# Church Authority: Difference between the Romish view and Textus Receptus Advocates?



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 21, 2007)

Recently, I've been engaging a bit on the idea of the Textus Receptus. I was merely trying to ascertain the Providence behind the formation of what people consider to be the authorative Greek Text. I wanted to know the process by which men, at a point of time, determined that "this is God's manuscript". It is my understanding that the authoratative Greek text for many is based on the textual choices of the AV translators. I wished to know why they believed that God waited until the 17th Century to settle the authoratative manuscript.

Now some will wonder why this is in the Theological forum and not in the Manuscript forum. This will become evident as I flesh this out. What I'm about to challenge some here will be hard but I believe we need to be able to answer this because I respect some of these men greatly.

This was Rev. Winzer's response to me:



armourbearer said:


> I understand what you are asking, Rich; but I reject the implication that the basis of my faith is dependent upon man's wisdom, art or industry, simply because there has been a process of rediscovery since the renaissance. You are urging me to start with the physical text, which obviously has a history, and can be quantified. Whereas I must start with the nature of the text as the living and abiding word of God.
> 
> This issue has nothing to do with mss. We possess mss. of non-canonical books. It is the nature of the writing, not its physical attributes which determines canonicity. Every argument used to support the canonicity of Mark likewise supports the inclusion of its last twelve verses. Blessings!



I have to say up front that I have great affection and respect for Rev. Winzer but, have to admit, I'm a bit perplexed by the fact that there is an assumption that merely asking the question is impious. It makes the TR position unassailable because one is abandoning Scripture to even ask the question.

Unfortunately, this reminded me of a post by Pastor King regarding Roman Catholicism and the unassailability of their tradition:



DTK said:


> Here de Sales would have his reader to believe that he has access to this “supreme judge on earth to whom we can address ourselves in our difficulties,” as if this grandiose claim were true. In other words, he assumes the very thing he wishes to claim without proof, as though it’s never been doubted. Apart from the impracticality of the claim that people may simply find recourse in their local priest for Rome’s interpretation every time they encounter some difficulty with understanding Holy Scripture, no such source exists even for the members of the communion of Rome. A present day analogy would be that of a politician declaring a crisis, the threat of which is a danger for all, but in reality has been invoked for the purpose of special pleading; “Never fear! I have the solution for your problem!” Rome has no infallible list of infallible interpretations. This is easily proved from their own sources. *Almost all of them will tell you that when a scriptural proof is adduced for proof of a dogma, it is only the dogma itself that is regarded as “infallible” and not the exegetical proof drawn forth for its support.* Notice the following Roman Catholic sources on this issue...
> 
> DTK



In other words, the Roman Catholic position is: it doesn't matter how questionable the steps are, it is the settled conclusion of the Church that matters.

My point here is NOT to state that Rev. Winzer is a Papist. My real question is: How can I accept this TR position because, materially, it seems like the same point that the Papists would make to defend Church tradition? Investigation and fact checking can be called "placing man above the Church" by them in the same way that any work done to check the process by which the manuscripts are chosen to form the AV.

What is the material difference here? I really want to know because, if there is none, then Roman Catholic apologists have a pretty powerful apologetic on the same grounds that the TR folk have.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Herald (Feb 21, 2007)

Rich - okay, here is the trouble I am having with this topic. Are you simply trying to make sense of the TR position, or are you seeking to adopt it as your own? I just want to know how you are approaching the issue.

I'm also trying to make sense of Rev. Winzer's comments. Is he commenting solely on the TR, or is he commenting on the whole of scripture (CT and TR)? His comments on the last 12 verses of Mark seem to indicate he is writing about the TR, but I want to make sure before I make further comments. 

Rich - even if Rev. Winzer is making his case for the TR, it is not the same as the Papist's. The Papist would go beyond scripture and include church tradition (as Pastor King so eloquently stated) as authoritative. Indeed, that tradition is more authoritative to the Papist then scripture. Perhaps Rev. Winzer's complete faith in the TR may appear to be similar to that of the Papist, but I see that as a stretch.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 21, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich - okay, here is the trouble I am having with this topic. Are you simply trying to make sense of the TR position, or are you seeking to adopt it as your own? I just want to know how you are approaching the issue.
> 
> I'm also trying to make sense of Rev. Winzer's comments. Is he commenting solely on the TR, or is he commenting on the whole of scripture (CT and TR)? His comments on the last 12 verses of Mark seem to indicate he is writing about the TR, but I want to make sure before I make further comments.
> 
> Rich - even if Rev. Winzer is making his case for the TR, it is not the same as the Papist's. The Papist would go beyond scripture and include church tradition (as Pastor King so eloquently stated) as authoritative. Indeed, that tradition is more authoritative to the Papist then scripture. Perhaps Rev. Winzer's complete faith in the TR may appear to be similar to that of the Papist, but I see that as a stretch.



I think you have to read between the lines here. I admit I could be off and it is easy to be distracted by the fact that what I'm comparing it to is seemingly outrageous.

As I understand TR advocates, as reflected by that snippet, any kind of Providential investigation of the formation of the Textus Receptus is placing trust in man's investigation of how the manuscripts are put together above just accepting that God preserved the text. In other words: Don't worry about how the text came together to be what we determine is authorative, it's authoratative now and that's what matters.

Granted the papist is arguing for the adoption of a different thing and that is their interpretation of the Scriptures but it seems the methodology is materially the same. Further, they could argue, that we're placing our reason above the Church's settled position on what they have settled a doctrine is on a matter. To me, the idea of what Justification is is no less important than the manuscripts that they used to come to their conclusion.


----------



## Herald (Feb 21, 2007)

> I think you have to read between the lines here. I admit I could be off and it is easy to be distracted by the fact that what I'm comparing it to is seemingly outrageous.



Rich, I haven't been following the other TR thread so I had to receive some clarification on this issue. You provided it. Thanks.



> As I understand TR advocates, as reflected by that snippet, any kind of Providential investigation of the formation of the Textus Receptus is placing trust in man's investigation of how the manuscripts are put together above just accepting that God preserved the text. In other words: Don't worry about how the text came together to be what we determine is authorative, it's authoratative now and that's what matters.



This reminds me of the humorous line about the KJV, "If it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me!" Rich - part of the problem is that questioning anything about the TR becomes a turf battle. I am not accusing Rev. Winzer of this (he can speak for himself), but the TR was not inspired, the origingal autographs were. I would agree that blind faith in the efficacy of the TR is just as dangerous as blind faith in any area of theology. No one is saying that the TR is corrupt or deficient. It is a wonderful manuscript. And when it comes down to it, I haven't seen where the variants between the CT and TR make one shred of difference doctrinally.



> To me, the idea of what Justification is is no less important than the manuscripts that they used to come to their conclusion.



Rich - I'm curious. As I said in the last paragraph, "I haven't seen where the variants between the CT and the TR make one shred of difference doctrinally." Do you personally believe that these two manuscripts _*do*_ impact points of doctrine? Not accusing, just asking.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 21, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich, I haven't been following the other TR thread so I had to receive some clarification on this issue. You provided it. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bill,

I'm not really interested in discussing the merits of the TR vs. the CT in this thread. I'm more interested in the nature of Church authority in this thread and any parallels between TR and Romish views of it.


----------



## MW (Feb 21, 2007)

It is not this complex. We do not hold to the Papist view of tradition, we hold to the Protestant view. The Protestant view maintains that the Spirit speaking in and by the Word is the supreme judge. We also maintain that the testimony of the church (as ordained of God) may move and induce us to a high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture. The church does not create doctrine, it simply declares what sound doctrine is. In the canonical process, the church does not create Scripture, it simply declares what Scripture is.

The textual issue is one and the same with the canonical issue. You cannot separate criticism into higher and lower, and approach them as two distinct disciplines. They both investigate what is the Word of God, one on a macro and one on a micro scale. Hence I insist that the process by which you accept the Gospel of Mark should lead you to also accept its last twelve verses.

I am not sure I understand the part about unassailable truth. In order for my case to be credible must I present it in such a manner as makes it able to be defeated. That is Cartesianism gone mad!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 21, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> It is not this complex. We do not hold to the Papist view of tradition, we hold to the Protestant view. The Protestant view maintains that the Spirit speaking in and by the Word is the supreme judge. We also maintain that the testimony of the church (as ordained of God) may move and induce us to a high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture. The church does not create doctrine, it simply declares what sound doctrine is. In the canonical process, the church does not create Scripture, it simply declares what Scripture is.
> 
> The textual issue is one and the same with the canonical issue. You cannot separate criticism into higher and lower, and approach them as two distinct disciplines. They both investigate what is the Word of God, one on a macro and one on a micro scale. Hence I insist that the process by which you accept the Gospel of Mark should lead you to also accept its last twelve verses.
> 
> I am not sure I understand the part about unassailable truth. In order for my case to be credible must I present it in such a manner as makes it able to be defeated. That is Cartesianism gone mad!



But you're arguing for a Church-prescribed textus of the Scriptures. The Scriptures did not simply land on the lap of the Church from on high. In this specific timeframe there were a number of manuscripts that had survived from previous periods and locations. They were collated by people and used by translators to create an English version. The AV translators, as I understand it, produced an English translation from multiple original manuscripts. Later, scholars went back and produced an authoratative Greek text based on the decisions that the scholars had made when translating. Previous translations into the Latin, Spanish, Italian, and other languages existed. Why aren't the Greek manuscripts that those are based upon the authoratative Greek?

Thus, I'm not arguing against the idea that the Church receives the Word of God but does the Church declare: "This is the Greek text. This is the original language you go to when you need to translate from the original or into another language."

I keep hearing you say (and maybe I'm misunderstanding you) that we should not even "look behind the curtain" and determine how that Greek text was formed. It's formation is immaterial. It's methodology is immaterial. What matters is that the Church has declared this is the Greek text. There's not a single surviving manuscript that matches the Church's declared authoratative Greek text but this is _the_ Greek text because the Church said it is.

I appreciate your distinguishing between the Church's role as _declaring_ rather than creating doctrine. In the quote I cited, however, the Roman Catholics are saying that when the Church declares doctrine we might be tempted to find their declaration dubious because we do not accept their exegetical steps along the way. They will rejoin: "Ah yes, but you cannot look at these steps _critically_, you need only accept the conclusion of the matter for this is what we declare the end to be."

Again, I don't see a material difference between the two ideas.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## MW (Feb 21, 2007)

Rich, I can engage in empirical arguments if you please. Where do they lead? You state there is no TR ms. Niether is there a CT ms. Critical text proponents agree as much among themselves as the mss. they ascribe to. Where does it all lead? Not to faith, but to uncertainties.

Yes, the Lord did drop the Word into the lap of the church, Rom. 3:2. To her shame the church has spent more time petting it rather than preaching it.

I can't appreciate the fine distinction you are making concerning the magesterium of Rome. One either accepts or rejects the testimony of the church concerning the canon of Scripture. I do not entertain conspiracy theories of church establishments deciding a canon which favours themselves and prejudices minorities. The fact that the theory was suggested by reputed scholars like Westcott and Hort does not make it more acceptable.

Rich, why do you believe the Gospel of Mark is the Word of God? Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 21, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Yes, the Lord did drop the Word into the lap of the church, Rom. 3:2. To her shame the church has spent more time petting it rather than preaching it.


After a fashion yes but you understand how I was stating it.



> I can't appreciate the fine distinction you are making concerning the magesterium of Rome.


Then I hope somebody who does will pipe in. I'm seriously not trying to punch TR guys in the face on this issue. I'm trying to detect a difference here on how Church authority works. I see some parallels. I'm trying to determine the diffence as I've laid them out.



> One either accepts or rejects the testimony of the church concerning the canon of Scripture. I do not entertain conspiracy theories of church establishments deciding a canon which favours themselves and prejudices minorities. The fact that the theory was suggested by reputed scholars like Westcott and Hort does not make it more acceptable.


I don't believe I proposed any conspiracy theories. I simply asked why the TR is the authoratative Greek, why it is authoratative because it's based on the English translation, why it is authoratative when it matches no known mss, and why the Church lacked (or even needed) an authoratative textus prior to the 17th Century.



> Rich, why do you believe the Gospel of Mark is the Word of God? Blessings!


I can give you part of the answer: Not because I read it in the King James.


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I don't believe I proposed any conspiracy theories.



Then whence arises the doubt over our great reformation text?



SemperFideles said:


> I can give you part of the answer: Not because I read it in the King James.



That is a negation, not an answer. I sense you are avoiding an acceptance of your debt to the testimony of the church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Then whence arises the doubt over our great reformation text?



I don't have a "great" doubt. You engage in far more activity in casting doubt upon mss. than I do. This is the first time I've taken the subject up.



> That is a negation, not an answer. I sense you are avoiding an acceptance of your debt to the testimony of the church.



No, I'm looking to refine how the testimony of the church works. This is a discussion that I was hoping would shed light on what the difference in approaches to Church authority are. You're guarding so much that you're not trying to help me understand it. Perhaps you lack the time to lay it out. The Church doesn't pretend like history doesn't exist. I'm trying to put together a Reformed understanding of authority here because if it's just like the method of Rome except we're just picking different sides then it would be nice to just have that spelled out.


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I don't have a "great" doubt. You engage in far more activity in casting doubt upon mss. than I do. This is the first time I've taken the subject up.



The only doubt I cast upon mss. is in relation to people placing faith in scrap pieces of paper, or scholars who think their discoveries worth more than they really are. I would never cast doubt on the "received" text.



SemperFideles said:


> No, I'm looking to refine how the testimony of the church works. This is a discussion that I was hoping would shed light on what the difference in approaches to Church authority are. You're guarding so much that you're not trying to help me understand it. Perhaps you lack the time to lay it out. The Church doesn't pretend like history doesn't exist. I'm trying to put together a Reformed understanding of authority here because if it's just like the method of Rome except we're just picking different sides then it would be nice to just have that spelled out.



I am trying to take you back to basics, to the reason why we accept a particular book as the Word of God. Reformed theologians recognise the instrumentality of the church in the recognition process -- not in creating the canon, but in declaring it. When the church declared the doctrine of the Trinity, it was forever ingrained in the fabric of the church's confession, so that to deny the doctrine of the Trinity is to deny the catholic faith. Ditto for the canon. Ditto for the text.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 22, 2007)

So Rev. Winzer, you're argument is that the received text has always been present in the Church like the doctrine of the Trinity? Yet there are variations on the doctrine of the Trinity between Calvin, and Rome, and the Greeks. And there are variations in the manuscripts of church history. I think Rich is asking, on what grounds do you believe the TR to be _the_ received text historically? Doctrines may have been present, but they also develop through study and interaction with heresy. Why in 1611 is the textual issue settled when it wasn't before? If you are going to argue the witness of the Spirit in the Scriptures, then fine. But how do you discern the witnesss of the Spirit in a single word or variant? Why are the variants of the TR the correct ones? I could equally argue the voice of the Spirit is present in the CT because people are being converted through it and the gospel is spreading far and wide through translations based on it. Isn't that the voice of the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures?


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

Which criticial text? Which editiion of the Greek NT should I consult? How am I to discern "the entire perfection" of the Word in this ever-fluctuating text? What poor scholar would dare say, the Spirit has testified that this A reading is the Word of God today, when he knows full well it might be graded down to a C reading in the next edition?

As stated, I could argue empirical evidence. There are many majority text advocates who have done so. But their empirical arguments are countered by other empirical arguments, leaving the whole matter in a state of uncertainty. Should we count mss. or date them? Count them and you arrive at the majority tex; date them and you arrive at, well, most of the critical text, because it seems it is OK to ignore the dates when they conflict with the preconceived ideas of the editors.

Modern textual criticism is a mess. I refuse to lay down my head in a messy room. Clean it up, and then invite me to stay the night.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Which criticial text? Which editiion of the Greek NT should I consult? How am I to discern "the entire perfection" of the Word in this ever-fluctuating text? What poor scholar would dare say, the Spirit has testified that this A reading is the Word of God today, when he knows full well it might be graded down to a C reading in the next edition?



I guess I'm thinking beyond just the scholar to the testimony or recognition of the Church. All these translations based upon these critical texts are resulting in the conversion and sanctification of sinners. The Spirit is speaking through His word in churches where there are very few if any TR translations. This seems to be the kind of witness you are looking for from the TR. I can agree with your idea that the received text was always present in the church, perhaps transcending or working inspite of all the variants. But it would appear the Spirit is still doing the same work without the TR of the AV despite the view of some that the TR is _the_ received text. And more and more churches and denominations (Reformed denominations) are declaring that they hear the voice of the Spirit in the critical texts, not just the TR. It would seem your understanding of the declaration of the Church and the testimony of the Spirit in Scripture is much more narrow than the experience of the Church today. Just an observation. If I'm misunderstanding your presuppositions then please help me understand you better.


----------



## bookslover (Feb 22, 2007)

This is a very confusing thread, to me. I'm not sure what Rev. Winzer is interested in defending here. Is he defending the manuscripts that the KJV is based on, or is he defending the _doctrine_ those manuscripts contain?

From my, admittedly, meager knowledge (seminary was a long time ago):

By AD 100, the canon of the New Testament is complete. All the autograph manuscripts of the New Testament have been written.

From AD 100 to the advent of printing in the 15th century, these autographs (which have long since disintegrated into dust) have been copied, and re-copied, and re-copied so that, by the 21st century (that's us!) we now have about 5,000 manuscripts (complete and not) of the New Testament books.

By the early 17th century, when the KJV was put together (mostly Tyndale's English translation compared with the Greek), textual criticism (lower criticism) was in its infancy. Certain "piles" of manuscript copies (the several "families") were beginning to be formed.

The put-togetherers of the KJV preferred one "pile" over others? Now, CRUCIAL QUESTION NUMBER ONE: which "pile" was that, and why did they prefer it over others?

Post-KJV: the "piles" become more refined as to their contents over the next few centuries, as the science of textual criticism becomes more nuanced as those who engage in it increase in their understanding. As a result, there are now (21st century) several (more or less completed) large "piles" or families of manuscripts.

In the 19th century, Westcott, Hort, and their collaborators, put together a new overall text of the New Testament, using these more or less completed piles. CRUCIAL QUESTION NUMBER TWO: which piles did they use, why did they use those, and why are those piles different (if they are) from the piles used by the KJV put-togetherers?

I admit, this history is pretty crude, with much stuff left out. But I think most of the basic facts are there.

So: we now have two camps - (1) those who who believe the KJV put-togetherers had the better piles and did the better job; and (2) those who believe that the Westcott and Hort people had the better piles and did the better job. CRUCIAL QUESTION NUMBER THREE: as someone has already noted, almost all the manuscripts say exactly the same thing; less than 10% of the total readings of all the manuscripts in all the piles are disputed. So: why does this whole fight exist in the first place?

Also: we probably shouldn't use the phrase "textus receptus" (received text) because it really is nothing more than, in effect, a 16th century publisher's blurb to sell Erasmus's text (am I right?). People who hold to the KJV guys and their piles seem to take this phrase literally - as if the text behind the KJV was actually "received" and "blessed" by some 17th century authority or other. We know that King James authorized the making of the translation, but by the time the KJV was published in 1611, Jimbo had moved on to other things. So, to call the KJV the "authorized version" is slightly misleading, since it implies the the king gave the finished product his Okie-Dokie, which he didn't. That being the case, the question for the pro-KJV guys is: "received" by whom, and on what basis? But, as I said, the phrase was actually concocted just to sell copies.

Incidentally, as I'm sure most of you know, when the KJV was published, most Christians were not impressed. It took the Jimmy about 50 years to catch on. Most people said, "We'll stick to our Geneva Bibles, thanks".

OK, I'm done. I apologize for any crudities in the above. I tried to keep it simple, mainly so that _I_ could understand it! In the end, I just can't figure out what the KJV defenders are so fired up about - especially considering (as I said above) that all the manuscripts (no matter which pile they're in) say the same thing (but keeping that 10% figure in mind).

Any comments?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2007)

Well, I feared this would degenerate into a debate over manuscripts. If you go to the OP, my interest is that, it seems to me, that the TR advocates are arguing that the Church has decreed an authoritative Greek text, settled by the AV in the 17th Century. When challenged on the Providence of this and whether the Church could "do better" it becomes an "unaskable question" because the Church already settled it.

Is my comparison to the quote above by DTK warranted or no? Is that an equivalent category of unquestioning acceptance of the conclusion?

If we can get beyond the example I used (and all the conviction wrapped up in it) is this type of acceptance of authority of the AV and the TR a proper _example_ of "Reformed" submission to authority or does it going beyond it somehow? If it's proper then how does it differ from the Roman Catholic view above and how does it interesect it at some points.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 22, 2007)

Rich, the issue is self-authentication. Rev.Winzer is essentially arguing that the TR is the correct text because it authenticates itself as such, not because the church creates it to be such. The church only recognizes it because the testimony of the Spirit indicates that. Read the WCF ch. 1 to see the type of argument he is using.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Rich, the issue is self-authentication. Rev.Winzer is essentially arguing that the TR is the correct text because it authenticates itself as such, not because the church creates it to be such. The church only recognizes it because the testimony of the Spirit indicates that. Read the WCF ch. 1 to see the type of argument he is using.



Thanks brother. I'll look at that in the AM.


----------



## Philip A (Feb 22, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Is my comparison to the quote above by DTK warranted or no?



If what you are driving at is a question of _methodology_, I have to say yes, I see the same kind of principle at work in both examples; the foundational principle is entirely unassailable.

Unfortunately, most of us have a near pavlovian response to the mere mention of Rome; our critical faculties shut down and all we see is red: we take offense and immediately go on the defensive to show that we most certainly are not Papists! Thus the point being made is almost entirely lost.


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I guess I'm thinking beyond just the scholar to the testimony or recognition of the Church. All these translations based upon these critical texts are resulting in the conversion and sanctification of sinners. The Spirit is speaking through His word in churches where there are very few if any TR translations. This seems to be the kind of witness you are looking for from the TR. I can agree with your idea that the received text was always present in the church, perhaps transcending or working inspite of all the variants. But it would appear the Spirit is still doing the same work without the TR of the AV despite the view of some that the TR is _the_ received text. And more and more churches and denominations (Reformed denominations) are declaring that they hear the voice of the Spirit in the critical texts, not just the TR. It would seem your understanding of the declaration of the Church and the testimony of the Spirit in Scripture is much more narrow than the experience of the Church today. Just an observation. If I'm misunderstanding your presuppositions then please help me understand you better.



I think what you are pointing to is an individualistic experience. I have stated before that I do not doubt the work of the Spirit in using other Bibles. Other Bibles might agree for substance with our reformation Bibles in a majority of cases.

We must believe that God has providentially kept His word pure in a singular manner. We believe something significant happened at the reformation, a recovery of apostolic Christianity. The cry was, Ad fontes, so to the fountains they went, and the whole superstructure of reformed theology was established on those fountains. Can we now, having tied our colours to the mast of reformation theology, turn around and say that the reformers were not blessed with the pure Word of God, but carried out their great undertaking with corrupted fountains?

We can only maintain that our reformation forefathers worked with a corrupt text if we first concede the delusive idea of "development;" and yet we do not accept other developments -- indeed great strides -- which have been made in the name of Christianity since the days of the first and second reformation. We do not accept revisions to our reformed confessions. We do not allow the attributions of books of Scripture to sub-apostolic authors or communities. We do not acknowledge modern methods of interpretation which contravene the Scripture interprets Scripture principle.

At the end of the day, we stand in the reformed tradition or we do not. I will not be scared away from the proper use of apostolic tradition simply because the growling dog of Romanist tradition is lurking in the background and someone has posted the sign, Beware of the dog. The Bible quite clearly testifies about good traditions which we are to be conscientious to maintain.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2007)

Philip A said:


> If what you are driving at is a question of _methodology_, I have to say yes, I see the same kind of principle at work in both examples; the foundational principle is entirely unassailable.
> 
> Unfortunately, most of us have a near pavlovian response to the mere mention of Rome; our critical faculties shut down and all we see is red: we take offense and immediately go on the defensive to show that we most certainly are not Papists! Thus the point being made is almost entirely lost.



Well, that was sort of my point. I knew I was running a risk in drawing a parallel. I don't think one has to engage in a fallacy that says that if Rome does something and we do the same thing then it is wrong. The ignorant variety of Baptists like to point out the paedobaptists baptize and so does Rome, therefore....

I would even accept the answer that "Well, for this kind of thing, that's the kind of submission to authority that is warranted...."

The question was, to some extent, meant to "shock the system". I'm trying to boil down, if possible, and distinguish between how, when, and to whom we give unquestioned submission to.


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

I don't believe Rome's foundational principle is unassailable. I do believe, however, that the truth is unassailable. As I stated above, do I have to present the position in such a way as makes it able to be defeated in order for it to be valid? Descartes claimed we must disbelieve first before we can reach true knowledge. Is that what I am being asked to do?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I don't believe Rome's foundational principle is unassailable. I do believe, however, that the truth is unassailable. As I stated above, do I have to present the position in such a way as makes it able to be defeated in order for it to be valid? Descartes claimed we must disbelieve first before we can reach true knowledge. Is that what I am being asked to do?



No.

I think you miss my point.

I agree that Rome's foundational principle is assailable.

Truth does not have to be deniable in order to be true but let's take the Resurrection, for instance.

We accept the Resurrection on the testimony of the Scriptures but the Scriptures present a _consistent_ testimony that is internally pure and free of contradictions that point, inexorably, toward that truth. We don't have a bare fact of the Resurrection and then are asked to ignore a ton of Biblical data that would point to it being questionable. We are not merely asked by Scripture to ignore the evidence provided by the Scriptures but merely accept the conclusion that the Resurrection is true.

When DTK presented the Roman Catholic apologists and the way that they defended Church interpretation of the Scriptures I scoffed at that kind of approach. I thought it laughable that Rome could claim that their conclusion of truth was more important than how they got there. I likened it to a math problem where you could see the work being done and see all the basic mistakes made along the way that led to a faulty conclusion. If pointed out, the Magisterium would simply say: "That's not important. You cannot look at the steps, you must accept the conclusion."

It is nice to speak in lofty terms about Truth. Is it any less true that Christ entrusted His Truth to be guarded by the Church. Rome can speak (and does speak) in such a way as to turn to you in the way you turn to me in a dismissive way and say precisely what you just did. After all, they could argue that the principle they're preserving is the Church's role to interpret Scripture. I don't agree with the _way_ in which they do that. The point, is, though, that when all discussion of the _method_ is off the table then you either accept blindly or you do not.

Thus, I can agree, in principle, that God will protect His Word. That is true that He will Providentially uphold it. Where, in Scripture, does it say that I must accept the _manner_ in which He will uphold His Word that you insist, in a very narrow sense, that He has? Where does this doctrine of "TR and no others" spring from as an exegetical necessity for me? 

I still sense you want to bully me into accepting a conclusion of the TR and insist that asking the "Why the TR?" is impious. It's denying Truth. Accepting the TR as authoratative is lifted to the level of the Trinity and all investigations of how it was formed are somehow tainted. All questions of whether God could still be acting Providentially to guard His Word are off the table because He finished that Providential work in the 17th Century.


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> We don't have a bare fact of the Resurrection and then are asked to ignore a ton of Biblical data that would point to it being questionable. We are not merely asked by Scripture to ignore the evidence provided by the Scriptures but merely accept the conclusion that the Resurrection is true.



Here is the problem, Rich. None of the arguments you are asking me to consider arise from the Scriptures. You are asking me to doubt on the basis of empirical evidence which does not match the biblical testimony.

To equate this to your "resurrection" example, you may as well tell me that medical science knows of no precedent of a man rising from the dead never to die again. There are, however, examples of people rising from comas. Ergo, I should consider the possibility that the resurrection is an awakening out of a coma.

You have all of these "other" mss. which conflict with the TR. There is nothing in the Bible about them. They simply exist, and they have been so classified by scholars as to raise a doubt as to whether the TR is true.

I believe the TR on the basis of my belief in the singular care and providence of God over His word, and I believe God exercises this singular care and providence because the Bible tells me so. It is the emergence of "other" readings which raise the doubt as to whether God has, in fact, preserved His word pure in all ages. What am I to believe? the empirical evidence, or the living and abiding Word of God. The empirical evidence will change over time with the rest of earthly reality, but the word of the Lord is settled in the heavens. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Here is the problem, Rich. None of the arguments you are asking me to consider arise from the Scriptures. You are asking me to doubt on the basis of empirical evidence which does not match the biblical testimony.


I've asked nothing of the sort. I've asked you to give an account for your trust in the TR but you make the question impious. I don't even know why you trust the TR except some vague idea that asking the question denies Truth.



> To equate this to your "resurrection" example, you may as well tell me that medical science knows of no precedent of a man rising from the dead never to die again. There are, however, examples of people rising from comas. Ergo, I should consider the possibility that the resurrection is an awakening out of a coma.


Sophistry.

I stated that the evidence for the Resurrection was found within the pages of Scripture itself. This is disingenous of you to assert differently. It deflects the point being made. Scripture gives reason within itself to accept the Resurrection. It doesn't present contrary claims within itself and ask the reader to accept a seemingly contradictory conclusion.



> You have all of these "other" mss. which conflict with the TR. There is nothing in the Bible about them. They simply exist, and they have been so classified by scholars as to raise a doubt as to whether the TR is true.
> 
> I believe the TR on the basis of my belief in the singular care and providence of God over His word, and I believe God exercises this singular care and providence because the Bible tells me so.


The Bible tells you that God will preserve His Word. Where does it tell you that it will be the TR? Where does it say that He would settle this in the 17th Century. You can place as much Holy language upon this as you want. It's like unto Stephen Colbert's parody of neo-Cons when he says: "By merely asking the question you're giving comfort to the enemy.

The TR isn't even a single manuscript for crying out loud! It's a collection of manuscript choices, none of which match what the TR is. Why doesn't a single manuscript match the TR? 


> It is the emergence of "other" readings which raise the doubt as to whether God has, in fact, preserved His word pure in all ages. What am I to believe? the empirical evidence, or the living and abiding Word of God. The empirical evidence will change over time with the rest of earthly reality, but the word of the Lord is settled in the heavens. Blessings!


It doesn't cast any doubt unless you've settled in your mind that God's Providence for His Church ended in the 17th Century. You are to believe what the Words of Scripture tell you. You are not _required_ to believe by Scripture in the TR. The Scriptures do not proclaim the manner of God's Providential care for His Word. I believe you violate the RPW by attempting to do so.


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I stated that the evidence for the Resurrection was found within the pages of Scripture itself. This is disingenous of you to assert differently. It deflects the point being made. Scripture gives reason within itself to accept the Resurrection. It doesn't present contrary claims within itself and ask the reader to accept a seemingly contradictory conclusion.



Then:



SemperFideles said:


> The Bible tells you that God will preserve His Word. Where does it tell you that it will be the TR? Where does it say that He would settle this in the 17th Century. You can place as much Holy language upon this as you want. It's like unto Stephen Colbert's parody of neo-Cons when he says: "By merely asking the question you're giving comfort to the enemy.



Rich, can multiple readings be called the preservation of the Word by a "singular" care and providence? Can the emergence of new readings, or fluctuations in the grading of these readings be regarded as a purity that is maintained "in all ages?" Of course not. It is not enough that one gives some polite wave to the notion of a providence protecting Scripture. The teaching of the Confession is the biblical positon, and it is something to which we must bow with heart and mind because of the authority of God speaking in His word. "Singular care and providence" and "in all ages" is the affirmation of the Confession. Do you belive this is what the Bible teaches, my good brother?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Then:
> Rich, can multiple readings be called the preservation of the Word by a "singular" care and providence? Can the emergence of new readings, or fluctuations in the grading of these readings be regarded as a purity that is maintained "in all ages?" Of course not. It is not enough that one gives some polite wave to the notion of a providence protecting Scripture. The teaching of the Confession is the biblical positon, and it is something to which we must bow with heart and mind because of the authority of God speaking in His word. "Singular care and providence" and "in all ages" is the affirmation of the Confession. Do you belive this is what the Bible teaches, my good brother?



I'm not arguing for multiple English translations. I'm arguing for preservation of source material. Even you cannot argue that God preserve *a* manuscript that we can point to and say: "That manuscript contains every jot and tittle without a single scribal mistake."

If you're arguing for the AV as a common English translation, I don't have a dog in that fight. If a Church wants to decide to stick with a common _translation_ I'm OK with that for the reason of unity.

What I cannot buy is your hand-waving of manuscripts that are discovered and deny that God could still be providing his "singular care and providence" because He's not doing it in the way that you have determined that He will. Why is Sinaiticus, for instance, not an example of the Providence of God?


----------



## Philip A (Feb 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Rich, can multiple readings be called the preservation of the Word by a "singular" care and providence? Can the emergence of new readings, or fluctuations in the grading of these readings be regarded as a purity that is maintained "in all ages?" Of course not. It is not enough that one gives some polite wave to the notion of a providence protecting Scripture.



Then we must all go back to the Latin Vulgate and reject all of the new and multipe readings suggested by Erasmus and Beza that underly the TR.


----------



## bookslover (Feb 22, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> The church only recognizes it [the TR] because the testimony of the Spirit indicates that.



The "church" recognized the TR? What church? When did that happen? I don't remember any historical occasion when "the church" recognized those manuscripts, and only those manuscripts, which underlie the AV as being the Word of God written. Have you got any proof for this assertion?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 22, 2007)

bookslover said:


> The "church" recognized the TR? What church? When did that happen? I don't remember any historical occasion when "the church" recognized those manuscripts, and only those manuscripts, which underlie the AV as being the Word of God written. Have you got any proof for this assertion?




It is not my assertion. That is what I understand Rev. Winzer's argument to be. I was trying to explain that point to Rich in that post.


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I'm not arguing for multiple English translations. I'm arguing for preservation of source material. Even you cannot argue that God preserve *a* manuscript that we can point to and say: "That manuscript contains every jot and tittle without a single scribal mistake."



The Gospel of Mark is inspired Scripture. Thus the church has testified throughout the ages. It is not that a part of it is Scripture, but all of it is Scripture, including the last twelve verses. Now the only way you can cast doubt on this fact is by an appeal to empirical evidence, to various readings. But the same empirical evidence suggests that the resurrection consists in waking up from a coma. What am I to believe? the ever changing evidence, or the abiding Word of God to which the church has ever borne witness?



SemperFideles said:


> What I cannot buy is your hand-waving of manuscripts that are discovered and deny that God could still be providing his "singular care and providence" because He's not doing it in the way that you have determined that He will. Why is Sinaiticus, for instance, not an example of the Providence of God?



Sinaiticus is an example of the providence of God. It exists because God is pleased that it should exist, along with millions of other mss. of all religious shades and colours. But I believe in "singular" care and providence being exercised over the pure Word of God. Not a care of mss. or codices, which perish with the using, but a care of His word, as testified by the church, the ordained instrument to proclaim His word. Many readings in Sinaiticus accord with the Word as testified by the church throughout the ages, but there are some readings which do not accord with that Word, and hence it is to be regarded as faulty. Having examined pictures of this codex I am certain that Sinaiticus itself bears witness of a pure text which itself did not contain. Under the gospel of Mark for example, one will find markings and room left for about another twelve verses of Scripture. Not that the scholars think this is of any significance. What matters is the ms. you see. That is the thing reverenced by them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2007)

Well, we're not getting anywhere but expending a lot of energy not moving from a dot. It does help me conclude that the answer to my original question is "Yes".


Philip A said:


> If what you are driving at is a question of _methodology_, I have to say yes, I see the same kind of principle at work in both examples; the foundational principle is entirely unassailable.


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Well, we're not getting anywhere but expending a lot of energy not moving from a dot. It does help me conclude that the answer to my original question is "Yes".



Out of interest, upon what authority do you accept your "text," as flexible as it may be, as the word of God? I would be interested to know if you are not pushing us all into some deep dark hole that none of us can escape out of simply because we are creatures with finite understandings.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Out of interest, upon what authority do you accept your "text," as flexible as it may be, as the word of God? I would be interested to know if you are not pushing us all into some deep dark hole that none of us can escape out of simply because we are creatures with finite understandings.



I don't accept the text as flexible. I accept man's understanding to be finite and prone to error. I don't trust Churchmen or scholars to be any less errant than Erasmus was in the 16th Century. I also don't believe the AV translators were any less finite or inerrant in their decisions. God preserves in spite of them. He preserves with them.

I don't mean to put you off but I really have a lot to do. You ask me a lot of questions that I try to faithfully answer without impugning impiety or mean-spiritedness to you for doing so. I simply wanted to see if there was a substantive difference in the basis for accepting the authority of the TR given the analogy used. 

I pried and I prodded. I tried to get a _positive_ justification for the TR-onlyism but was met with "...you reject Truth...."

Now, whether good or ill, that is similar in its methodology for argument. It is reminiscent of the pietistic language the Roman Catholics will use to make Protestants guilty of being individualistic and interested in consensus and the rest.

Now, if you felt you had an argument that differed from Roman Catholicism for the acceptance of the TR and the TR only to help distinguish it then you did not offer it.

I just don't have the time to ask it in any more ways so that I can try to guess at a difference and all indications lead me to believe they are the same in their "type" even if I believe that what you are defending is more innocuous than the false exegesis of the Roman Catholic Church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

To date I can only remember asking you a handful of questions, Rich, and I only did so to clarify the angle from which you were scrutinising the TR's presupposition of authority. My recent question was asked merely in the hope that you would examine your own position and see upon what authority it rested. For therein I think you will see that if you deny the God ordained ministerial function of the church to testify of the Word, then we have no way of reading in the diary of providence, and hence have no text at all. Certainly I have never said that you deny Truth. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> To date I can only remember asking you a handful of questions, Rich, and I only did so to clarify the angle from which you were scrutinising the TR's presupposition of authority. My recent question was asked merely in the hope that you would examine your own position and see upon what authority it rested. For therein I think you will see that if you deny the God ordained ministerial function of the church to testify of the Word, then we have no way of reading in the diary of providence, and hence have no text at all. Certainly I have never said that you deny Truth. Blessings!



True. To clarify, you did not. What I mean to say is that you imply that questioning the TR is to question truth altogether.

I don't deny the minsterial function of the Church to testify of the Word and I'm not stating that we need to bow to committees but God has preserved manuscripts for us. If the Church wishes, she can take up those manuscripts and read them. There is nothing you have presented that leads me to believe that picking up other manuscripts that were not used by the translators of the 17th Century would be "strange fire."

Assuming that the Church ever did come together to gather manuscripts together for a translation, it seems you would deny them _a priori_ the ability to even touch manuscripts that were not used by the original AV translators.

This I deny. Not just some vague notion that I deny Church authority. I deny that God has bound the Church forever and for all time to the TR.


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

This is my final post on this subject, and I will conclude with a quotation from a good old theologian. It may be found in Heinrich Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 30, 31.



> Wyttenbach (Tent. theol. I, 212-312): "Be it noted moreover that _Protestants_ do not reject outright all tradition...: they admit historical tradition, if it is certain. This consists in the consent of every age of the Christian church or in its testimony as to what it has believed, what books it has received as divine, how this or that passage of Scripture was understood, etc. They yield a place to such fixed tradition as to canonical and apocryphal books. But they reject the dogmatic tradition, which prescribes _credenda_ and _agenda_ not contained in Scripture."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2007)

Grace and Peace to you Brother. For the record, I am not wounded or offended by this interaction.


----------



## satz (Feb 22, 2007)

I have been following this thread with great interest. I believe this issue is an important one, and it is certainly worth pursuing. As someone mentioned in one of the two current TR threads, without scripture we can have no doctrine. So although the bible version issue is a unpleasant one in the sense that it tends to raise strong feelings in those involved, I feel very uncomfortable in dismissing it as a secondary issue. I hope to be able to offer a small, if rambling and confused contribution to this thread. I write this not to teach, but to be critiqued and taught, if need be.

The ideas in this thread have been, to me at least, pretty complex and I am not sure I fully grasp them. _From what I understand_, I would say I agree to a large extent to the view put forth by Rev Winzer. However, with regard to Rich’s initial question, I guess my way of looking at the issue is somewhat different. I am certainly not saying I think it is the obviously correct one. But I hope to just offer another point of view. If I am wrong, obviously I would want to be corrected.

I do not believe it is necessary per se to say that we accept the AV because the church declared it to be so. I believe that christians can, indeed must, be able to believe by faith that God has preserved his word for them to be able to read and understand today. I believe all we Christians today in 2007 need to do is to ask ‘where are the preserved words that God promised?’, find them, and read them.
At the moment, I do believe the KJV shows the most evidence of being that preserved word.

However, as Christians in 2007, I do not believe it is really necessary for us to be able to say that the church has ‘accepted’ the TR and that is why we believe it. I believe the origin of the KJV translation is a great hint that it is the translation with God’s stamp of approval. But it is not necessary to say that the church somehow declared this to be the settled Greek manuscript. Hence, the comparison with Rome does not hold.

I believe that when we say God preserved his word, we must believe he preserved it in a form that is readily understandable by the common man, and not merely in the sense of preserving ancient manuscripts written in languages no one speaks anymore and which must be pieced together like a jigsaw to by scholars to find the real word of God. Because when the scriptures are referred to in the bible, they are never presented like that. The common people never had to go though scholars to weed out copying or translation errors when they read the scriptures. No prophet, teacher or Apostle in the bible ever told someone he was using the wrong manuscript or had a faulty translation.

To phrase it another way, is the thing we read everyday during devotions, and which our pastors preach from on Sunday the scriptures, or a book about the scriptures? Is it the Word of God, or a book containing some of the words of God? If what we have really is the scriptures, then according to Acts 17:11, even if the Apostle Paul were still around today, performing miracles and raising the dead, and receiving direct inspiration from God, we can still hold him accountable that he is teaching in accord with the scriptures. And God calls such an attitude, to check out that what your minister is saying is true by the scriptures, noble. But such checking and accountability is impossible today under the current paradigm we have where Christians in the pew being told that this word in their bibles in not quite translated the right way, or that his sentence may or may not be the word of God since it doesn’t appear in such and such manuscript. And the kicker is, even if the pastor/scholar was right about the translation not being accurate to the inspired word of God, there is no way his sheep can tell that he is telling the truth by checking back with scripture. Because the authority has been taken away from the scriptures and given to scholars who decide what is and what is not the word of God.

It may sound childish and extreme but I believe we must have faith that God will preserve his words so that the common man will have them at the word perfect level, because how can we say ‘every word of God is pure’ when we are not even sure what are the exact _words_ of God but rather we say we can only know the _ideas_ communicated in the scripture.

I believe we can identify God’s written word in English by examining internal consistency, fruit etc. The fact that the AV might have the backing of the reformed church is a big hint in its favor, but not essential. While there might be value, especially for pastors and teachers, to understand the process by which God preserved his word, I do not believe it is necessary for the lay-christian to know, anymore than it is necessary for us to wonder if we are missing doctrine because we lack the Epistle to Laodicea (Col 4:15). We can simply trust by faith that if we needed it, God would have made sure we had it today. Hence we know that we need the words of God today, and that God promised they would be around for us. We just need to find them.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> We can only maintain that our reformation forefathers worked with a corrupt text if we first concede the delusive idea of "development;" and yet we do not accept other developments -- indeed great strides -- which have been made in the name of Christianity since the days of the first and second reformation. We do not accept revisions to our reformed confessions. We do not allow the attributions of books of Scripture to sub-apostolic authors or communities. We do not acknowledge modern methods of interpretation which contravene the Scripture interprets Scripture principle.



Framework Hypothesis anyone? Sure does not seem to be many geocentrists left either even though that was the majority position through history. We have given a lot up already, so why should it surprise many that we give up other reformation positions.

CT


----------



## satz (Feb 23, 2007)

*I don't mean to be a bother*



satz said:


> I have been following this thread with great interest. I believe this issue is an important one, and it is certainly worth pursuing. As someone mentioned in one of the two current TR threads, without scripture we can have no doctrine. So although the bible version issue is a unpleasant one in the sense that it tends to raise strong feelings in those involved, I feel very uncomfortable in dismissing it as a secondary issue. I hope to be able to offer a small, if rambling and confused contribution to this thread. I write this not to teach, but to be critiqued and taught, if need be.
> 
> The ideas in this thread have been, to me at least, pretty complex and I am not sure I fully grasp them. _From what I understand_, I would say I agree to a large extent to the view put forth by Rev Winzer. However, with regard to Rich’s initial question, I guess my way of looking at the issue is somewhat different. I am certainly not saying I think it is the obviously correct one. But I hope to just offer another point of view. If I am wrong, obviously I would want to be corrected.
> 
> ...



But I would really appreciate if someone would comment on what I wrote above. This is something that honestly does trouble me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 23, 2007)

Mark,

Personally, I think we have an embarrassment of riches with English translations. I _am_ more concerned about what the authoratative original text is because I'm interested in how we would translate it for other tongues.

I get the feeling here that if a Presbyterian missionary went and established a Reformed Church in another country (like Dave Crum in Mexico - an OPC missionary ther) that had not any version of the Bible there are those that would say that the TR is the only acceptable manuscript Church for the Reformed Church of X to refer to. Why? Because those were the manuscript choices made by the AV writers.

Honestly, on its face the appeal to trusting God over empirical methods sounds so pious that you'd have to be the type of person that puts kittens in microwaves to deny the idea. When one gets over the fear of being thought a heretic for thinking about it, one realizes that the original translators of the AV were human and used human, not divine, faculties to choose manuscripts and make choices. Because it happened so long ago, however, the decisions they make are beknighted and removed beyond the realm of inquiry. I simply find it a strange form of affirmation of absolute truth to insist that fallible human manuscript choices in the 15th and 16th century _English_ translators forever bind the choices of translators to other languages. 

Why not the choices made for the Vulgate? Why not the choices made for Italian or Spanish translations that existed prior to English ones. Why does piety begin and end with English translators? I should criticize the AV translators for their impious comparison of manuscripts over and against what Jerome used!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

John Calvin (commentary on Isaiah 59:21):



> _My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words._ What is now added may be thought to be feeble and trivial, when he enjoins the Church to be satisfied with the “word” and “Spirit;" as if this were a great happiness, to hang in suspense on nothing but God’s promises. Yet although the Prophet commends the value and excellence of doctrine, I have no doubt that still it is not separated from its effect. But because God regulates and dispenses his grace in such a manner, that, as long as believers remain in this world, he always trains them to patience, and does not in every instance answer their prayers, therefore he brings them back to doctrine; as if he had said, “Thou wilt indeed find that I am kind to thee in various ways; but there is no happiness which will be of greater importance to thee, or which thou oughtest to desire more earnestly, than to feel that I am present by ‘the word’ and ‘the Spirit.’” Hence we infer that this is a most valuable treasure of the Church, that he has chosen for himself a habitation in it, to dwell in the hearts of believers by his Spirit, and next to preserve among them the doctrine of his gospel.
> 
> _Shall not depart out of thy mouth. _Finally, he foretells that the Lord will never forsake his people, but will always be present with them by “his Spirit” and by “the word.” The “Spirit” is joined with the word, because, without the efficacy of the Spirit, the preaching of the gospel would avail nothing, but would remain unfruitful. In like manner, “the word” must not be separated from “the Spirit,” as fanatics imagine, who, despising the word, glory in the name of the Spirit, and swell with vain confidence in their own imaginations. It is the spirit of Satan that is separated from the word, to which the Spirit of God is continually joined. Now, when he quickens outward doctrine, so that it strikes root in our hearts, our condition is happy even amidst many afflictions; and I have no doubt that the Prophet expressly declares that, although God deals kindly with his Church, still its life and salvation shall be laid up in faith. Thus the new people is distinguished from the ancient people; for, as the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, so, since he has risen from the dead, believing souls must be raised up along with him. But now he promises that the Church will never be deprived of this invaluable blessing, but will be guided by the Holy Spirit and sustained by heavenly doctrine; for it would be of little avail that the gospel should once be offered to us, and that the Spirit should be given to us, if he did not dwell with us.
> 
> ...


----------



## bookslover (Feb 24, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> John Calvin (commentary on Isaiah 59:21):



And to think that the KJV didn't even exist yet when Calvin wrote that. My, my...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Feb 24, 2007)

bookslover said:


> And to think that the KJV didn't even exist yet when Calvin wrote that. My, my...



Read the words in italics and compare with the AV. Calvin's translators weren't silly.  [Please note the smiley before considering this an ignorant comment.]


----------



## bookslover (Feb 24, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Read the words in italics and compare with the AV. Calvin's translators weren't silly.  [Please note the smiley before considering this an ignorant comment.]



We may have our differences, Matthew, but I consider you to be _far_ from ignorant.


----------



## Magma2 (Mar 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I don't deny the minsterial function of the Church to testify of the Word and I'm not stating that we need to bow to committees but God has preserved manuscripts for us. If the Church wishes, she can take up those manuscripts and read them. There is nothing you have presented that leads me to believe that picking up other manuscripts that were not used by the translators of the 17th Century would be "strange fire."
> 
> Assuming that the Church ever did come together to gather manuscripts together for a translation, it seems you would deny them _a priori_ the ability to even touch manuscripts that were not used by the original AV translators.
> 
> This I deny. Not just some vague notion that I deny Church authority. I deny that God has bound the Church forever and for all time to the TR.



For what it's worth and I just stumble on this thread and thought I'd add my . I think the answer to some of your objections lay in a different direction. 

The problem as I see it is not so much whether the AV is the final word or even whether the KJ can ever be improved upon, I believe it can, but rather what are the theories and methods (the philosophy) behind virtually all modern translations and do these have any merit? 

Again, and For what it's worth, there has been significant arguments raised against _the theories and methods_ chosen by textual critics following Westcott and Hort. One quick read which scratches the surface and exposes the errors underlying modern textual criticism is by Gary Crampton; Original Manuscripts, the Majority Text at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=234 .

Another good online resource is The Identity of the New Testament Text II by Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD which is also free online at: http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/

There are sections in this second resource which are way beyond my ability to follow, but Pickering's refutation of W-H is excellent and relatively easy to follow. in my opinion the misplaced biases and prejudices of modern critics are completely exposed by Pickering and he shouldn't be dismissed as some KJ only wacko. 

I think the greatest danger of modern textual critics is that they have successfully undermined the trustworthiness of Scripture. Further, since they draw from inferior and questionable sources what they produce is likewise inferior and questionable.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 1, 2007)

Magma2 said:


> For what it's worth and I just stumble on this thread and thought I'd add my . I think the answer to some of your objections lay in a different direction.
> 
> The problem as I see it is not so much whether the AV is the final word or even whether the KJ can ever be improved upon, I believe it can, but rather what are the theories and methods (the philosophy) behind virtually all modern translations and do these have any merit?
> 
> ...



Thanks Sean. Gotta run out the door to go workout (it's 0530) but I actually understand what the objection on the other side is. I'm not un-sympathetic to it. I do see the difference between allowing academia choosing which texts are and which aren't canonical and allowing the Church to do so. My only point was to establish whether it could be conceived whether the Church itself might take up and consider other manuscripts rather than just those used by Erasmus, Tyndale, and the AV translators for future translation work into English or current translation work into languages that lack a translation. It seems rather odd that _their_ manuscript choices would have been superior, for instance, to Jerome's when he translated the Vulgate or some other group of translators for earlier editions into Italian or Spanish.

That the Church ought to be testifying to "this is Scripture" and not academics with probability calculi, this is heartily affirm.


----------



## Magma2 (Mar 1, 2007)

satz said:


> But I would really appreciate if someone would comment on what I wrote above. This is something that honestly does trouble me.



See my post above. I think you're exactly right and point out the diabolic nature of modern translations when you write:



> To phrase it another way, is the thing we read everyday during devotions, and which our pastors preach from on Sunday the scriptures, or a book about the scriptures? Is it the Word of God, or a book containing some of the words of God?



I think exposing the logical errors of the textual critics who have almost universally followed in the footsteps of Westcott and Hort is a good place to start.


----------

