The first challenge to my MSTC brothers.
Forum category
The purpose of this new topic is this: In order to shed more light on the MSTC position with regard to its consistency with pre-Enlightenment history, theology, and exegesis, I will offer over the next few weeks a challenge in each of the preceding categories so that we may better understand whether MSTC is consistent with pre-Enlightenment history, theology, and exegesis.
My first challenge is with regard to theology. I offer this quote from Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology vol. 1. I have chosen this volume because it represents the height of Protestant Scholasticism and as such serves as a more than suitable voice for the beliefs of the believing community of that day. Furthermore, I have chosen this quote because it is theologically foundational in pre-Enlightenment Bibliology.
“Tenth Question: The Purity of the Sources - Have the original texts of the Old and New Testaments come down to use pure and uncorrupted? We affirm against the papists.”
“II. By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” p. 106
Short Commentary: The pre-Enlightenment believing community knew that through the diversity of mss not one of the individual mss were perfectly the word of God (p. 71). But once the evaluation of the multitude of mss had come to a close the resulting product, the T.R. and Masoretic Hebrew texts (apographs means “the from writings“ i.e. a copy), were the foundation of the King James Bible. As such, these apographs were referred to as “the originals” because they are the “very words of God” that He gave to the actual penmen that received the inspired word thousands of years earlier.
I will not debate the veracity of this claim nor its theological implications until those of the MSTC position are able to demonstrate through quotation that the Greek and Hebrew texts they use in their translations today are equal with the originals in content that were written thousands of years ago.
My first challenge is with regard to theology. I offer this quote from Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology vol. 1. I have chosen this volume because it represents the height of Protestant Scholasticism and as such serves as a more than suitable voice for the beliefs of the believing community of that day. Furthermore, I have chosen this quote because it is theologically foundational in pre-Enlightenment Bibliology.
“Tenth Question: The Purity of the Sources - Have the original texts of the Old and New Testaments come down to use pure and uncorrupted? We affirm against the papists.”
“II. By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” p. 106
Short Commentary: The pre-Enlightenment believing community knew that through the diversity of mss not one of the individual mss were perfectly the word of God (p. 71). But once the evaluation of the multitude of mss had come to a close the resulting product, the T.R. and Masoretic Hebrew texts (apographs means “the from writings“ i.e. a copy), were the foundation of the King James Bible. As such, these apographs were referred to as “the originals” because they are the “very words of God” that He gave to the actual penmen that received the inspired word thousands of years earlier.
I will not debate the veracity of this claim nor its theological implications until those of the MSTC position are able to demonstrate through quotation that the Greek and Hebrew texts they use in their translations today are equal with the originals in content that were written thousands of years ago.
“II. By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” p. 106Non sequitur.
Short Commentary: The pre-Enlightenment believing community knew that through the diversity of mss not one of the individual mss were perfectly the word of God (p. 71). …
Turretin does not claim that the apographs are word perfect. They were the word of God then and the texts we have now are still the word of God.
If Turretin means to say that they had every single word that was in the inspired originals, I would say that he now knows better.
I will not debate the veracity of this claim nor its theological implications until those of the MSTC position are able to demonstrate through quotation that the Greek and Hebrew texts they use in their translations today are equal with the originals in content that were written thousands of years ago.Feel free to not debate the veracity. It’s your claim. You have the right to make it and leave it unsupported, but that will not persuade anyone.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Brother Blumer,
The challenge is not to argue, but for you to present like quotations to show you consistency with historic orthodoxy. You have failed to do so and as a result you have failed the challenge. Next contestant.
The challenge is not to argue, but for you to present like quotations to show you consistency with historic orthodoxy. You have failed to do so and as a result you have failed the challenge. Next contestant.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
I’m claiming the quotations you used.
Challenge successful. Next challenge?
Challenge successful. Next challenge?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Brother Blumer, it seems a bit lazy to have me carry the water for you [which is in keeping with your inability to conjure some semblance of position worthy of criticism] rather than you finding your own quote, but it does remind me of a time when one of my profs at Calvin debated a Catholic priest over the nature of communion and throughout the course of the debate quoted papal encyclicals to the priest, it was great. Don’t worry Brother Blumer, I’ll do the position prep for both of us.
Regardless, if you do believe the quote that the “apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” then by all means please help Brother JayC who is sweating the autographs, “We don’t have the inspired originals for the Bible.” (Can be found under the topic of Mixing Politics and Religion)
Although you have no position I thought perhaps you would quote something more along the lines of Brother JayC and the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, “We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.” (Article X) Turretin applies “inspiration” to the Standard Authoritative apographs [copies] and the Chicago statement of faith say “inspiration…applies only to the autographic text of Scripture.” Furthermore “great accuracy” does not equal “certitudo”, yet another foundational truth in dispute. And Brother Blumer said the things I wrote in my summary were not in dispute. I’ve got two disputed themes in five sentences. You guys are so bad. You don’t even know your own position and you claim to be historically orthodox at the same time.
Regardless, if you do believe the quote that the “apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” then by all means please help Brother JayC who is sweating the autographs, “We don’t have the inspired originals for the Bible.” (Can be found under the topic of Mixing Politics and Religion)
Although you have no position I thought perhaps you would quote something more along the lines of Brother JayC and the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, “We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.” (Article X) Turretin applies “inspiration” to the Standard Authoritative apographs [copies] and the Chicago statement of faith say “inspiration…applies only to the autographic text of Scripture.” Furthermore “great accuracy” does not equal “certitudo”, yet another foundational truth in dispute. And Brother Blumer said the things I wrote in my summary were not in dispute. I’ve got two disputed themes in five sentences. You guys are so bad. You don’t even know your own position and you claim to be historically orthodox at the same time.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Regardless, if you do believe the quote that the “apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” then by all means please help Brother JayC who is sweating the autographs, “We don’t have the inspired originals for the Bible.” (Can be found under the topic of Mixing Politics and Religion)Please note the differences between these two statements…
- “apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
- “The inspired originals are in our possession.” (i.e. We have the inspired originals for the Bible.)To focus on the differences…
- Sentence a subject: apographs, Sentence b subject: originals
- Sentence a predicate: are the words God inspired, Sentence b predicate: are in our possession
The point is that these are different claims and there is no actual inconsistency between affirming the first and rejecting the second: “I believe the apographs are God’s word” and “I believe we do not have the originals.”
That describes my position. I’m pretty sure that’s Jay’s position also, but I’ll let Jay speak for Jay.
As for not having a position on the text question, I’ve expressed it repeatedly in the MSTC thread.
Here’s the latest summary.
Believers who are involved in textual work (eclectic or otherwise) are,
a. in the believing community
b. open to the influence of the Spirit
c. under the Lordship of Christ
d. there is nothing in scientific method itself that in any way alters a-c.
The work of believers who do not favor the traditional text is, therefore, “bound.”
As for quotations. Since it’s really not that much work, here’s a couple.- “For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.” - Augustine, Letters 82.1.3
I don’t have a copy of Turretin, so this is Geisler and Nix quoting and summarizing Turretin- For Turretin and the Evangelical Reformed tradition, this meant that the Bible is totally without error because “Scripture is ’God-breathed‘” (2 Tim. 3:16). The Word of God “cannot lie (Ps. 19:8–9; Heb. 6:18), it cannot perish and pass away (Matt. 5:8), it abides forever (1 Peter 1:25), and it is truth itself (John 17:17).”
-Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1996). A general introduction to the Bible (Rev. and expanded.) (148–149). Chicago: Moody Press. - Sentence a subject: apographs, Sentence b subject: originals
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Once again you have failed to provide a quote in like language of the one I offered from Turretin. Both of your quotes are focused on the autographa and Turretin’s is away form the autographa to a Standard Authoritative apographa. This challenge was not brought up to necessarily discuss but to show that the study and texts you use in your formulation of modern Bibliology are not consistent with the past on this fundamental point and distinction between the apographa and autographa. As for your summary, good we are getting some place. Now prove it from sources outside yourself.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Well, if my quotes aren’t good enough, back to yours then. There is nothing in your quotes that is incompatible with my position on the text of Scripture.
As for “prove it from sources outside yourself.”
Peter, you’re an educated man. So I’m pretty sure you know that sources don’t prove anything except that “source A says B.”
Granted, a claim can be supported by authority, experience or reasoning, but in this case why should the authority of some outside sources be weightier than Scripture & reasoning?
I’ve already made my case with the Word and arguments based on it. Any other support would be weaker. So what would be the point?
As for “prove it from sources outside yourself.”
Peter, you’re an educated man. So I’m pretty sure you know that sources don’t prove anything except that “source A says B.”
Granted, a claim can be supported by authority, experience or reasoning, but in this case why should the authority of some outside sources be weightier than Scripture & reasoning?
I’ve already made my case with the Word and arguments based on it. Any other support would be weaker. So what would be the point?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion