The second challenge to my MSTC brothers
Forum category
Concerning the historical approach to Word [Christ: and Scripture let us briefly look at the following as drawn from Dr. Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics - Holy Scripture.
While the distinction between the essential Word of God, the written Word of God, and the spoken Word of God have been lost in the present fog of Post-Christian Christian theology, I would like for my second challenge to my MSTC brothers to offer a glimpse into pre-Enlightenment theology in order to demonstrate your reckless abandonment of historical terminology, thought, and theology.
Let me begin with Bullinger and more specifically his work entitled, Decades. In this volume he writes concerning the Word of God,
“For verbum Dei, the Word of God, signifies the virtue and power of God; it also indicates the Son of God, who is the second person of the most reverend Trinity; for the saying of the evangelist, “ ‘the Word was made flesh,’” is clear to all. But in this treatise, the Word of God properly signifies the speech of God and the revelation of God’s will; first of all uttered in a lively voice by the mouth of Christ, the prophets and the apostles; and after that registered in writings which are [Mine: Please note the absence of “were”: rightly called “ ‘holy and divine Scriptures.’” (Bullinger I.i. and Muller p. 186)
Muller concludes after the preceding quote, “The certainty of the Word is intimately linked to its cause.[i.e. God: ” (Muller p. 186)
Bullinger continues concerning the entire canon when he writes,
“so that now we have from the patriarchs, the prophets, and the apostles, the word of God as it was preached and written. These writings had their beginning in one and the same Spirit of God, and tend to one end, that is, to teach us men how to live well and in holiness.” (Bullinger I.i and Muller p. 191) Please note again the wording, “we have” not “we had” or “we will have”.
Muller paraphrasing Calvin writes, “The Word (Mine: Scripture) is the scepter by which Christ rules his kingdom.” (Muller p. 193) The MSTC crowd is comfortable with ascribing error in some way, shape or form to the instrument of Christ’s rule.
Ursinus in his Loci theologici Opera 1 writes concerning the intimate nature of Word and Scripture when he writes concerning the Bible in these words, Scripture is the “Word of God (Mine: Christ) inscribed in letters.” (p. 434)
Burman in his Synopsis theologiae wrote, “the Word of God existed before all things: it was, with God, invisible” (I.iii.2) Muller goes on to comment that Burman concluded that “the Word was active in creation and was subsequently spoken audibly to Adam and Eve in paradise.” (p. 193)
I offer these few quotes with the intention of putting forth my second challenge. I challenge my MSTC brothers to offer through verifiable quotation that your Greek and Hebrew texts are considered under such phraseology as “rightly called “ ‘holy and divine Scriptures’” and “so that now we have from the patriarchs, the prophets, and the apostles, the word of God as it was preached and written.” If you cannot, then it is fair to conclude that you have strayed from orthodox theology. If the above is not enough then I offer Muller’s entire volume as evidence against your lack of orthodoxy.
1.) To those I have challenged, I will not discuss the veracity or truth of the above quotes until you have first dealt with my First Challenge.
2.) To those I have challenged, I will not discuss the veracity or truth of the above quotes until you have first offered verifiable quotation indicating that the position you hold remains within these historical norms.
While the distinction between the essential Word of God, the written Word of God, and the spoken Word of God have been lost in the present fog of Post-Christian Christian theology, I would like for my second challenge to my MSTC brothers to offer a glimpse into pre-Enlightenment theology in order to demonstrate your reckless abandonment of historical terminology, thought, and theology.
Let me begin with Bullinger and more specifically his work entitled, Decades. In this volume he writes concerning the Word of God,
“For verbum Dei, the Word of God, signifies the virtue and power of God; it also indicates the Son of God, who is the second person of the most reverend Trinity; for the saying of the evangelist, “ ‘the Word was made flesh,’” is clear to all. But in this treatise, the Word of God properly signifies the speech of God and the revelation of God’s will; first of all uttered in a lively voice by the mouth of Christ, the prophets and the apostles; and after that registered in writings which are [Mine: Please note the absence of “were”: rightly called “ ‘holy and divine Scriptures.’” (Bullinger I.i. and Muller p. 186)
Muller concludes after the preceding quote, “The certainty of the Word is intimately linked to its cause.[i.e. God: ” (Muller p. 186)
Bullinger continues concerning the entire canon when he writes,
“so that now we have from the patriarchs, the prophets, and the apostles, the word of God as it was preached and written. These writings had their beginning in one and the same Spirit of God, and tend to one end, that is, to teach us men how to live well and in holiness.” (Bullinger I.i and Muller p. 191) Please note again the wording, “we have” not “we had” or “we will have”.
Muller paraphrasing Calvin writes, “The Word (Mine: Scripture) is the scepter by which Christ rules his kingdom.” (Muller p. 193) The MSTC crowd is comfortable with ascribing error in some way, shape or form to the instrument of Christ’s rule.
Ursinus in his Loci theologici Opera 1 writes concerning the intimate nature of Word and Scripture when he writes concerning the Bible in these words, Scripture is the “Word of God (Mine: Christ) inscribed in letters.” (p. 434)
Burman in his Synopsis theologiae wrote, “the Word of God existed before all things: it was, with God, invisible” (I.iii.2) Muller goes on to comment that Burman concluded that “the Word was active in creation and was subsequently spoken audibly to Adam and Eve in paradise.” (p. 193)
I offer these few quotes with the intention of putting forth my second challenge. I challenge my MSTC brothers to offer through verifiable quotation that your Greek and Hebrew texts are considered under such phraseology as “rightly called “ ‘holy and divine Scriptures’” and “so that now we have from the patriarchs, the prophets, and the apostles, the word of God as it was preached and written.” If you cannot, then it is fair to conclude that you have strayed from orthodox theology. If the above is not enough then I offer Muller’s entire volume as evidence against your lack of orthodoxy.
1.) To those I have challenged, I will not discuss the veracity or truth of the above quotes until you have first dealt with my First Challenge.
2.) To those I have challenged, I will not discuss the veracity or truth of the above quotes until you have first offered verifiable quotation indicating that the position you hold remains within these historical norms.
I offer these few quotes with the intention of putting forth my second challenge. I challenge my MSTC brothers to offer through verifiable quotation that your Greek and Hebrew texts are considered under such phraseology as “rightly called “ ‘holy and divine Scriptures’” and “so that now we have from the patriarchs, the prophets, and the apostles, the word of God as it was preached and written.” If you cannot, then it is fair to conclude that you have strayed from orthodox theology. If the above is not enough then I offer Muller’s entire volume as evidence against your lack of orthodoxy.The quotes in the OP serve this purpose just fine. The ones who used them were referring to the Greek and Hebrew texts and they did not specify which editions. Since they didn’t specify which editions, their statements apply as well to critical and eclectic texts as to others.
An underlying fallacy in the OP is a faulty all-or-nothing assumption: either we have every single one of the words God inspired or we have zero of the words God inspired. But this is unhelpful to anyone’s view… since there is no version of the text that has not undergone changes in wording—including the traditional text.
So, by this kind of reasoning, if the traditional text has ever had a single word change, then either it “was not the word of God” before the change or it ceased to be “the word of God” after the change.
So once again, this view proves to be faulty both on the grounds of history and the grounds of clear reasoning.
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 was not to argue but for you to provide like quotation to show youself consistent with the historical tradition of Bibliology. You have not, therefore you have failed. Please try again.
The challenge was not to argue but for you to provide like quotation to show youself consistent with the historical tradition of Bibliology. You have not, therefore you have failed. Please try again.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
How is it a failure if I have a quotation? Here’s my quotation:
“For verbum Dei, the Word of God, signifies the virtue and power of God; it also indicates the Son of God, who is the second person of the most reverend Trinity; for the saying of the evangelist, “ ‘the Word was made flesh,’” is clear to all. But in this treatise, the Word of God properly signifies the speech of God and the revelation of God’s will; first of all uttered in a lively voice by the mouth of Christ, the prophets and the apostles; and after that registered in writings which are [Mine: Please note the absence of “were”] rightly called “ ‘holy and divine Scriptures.’” (Bullinger I.i. and Muller p. 186)
Muller concludes after the preceding quote, “The certainty of the Word is intimately linked to its cause.[i.e. God] ” (Muller p. 186)
Bullinger continues concerning the entire canon when he writes,
“so that now we have from the patriarchs, the prophets, and the apostles, the word of God as it was preached and written. These writings had their beginning in one and the same Spirit of God, and tend to one end, that is, to teach us men how to live well and in holiness.” (Bullinger I.i and Muller p. 191) Please note again the wording, “we have” not “we had” or “we will have”.
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.
1.) To those I have challenged, I will not discuss the veracity or truth of the above quotes until you have first dealt with my First Challenge.Isn’t it a little disingenuous to issue a ‘second challenge’ when you haven’t answered http://sharperiron.org/comment/37140#comment-37140] the questions from the first thread ?
2.) To those I have challenged, I will not discuss the veracity or truth of the above quotes until you have first offered verifiable quotation indicating that the position you hold remains within these historical norms.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
The “first one” he’s referring to is this one:
http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-first-challenge-to-my-mstc-brothers
The “MSTC” thread you’re thinking of where his arguments failed dozens of times doesn’t have a number on it. That’s this one: http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-modern-scientific-textual-criticism…
http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-first-challenge-to-my-mstc-brothers
The “MSTC” thread you’re thinking of where his arguments failed dozens of times doesn’t have a number on it. That’s this one: http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-modern-scientific-textual-criticism…
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.
Actually, the MSTC thread was started before these two and is by far the one that is most active, so I was using it in that sense.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
…it is.
Got confused which came first… must have been the “first challenge” in the title.
So let’s see… the first is actually the second and the second is actually the third? I think I’ve got it now.
Got confused which came first… must have been the “first challenge” in the title.
So let’s see… the first is actually the second and the second is actually the third? I think I’ve got it now.
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