One of the objections that is made about the idea that the King James Bible (and specifically the Pure Cambridge Edition) are perfect today, is the idea that these only exist in recent history, and not for most of world history since 4004 BC (or whenever creation was).

They can ask why would the KJB be right, when the Early Church did not have it?

The answer is obvious and simple, which is that just as Scripture has been revealed successively through history, so also have truths been understood. The Council of Nicaea articulated truths in 325 AD, and it makes sense that the best textual work and translation occurred in 1611.

Remember, in 1571 BC, when Moses was born, no one had any Scripture (except maybe the Book of Job). The world’s population is estimated to have been less than 50 million at the time. (Different modelling puts out different numbers from 10 million to 50 million for the death of Moses in approx. 1451 BC.)

If at the time of Joshua there was a maximum of 2 million Israelites, and the world population was 50 million, that’s 1/25^th of the world’s population that could know Scripture.

Let’s move forward to when the entire Old Testament was complete, to when it was even translated into Greek, and available in the Roman world, when Jesus was doing His earthly ministry.

The world’s population is estimated to be 170–300 million at the time. How many people knew either Hebrew or Greek, and could access the Old Testament? Not China, not most of Africa, not the Americas, not Greater Germania and not even people who only knew Latin and Celtic/Gallic languages.

If we jump forward to the time of the Reformation and Ottoman expansion, in 1517, estimates are of 460–500 million people in the world. This was before the Bible was translated into German by Luther or into English by Tyndale.

We see the providence of the printing press, the rise of the English-speaking peoples, the spread of Protestant Christianity and the increase of literacy.

Maybe 1% of the entire world spoke English when the King James Bible was translated.

But what do we see? Growth and advancement that helps the spread of Christianity and the rise of the KJB.

Population growth estimates are:

• French Revolution (1789): ~700–900 million
• End of World War I (1918): ~1.8–1.9 billion
• End of World War II (1945): ~2.3–2.5 billion
• Fall of the Berlin Wall (1989): ~5.3 billion
• September 11, 2001: ~6.1 billion
• 2026: ~8.3 billion

In the same period we see the growth of the English language:

• 1611: Approximately 1% of the world spoke English natively; virtually none as a second language
• 1789: Around 2% native, with 1–2% second-language speakers
• 1918: Approximately 6–7% native, 3–5% second-language
• 1945: Roughly 8% native, 5–7% second-language
• 1989: About 7% native, 10–15% second-language
• 2001: Around 6% native, 15–20% second-language
• 2026: Approximately 5% native, but 25% or more of the global population knows English as a second language

Think also about exploration (colonisation), advancement in travel and communication/information technologies. We have advanced in computing in the 20^th century, and the internet has boomed in the 21^st.

So a perfect Bible in English in 1611 makes sense, because the majority of the world’s population growth is happening since the 20^th century.

Between 2000 and COVID-19 (2020), English became the most dominant language in the world, outrunning Chinese. However, it is the fact that many people are learning English as a second language that makes it beneficial.

The Pure Cambridge Edition was first published before the First World War. It existed by being printed in the millions over the decades. It is rising to acknowledged prominence by the internet and international mailing.

All of this ties together the important points that the King James Bible is the Bible for the future. It points to why a perfect English Bible version is rising in these days, and not in the time of the Crusades or something.

It is important to link together the dominance of the English-speaking nations, and the power of the truth of the Gospel. The Gospel is having impact into the world, and the best theology comes from the English-speaking nations (whether people argue for Baptists, Westminster Confession/Presbyterianism, Wesleyanism/Holiness and/or Pentecostalism, etc.).

In South America, the Gospel is increasing to some degree (though there are questions about specific Pentecostal brands of Christianity with the South American lower classes), which itself is having an effect of bringing them to the English language (since Christian music exists primarily in English, for example).

One can see the potential for using the KJB and true Gospel preaching impacting into places like South Korea, India, Africa, South America and through the Pacific (which has already been impacted by Evangelicalism).

There are more than ever people alive today who need the Gospel. English is more than ever spoken. The KJB is more than ever available.

It is now possible for more people than ever to receive and use a perfect Bible. Therefore, we can see the potential for true and impactful world evangelism.

“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26).

A Universal-Time Interpretation of Physical Processes

INTRODUCTION

According to the Bible, time is flowing at a universal rate, whether on Earth or in space.

Using a creationist model, it would appear that light was instantaneous in Genesis 1, but that light decay occurred in the universe since the fall of man, and has now stabilised at a fairly constant rate.

It is my intention to present a view of the universe which necessarily rejects Einstein’s unbelieving general relativity, and which builds upon a correct Newtonian view.

We will therefore hypothesise a framework in which time is absolute and universal, flowing at a constant rate from past to future, independent of location, motion or gravitational potential.

We will reject the usual modernistic explanation that time is moving a different rates as one moves up from sea level. Instead, we will suggest that observed discrepancies in clocks, atomic transitions and biological processes are explained not by a relative passage of time but by the physical effect of gravity on matter. Gravity acts as a universal regulator, influencing the rate of atomic, chemical and biological processes.

Light maintains a universal speed, with minor local distortions possible, and historically decayed from near-instantaneous velocity to its present stable value. This model perpetuates a Newtonian understanding of time, aligns with experimental observations such as satellite clock behaviour and freefall phenomena, and avoids conceptual complications associated with relativistic spacetime curvature and time dilation.

We are overthrowing Einsteinian error.

CORE CONCEPTS

Historically, the consensus of Christian societies were built upon the Newtonian view of the universe that recognised time as absolute and uniform, flowing independently of physical events, and three dimensional space as a fixed, consistent framework. Consider Newton’s clockwork universe as operating in this way.

In contrast, Einsteinian relativity introduced a variable-driven, location-dependent concept of time, predicting that clocks in different gravitational potentials or moving at different velocities tick at different rates—a phenomenon commonly referred to as time dilation.

While this relativity seemed to be predictive, particularly in technologies such as GPS, its interpretation relies on the presupposition that time itself is relative. This paper disposes that view to set back truth, that a universal-time framework in which observed clock discrepancies and other relativistic phenomena can be fully explained as physical effects of gravity on matter, rather than variations in the passage of time.

Therefore, gravity itself is sort of like aether, where large planetary and stellar objects cause what could be imagined to be denseness, strength of gravity, and moving away from them, weakness of gravity, and that the strength of gravity holds things in orbit or draws things (e.g. a ball falls to the ground, a comet whizzes toward the sun).

PRINCIPLES

• Absolute universal time

Time is considered a constant, universal flow, identical across all locations and independent of motion or gravitational potential. The passage of time cannot be accelerated, slowed, or controlled by human devices; it is a fundamental property of the universe.

• Gravity as a regulator of matter

Gravity is a universal influence acting on all matter with mass. It affects all physical processes proportionally, including:

• Atomic transitions
• Nuclear decay
• Chemical reactions
• Biological processes, such as neural firing

Clocks do not experience “slower” time in stronger gravitational fields; they tick differently because their internal physical processes are directly influenced by gravity.

• Light’s decay and current stable universal speed

Light propagates at a universal speed in the current universe. While minor local distortions may occur due to interaction with gravitational fields, its global speed remains consistent. Historical observations suggest that light may have decayed from near-instantaneous speeds in the early universe to the present stable value. This provides a coherent explanation for cosmological observations without requiring time itself to vary.

OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE

• Atomic clocks

Atomic clocks placed at different altitudes or velocities show consistent variations in tick rates. In this model:

• A clock at sea level ticks at 1 second per standard unit
• A clock in orbit might tick at say 0.97 seconds per the same standard unit

These differences reflect the physical influence of gravity on the atoms and electrons of the clock, not a change in the passage of time.

• Freefall and satellites

Clocks in freefall, such as on orbiting satellites, behave as if unaffected by gravity, consistent with the experience of weightlessness. This occurs because the momentum state of freefall alters the manifestation of gravity on physical processes, even though universal gravity continues to act on all matter.

• Grounded clocks, under constant gravitational acceleration, are affected directly.
• Freefall clocks exhibit normal behaviour, as observed in orbital satellites.
• Biological processes

Neurons, metabolic cycles and other biological processes respond proportionally to local gravitational potential. Therefore, a brain at high altitude or in orbit may operate at slightly different rates compared with a brain at sea level, reflecting gravity’s regulation of matter, not a relative flow of time.

• Light and electromagnetism

While the speed of light remains globally constant:

• Minor local gravitational interactions can produce observable effects, such as redshift or bending of light, without requiring time itself to be variable. (The universe itself may be expanding since creation, which may also account for redshift.)
• This ensures causality is preserved and measurement consistency remains intact.

CONCEPTUAL IMPLICATIONS

• No time dilation

All phenomena traditionally interpreted as time dilation are fully explained as physical effects of gravity on matter. No clock, neuron, or atomic process measures a different universal time; instead, their rates of operation are influenced by gravity.

• Gravity as a universal regulator

Gravity is not a localised force acting inconsistently; it is a universal regulator that proportionally influences all matter. Because matter cannot be shielded from gravity, all processes are affected in predictable, proportional ways, producing the exact observations attributed to relativistic effects.

• Simplicity of universal time

By positing universal time, the model eliminates the need for spacetime curvature, relative time metrics, or multiple frames of reference. Observations across locations, altitudes, and velocities are consistent with a single, universal clock regulated only by the physical influence of gravity.

ADVANTAGES OVER RELATIVISTIC MODELS

• Conceptual simplicity preserves Newtonian absolute time and consistency with the Scripture.
• Consistency with experimental data: atomic clocks, satellite measurements, freefall phenomena.
• Predictive differences in clock rates, biological processes, and atomic transitions are fully explained by gravity’s proportional influence on matter.
• Compatible with a universal light speed. Minor distortions are local and do not contradict measurement standards.

REJECTION OF THE MODERNIST MODEL

It is crucial to emphasise a fundamental distinction often overlooked in conventional physics: predictive agreement does not imply causal truth. Relativity correctly predicts observed variations in clock rates, atomic transitions, and other phenomena. However, interpreting these observations as evidence that time itself flows differently is a metaphysical assumption, not an empirically demonstrated fact.

In the universal-time framework, these same phenomena are fully explained without invoking a mutable time. Gravity acts as a universal regulator of matter, altering the rates of atomic, chemical, and biological processes. The differences observed in clocks or biological functions are not evidence of “time dilation” but rather of gravity’s physical influence on matter. Time itself remains constant, universal and unchanging.

This distinction is more than semantic. It advances understanding by providing a causal account of observed behaviours: whereas relativity treats time variations as a mysterious property of the universe, the universal-time model attributes changes to tangible interactions of matter with gravity — an approach consistent with Newtonian intuition and the observed regularities of the physical world.

In short, phenomena traditionally described as time dilation are not inexplicable “temporal magic”; they are observable manifestations of matter’s response to gravity, all occurring within a single, absolute temporal framework.

CONCLUSION

This approach offers a credible and conceptually coherent alternative to the prevailing Einsteinian framework. By positing a universal-time, gravity-as-regulator model, the universe can be understood in terms of tangible, causal interactions, rather than abstract manipulations of an elusive “flow” of time.

Key principles of this model include:

• Time itself is constant and universal, independent of motion, location, or gravitational potential.
• Gravity regulates all matter, proportionally affecting clocks, atomic transitions, chemical reactions, and biological processes. Differences in clock rates or neuronal activity are not evidence of time itself changing, rather, they are the result of matter responding to gravity.
• Clocks do not control or measure time; they reveal the effects of gravity on the matter within them.
• Light propagates at a stable universal speed, with only minor local distortions that do not contradict measurement standards.
• Phenomena traditionally attributed to time dilation are fully explained without invoking relative time or curved spacetime.

By reframing physical phenomena in this way, the model preserves classical Newtonian intuition, aligns with empirical evidence, and avoids the conceptual complexities and metaphysical assumptions inherent in relativity. Whereas Einsteinian relativity interprets observed variations as intrinsic alterations in the flow of time, the universal-time framework attributes them to tangible, causal interactions of matter with gravity, providing a clear and mechanistic understanding.

In this view, the universe operates under absolute time, with gravity as a universal regulator and light as a consistent reference for all physical processes. Observed variations in clocks, biological processes, and atomic transitions are simply manifestations of matter’s response to gravity, all occurring within a single, unchanging temporal framework. This model offers a coherent, causal, and conceptually simpler foundation for understanding the cosmos, preserving both empirical consistency and the intuitive clarity of Newtonian physics.

INTRODUCTION

Liturgy and devotion are two important facets of how a Christian interfaces with God.

Liturgy means the manner of how church (e.g. Sunday public worship) and religious services (weddings, funerals, etc.) are ordered and relates to their content, their use of the Scripture and other elements, particularly scripted elements. Liturgy can also involve the religious content, including Scripture readings, that is used by other organisations, or at other times, for example again weddings and funerals, but also baptisms, child dedications or other services.

Devotion means the manner of family altar, private gatherings and especially personal interaction with the Lord.

While evangelicalism and especially Pentecostalism have largely loosed themselves from the constraints of templates and formulaic prayer, there are still patterns to be found in Word of Faith teachings as regards to model sermons/studies (e.g. the Kenneth Copeland Reference Bible) and model prayers (e.g. prayer of petition, tithing prayer, etc.)

THE NEED FOR COMMONALITY

Different denominations and movements have their own prayer books, hymn books, etc.

The Word of Faith Movement has several books containing prayers, such as, Prayers that Avail Much (original) by Germaine Copeland (not related to Kenneth Copeland), and secondarily material by Lynne Hammond.

It also has been telling that all kinds of Christians have used the Anglican Book of Common Prayer’s wedding ceremony as a tradition. It is this tradition which keeps the use of a wedding ring as a custom for marriage.

Reading the Scripture through the year, in church or personally can be well guided by using the charts of the Book of Common Prayer for daily, Sunday and special day readings. I think this would be good for encouraging the personal reading of Scripture and also having everyone reading/hearing the same thing every day.

Not everything would be useful from the Book of Common Prayer, of course, including Apocrypha readings, but it certainly is a good and common resource to draw upon.

It is also important to understand how the Book of Common Prayer works, in that it has a fixed position of the year and a moveable portion of the year, and that requires switching from one calendar to another so many weeks before Easter, and this continues on until so many weeks after Easter. This is because Easter moves every year.

THE 1662 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER

The Book of Common Prayer has developed out of the deep Reformation era, and the common form as it stands now is called the 1662. There are also modernised, localised and translated forms of the Book of Common Prayer, but we are not advocating in any direction that way.

The Book of Common Prayer has altered in ways since 1662 but still is called the 1662. It alters in regards to naming the current monarch of England, and also in 1859 some content was removed.

One of the removed elements that is really good, and to be retained on its own, now independent of the Anglican/Episcopal church is the content in regards to the Gunpowder Plot and Landing of William III, http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/nov5.pdf

I have copies of the BCP: a Queen Victoria, Oxford, 1900 and a Queen Elizabeth II, Cambridge, 1954. Older copies can easily be sourced from archive.org, see also here: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/1662.html

FURTHERANCE

Whereas it is expedient to retain, restore or alter elements of common liturgy and devotion arising from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, its practice can continue privately or in church services under the concept of a Protestant titular bishoprick of Bethlehem. I discuss related matters here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1777l7qmCWorAcFq5zOEwIajhbjuOlQlK/view

1 Corinthians 14:33 and 40 states:
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Order and conformity would mean that we should use the same Bible, a time-honoured and correct one. Only the King James Bible should be the standard and guide. In regards to the question about editions, it is good to have the Pure Cambridge Edition.

The Book of Common Prayer uses the Lord’s Prayer from pre-1611, and likewise the readings of the Scripture can be printed in forms not consistent with the Pure Cambridge Edition, so these can be altered. In the creeds, they can be followed, but “catholick” and “virgin” should be lowercase. Also, as mentioned, the Apocrypha readings are not required.

The Book of Common Prayer should be used as a resource that can be drawn upon, for weddings, words for certain days of the year, especially the 5 November material, and would be an excellent guide for daily readings and Sunday readings, and can be used in church or personally.

In this way we can follow the irenic encouragement for orderly Christianity in line with the Word and Spirit movement.

The Word and Spirit perspective does not conform to any single Protestant stream in total, but to recover and synthesise those doctrinal, devotional and practical strengths which have been preserved in different parts of the Protestant inheritance.

Word and Spirit draws together two streams of King James Only (Pure Cambridge Edition) Fundamentalism and Word of Faith Pentecostalism, but also encompasses vast elements of Multiple fulfilments of Bible Prophecy which includes Historicism (traditional Protestantism), millenarianism (Puritan), higher life entire sanctification Christian perfection (Holiness), creation (Fundamentalism), law and grace (Wesley/Finney and Reformed Evangelicalism), etc.

One also must mention the preference for Redemption Hymnal and a common pool of classic choruses, including those by David Ingles.

CONCLUSION

Having commonality in liturgy and devotion is very helpful in orderly Christianity. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is a good resource for selective usage. The aim of the Word and Spirit movement is not merely insular but universal, therefore Christians are encouraged to conform to the pattern shown them.

Just as the Pure Cambridge Edition is the common inheritance for all Christians, so right Protestantism should be held to as a matter of common faith.

Someone asked me about the Cambridge, Oxford and London, and older and newer spelling difference of “rasor” versus “razor”. The question is, does it really matter?

If you are going to really believe that every word of God is pure and that jots and tittles really matter, then you will want precision.

So is it really important to have “rasor” and why should we consider the Cambridge spelling to be correct? The answer could be, even if it doesn’t matter (I personally can’t see a doctrine hanging on the spelling of the word), the point that the rest of the Edition that has that spelling is right, we go right along and accept rasor as well.

But for the argument of etymology and propriety. In Middle English, the French influence, it was rasour, so the z spelling is more recent.

Now, if we go one way, we will find really big differences which are important, like between “intreat” and “entreat”.

FORM	SENSE	DIRECTION
intreat	ask, please	toward will/favour
entreat	treat, deal with	toward person/condition

But in the other direction, in something which ordinarily wouldn’t matter, we ought to side with the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible.

By the way, the spelling “ought” not “aught” is not in the Pure Cambridge Edition. The mid-20th century London Edition used the spelling “aught”. If it is all the same one way or the other way, that’s one thing. But the spelling convention in the Bible (coming from 1611) has been “ought”.

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2).

See that word in bold in that statement.

INTRODUCTION

We need to start from God’s work in history, and the Scripture received, message conveyed by preservation and doctrine understand.

Protestant Christianity confesses that Holy Scripture is the supreme authority for faith and doctrine, yet it has also insisted that Scripture is not self-interpreting in a mechanical sense. Rather, Scripture is given by God to be understood by His people, through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, within the life of the Church.

The King James Bible stands today as the providentially preserved, exact and settled form of Scripture in English, and that theology, doctrine and creedal understanding are now best and most safely expressed in English, as an act of faith in divine providence. This is an explicitly anti-Enlightenment position, rejecting the imposition of human thought over truth, but instead affirming the Word and Spirit as the governing principles of Christian truth.

After arguing that the Scripture is now being accessed by believers in an authoritative form in English, we must then see that interpretation should take place anchored in the English alone, rather than in any of the original language requirements of modernistic hermeneutics. And now, I am suggesting that doctrine, creed and the very fabric of our Christianity exist entirely in English, because the best forms of Christianity have arisen since the days of William Tyndale in English, and that this is built on a middle English foundation of the Lollards which in turn is built on an Anglo-Saxon reception of the truth from the Celtic world. I am going to argue that theology necessarily must exist in English.

The doctrine of the Trinity serves as a proving ground for this approach.

THE KING JAMES BIBLE AS PROVIDENTIALLY PERFECT SCRIPTURE

The Protestant doctrine of Scripture has never ended with inspiration alone. Inspiration without preservation leaves the Church perpetually uncertain. The Reformers understood this, even if they did not systematise it as later generations would.

The King James Bible represents not merely a successful translation, but the culmination of providential transmission. God, who inspired His Word, has also governed its history, ensuring that His Church possesses a stable, authoritative text.

Scripture itself affirms this principle in Psalm 12.

The claim is that God has chosen the English language as the final means of preservation for this stage of redemptive history. The existence of an exact, identifiable text, such as the Pure Cambridge Edition, is its logical outworking. A God who intends His people to know the truth is providing His words in a knowable form.

Without such finality, doctrine becomes provisional, theology unstable and authority endlessly deferred.

THE PROPER PROTESTANT INTERPRETATIVE METHOD

True Sola Scriptura has never meant Scripture isolated from the Spirit. The Reformers were explicit that illumination is necessary.

John Calvin stated, “The testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason.”

Scripture is divine speech in written form. It is therefore understood as divine in origin, not merely analysed as mere human literature. Linguistic examination, genre awareness and comparison of Scripture with Scripture are necessary, as subject components of how to interpret, with deference to the divine will behind and revealed in Scripture.

The Holy Ghost stands above providential tradition, creeds, teachers and commentaries. These serve the Church because they are themselves fruits of the Spirit’s work across history, they are aids to Scripture, and the second way in which God communicates to His people after the primacy of Scripture itself.

After all, Christ promised, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” (John 16:13).

The Protestant confidence that truth is knowable rests not in human intellect, but in divine intention. God intends to be understood, sufficiently and savingly, by His people.

THEOLOGY AND CREED MUST BE EXPRESSED IN ENGLISH

Theology does not exist apart from language. Every doctrine must be spoken, taught and confessed. The Nicene and Athanasian formulations were not timeless abstractions; they were contextual expressions of biblical truth using the most serviceable language available at the time.

That language is no longer Greek.

The continued dependence on Greek technical terms is not a mark of fidelity, but often of intellectual inertia. These terms were never inspired; they were tools. English now fulfils that function more effectively, more universally and more safely.

The English-speaking Church has already proven this. The Book of Common Prayer, for example, demonstrates that creedal and Trinitarian doctrine can be expressed clearly, reverently and precisely in English without loss of substance.

The insistence that theology must remain tethered to Greek categories effectively privileges the academy over the Church and resurrects a clericalism the Reformation explicitly rejected.

THE TRINITY AS A TEST CASE

Scripture presents the raw data:

• One God
• The Father is God
• The Son is God
• The Holy Ghost is God
• The Father is not the Son
• The Son is not the Spirit

The doctrine of the Trinity is not an invention, but an interpretative articulation of what the Scripture shows. It is the only formulation that preserves all biblical testimony without subtraction.

The creeds do not explain how God is triune; they establish what must be affirmed and what must be denied. As Athanasius rightly insisted, denial of the Son’s full deity is denial of salvation itself.

English theological language is fully capable of expressing this reality:

God is one being, eternally existing as three distinct persons — Father, Son and Holy Ghost — each fully and truly God.

No Greek metaphysics is required to grasp this truth. What is required is submission to the totality of Scripture.

COUNTERING SCHOLARLY OBJECTIONS

1. Textual Criticism

Modern textual criticism assumes that Scripture exists only as a reconstructive hypothesis, never as a settled text. This assumption is philosophical, not biblical.

The Protestant position insists that God governs history, not merely inspiration. Endless textual fluidity undermines faith and contradicts Scripture’s own claims of preservation.

2. Historical objections

It is often claimed that Trinitarian doctrine developed under political pressure. This confuses clarification with invention. Heresy forced definition; it did not create truth.

The early Church did not impose doctrine on Scripture — it defended Scripture from reduction.

3. Philosophical objections

Enlightenment rationalism demands that doctrine be demonstrable prior to belief. Christianity reverses the order: faith receives revelation, and reason serves it.

“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5).

The Trinity is not irrational; it is supra-rational. It exceeds reason without violating it.

WHY GREEK DEPENDENCE IS NO LONGER DESIRABLE

Greek-based methods (translation, interpretation and theological definitional categories) once served the Church. They no longer do so universally or effectively. Continued dependence on them:

• restricts theology to specialists
• obscures rather than clarifies doctrine
• undermines the Protestant principle of accessibility

The Reformers themselves rejected linguistic tyranny. William Tyndale famously declared his desire that the ploughboy should know more Scripture than the cleric. That vision is fulfilled not by perpetual return to Greek, but by confidence in English theological speech.

The King James Bible stands as the providentially preserved Word of God in English. The Holy Ghost illuminates that Word, guiding the Church into truth. Theology and creed must therefore be articulated in English, as the living language of the Church, regardless of the attacks from Infidelity, and the many inroads Enlightenment-based thinking has made into the academic gatekeepers of modern day Christianity.

The doctrine of the Trinity demonstrates that this approach does not weaken theology but it strengthens it. It exalts Scripture, honours the Spirit, respects providential tradition, equips the Church and safeguards to communication of the very articulation of truth the future of mankind.

THE CHAINS OF PROVIDENCE

True doctrine passed from the Apostles to the Church of Constantine where the Creeds were made. This then informed the insular Latin tradition, as doctrine came up from Gaul, and was in the end of sub-Roman Britain (as it had been since Joseph of Arimathea, St Alban or St Helen had been there) and eventually was seen in Wales in the family of Arthur.

It also went to Ireland by Patrick, to Scotland by Columba and came to Northumbria by Aidan. Thus, we can be sure that there is a direct line through the Celtic church to the Anglo-Saxons that was parallel to the truth also being in the Eastern, Greek-speaking world. I will call this the York line.

The second Canterbury line among the Anglo-Saxons came from Rome, and also reinforced by the Normans, resisted by the Barons (Magna Carta) and the people (the anti-curial movement) and present in the Lollard movement under John Wycliffe. In this line the expression of the Trinity was primarily in Latin.

Thus the Reformation was from the outset taking Scripture from Greek, doctrinal expression from Nicaea that had been in Greek, but moved to English. The doctrine of the Trinity was therefore expressed in English in the Book of Common Prayer, besides it being made common by other means in English, like through the Westminster Confession.

Now by these was doctrine being expressed fully in English, and the successive rise of Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism and so on have all been in English. The best theological progress in the world has been in English.

Yet, many have joined with the lies of Infidelity to try to fight English by trying to make Greek rule over Christian truth.

We see this spiritually-based ideological war, whether in New Zealand, where evil forces have tried to subject English everywhere, and we see it throughout Calvinism where they willingly enslave themselves to Greek.

The opportunity is for people everywhere to burst these bonds and to come into the uplift of the Spirit into the heady clouds of clarity, wide expression and right understanding.

INTRODUCTION

As inheritors of Anglo-Saxon freedoms, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and evangelical-influence, we understand that there is rightly an opportunity for Christians to engage in free enterprise. What this does not mean is every man doing what is right in his own eyes.

Limited toleration on expression is vitally important for both the preservation of Christian culture and also the curtailing of dangerous ideas.

Since the Enlightenment, a dangerous trend has come into the English-speaking world, of French and Communistic ideas, which strangely have been associated with the reign of terror, the guillotine, secret police, gulags and forced conformity.

The liberal way has become an enforced global order of world socialism, with man set up as having universal rights, human and associated rights, United Nations dictates and of course the promotion of all kinds of ideas which are against conservative, right-leaning, authority-based Christian morality.

The problem is that these anti-authoritarian notions have infiltrated Christianity. One area where these ideas are noticed are in the King James Bible-supporting Free Grace circle, where there are obvious Libertarian promoters.

A particular circle of these sorts revolve around Bryan Ross. Another author who Ross promotes, whose scholarship in the King James Bible area is quite respectable, is also heavily into Libertarianism. Underlying the Bryan Ross’ differing views to those undergirding the Pure Cambridge Edition is this tension between Libertarianism and Biblical authoritarianism. This also explains the heart behind the “verbal equivalency” ideas.

THE GENERAL PROBLEM

Mixing Libertarianism with Christianity creates a political theology that quietly denies the authority, including political authority, that the Bible requires.

Libertarianism presents itself as harmless with a preference for “liberty”, “non-coercion” and “limited government.” Smaller government and lower taxes are quite fine. Yet beneath this surface lies a full moral system that competes directly with the Bible’s teaching on law, rule, judgment and obedience. Libertarianism is not merely a political opinion, it is a rival doctrine of authority.

This contradiction becomes especially stark when Libertarianism is embraced by those who profess unwavering fidelity to the King James Bible. And yet this Bible is completely linked unapologetically with kings, magistrates, fear, punishment, command and submission.

The question must therefore be asked plainly: Can a Christian affirm the absolute authority of Scripture while rejecting the authority structures Scripture commands? The answer is, No.

AUTHORITY NECESSARY

Scripture does not treat civil authority as a regrettable concession to human frailty. It treats it as a positive good, ordained by God Himself.

“There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” (Romans 13:1).

Christ Himself is destined to rule with a rod of iron. The minister in the church is the minister of God, bearing a sword as an instrument … and likewise the same passage can be seen to apply to the divinely-ordained civil power in a Christian government.

“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:4).

Libertarianism, by contrast, begins with the presupposition that authority must justify itself to the individual, that coercion is inherently suspect, and that force is immoral except in the narrowest case of personal self-defence. It puts each individual man as a judge of his own destiny without any regard to the sovereignty of God. I’m no Calvinist, but obviously God’s will is being done. Therefore, Libertarianism is not a biblical presupposition but, really, a humanistic one.

Scripture never asks whether authority is consensual. It commands submission.

“Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” (Romans 13:2).

THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE

At the centre of Libertarian political theory lies the so-called Non-Aggression Principle: the idea that force is immoral unless used in direct response to aggression.

Scripture knows nothing of this principle.

God commands:

• Punishment before consent
• Judgment before appeal
• Discipline without negotiation

The law is coercive by definition. Judgment is coercive by nature. Government without coercion is not government at all, it would be mere suggestion.

“If thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain.” (Romans 13:4).

The sword is not metaphorical. It is not voluntary. It is not symbolic. It is real, physical and to be feared. Scripture presents this fear as righteous.

Libertarianism recoils at this.

VOLUNTARISM IS NOT OBEDIENCE

Libertarianism redefines obedience as voluntary association. One obeys only insofar as one consents.

Scripture rejects this outright.

Children do not consent to parents. Subjects do not negotiate with kings. The church does not vote Christ into authority.

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” (1 Peter 2:13).

Submission is commanded precisely because it is not optional.

A Christianity that teaches obedience only when authority is agreeable has already abandoned obedience altogether.

A PERFECT STORM OF LAWLESSNESS

When Libertarianism attaches itself to Free Grace theology, the result is a Christianity stripped of both external authority and internal restraint.

• Christian grace severed from discipline
• Christian liberty severed from law
• Christian living severed from fear

What remains is a gospel with no teeth, no terror and no throne.

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?” (Romans 13:3).

This is not the gospel preached by prophets, apostles or Christ Himself.

Libertarian Christianity cannot account for divine wrath exercised through earthly rulers, because it denies that rulers have moral authority to act coercively at all.

THE BIBLE IS NOT LIBERTARIAN

The King James Bible was not made nor supplied under Libertarianism. It seems to be absurdity to use the King James Bible as a banner for Libertarian thought.

The King James Bible is a monarchical Bible:

• Translated under a king
• Addressed to subjects
• Filled with kings, thrones, dominions, principalities and powers

It assumes hierarchy as natural and authority as normal.

The language of Scripture is that of rights under duty, not of autonomy, but of obedience and not ofself-determination but divine Lordship (and human lordship).

The master is over the servant, yet should serve; the husband is head over the wife, yet should give himself for her and God is the Father of His children, yet he gave His Son for them.

Libertarianism must constantly reinterpret or soften these terms like “rule”, “bishop”, “command”, “judge”, “obey”, “submit”. Scripture never does.

ANARCHY NOT THE BIBLICAL PATTERN

From Genesis to Revelation, authority flows downward from God, not upward from the individual.

• God rules kings
• Kings rule nations
• Fathers rule households

This is not tyranny. It is order.

Monarchy, as rightly understood, is not the deification of man but the delegation of rule. Even Christ reigns as King, not chairman.

The Bible does not speak against concentrated authority, it speaks against rebellious hearts.

Libertarianism is therefore a political religion that defies proper doctrine.

The issue is not whether Christians should love liberty. The issue is which authority defines liberty.

Libertarianism enthrones the individual. Scripture enthrones God.

The King James Bible leaves no room for a Christianity that rejects the sword, fears authority, or treats obedience as optional. A gospel without authority is not good news. A kingdom without a king is not biblical. And a Christianity reshaped to fit Libertarian ideology is no Christianity at all.