It is clear that this is not the place to be. I am sorry for having offended you unintentionally. I suggest you all learn what it means to impute motives,Message 1 of 35 , Jan 8, 2008View Source
MessageIt is clear that this is not the place to be. I am sorry for having offended you unintentionally. I suggest you all learn what it means to impute motives, and that you look at yourselves in the mirror before you judge me. I was not being sarcastic- IRRESPECTIVE of what it "felt" like to you. I was not being coarse or condescending, It seems that the general attitude is that the people who abused should be attacked scurrilously, and sins conjured up where none are found. Review the exchange where #1 Reg Barrows was slandered--evil motive was imputed to his accepting an honorary degree. #2 I have been slandered by evil motive being imputed to me--I just stated that I WAS not sarcastic, I meant that blessing honestly. #3 the response to my honest attempt to challenge theologically and morally offensive presumptions was simply to be told that I would not be spoken to.You people take offense to easily, but are quick to attribute evil motives to other people. Did you notice perhaps that Reg Barrow was not here to defend himself? I guess its OK to slander an enemy because anybody who victimized , doesnt deserve Christian response.And so that no one missed the point, I do sincerely apologize to the people I unintentionally offended. There was no intent to anything I said other than to engage in a vigorous debate.As to you Mr. Bump, God will truly judge between us---beware of what you ask for. He knows the heart YOU DONT.Regards,Gus Gianello-----Original Message-----
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Larry Bump
Sent: January 8, 2008 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Degree
Gus Gianello wrote:
> God bless you for your reasoned and explanatory response to my
> posting--which was never intended to offend. If you are this thin
> skinned about an honest and open exchange of ideas, I shudder to imagine
> what you would be like face to face.
Thank you for your kind and loving words.
I will be content to let God judge.
x--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, ghowmil ... Did the Westminster divines possess ... Excellent question/reminder, Gary. As Hills amongMessage 35 of 35 , Jan 13, 2008View Sourcex--- In email@example.com, "ghowmil" <garnetmilne@...> wrote:
>Did the Westminster divines possess
> the complete Word of God in the originals, or did they not? (AndExcellent question/reminder, Gary.
> incidentally they referred to the extant manuscripts etc as
As Hills among others makes plain, the orthodox position is that God has preserved his infallible word in the common use by the Greek speaking church of its faithful copies/apographa of the original autographa. To be constantly on edge wondering when a new manuscript will turn up and overturn all that we know, be it even the Koran or the Book of Mormon, much less the five providentially discarded manuscripts of higher textual criticism is to have forsaken the Reformed/confessional point of view.
Letis, whatever his faults, points out the development of the doctrine of providential preservation in his essays on Beza and Owen (particularly in the diagram on p.147) in The Majority Text: Essays in the Continuing Debate which he also edited. (The title is something of a misnomer. Only Part 1 regards the Majority Text. Parts 2 and 3 concern the AV and the TR respectively.) To the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Rome answered, which version? There are many variants, much more aha, the most faithful copy, Codex B or Vaticanus is found in the Pope's library. Protestantism answered with the corresponding doctrine of providential preservation in WCF 1:8. It is confessed even more explicitly in the first three Canons of the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675) which I have never been able to find in print, but found on the web here.
Yet as one of the two principium of theology, the doctrine of Scripture must be held in its entirety and completeness or not only will it unravel, but also else besides. Not for nothing is the doctrine of Scripture the first chapter of the WCF in contrast with most confessions which begin with the doctrine of God. And providential preservation is a necessary corollary of inspiration. Without it, we are lost. While on the one hand, if we never had an infallible revelation from God, we could never know what we are to believe about him or what duty he requires of us (LC Q&A5, SC Q&A3). But the more subtle denial of providential preservation, in the end, amounts to the same thing.
For all practical purposes, that faithful infallible revelation happened long ago and far away in some other galaxy. At best we would have to go to the Vatican and humbly request permission to use her library. And just when do we think Rome would give Protestantism liberty of the stacks? Either that or we could wait anxiously with baited breath upon the latest pronouncements of the textual scholars who will eventually give us the Historical Text, even as they have given us the Historical Jesus. Oh happy and hypothetical day. It is not going to happen.
There has been some discussion of this topic over at the Puritan Board. One thread is here. Rafalsky is the guy defending the confessional viewpoint, though IMO he seems to rely too much on the KJVOnlyites on other points than their pet hobbyhorse. Still as he says, `I won't flip out if you quote the liberal Bruce Metzger, so don't flip out if I quote Peter Ruckman'. Fair enough as a certain party in Edmonton used to say.
FWIW one of the posts also linked to an article by a Peter Kenaga, Skeptical Trends in New Testament Textual Criticism: Inside the Alexandrian Priority School and Why Bible Change is Coming. It is very interesting to read though he refuses to choose between the Byzantine-Alexandrian text families. That is, while he would not agree with the confessional argument for the Byzantine text per se, he points out the evident bias in the critical (Alexandrian) text position and says it has been oversold.
I'd say the same thing about the NIV, NKJV (though Kenaga excepts it) and the ESV, but enough is enough.
Hoping a profitable Lord's Day to all,
cordially in the Word become flesh,