Tossed bread.

Ecc. 11:1 Cast your bread on the surface of the waters, for you will find it after many days.

What an odd thing to think about, to cast bread on the water, what happens if we do that? Will it come back later or will fish and birds consume it, or perhaps just sink to the bottom and decay? It is hard to expect a loaf or even pieces of bread to float back to us once it has been tossed out, rather it will dissolve and not be found again at all, so more likely it we might say our bread is gone and lost.

Or is it? Fishermen know that bread might be used for bait to catch fish. Others know that birds will come and eat crumbs until nothing is left. If anything remains of bread it nourishes the ever lower forms of life, so that nothing is lost or wasted, whether on the ground or in the water. Maybe our bread cast out does return as we find a bounty in what is fed by it.

Ecc 11:2 Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.

We become focused on one goal and at times we build in the path of ruin. We speak only to those who understand as we do, to those who we desire and approve of, seeking our will portrayed as hope. It isn't our choice on where to place our efforts but rather to the tasks that present themselves. Not by our own agendas can anything be built, nor by our dreams realised. It isn't by our will but by God's. The further we spread out what we do increases the influence our efforts make, we do not know with certainty the results, we know only a call to diligence in labour.

Ecc 11:3-5 If the clouds are full, they pour out rain upon the earth; and whether a tree falls toward the south or toward the north, wherever the tree falls, there it lies. He who watches the wind will not sow and he who looks at the clouds will not reap. Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones are formed in the womb of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things.

As much as we want to determine the future and to get what we want, to fulfill our own agendas and wishes, all things are by His will alone and for His purposes. Even when we act in wisdom and watch the signs we are limited to hoping for the results. What we do is in obedience not expecting reward but relying only on merciful grace. What reverence is there is saying "this we will do" and not follow it with "Lord willing"? With so many schemes and contrivances we go forward saying what will result when there is no guarantee at all.

Ecc. 11:6 Sow your seed in the morning and do not be idle in the evening, for you do not know whether morning or evening sowing will succeed, or whether both of them alike will be good.

How easy it is to do work and think the results are certain and that no more needs being done when complete. At times our work is done and no more is needed yet at others times there is only hope it will produce what we expected. Slackness and laziness will diminish a harvest. It is just as easy to neglect a sermon preached in the evening and place hope on only one preached in a morning. Is it a sermon preached in the morning or in the evening that reveals to the heart it's sinfulness and the need of Christ? It might be slothfulness and excuse for avoiding an opportunity then since we do not know the will of God and when His timing brings about an abundance. In diligence much is done, and in faithfulness much is produced, but in all things it is by God's own providence an increase is realised.

When we evangelise, and when a sermon is preached, are we casting our bread out on the waters or only tossing it where we want to find it? Maybe we aren't looking at God's will or providence but at our own agendas and prejudice. Is it our choice to say where a seed is planted or what we will reap from it? Often we want to save those we like, to ignore those we reject or believe worthless, to proclaim where we find satisfaction rather than go where the abundance is. Maybe we place confidence in ourselves and our intellect, supposing that those destined to be saved by God will be and already are saved so no effort is really needed to evangelise. Such is often the accusation against those that speak of election and predestination.

If we do believe in Election and Predestination of sinners to salvation, that God has chosen who He will redeem, then we must go forth to proclaim that Gospel and leave the choice to God alone. We can not choose who those are, when we pretend to do so then we only manipulate God, and those that seek to manipulate God are idolaters. Therefore, cast that Bread of Life out to every unworthy sinner having a broken and contrite heart, for it is effectual to each one who unconditionally belongs to Christ.

Luke 10:2 And He was saying to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.


All Scripture texts quoted from NASB(1995)

How the modern Church denies the preservation of Scripture

The doctrine of preservation is a foundational teaching of the Protestant Church. Most conservative Christians are in agreement that the original manuscripts of Scripture are inspired. But as we do not possess these originals the doctrine of the preservation of those originals is of utmost importance. What this doctrine states is that while the Bible was immediately inspired in the originals, it was also kept pure throughout the ages. The purity of preservation is no less than the purity of inspiration as it is the work of God Himself. Yet sadly today the conservative Christian Church is teaching something quite different. They no longer believe in the doctrine of preservation, though some do claim a belief in it. There are pockets of Christianity that still hold to this doctrine, being unshaken by the postmodernism that has infected the Church at large. Some of the organizations that represent this remnant of historic Christian belief in preservation are the Trinitarian Bible Society, the James Begg Society, and the Dean Burgon Society.

To better see the distinction between historic Christianity and postmodern Christianity we will look at two confessions that deal with the preservation of Scripture - The Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter 1, section 8) says this:

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. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the language of every people unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

We can see that the accepted doctrine of the Protestant Church was that God kept His Scripture pure in all ages. That is how preservation was defined. Now before we go much further, let's look at what the word "pure" means. To be pure is to be complete, without fault, free of foreign elements.1 This gives us an excellent idea of what the Westminster Divines were telling us in this passage of the Confession. They believed that the Scriptures in their original languages were pure and perfect in the apographs (copies), not solely in the autographs.

Now let's see what a modern confession has to say about the purity and preservation of Scripture. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (article X) says this:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

This clearly shows us that modern Christian teaching promulgates the idea that we can have Scripture with "great accuracy," but not pure. How great is the accuracy? I've heard scholars suggest numbers from 98% to over 99% (Bruce Metzger et al), but never 100%. The statement of faith also shows that they look on the apographs as being the Word of God only to the extent that they represent the original. This is an interesting statement, as the originals do not exist. Logically speaking, since we do not have the originals this statement of faith confirms a belief that they do not know to what extent the Scriptures that we have are the Word of God since it is impossible for them to see how closely they represent the original.

There is another interesting statement in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that seems to contradict modern textual criticism. Article XIV says:

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved violate the truth claims of the Bible.

While they say that they believe in the internal consistency of Scripture, let's see what their modern textual criticism teaches us.

The basic criteria for internally assessing variant readings is as follows2:
1. The more difficult the reading the better.
2. The shorter the reading the better.
3. The reading that is in verbal dissidence with other readings is better.
4. The less refined and more rough reading is to be preferred.

The modern textual critic believes that the reading in dissidence with other readings is better! That's hardly a case for internal consistency.

We also see the doctrine of preservation vanishing among Bible translators and Greek Text editors. I will look at two popular conservative translations as well as the critical Greek Text put out by the United Bible Society.

2 Chr 31:16 (NASB)
without regard to their genealogical enrollment, to the males from thirty years old and upward--everyone who entered the house of the LORD for his daily obligations--for their work in their duties according to their divisions;

All ancient manuscripts contain "3 years old" and not the 30 that we see in the NASB. This shows that the translators feel a need to correct the Scriptures. This need to correct clearly goes against any honest teaching on preservation.

1 Sam 13:1 (ESV)
Saul was... years old when he began to reign, and he reigned... and two years over Israel.

Here the ESV translators show that there is missing text in the Scriptures. Clearly you cannot show that there is missing text and still believe the text has been preserved. Remember that the definition of pure includes completeness. Besides, this would sound very strange if read in public.

The editors of the UBS critical Greek text also have a different idea of preservation. The UBS critical Greek text at Acts 16:12 uses "prwthS" - which is found in no manuscript. The reading should be "prwth" without the "S." The "S" makes the noun genitive, which changes the meaning. Instead of reading that Philippi is a foremost city of Macedonia, it reads that Philippi is a city of the first district of Macedonia. They do this because they do not think the text has been preserved, but rather it needs correcting.

I strongly urge Christians to consider where a denial of the preservation of Scripture will lead the Church. Without preservation there is no purity. Without purity the text can be questioned. When the text can be questioned we have no final authority. The early Protestant Church understood the importance of this doctrine. We should seek to embrace it again as something that is dearly beloved to us.