you're reading...

Edward Hills

Edward Hills claims that the presuppositions of those adhering to “naturalistic” methods of textual criticism are in error. Since God’s providence had special care for the Scriptures, they must be handled differently than other written works.

This mindset seems to draw a false division between the ecclesiastical and the secular, as if God’s providence controls the religious affairs of men but not all affairs of men.

In my estimation that is an improper presupposition. God is God both of the ecclesiastical and of the secular. His providential hand guides all matters, not only matters specifically pertaining to His Church.

Furthermore, God’s providence has lead to many non-Scripture writings to be studied under the science of textual criticism. What’s to say that He didn’t do that in order to better prepare us for extracting His word from the various manuscripts that we have today?
Perhaps God’s whole purpose in these non-Scripture writings and methods was to give us an example of how to handle His word.

Read Edward Hills “The King James Version Defended”


About theologian

I'm a child of the King, my Father who is in Heaven, by the precious blood of His eternal Son, Jesus Christ. I am married with children and currently reside in Pennsylvania. I am a Pastor with the Association of Charismatic Reformed Churches (ACRC) working as an Urban Missionary in Chester, PA. Throughout my time in ministry God has also blessed me with opportunities for formal education by which I earned my terminal degree (Doctor of Theology) from New Geneva Theological Seminary in 2013.


4 thoughts on “Edward Hills

  1. I think you are right on, Larry. While textual criticism has been generally accepted by conservative Christianity, I will go a step further and suggest that there is also a place for “higher criticism” or “literary critical methods” in evangelical scholarship.

    For instance, Grant Osborne writes, “[higher critical methods] become enemies of the veracity of Scripture only when imbibed with the radical skepticism of negative criticism. When utilized under the aegis of an inerrant Scripture, they become positive, helpful tools.” JETS 42/2 (June 1999): 209

    Posted by Gomarus | November 15, 2006, 1:49 pm
  2. Great quote from Grant Osborne, i agree totally with what he says.

    Posted by theologian | November 15, 2006, 2:53 pm
  3. Thanks for this. The coincidence is remarkable. I had planned on writing on KJV-only this morning. Then I find you have posted on it! Thanks for posting on Hill. I completely agree with Osborne as well. He’s got a pretty decent commentary on Revelation, by the way.

    Posted by greenbaggins | November 15, 2006, 8:59 pm
  4. Coincidence or providence 😉

    Posted by theologian | November 15, 2006, 9:53 pm

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: