RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Degree
MessageSamantha,You are over the top on this. If this is an honorary degree then the institution who awarded it has every right to do so. Degrees are institutional acknowledgements of learning, not divinely sanctioned imprimaturs of knowledge. In other words, God does NOT care whether your degree is earned, bought or awarded. They are NOT a violation of the ninth commandment, because no where in scripture is there ANYTHING about "degrees". Is he trying to mislead people? I dont know, does he acknowledge that it is honorary so that he doesnt leave people with the impression that he earned it through post graduate studies but instead had it awarded to him based on life-experience, etc. Is Nelson Mandela violating the 9th because he has been awarded an honorary degree?What does he exactly have to repent of? Accepting an honor? Perhaps the only person who needs to repent is YOU, for slandering a man! I did not realize that God had appointed you arbiter over what is legitimate and what aint.The whole bit, about certified schools, degrees, academic acumen, etc., has been a shibboleth. I earned a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSC) and it cost me 20,000. What did it do for me? Nothing--it put me in debt. In most seminaries today, you have students coming out after 4 years and they are twice the sons of hell their teachers were. I was working towards a bachelor of arts at Ontario Bible College, thinking it was conservative. My OT proff denied the historicity of Jonah, and my student dean privately admitted that practicing Buddhists could be saved. Degrees, honorary or earned mean absolutely nothing. They are not even a good way anymore to guarantee that you get an educated clergy. One fellow I know spent four years at Ottawa Theological Hall to become an ordained minister in the RPCNA, and proved to me in one phone call, that he should not be in the ministry, and that even his salvation was in question.So to go ballistic over honorary degrees, which are not the same as buying a degree from a degree mill, is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.Anyway, thats one man's opinion who has four technical designations, and four degrees which were earned.By the way, Jesus forbids the use of honorifics in his church. He says, "call no man "father" for you have one father in heaven, and call no man "teacher" for you have one teacher, even the Christ. (Mat) We are not even to attempt establishing an aristocracy in the church of Christ. What matters is not a degree but service.Gus-----Original Message-----
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Samantha E
Sent: January 7, 2008 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: DegreeLarry Bump wrote:
Did you click to this page?
http://www.preserve dwords.com/ institute2. htm
Good evening Mr. Bump,
Yes I did and that's precisely the point in a way. The whole idea is a bunch of hog-wash, but how many people who read the SWRB e-mail-outs are really going to investigate whether or not Reg Barrow's PhD is authentic or fake? It's a pity that fake ones exist and that people like Reg Barrow take advantage of them (assuming that's what has happened since we haven't "heard from the horse's mouth"). Unless he really has obtained a PhD, he is going to have some very serious answering to do at the Judgment Seat for a violation of the 9th commandment, never mind anything else. May God grant him the grace to repent before then.
~Samantha----- Original Message ----
From: Larry Bump <lbump@embarqmail. com>
To: covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2008 10:16:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Degree
Samantha E wrote:
> 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.preserve dwords.com/ index.html
Did you click to this page?
http://www.preserve dwords.com/ institute2. htm
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
- x--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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,