Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

12890Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Text types

Expand Messages
  • bsuden@juno.com
    May 14, 2005
      12823From: Jim Pellegrini <falcon5064@...>
      Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:22pm
      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Text types

      What about the doctrine of providential preservation?
      Has not God preserved His word for the church
      throughout all generations? In reading this debate, I
      have not heard someone mention this doctrine, which is
      a key piece of the puzzle in this debate.

      While we are a day late and a dollar or two short on this, Mr. Pellegrini and Dr. Letis are entirely
      too correct.
      The discussion from message 12814 has entirely neglected the doctrine of providential
      preservation. Or at least a proper exposition of it, which is the same thing.
      The whole argument that nothing is lost whatever family of manuscripts is used is bogus.
      If we buy into the modern eclectic text critical opinion here, the one doctrine lost, the one
      doctrine sacrificed, is that of God's providential preservation of faithful and infallible copies of
      the autographa in the common usage of the Greek speaking church.
      And when that happens, the Reformation doctrine of the Word of God as set forth in Chapt. 1 of
      the WCF starts to unravel. And as WCF 1 goes, so goes the rest of the WCF and the other
      subordinate standards built upon it.
      If we do not have, if the church of Jesus Christ has not always had, since the close of canon, a
      pure text providentially preserved in Greek and Hebrew, faithful infallible copies of the original
      manuscripts, it makes no difference if the Bible is inspired, perspicuous, infallible etc. because
      we can't be sure we have a faithful copy of the Bible to begin with. Every paragraph in the WCF is an integral and irreplaceable
      part of the whole; a facet in the diamond, a rung in Jacob's ladder.
      You cannot pick and choose. You cannot put the Alexandrian or "Neutral" or Western text along
      side of the Byzantine and say they all represent the same essential text, that nothing is lost etc.
      etc. because prov. preservation/WCF 1:8 IS lost and we are then at the mercy of the textual
      scholars, eclectism and the latest discovery of a new manuscript.
      You might as well go the whole route and allow for the Book of Mormon to be added to the
      canon because Joe Smith just found it and yes, the Lord must have let his church limp along on
      five or six cylinders for 18 centuries, even the great Reformation church, until modern times and
      modern scholars like Westcott, Hort, Joseph Smith and who else, Fred Flintstone?
      In other words, providential preservation is an integral part of WCF Chapt. 1 and WCF Chapt. 1
      is all or nothing affair. Take out any paragraph you like, whether 1:8 or not and it all crumbles.
      Even further, it is embarassing when Dr. Letis has to come on and clean up people's abc's on this forum when the WCF is not even a subordinate standard in his church.

      cordially in Christ
      Bob Suden
      Lynden, Wa.
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic