RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Degree
MessageBob,Bully for you. Elegant. I would love to get my hands on Burgon or Hills. His arguments for the ET (Ecclesiastical Text) as that which is truly the Holy Scriptures are wonderful. You should also examine the writings of Ted Letis, who was the heir apparent of Hills, but was cut short in his studies and influence by a car accident three years ago. He was a friend of mine. I disagreed with him on many things, his Lutheranism for example, but his defence of the Ecclesiastical Text was superlative.Gus Gianello-----Original Message-----
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of bob_suden
Sent: January 8, 2008 12:54 AM
Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Degree
--- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, Larry Bump <lbump@...> wrote:
> Samantha E wrote:
> > Larry Bump wrote:
> I just wanted to make sure you had seen it; you are right that it
> doesn't change the point.
> Using honorary degrees as a source of authority is indeed lying.
> What about degrees granted in recognition of "life experience"? I have
> often wondered how much those are worth. I guess it all depends on who
> granted it and how much you trust them.
Greetings Larry and Samantha,
A couple of items (OK, they're rants).
I don't know that I really care if somebody gave the principal of Still Waters (Rats Nest) Bookstore a honorary degree or not. Yeah, if it was honorary and somebody pretends it's a genuine degree in the traditional earned fashion or just doesn't say one way or another, that ain't the greatest.
Rather what ugs me is the KTel Records/firesale/ used car lot marketing techniques. I know a guy's got to make a living, there's not a lot of money in selling books and with somebody out there like Reformation Heritage Books which is non profit, there's not a lot of money selling reformed books, even before we start talking about the internet. But the huckstering is cheap and demeaning IMO. It's the lowest common denominator bang for your buck mass market style approach - the 'only if we make the Bible cheap enough or readable, then people will buy/read it' mentality as the defining business model. Pragmaticism seems to have the upper hand.
I'll admit that Jay Green published some good stuff and I have a couple of his reprints, but I'd much rather have a Banner of Truth edition of something than the cut rate version. Neither is BoT that much more expensive and a lot of their reprints are not copyrighted. True, they are a non profit trust compared again to Jay Green or his erstwhile coenanter imitator, but something can still be said for class. If you are going to do something, do it well and don't take the cheap/coarse route.
Yeah, I know Gutenberg died broke and CD's are the wave of the future for all our legendary entepreneurs out there, but I am not persuaded that the only way to get "the truth" out is with all the accouterments and crass distractions. Maurice Robinson in his Whose Unholy Hands on What? complained about Jay Green's butcher job reprint of Burgon's complete Works and that provoked the arminian Bible for Today folks to actually upgrade their "rare (before it was popular)bound photocopies" of Burgon to some decent hardbound editions.Yeah, I had to razor out Waite's stupid comments and filler in the back of my copies, but hey, the squeaky wheel gets excommunicated or something like that.
So let's at least get the website fixed up. I don't care if it was a historic internet first or not. It's klutzy and you can't find anything on it and the caps are boorish and loud as in STUPID.
Yeah, I know, it SELLS BOOKS - oops, make that product.
Of course, I can still remember an elder telling me the way one of his relatives made sure his site (maze?) came up first on the search list was to pay AltaVista a fee. Evidently all is fair in love, war and selling historic covenanter literature.
Right. Doesn't it say somewhere something about it doesn't profit a man to gain the world and sell his soul . . . .
Or maybe the word is integrity. We used to hear that word a lot when we had church visitors from the great whitenorth drop in on us in the old pre- presbytery/general meeting days
And another thing.
Since when do these fundamentalists get to claim they believe the Bible, when their version for all practical purposes is missing John 6, Rom. 9 and Eph. 1?
They got the phony degrees pegged.
Too bad they can't get the same with the phony theology.We ought not to accept any modern abbreviated substitutes for academic degrees, Bible translations - or the Christian gospel.The good news of the salvation of sinners is by faith alone, through sovereign predestinating/ electing grace alone, in Christ alone, to God's glory alone, as found in the providentially preserved Scripture alone, whatever 'the preserved word' says.
- 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,