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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Degree

Expand Messages
  • Samantha E
    Hello everyone, The following website came from a friend for the purpose of a discussion on Bible translations that we were/are having. When we opened up this
    Message 1 of 35 , Jan 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello everyone,

      The following website came from a friend for the purpose of a discussion on Bible translations that we were/are having.  When we opened up this website my eye caught the words "honorary doctorate".  We followed the link and I have to say it was rather interesting.  I couldn't help but think of this thread when I saw it and thus thought I would pass it on.  It makes me leery of anyone who has a doctorate if I don't know whether or not their doctorate has been earned.
      http://www.preservedwords.com/index.html

      Regards,
      Samantha

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: bob_suden <bsuden@...>
      To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2007 12:17:24 AM
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Degree

      Hi Nate,
      An update. I was braced on this  and my memory jolted. When I asked Greg Barrow about this in about 2004? when it happened, to the best of my recollection he said that somebody had looked at Reg's work at/with  SWRB and said he could be awarded a PhD. on the basis of the same, which he or who he represented  then did. It is not an honorary degree, but something more like independent study. As to who it was that bestowed it, Greg couldn't remember, which I found pretty odd, but whatever.   There were other things going on at the time,  if not that I just plain forgot to follow up on it.  Besides I had already objected about the church's approval of Saul in the Cave of Adullam to the elders and got nowhere.
      But it's got to be a real degree, right?  because previous to this, I can remember GB heaping scorn and pouring contempt upon the offer of Whitefield Theological Seminary to give him a degree if he wanted to pay for it. But this one was free? Or maybe what really matters is it's a degree and not where it came from.  Anyway, chalk up another question for the RPNA?

      Let me see, for starters we have the following:
      1. Just when does the general meeting meet anyway?
      2. Who is the plaintiff in all the cases before the court which generated the oaths?
      3. Has the court fulfilled its promise of June '03 - over four years ago -  for a birth control paper yet?
      4. And how come everybody else had to swear an oath to uphold the Position Paper justifying the court -  in four months?
      5. Who was posing as the mystery lawyer and harassing some of the excommunicated and did they do so with the knowledge, much more approval of the court?

      Don't hold your breath.

      cordially
      Bob S

      RPNA/GM Timeline 
       

      --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, "Eshelman Family" <nleshelman@. ..> wrote:
      >
      > I receive emails from SWRB on occasion and noticed something today.
      >
      > The email was not signed Mr. Reg Barrow, or even Reg Barrow, but Dr. Reg
      > Barrow. Does anyone know what he did his Ph.D. work in, and when all this
      > came about? I have never noticed this before and was just curious.
      >
      > Nathan Eshelman,
      > First RP
      > Grand Rapids, MI

      --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, "Ic Neltococayotl" <puritanpresbyterian @...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > I duuno,
      >
      > But does he still do those Super Sales that end Monday and re-start on
      > Tuesday? I.e. the sales that never end but he gives everyone the
      > impression that they will?
      >

      Yo Edgar,  all is fair in love and war, you ought to know that. The fire sales/K-Tel marketing are for a good cause.





      Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
    • bob_suden
      x--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, ghowmil ... Did the Westminster divines possess ... Excellent question/reminder, Gary. As Hills among
      Message 35 of 35 , Jan 13, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        x--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "ghowmil" <garnetmilne@...> wrote:
        >
        Did the Westminster divines possess
        > the complete Word of God in the originals, or did they not? (And
        > incidentally they referred to the extant manuscripts etc as
        > 'originals').
        >

        Excellent question/reminder, Gary.

        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,
        Bob S

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.