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

[Covenanted Reformation] Re: Degree

Expand Messages
  • nocost2great
    It makes me leery of anyone who has a doctorate if I don t know whether or not their doctorate has been earned. ... Samantha, That was hilarious! I think I ll
    Message 1 of 35 , Jan 6, 2008
      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
      >
      Samantha,
      That was hilarious! I think I'll apply for my completely legitimate
      honorary doctorate today - then I can hob-nob. LOL
      Really though, I don't need to spend any money. (I didn't go so far
      as to see what the charge was.)

      My credentials are Ms. Dee Dee Shaw, CSUW
      When I worked as a programmer amongst all the up and coming computer
      geeks, they all competed to see how many certifications they could
      get(notice I didn't say earn) and tag on to the end of their
      signatures. There was one very arrogant guy in particular (his
      chosen screen name was topgun) who thought he knew everything. We
      had to fly in a professional rep from one of our vendors just to
      tell him what I had been trying to tell him for weeks. He was a
      source of grief and aggravation for me because he delayed a major
      project of mine for weeks. My reputation and over a million dollars
      were at stake, but my knowledge was worthless in his eyes because he
      held titles and I did not. So, I self-appointed myself the
      prestigious credentials -CSUW. For those who know computer lingo
      there are CCSA's and CCNA's and CSA's and the list goes on. We all
      enjoyed the look on his face when he arrogantly asked me what that
      stood for (after he had been embarrassed by discovering that I had
      been right all along.) It was always the source of a good laugh to
      remember Mike's face. (Shame on me for wanting to humilate him! Keep
      in mind he came very close to causing a million $ plus project to
      fail!) What does CSUW stand for you ask? Common Sense Usually Works.
      And it is true! I still use my credentials all the time when I am
      doing wellness seminars and trying to encourage people to think
      about their lifestyle choices and the medical system today. I am
      reminded of what CS Lewis said in the CON - "What DO they teach
      children in schools these days?" NOT common sense! If they did, it
      wouldn't be so easy to drug us into being complacent dumb sheep.
      I just read a book - "Mad Sheep" by Linda Faillace. It is a great
      expose and a sad story. It'll leave you broken, defeated, and angry.
      The sad truth is that nothing is going to change. WE are the mad
      sheep in my opinion.

      Dee Dee
    • 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
        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.