the rule of Christ Jesus Himself! And if this is meant only for earthly government, then when shall Christian influence ever be allowed, for by such flawed reasoning, Christian government should be banned, which is the exact intention of Infidelity (consider, for example, its rigorous anti-Christian practises in the French Revolution, and to its consequences in the Social Revolution which permeated the English-speaking world from the late 1960s).
Mere socialist democracy, separation of powers by dilution, rejection of official religion and secularist removal of all religion in governance is, by its very nature, and in its origins and in its consequences, complete warfare against traditional Protestant Christianity.
The Gospel does not require some arbitrary grant of “freedom” of one sort or another to empower people to either speak out against “oppression” or else, to have the right to preach righteousness and “proselytise”.
Let us therefore turn to the higher and better way, that with the righteous, the truly ascending and attaining Christian, power is to be used well.
Christianity which is surrendered to at least the principles of Infidelity is already on its slow and tedious journey towards what is called the Left. The fact that almost all those on the so-called Christian Right have embraced the fundamental erroneous foundations of erroneous thought is deeply problematic, and requires empowered Christian action to bring Christian ideology to the sound foundation of Scripture and spiritual certainty.