# Van Kleeck vs White: The Textus Receptus As The Word Of God Is Equal To The New Testament Autographs



## Imputatio (Sep 21, 2022)

Any initial thoughts before this occurs?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 21, 2022)

Found this : https://standardsacredtext.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/response-to-mark-wards-which-tr-5.pdf

_"And finally, there is, to paraphrase Abram Kuyper, no square inch of this world where Christ does not say, “Mine.” This includes textual criticism. Thus, to exclude Christ’s lordship and His elect body from the process of textual work is to practice an idolatrous form of textual criticism. To do so is a kind of idolatrous special pleading."_


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 21, 2022)

I'm not super familiar with Van Kleeck's line of argument. I hope he will represent the best of the TR position against White. I'll be interested to hear the debate.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 21, 2022)

I'll add, I know that he is a strong advocate of the use of the KJV as well-- I hope this debate will not veer into simply defending the KJV, and that he will keep the focus on the Greek text. When those issues are not properly distinguished, the TR position always suffers.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 21, 2022)

I’m curious how VK will defend ‘TR = Autographs.’


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 21, 2022)

Nice graphic


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 22, 2022)

From a comment from James White on His FB

“Van Kleeck's unique position is not well known by a lot of folks. They only put out their third book in their series a few months ago. Fundamentally, they eschew "scientific" study (TC) and instead conflate canon and text and say the church has "accepted" the "final canonical iteration" which is the TR. Throw Matthew 5:18 in together with a strange application of "Reformed Epistemology," claim the more sanctified you are the more sensitive you are to the voice of Christ, and voila! The TR.”

Very interesting.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 22, 2022)

John Yap said:


> From a comment from James White on His FB
> 
> “Van Kleeck's unique position is not well known by a lot of folks. They only put out their third book in their series a few months ago. Fundamentally, they eschew "scientific" study (TC) and instead conflate canon and text and say the church has "accepted" the "final canonical iteration" which is the TR. Throw Matthew 5:18 in together with a strange application of "Reformed Epistemology," claim the more sanctified you are the more sensitive you are to the voice of Christ, and voila! The TR.”
> 
> Very interesting.


I'm very interested in this debate. However, I wish we would move on from James White. I have profited significantly from him over the years, but he can exhibit a somewhat caustic demeanor in his public engagements, especially in the area of these textual discussions. This Facebook post is a case in point. Why this preemptive strike? The problem with these debates is that they end up being point-scoring parties. Is there no one better on the "CT side"?

Reactions: Like 10


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 22, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I'm very interested in this debate. However, I wish we would move on from James White. I have profited significantly from him over the years, but he can exhibit a somewhat caustic demeanor in his public engagements, especially in the area of these textual discussions. This Facebook post is a case in point. Why this preemptive strike? The problem with these debates is that they end up being point-scoring parties. Is there no one better on the "CT side"?


I guess the CT guys are more interested in discussing the science of textual criticism principles and evidences (Geographic distribution etc.). This looks like a theological discussion instead where I do not think much evidences will be even discussed.


----------



## danekristjan (Sep 22, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> I'll add, I know that he is a strong advocate of the use of the KJV as well-- I hope this debate will not veer into simply defending the KJV, and that he will keep the focus on the Greek text. When those issues are not properly distinguished, the TR position always suffers.


I really hope Dr. Van Kleeck is at least as competent in Greek as White. It's always a shame when TR defenders can't read the text they defend, and usually leads to their debate opponent wiping the floor with them.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 22, 2022)

I’ll reserve judgment of Dr. White’s words until I see/hear if they are true. 

Does anyone know enough about his opponent to say one way or the other?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 22, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I’ll reserve judgment of Dr. White’s words until I see/hear if they are true.
> 
> Does anyone know enough about his opponent to say one way or the other?


Read post #2


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 22, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Read post #2


I’ll read the linked document. Thank you.


----------



## Logan (Sep 22, 2022)

Finally got a chance to read Van Kleeck's paper linked in post #2.

I will say this for him: his view at least recognizes the historical facts (such as differences between TR editions). In that much he is consistent and I appreciate it. However, his entire case is built on analogy and story-telling.

He likens the various "TRs" to the process of sanctification: just as we grow or become refined in sanctification, so did the TR, and this ultimately resulted in Scrivener's TR, which is therefore our sacred scriptures for today. The problem I see with this viewpoint is that since he talks about Scrivener being the final TR, and Scrivener constructed it based on the readings in the KJV, it really makes the KJV the standard, something NO DIVINE OR REFORMER OR PURITAN WOULD HAVE SAID ABOUT THE GREEK. 

It denies past generations could have a "final TR", and it precludes any future edition (we have reached the pinnacle). Wouldn't someone in the past holding to a 1550 Stephanus have just as much right to say that was the final one and why are you changing things up with your 1894 Scrivener which is based on the KJV? It also precludes the church from accepting any other "TR". 

I also have never understood this line of reasoning that essentially says that we know that the TR (1894) is THE TR because the church is using it, or has "received it". But this same line of reasoning is denied to the users of CT-based translations. If nearly the entire church moves to CT-based translations (in other words, "receives" the CT) then that's wrong. Why? Why is it providential favor for one side and sin for the other side?

Also, Van Kleeck like so many, latches onto the "kept pure" portion of WCF 1:8 while ignoring the "in all ages" part.

He makes this statement: "In the Reformed tradition, the Confessional text was not lowered to the level of the 'various manuscripts.' The Scriptural readings stood outside the manuscript tradition as a separate and privileged source." This is a bold, bold claim, and the only support he gives from it is a quote from Turretin where he talks about "a collation of the Scriptures and the various manuscripts." That's quite an extrapolated viewpoint.

I don't know anything about Van Kleeck apart from this paper but it seems like we can add yet another TR viewpoint to the pile. I don't recognize his view as matching anyone else's.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## danekristjan (Sep 22, 2022)

Logan said:


> Finally got a chance to read Van Kleeck's paper linked in post #2.
> 
> I will say this for him: his view at least recognizes the historical facts (such as differences between TR editions). In that much he is consistent and I appreciate it. However, his entire case is built on analogy and story-telling.
> 
> ...


His view seems to be in line with almost all of the other TR adovocates. It just gets there a slightly different way. It seems reminiscent of many KJVO arguments (purified 7 times ... I.e. the 6 English translations from Wycliffe to the 7th, the KJV). If we CB/TR advocates don't cease arguing for scrivener onlyism, then we will never shake the label of KJV onlyism. As you pointed out, not one single Puritan divine or post reformation dogmatician ever saw "The TR" or argued for "the TR" if by "the TR" we mean a work compiled by a Revised Version text critic working backwards from the KJV. That then means that the Westminster divines also did not have the pure text.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 22, 2022)

Just read this fascinating bit on Van Kleeck's blog:

"Hey all. I wanted to give an update to my debate preparations. I’ve had a half a dozen or so men from different stripes and perspectives reading and refining my arguments. I really appreciate all their help to this point. The arguments I have constructed for the debate have not been used anywhere in our printed work or on the blog. I look forward to putting them to the test."

I'm interested to hear these unused arguments (and curious about the reasons why they haven't been used).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 22, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> His view seems to be in line with almost all of other the TR adovocates. It just gets there a slightly different way. It seems reminiscent of many KJVO arguments (purified 7 times ... I.e. the 6 English translations from Wycliffe to the 7th, the KJV). If we CB/TR advocates don't cease arguing for scrivener onlyism, then we will never shake the label of KJV onlyism. As you pointed out, not one single Puritan divine or post reformation dogmatician every saw "The TR" or argued for "the TR" if by "the TR" we mean a work compiled by a Revised Version text critic working backwards from the KJV. That then means that the Westminster divines also did not have the pure text.


Agreed. I see Scrivener as an edition of the TR, but to argue for it as the single pinnacle does seem anachronistic and unhelpful. I think there's a much stronger case to be made for the Protestant TR editions together as the canonical, preserved text of the NT.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 22, 2022)

Logan said:


> Just read this fascinating bit on Van Kleeck's blog:
> 
> "Hey all. I wanted to give an update to my debate preparations. I’ve had a half a dozen or so men from different stripes and perspectives reading and refining my arguments. I really appreciate all their help to this point. The arguments I have constructed for the debate have not been used anywhere in our printed work or on the blog. I look forward to putting them to the test."
> 
> I'm interested to hear these unused arguments (and curious about the reasons why they haven't been used).


That is interesting. Did he not release three volumes defending his position?

Edit:

I hope this kind of stuff doesn’t come up during the debate. I believe this is from his father.

“Contradicting the word, once considered a work of the Devil has gained respectability among the ecclesiastical intellectual elite and wandering sheep. And in this sphere of respectability, perhaps its time for the ecclesiastical social imaginary to recognize and accept the intuitive congruence between scholars and the Devil.”









Does the Devil Just Hold to Textual Variants?


Gen. 3:4, And the serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall not surely die.” In this passage Satan contradicts the word of God in Gen. 2:17, “for in the day that thou eatest thou shalt surely die.” Co…




petervankleeck.home.blog

Reactions: Wow 2


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 22, 2022)

Am I reading him wrong here, or is he basically laying the poor state of theology in western “Christianity” at the feet of non-CBists?









2022 State of Theology Survey


The annual Ligonier State of Theology survey was recently released. You can find the whole report here. As with last years, things are getting worse in major sectors of Christian theology and Chris…




standardsacredtext.com


----------



## Logan (Sep 22, 2022)

Sure sounds like it. I've been reading entries in his blog and it's a rather sarcastic echo chamber, unfortunately. Not very impressive.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 22, 2022)

Logan said:


> Sure sounds like it. I've been reading entries in his blog and it's a rather sarcastic echo chamber, unfortunately. Not very impressive.


I did the same. That’s an accurate description.


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 22, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Am I reading him wrong here, or is he basically laying the poor state of theology in western “Christianity” at the feet of non-CBists?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's very unfortunate. This seems like a classic case of seeing every problem as the result of a pet issue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 22, 2022)

Took a bit of digging, but finally found this summary of Van Kleeck's position:

"Simply put, we here at StandardSacredText.com hold to the same conclusion. God gave His word in written propositions easily, purely, and entirely. Those same propositions, by virtue of being God’s propositions, remain easily, purely, and entirely preserved in a single standard sacred text. We here at StandardSacredText.com hold that text to be the union of the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, and the 1881 Scrivener’s Greek New Testament. Regarding the English-speaking believing community. We believe the King James Version to be the standard sacred text for the English-speaking believing community."


----------



## Logan (Sep 22, 2022)

He says things like this on his blog (commenting on a quote from Turretin):

"My point in bringing this up is that 400 years ago Protestants had to defend these passages from the Roman Catholics. 400 years ago, it was the heretics that questioned the veracity of 1 John 5:7. Now Protestants are called to defend these same passages against…Protestants, and the folks who defend the validity of 1 John 5: 7 are now called the heretics, the schismatics."

Who in the world does he think is calling defenders of 1 John 5:7 "heretics"? Is this a persecution complex?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 22, 2022)

And this line of reasoning I find baffling and I don't quite understand it:








Weekly Question – Do you know that no two Greek manuscripts agree in every place?


Yes, we here at StandardSacredText.com know that no two Greek manuscripts agree in every place. The Reformers knew this 400 years ago [See Turretin’s Institutes Second Topic, Q. 11]. Jerome k…




standardsacredtext.com





It's almost like the argument goes: we have to theologically and philosophically have a "standard text", so if you hold to the ESV as the standard for English speakers, that's a step in the right direction, and then we can debate which one is the standard. 

It's almost like the primary goal is to make sure everyone uses the same English translation. And the question as to whether it represents the autographs is almost secondary?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Sep 22, 2022)

Logan said:


> And this line of reasoning I find baffling and I don't quite understand it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just read the linked paper from post #2 you commented on. He made a similar comment there:

"Third, at the very end of Ward’s paper he asks the following question, 'What could be more divisive than telling people who cannot read Greek or Hebrew – and therefore lack most of the capacity necessary to check out the issue for themselves – to disdain each other's Bibles?' 25 The answer is, telling people to disdain their own Bible. This is the very thing that SST proponents resist. We would be a long way down the road if every Christian believed their Bible was indeed the word of God in English and all others merely contained large portions of the Bible. Saying the ESV is God’s word in English is historically, theologically, and logically more consistent than saying the ESV, NIV, NASB, KJV, CSB, and the Message are all equally the Bible."

It's a new line of argument for me, to be sure. Even the most ardent TR folks who want to standardize on the KJV for the pulpit here and others I've met seem to be okay with some about amount of personal reference and use of other TR Bibles (whether other Reformation Bibles like the Geneva, Luther or something like YLT). It's quite strange to say there can be only one word of God in each language.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## danekristjan (Sep 22, 2022)

Jake said:


> I just read the linked paper from post #2 you commented on. He made a similar comment there:
> 
> "Third, at the very end of Ward’s paper he asks the following question, 'What could be more divisive than telling people who cannot read Greek or Hebrew – and therefore lack most of the capacity necessary to check out the issue for themselves – to disdain each other's Bibles?' 25 The answer is, telling people to disdain their own Bible. This is the very thing that SST proponents resist. We would be a long way down the road if every Christian believed their Bible was indeed the word of God in English and all others merely contained large portions of the Bible. Saying the ESV is God’s word in English is historically, theologically, and logically more consistent than saying the ESV, NIV, NASB, KJV, CSB, and the Message are all equally the Bible."
> 
> It's a new line of argument for me, to be sure. Even the most ardent TR folks who want to standardize on the KJV for the pulpit here and others I've met seem to be okay with some about of personal reference and use of other TR Bibles (whether other Reformation Bibles like the Geneva, Luther or something like YLT). It's quite strange to say there can be only one word of God in each language.


Agreed. To argue that we either SHOULD or it would be IDEAL to have a standard sacred text in English is one thing. To say that God HAS done so, is, by any philosophical/theological/evidential argument both impossible and demonstrably inaccurate.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## danekristjan (Sep 22, 2022)

Jake said:


> I just read the linked paper from post #2 you commented on. He made a similar comment there:
> 
> "Third, at the very end of Ward’s paper he asks the following question, 'What could be more divisive than telling people who cannot read Greek or Hebrew – and therefore lack most of the capacity necessary to check out the issue for themselves – to disdain each other's Bibles?' 25 The answer is, telling people to disdain their own Bible. This is the very thing that SST proponents resist. We would be a long way down the road if every Christian believed their Bible was indeed the word of God in English and all others merely contained large portions of the Bible. Saying the ESV is God’s word in English is historically, theologically, and logically more consistent than saying the ESV, NIV, NASB, KJV, CSB, and the Message are all equally the Bible."
> 
> It's a new line of argument for me, to be sure. Even the most ardent TR folks who want to standardize on the KJV for the pulpit here and others I've met seem to be okay with some about of personal reference and use of other TR Bibles (whether other Reformation Bibles like the Geneva, Luther or something like YLT). It's quite strange to say there can be only one word of God in each language.


Poor atheistic John Bunyan. He used a Geneva Bible his whole life and rejected the KJV. He chose not to have God's Word I guess.

Reactions: Funny 6


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 23, 2022)

What is it about the TR/KJV that attracts such odd outliers?

Reactions: Like 1 | Wow 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 23, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> What is it about the TR/KJV that attracts such odd outliers?


I'm sure there are lots of outliers who hold other positions as well. I think the issue is that the outliers tend to shout the loudest and since the TR position (or at least the number actively advocating for it) is relatively small, they tend to be heard quite clearly above the rest.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 23, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> I'm sure there are lots of outliers who hold other positions as well. I think the issue is that the outliers tend to shout the loudest and since the TR position (or at least the number actively advocating for it) is relatively small, they tend to be hear quite clearly above the rest.


I don’t know if I agree. You don’t see CT-Onlyismor ESV-Onlyism or a Trinitarian Bible Society type of organization pumping out content in that vein, or Independent Fundamental ESV Baptists, etc.


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 23, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I don’t know if I agree. You don’t see CT-Onlyismor ESV-Onlyism or a Trinitarian Bible Society type of organization pumping out content in that vein, or Independent Fundamental ESV Baptists, etc.


Well you only get *that* kind of outlier with regards to the KJV or TR because that kind of view is not nearly as plausible with a translation that's been around for only 20-30 years. The KJV/TR tradition just lends itself to this particular kind of extreme view because it has been in use for so long. There are plenty of people who prefer critical Greek texts outside of the TR who have very odd or idiosyncratic views though. They just get drowned out by the overwhelming number of "normal" mainstream CT adherents.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 23, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I don’t know if I agree. You don’t see CT-Onlyismor ESV-Onlyism or a Trinitarian Bible Society type of organization pumping out content in that vein, or Independent Fundamental ESV Baptists, etc.


Because one has a frozen text while the other doesn’t.


----------



## Jake (Sep 23, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I'm very interested in this debate. However, I wish we would move on from James White. I have profited significantly from him over the years, but he can exhibit a somewhat caustic demeanor in his public engagements, especially in the area of these textual discussions. This Facebook post is a case in point. Why this preemptive strike? The problem with these debates is that they end up being point-scoring parties. Is there no one better on the "CT side"?


I think the debates James White did with Jeff Riddle were quite well done. But overall, while James White is who introduced me to Calvinism, I don't listen to much of him anymore. I've listened to some of his recent debates, but his podcast has turned into mostly political ramblings that don't interest me.

I would like to see more of Dan Wallace. In this discussion he does a good job of interacting with KJV onlylists and a TR advocate: 



 I think Dan Wallace was one of the bright spots in this conversation and he did a very good job representing the CT position. The video overall is a bit... odd. It has too many different views in one. KJV onlyists, defender of Gail Riplinger, a TR advocate, translators from NKJV, NIV, NASB, all in one conversation. Oh, and James White and Dan Wallace were there too. There were some interesting conversations nonetheless.

This debate linked in my last paragraph actually does bring up another interesting point related to the 2nd post in this thread -- which TR. The positions represented included someone who thought the 1611 KJV and someone else who thought 1769 was, with another being the TR (and Art for the Majority Text). Within KJV only circles, the question is usually framed as which KJV is perfect (or preserved or preferred depending on the person). Some say the 1611, some the 1769, some various other revisions. Some even claim the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition is "the final form" of the KJV.

When it comes to the TR, the conversation is about the Greek texts. Some reject the question and say that we should chose within the TR position, but Van Kleeck unapologetically says Scrivener is the TR which has been preserved. Scrivener went through and tried to make a Greek text that matched the KJV's textual choices. Scrivener identified all of the variants between the 1611 and 1769 editions of the KJV, which he estimated included about 40 textually significant variants*. He actually made his TR "eclectic" in that it included readings from multiple published editions of the KJV. Yes, we are talking about significantly less variants between KJV versions than between TR versions which is less than among the broader manuscript tradition, but in a way, Scrivener does not exactly match any one KJV version with its textual choices.

* You can see a decent summary here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html But you're best served by reading this cited work, F.H.A. Scrivener, _The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and modern Representatives._ Cambridge: University Press, 1884. to get the details. You can find it on archive.org for free.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jake (Sep 23, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> Well you only get *that* kind of outlier with regards to the KJV or TR because that kind of view is not nearly as plausible with a translation that's been around for only 20-30 years. The KJV/TR tradition just lends itself to this particular kind of extreme view because it has been in use for so long. There are plenty of people who prefer critical Greek texts outside of the TR who have very odd or idiosyncratic views though. They just get drowned out by the overwhelming number of "normal" mainstream CT adherents.


I've heard similar arguments to KJV onlyism by Catholic users of the Douay–Rheims Bible. A native German speaker at my church told me of hearing arguments similar to KJV onlyist arguments for the "old Luther Bible." I've even heard arguments about the 1650 SMV that it is superior to the KJV in its translations and that we need to learn a little Scots to get through the hard parts like "Pure to the pure, froward thou kyth'st unto the froward wight" rather than updating it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jake (Sep 23, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Because one has a frozen text while the other doesn’t.


The standard editions of the TR are from 1516 to 1881, although another could be created. There have been editions published as the KJV that differ from at least 1611 to 1900.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 23, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> What is it about the TR/KJV that attracts such odd outliers?



I think there are multiple things that attract people to this position, not just the outliers. Mostly I think it has to do with the perception of certainty.

Web searches are filled with results that will give you "the best printer on the market". Those who are into Linux are constantly looking for "the best" version of Linux. People looking for a translation of Dostoyevsky will often ask the question "which is the best translation". Here on the PB when Calvin's Institutes are discussed, people will agonize over which is "the best" translation. We have this innate and oftentimes subconscious desire for the gold standard.

For others, they are drawn, whether consciously or not, to traditionalism.

For others it's a reaction against something, like liberalism or the plethora of translations.

And for some it is what they grew up with and the idea of "my Bible" not being perfect or being replaced is just unthinkable.

But almost never will any of us stop there. We want deeper reasons than that and I think we try to rationalize our feelings by coming up with something that seems like a good argument. It might even be subconscious. We know we have a good reason, we just have to find it! Like it's "confessional" or it was the view of "all the Reformers", or some philosophical reason why there should be one Bible, or an exegetical latching onto a couple of verses and then feeling like it's the only possible orthodox way to interpret them, or a canonization, or something something something.

It's something we're all prone to. Unfortunately we're also prone to tribalism and I think the TR advocates do their own position a disservice when they embrace all sorts of views (like Van Kleeck) into their tribe. In seeking to fight a "common enemy" they ally themselves with people who make the position seem whacky.

If they want to be taken seriously as a position of integrity and honesty, one good place to start is to police their own "side" and stop remaining silent when loony views are espoused or uncharitable claims are made.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Before (Sep 23, 2022)

I'm a bit confused over the title of this thread,
Yes we have the Textus Receptus, ...but the original autographs?
How will there be a comparison with something you don't have?
This debate sounds like it will be full of assumptions.
Or maybe I'm assuming things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 23, 2022)

Thanks for your responses, gentlemen. As frustrating as this topic often is (and I expect this debate to be frustrating), let us all thank the Lord that he has given us his word, and that he deals so mercifully with wretches like us.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jie-Huli (Sep 23, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I don’t know if I agree. You don’t see CT-Onlyismor ESV-Onlyism or a Trinitarian Bible Society type of organization pumping out content in that vein, or Independent Fundamental ESV Baptists, etc.


I did not intend to participate in this thread (I know nothing about Mr Van Kleeck), but will say that the Trinitarian Bible Society should certainly not be lumped in with “outliers/oddballs”. You may not agree with it on everything but it is a sound and sober organisation with a long history (founded in 1831). It is supported by a good proportion of reformed churches in the UK (both Presbyterian and Baptist). And I would add a large part of its work is translating the Scriptures into other languages, as well as the distribution of the Scriptures.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 23, 2022)

Jie-Huli said:


> I did not intend to participate in this thread (I know nothing about Mr Van Kleeck), but will say that the Trinitarian Bible Society should certainly not be lumped in with “outliers/oddballs”. You may not agree with it on everything but it is a sound and sober organisation with a long history (founded in 1831). It is supported by a good proportion of reformed churches in the UK (both Presbyterian and Baptist). And I would add a large part of its work is translating the Scriptures into other languages, as well as the distribution of the Scriptures.


Be that as it may, they still published a pamphlet espousing Confessional Bibliology written by one of the men involved with the “Why I Preach…” book, entitled _How The Holy Bible Came To Be_.

The pamphlet is CB in bite-size, which position I consider an outlier. 

Forgive me for casting a shadow on the good that TBS does.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 24, 2022)

https://m.youtube.com/c/ChurchoftheLivingChristLoysville/videos



This seems as though it may be the place to watch the stream.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 24, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> https://m.youtube.com/c/ChurchoftheLivingChristLoysville/videos
> 
> 
> 
> This seems as though it may be the place to watch the stream.


Yes. The debate is live now.


----------



## Knight (Sep 24, 2022)

This has been a very uncomfortable, sad debate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Sep 24, 2022)

Knight said:


> This has been a very uncomfortable, sad debate.


Agreed. I'm a bit behind (at Van Kleeck's first(?) round of cross examination of White), but there's a lot of talking past one another as often happens. I am finding Van Kleeck's arguments bizarre and hard to follow, and definitely not the best of the TR camp.


----------



## Knight (Sep 24, 2022)

Jake said:


> Agreed. I'm a bit behind (at Van Kleeck's first(?) round of cross examination of White), but there's a lot of talking past one another as often happens. I am finding Van Kleeck's arguments bizarre and hard to follow, and definitely not the best of the TR camp.



It gets much worse. Very cringe, uncharitable, and plainly strange.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 24, 2022)

Exchanging truth for certainty, indeed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Sep 24, 2022)

I'm very confused by Van Kleeck's argument that using evidence to come to a conclusion is atheistic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Knight (Sep 24, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Exchanging truth for certainty, indeed.



I caught when White said that. And he does have a point if by "certainty" we are talking about a _feeling_ of assurance that can be false. Prioritizing that sort of feeling above truth would be wrong.

At the same time, I think I understand what primarily motivates the TR-advocates: the desire for assurance of which we can know. That is - and this is just my impression - I think TR-advocates want to have reflective access or to be self-aware regarding what truth they know and ground any claims to assurance on _that_, not a mere feeling of confidence.

In other words, it's epistemic externalism vs. internalism. The textual debate seems to dance around this pivot without many on either side realizing it.

This is to say nothing for or against the TR specifically, just a general observation about motivations and a recommendation about how both sides should try to frame future discussions.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 24, 2022)

Knight said:


> I caught when White said that. And he does have a point if by "certainty" we are talking about a _feeling_ of assurance that can be false. Prioritizing that sort of feeling above truth would be wrong.
> 
> At the same time, I think I understand what primarily motivates the TR-advocates: the desire for assurance of which we can know. That is - and this is just my impression - I think TR-advocates want to have reflective access or to be self-aware regarding what truth they know and ground any claims to assurance on _that_, not a mere feeling of confidence.
> 
> ...


One question that helps me frame my thoughts on this issue is: Do you not wonder why Jesus and the Apostles did not clear up textual variant issues of the OT that were around in their time?

Not asking for you or anyone to answer the question above, but at the very least, do you wonder?


----------



## Knight (Sep 24, 2022)

John Yap said:


> One question that helps me frame my thoughts on this issue is: Do you not wonder why Jesus and the Apostles did not clear up textual variant issues of the OT that were around in their time?
> 
> Not asking for you or anyone to answer the question above, but at the very least, do you wonder?



Sure, I get you. I actually have thought about that. Personally, it's one reason why the whole "text debate" misses me. I think I understand the motivations on either side, but I also think the emphasis on this issue - as if what one's underlying motivations are cannot be met unless we take a certain side in this debate - is misplaced.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 24, 2022)

Knight said:


> At the same time, I think I understand what primarily motivates the TR-advocates: the desire for assurance of which we can know. That is - and this is just my impression - I think TR-advocates want to have reflective access or to be self-aware regarding what truth they know and ground any claims to assurance on _that_, not a mere feeling of confidence.


I’m not sure I understand you here. 

I have to go back and watch the whole debate. Once I do that, I’ll see if I have any questions. 

I’m curious, do the other CB guys consider Dr. VK a solid voice that strengthens their position?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 24, 2022)

Let's give this a rest until after the Lord's Day.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 26, 2022)

Thread reopened.


----------



## Logan (Sep 26, 2022)

Well, I listened to the entire thing and mostly it was a waste of time.

White overstated a few things for sure, like the TR being a "very poor representative" of the Byzantine text type. That's a very loose definition of "poor", for the most part. That said, for the most part I would be stunned at anyone thinking that Van Kleeck came out ahead. Van Kleeck was an embarrassing representative, in my opinion and White was absolutely correct to try to reign him in a few times (although to be fair, White also had his share of "preaching" a few times). But sure enough, on Van Kleeck's blog, at least one person has a dramatically different view to mine and thought Van Kleeck "destroyed" White.

I don't see how, especially when after two hours I still am not really comprehending Van Kleeck's views, which baffled me. I was particularly puzzled when he was asked the question about which TR has the autographs was asked and he responded:

"Each TR is an iteration of sanctifying work through the Holy Spirit in God's people, so now it is the TBS TR, because that's where we are now. But if there is no TBS TR, like past folks like Nicea (there is no TR there, but the autographs were there), and so before the TR you've got Beza or Stephanus or Erasmus' TR but that was _in time_, as soon as you take it out of time, like 'well Erasmus' TR and your TR are different therefore there has got to be a contradiction' I would say no there is not a contradiction, it's that God was working through Erasmus and then Beza and Stephanus and now he has worked through the TBS TR, and so it is an act of sanctification through time, like every other act of Christian sanctification."

Does he know what the word "autographs" mean or is he confusing them with apographs? We exist in time, what are you talking about? How can you have several different texts going through sanctification that all equal the autographs? Do they equal the autographs in every word as he seems to indicate? In authority? This logically makes no sense. If A is not equal to B then A equals C AND B equals C is illogical.

I am also baffled by the "autographs are known by the Spirit speaking through his church" argument. Because it only works one way: it doesn't work for past generations (they obviously got it wrong) and it doesn't work for future generations (if people all switch to the ESV I cannot see Van Kleeck ever conceding that this is the Spirit speaking through his church). It's an absolutely subjective, nebulous criteria. The other thing about this, which Dr White pointed out, is that 99.99% of believers throughout history have had absolutely no clue of the textual differences between one reading and another, so how is their testimony (the Spirit of God speaking through the people of God) of any weight whatsoever? They trust the Bible they have now. Just like people who read the ESV trust their Bible. Is the Spirit speaking through both KJV and ESV readers? Not in Van Kleeck's view, apparently, although there is literally no way one could objectively tell the difference.

The "yes/no" questions Van Kleeck asked White really bothered me. I might have walked out. They were so obviously loaded questions and he wouldn't take nuance for an answer. All he wanted to do was frame a case.

Van Kleeck blaming the sexual degradation of America on not holding to the specific Scriptures as found in the TR was way over the top. Way over.

At the end of the day, Van Kleeck's view is...a view, I guess, but it is entirely divorced from historical reality. It makes an assumption, and then ignores any facts, history, etc. that goes against it. And claims it is "scriptural", "sanctification", "speaking through God's people" but would deny that same process to anything other than his text. How he treated the unique readings in the last six verses of Revelation was very telling (e.g., all the evidence is against it, including commentaries, manuscripts, sermons, etc. but in his view there could have existed some manuscripts somewhere at some time). For him, historical and factual information matters not one iota.

And as I've said before, I am always baffled by the view that seems to see textual criticism in the past as being fine (maybe it's called "believing textual criticism") but _any_ textual criticism today, even by staunch believers like Maurice Robinson, is totally out of the question. It's done. Finished. We know this...how? So Van Kleeck has no issue with Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus and the KJV translators doing textual criticism to get to the 1894 TR but absolutely stands against any textual criticism that would lead to a future "TR".

Van Kleeck stated that not a single one of his points had been answered and that therefore he had won the debate. His points however were mere statements of dogmatic belief, incapable of either being proven or even disproven. If I came into a debate and say that the sun is blue and the sky is yellow and keep repeating that, my opponent's lack of "rebuttal" doesn't prove anything. Van Kleeck never proved anything and I'm not sure he really even presented anything. He just kept acting exasperated like we should all find it obvious that the Spirit has spoken through the church and that Scrivener's TR is equal to the autographs because of some sanctification process. And then tags on some weird digression about the "ESV and CSB" have "standard" in the name.

I'm not a fan of White but I could at least comprehend him. Van Kleeck just frustrated me.

Reactions: Like 11


----------



## Knight (Sep 26, 2022)

Logan said:


> Well, I listened to the entire thing and mostly it was a waste of time.
> 
> White overstated a few things for sure, like the TR being a "very poor representative" of the Byzantine text type. That's a very loose definition of "poor", for the most part. That said, for the most part I would be stunned at anyone thinking that Van Kleeck came out ahead. Van Kleeck was an embarrassing representative, in my opinion and White was absolutely correct to try to reign him in a few times (although to be fair, White also had his share of "preaching" a few times). But sure enough, on Van Kleeck's blog, at least one person has a dramatically different view to mine and thought Van Kleeck "destroyed" White.
> 
> ...



You pretty much summarized my own thoughts. The comparison of TR "iterations" to sanctification seems also to be self-defeating. Sanctification is a process with a definitive end, during which we put to death what is earthly or fleshly in us (Romans 8:13, Colossians 3:5). If a specific TR iteration can be involved in an analogous process, what is it that was put to death in prior iterations such that said iterations still can be regarded as "equal" to the autographs?

I only wished White had asked that if textual critical judgments should be, as Van Kleeck argued, "low" in one's decision making process as to what is and is not autographic, what then should be "high" in the decision-making process? This would have forced a more specific response to what was, as you put it, frustratingly nebulous remarks (e.g. "autographs known by the Spirit speaking through his church").


----------



## Jake (Sep 26, 2022)

These are my thoughts on the debate after I had a few hours to reflect. I didn’t take notes or refer back to the debate to make this summary, so I may have missed a few things as I was doing some chores as I listened. I’ll mostly reflect on Van Kleeck as I had not heard his argument before but was very familiar with White’s style of argumentation here.

Van Kleeck had a strong start to his opening statement. I think the idea that even the minutia of the text is important theologically has merit. The problem for me that was never resolved is that he didn’t have a good connection of how this ties back to the Textus Receptus specifically being equal to the autographs, as he was arguing.

If I reflect on what I know and what James White demonstrated, we end up with a problem. Every minute detail of the text is important to know, but when we look at the historical records, we find that we don’t have 100% confidence about every single letter, word, or even sentence. White demonstrated why we have a lot of confidence, which is great, but if you accept Van Kleeck’s opening theological premise and then are faced with the evidence, you will not have confidence that the Bible is preserved.

I think a closer look at even some of the theologians Van Kleeck quoted to show confidence in every word of the originals would show that they still wrestled with the text and had to make tough decisions. What Van Kleeck failed to show was how do we get from every word of the original is important and preserved to it was preserved in the Textus Receptus. Van Kleeck never completely explained how the TR is the particular text in which this is preserved. It seemed to be primarily through the witness of the church, but he admitted the church had made mistakes in this regard. For example, he admitted the Vulgate was not the TR, but praised Erasmus for referencing the Vulgate in creating the TR because the Vulgate was the (his?) church’s text.

It seemed that Van Kleeck essentially acknowledged Scriviner’s 1894 text as the autographic equal version of the TR. Whenever pressed in textually significantly differences within versions of the TR by White, Van Kleeck would always accept the reading of Scriviner, but he never fully explained why he accepted that reading. He mainly seemed to rely on the idea that the church accepted the readings of Scriviner, but in a sense of which the church was not a council, but every member that makes up the church including laypeople. Prayer seemed important, but not the actual evidence of the manuscripts themselves. I’ve heard arguments, even briefly saw from Van Kleeck himself outside of the debate, of why the 1894 TR over the 1516 or another version. But he never really tried to explain this in the debate, or I missed it. This made it very hard to interact with. At some point he mentioned prayer and White started to interpret him as saying to just pray about variants, which he rejected as a holistic understanding, but I found it very hard to ascertain just how Van Kleeck did want to decide on the readings of the text he used.

The strangest part of the debate to me (among many strange elements) was that Van Kleeck seemed to reject the idea of using historical records as naturalistic or atheistic. I’m trying hard not to misrepresent Van Kleeck, but frankly this was so bizarre I have trouble wrapping my mind around it. I try to represent things in a way that the hearer would also recognize his view, but I’m not sure Van Kleeck would like my summary. I’ll still do my best.

Van Kleeck tried to show that Christians do not use historical data to come to conclusions and we should think differently as Christians. He seemed to want to bring in lots of other disciplines to show that if White was consistent in using the data to determine what readings exist in the manuscripts (not even just what the correct are, just their mere existence) that why did he not accept the findings of a myriad of other disciplines. He even suggested that to be consistent with acknowledging variant manuscript evidence you would need to also mark in the Bible that history did not have evidence for certain historical events contained in the text or that it disagreed with the biological ideas presented in the Bible. When strongly pressed Van Kleeck did acknowledge evidence can be used, but is very low in importance compared to other ways we come to know things as Christians. This is sort of true, but also, I don’t really understand how we are to know and understand things about the world. He left me in the dark.

I’m really not sure how to think of Van Kleeck’s theory of knowledge. It seemed like some sort of presuppositionalism on steroids, where he never even showed why he had the presuppositions he had. He assumed the 1894 TR was the autographs because of the church’s witness, but never explained how and why the church witnessed it, or how it related to former eras of the church. He asserted the TR was had by former eras of the church, despite “mistakes” made in certain eras, but not how the TR was possessed by the church.

Van Kleeck never wanted to interact with a single variant reading, a single bit of Greek, or even the English translations, except to assert that the autographs reflected whatever made it it into the 1894 TR. White tried to discuss many variants and Bible versions, but Van Kleeck seemed to deflect all of this conversation entirely.

There were other strange elements too. Van Kleeck had at the end of his opening statement a version of Bayes' theorem. I was an Economics major and took quite a few statistics courses, but I couldn’t make sense of what point he was trying to make with Bayes’. Van Kleeck referenced quite a few theologians that I don’t think could recognize themselves in his derivative doctrines (e.g., Alvin Plantinga). He seemed to use his academic credentials as a way to show he had heard all of the arguments about textual criticism, from the experts, and they are wrong. It was very dismissive, and surprising approach for someone who studied at Westminster, Calvin, and has an accredited PhD in a relevant field. Finally, he ended the debate with suggesting the lack of an absolutely perfect Word of God (i.e., equal to the autographs) is what is causing the Evangelical Church to apostatize, and if we had perfect certainty about the Bible we would not have issues with LGBT, abortion, doctrine of God, etc. within the visible church.

I won’t say too much about tone, as tone has been debated to death on recent topics. I will say that both participants seemed quite exasperated by the end. It did not seem like a debate in which both participants, as the moderator reminded at the start, were brothers in Christ with the same Confession of Faith (LBCF1689). Van Kleeck to me seemed ready to drive a wedge repeatedly between he and White. Van Kleeck was very dismissive of a lot of questions from the start, but the cross-examination grew long and lost fruitfulness by the end. Both closing statements showed men exasperated from the debate.

I truly think the weakest part of the debate was that even though Van Kleeck had a few interesting points, I was not able to discern a fleshed out enough thesis to respond to. I think White struggled with how to respond to him because of this. Van Kleeck had some new arguments, but at the end of the day it was a unique twist on some arguments I’ve heard and interacted with a lot on the providential place of the TR and the perfect preservation of God’s Word, but the “how” of all of this was largely left unexplained and unanswered.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 26, 2022)

Sounds like VK was not the TR sides best. Based on what has been said here if I went into this as someone on the fence, I would walk away from this debate more against the TR position. If these are all of the people that continue to get the spotlight in debates, and in books, the people who demonize Christian brothers and sisters by using language like "Satan's Bible", I wouldn't not be surprised to see this movement start to become hated. I know there are lots of good people out there on the TR side, but I think much more needs to be done to rebuke the bad ones and rain in those running around with these terrible arguments and inability to communicate their position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 26, 2022)

I think we’re in a sad day of declension in the visible church, where almost anyone can presume to take up a mantle that really belongs to ordained men recognized by the church as fit for the purpose of the moment, such as the men sent from the Scottish church to Westminster. “Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch _that_ thou madest strong for thyself.” (Psalm 80:14-15)

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 26, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I think we’re in a sad day of declension in the visible church, where almost anyone can presume to take up a mantle that really belongs to ordained men recognized by the church as fit for the purpose of the moment, such as the men sent from the Scottish church to Westminster. “Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch _that_ thou madest strong for thyself.” (Psalm 80:14-15)


You may be right, but lamenting this type of thing will not be enough. Action needs to be taken. Perhaps some of the ordained men in the movement can start to crack down on the outliers and create some sort of organization and official spokesmen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 26, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> You may be right, but lamenting this type of thing will not be enough. Action needs to be taken. Perhaps some of the ordained men in the movement can start to crack down on the outliers and create some sort of organization and official spokesmen.


I appreciate what you’re saying. But there are times to lament… when the only action that is really going to have its desired effect is fervent prayer, and watching and waiting on the Lord to send winds again of repentance with reviving and reformation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 26, 2022)

Logan said:


> But sure enough, on Van Kleeck's blog, at least one person has a dramatically different view to mine and thought Van Kleeck "destroyed" White.


I saw this as well. It is laughable.

If he is truly claiming societal degradation is due to not using the TR as a standard text (which he also seemed to be doing on his blog), I can't take him seriously. Anyone wanting to buy three volumes of VK and try to nail down the nebulous ideas for us?

Also, is this not another example of how any type of ideas or "arguments" get a free pass in CB as long as they all arrive at the same final assertions? I'm sure there are serious and well-meaning men within the movement, but the whole thing gets tarnished by the poorer elements--especially when, in my opinion, the best of the arguments are weak to begin with.

One final question: When you think about relative numbers of Reformed vs Reformed Baptists (if I may use that term) that exist, does it seem that RB's are overrepresented in CB circles? Or is it just coincidental that I've been noticing all the RB's in the movement?


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 26, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I think we’re in a sad day of declension in the visible church, where almost anyone can presume to take up a mantle that really belongs to ordained men recognized by the church as fit for the purpose of the moment, such as the men sent from the Scottish church to Westminster. “Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch _that_ thou madest strong for thyself.” (Psalm 80:14-15)


Can you flesh out your meaning?

Are you saying that (in a time without national churches) we should not have any men working on textual issues unless the Church has allowed it?


----------



## Knight (Sep 26, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> One final question: When you think about relative numbers of Reformed vs Reformed Baptists (if I may use that term) that exist, does it seem that RB's are overrepresented in CB circles? Or is it just coincidental that I've been noticing all the RB's in the movement?



I have also noticed this. I went to the Text and Canon conference a few years ago, which was hosted by Pastor Robert Truelove at his Reformed Baptist Church. It may be that such conferences have attracted people who are interested in textual issues, and the first to be attracted would be the natural audiences of the spokesmen of such conferences.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 26, 2022)

Will, in answer I’ll say that my ecclesiology on these things is shaped by what we find in the Scripture regarding reformation, and by understanding church history. “The History of the Scottish Church” by Thomas McCrie and “Our Covenant Heritage” by Edwin Nisbet Moore were both helpful to me in seeing how God worked in our common, confessional, Protestant church history. It’s a view that is in harmony with the times of reformation we see in the old and new testaments.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 26, 2022)

I consider the appeal to the allegedly supreme piety if the age of Westminster to be a form of _ad hominem_. Many of the greatest strides—theologically, ecclesiastically, and bibliologically—came in times of great degradation. Nicea occurred at a time of great schism and impiety. The Reformation itself was not the prettiest ecclesiastical picture. Westminster itself, as much as I revere and love it, was not the glistening assembly descended from heaven that so many have pictured in their mind.

Furthermore, there is within this appeal an implicit imputation of impiety and irreligion to the hearts and lives of modern Bible translators and their committees, all without demonstrable proof. Knowing many of these men myself, this is a proposition I find particularly unacceptable.

I simply ask: Where do we arrive at this conclusion that only in times of reformation (however we delineate that) can biblical-textual work be done and done faithfully? This is a notion I find neither in Scripture nor in history. I believe it is a conflation of issues. Obviously, we all want revival and reformation. Clearly the church in the West is suffering in various ways. But the church has _always_ needed revival and reformation, and she has _always_ been assaulted by the world, the flesh, and the devil—of course to varying degrees. The God of the remnant is not bound by such things.

Reactions: Like 13 | Love 1 | Edifying 3 | Amen 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 26, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I consider the appeal to the allegedly supreme piety if the age of Westminster to be a form of _ad hominem_. Many of the greatest strides—theologically, ecclesiastically, and bibliologically—came in times of great degradation. Nicea occurred at a time of great schism and impiety. The Reformation itself was not the prettiest ecclesiastical picture. Westminster itself, as much as I revere and love it, was not the glistening assembly descended from heaven that so many have pictured in their mind.
> 
> Furthermore, there is within this appeal an implicit imputation of impiety and irreligion to the hearts and lives of modern Bible translators and their committees, all without demonstrable proof. Knowing many of these men myself, this is a proposition I find particularly unacceptable.
> 
> I simply ask: Where do we arrive at this conclusion that only in times of reformation (however we delineate that) can biblical-textual work be done and done faithfully? This is a notion I find neither in Scripture nor in history. I believe it is a conflation of issues. Obviously, we all want revival and reformation. Clearly the church in the West is suffering in various ways. But the church has _always_ needed revival and reformation, and she has _always_ been assaulted by the world, the flesh, and the devil—of course to varying degrees. The God of the remnant is not bound by such things.


Amen brother!!!


----------



## De Jager (Sep 26, 2022)

I have a hypothetical question. If tomorrow, a Greek NT manuscript was found in a cave, dated older than any other known manuscript, and contained significant differences that would impact doctrinal matters, what would the church do with that news?

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 26, 2022)

Nothing except potentially add it to the collection. By itself it would have almost no weight. Certainly not enough to overturn the entire rest of the manuscript witness.

It would be similar to discovering a "lost book" of the Bible: no one would entertain that God would preserve his word that way. There are already several manuscripts that fit a similar description but are considered of no weight. That's why the accusation from the TR side that that "your Bible changes with every discovery" is really overblown. That said, I do think Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are often given disproportional weight, although I can see the reasoning.

Edit: by the way, the case with the differences in the CT (vs the TR) aren't analogous to the above hypothetical: the differences in manuscripts for the longer ending of Mark, the woman caught in Adultery, and the Comma, among others, were well known, and debated, from the early centuries of the church onward, it's not as though these were only discovered in the 1800s.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 26, 2022)

Another hypothetical question: If tomorrow a diary of a KJV translator was found, and in it he outlined the committee’s views on matters of TR text and preservation that completely contradicted the Confessional Bibliology narrative, what would CB proponents do?

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 2


----------



## De Jager (Sep 26, 2022)

Logan said:


> Nothing except potentially add it to the collection. By itself it would have almost no weight. Certainly not enough to overturn the entire rest of the manuscript witness.
> 
> It would be similar to discovering a "lost book" of the Bible: no one would entertain that God would preserve his word that way. There are already several manuscripts that fit a similar description but are considered of no weight. That's why the accusation from the TR side that that "your Bible changes with every discovery" is really overblown. That said, I do think Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are often given disproportional weight, although I can see the reasoning.



Ok. So, the view I am forming is this: I am inclined to reject the idea of a "Textus receptus" on the simple grounds that no one version has ever been "received" in a universal sense by the church (aside from maybe the vulgate?). With that said: from the little I know (and it is indeed a small amount), I am partial toward the translations which favour the Byzantine manuscripts, as I understand that they represent the vast majority of all known Greek manuscripts of the NT. From what I understand, this is represented by the KJV/NJKV. With this said, I don't have any problem with reading from an ESV, and certainly don't believe it is a "Devil's Bible".



Imputatio said:


> Another hypothetical question: If tomorrow a diary of a KJV translator was found, and in it he outlined the committee’s views on matters of TR text and preservation that completely contradicted the Confessional Bibliology narrative, what would CB proponents do?


Brother, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I am simply trying to learn by means of asking a probing question. I am not a proponent of "CB" (whatever that is) or a staunch defender of the "Textus Receptus". I am partial toward the KJV/NKJV for a variety of reasons.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 26, 2022)

One of the figures I rarely see discussed regarding this topic is Robert Dabney. This is very disappointing because I have found him to be a most compelling thinker in this area. He is a defender of the TR against the 1881 Revised Version and its Greek text, yet all his arguments specifically concern the craft of textual criticism. In short, his concerns have to do with the spurious nature of many of the modern "canons" of textual criticism. In my opinion, he dismantles many of the assumptions the textual critics take for undisputed fact (e.g., "older is better"), and quite effectively.

Furthermore, he doesn't engage in the tactics, rhetoric, and slogans we see cast about today. He is quite scholarly, fair, and balanced. He gives credit where it is due (even to the opposing side) and is very convincing, yet sadly ignored.

I would recommend everyone interested in this topic to read Dabney's The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek.

Reactions: Like 5 | Love 3 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 26, 2022)

Taylor said:


> One of the figures I rarely see discussed regarding this topic is Robert Dabney. This is very disappointing because I have found him to be a most compelling thinker in this area. He is a defender of the TR against the 1881 Revised Version and its Greek text, yet all his arguments have to do with the craft of textual criticism. In short, his concerns have to do with the spurious nature of many of the modern "canons" of textual criticism. In my opinion, he dismantles many of the assumptions the textual critics take for undisputed fact (i.e., "older is better"), and that quite effectively.
> 
> Furthermore, he doesn't engage in the tactics, rhetoric, and slogans we see cast about today. He is quite scholarly, fair, and balanced. He gives credit where it is due (even to the opposing side) and is very convincing, yet sadly ignored.
> 
> I would recommend everyone interested in this topic to read Dabney's The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek.


I listened to a lecture by Dr. Michael Barrett of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, and he explained why he preferred the KJV. He never once mentioned that it was based on a Greek Text "received" by the church. His arguments included that as a scholar, he believed that it was a very faithful translation, and came from a textual family which he (and he emphasized that it was his opinion) considered to be the best. He noted that the "textus receptus" was an anachronistic label.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 26, 2022)

De Jager said:


> Brother, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I am simply trying to learn by means of asking a probing question. I am not a proponent of "CB" (whatever that is) or a staunch defender of the "Textus Receptus". I am partial toward the KJV/NKJV for a variety of reasons.


My apologies, I didn’t mean any harm by it. 

CB is Confessional Bibliology.


----------



## Logan (Sep 26, 2022)

De Jager said:


> Ok. So, the view I am forming is this: I am inclined to reject the idea of a "Textus receptus" on the simple grounds that no one version has ever been "received" in a universal sense by the church (aside from maybe the vulgate?). With that said: from the little I know (and it is indeed a small amount), I am partial toward the translations which favour the Byzantine manuscripts, as I understand that they represent the vast majority of all known Greek manuscripts of the NT. From what I understand, this is represented by the KJV/NJKV. With this said, I don't have any problem with reading from an ESV, and certainly don't believe it is a "Devil's Bible".



I think that is reasonable. I lean more toward the Byzantine manuscripts myself, since I believe that while the TR represents all the manuscript tradition fairly well, there are a few areas where it seems to have been influenced by Latin readings. That said, I firmly believe the TR to be reliable and to be God's word, and translations based on it to be God's word. Our church uses the NKJV and I love the KJV. I have a strong affection for the ESV and CSB as well.

My issue in these discussions comes when people start making anachronistic arguments, misquoting, or ignoring facts in the interest of discrediting everything but the TR (and ultimately the KJV). I believe that to be a misplaced and misinformed zeal.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 26, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I consider the appeal to the allegedly supreme piety if the age of Westminster to be a form of _ad hominem_. Many of the greatest strides—theologically, ecclesiastically, and bibliologically—came in times of great degradation. Nicea occurred at a time of great schism and impiety. The Reformation itself was not the prettiest ecclesiastical picture. Westminster itself, as much as I revere and love it, was not the glistening assembly descended from heaven that so many have pictured in their mind.
> 
> Furthermore, there is within this appeal an implicit imputation of impiety and irreligion to the hearts and lives of modern Bible translators and their committees, all without demonstrable proof. Knowing many of these men myself, this is a proposition I find particularly unacceptable.
> 
> I simply ask: Where do we arrive at this conclusion that only in times of reformation (however we delineate that) can biblical-textual work be done and done faithfully? This is a notion I find neither in Scripture nor in history. I believe it is a conflation of issues. Obviously, we all want revival and reformation. Clearly the church in the West is suffering in various ways. But the church has _always_ needed revival and reformation, and she has _always_ been assaulted by the world, the flesh, and the devil—of course to varying degrees. The God of the remnant is not bound by such things.


Taylor, I guess this post of yours relates to what I’ve said about times of reformation. Times of reformation being not only about godly and learned men raised up to for that hour, but also about God having brought about an established church, and thus the ability to call church councils, as we see in church history and which is the means God has used to settle doctrinal questions for the church.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 26, 2022)

De Jager said:


> I listened to a lecture by Dr. Michael Barrett of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, and he explained why he preferred the KJV. He never once mentioned that it was based on a Greek Text "received" by the church. His arguments included that as a scholar, he believed that it was a very faithful translation, and came from a textual family which he (and he emphasized that it was his opinion) considered to be the best. He noted that the "textus receptus" was an anachronistic label.


is there online access to this lecture?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 26, 2022)

Logan said:


> Nothing except potentially add it to the collection. By itself it would have almost no weight. Certainly not enough to overturn the entire rest of the manuscript witness.


You can say this, Logan, as a “Byzantine guy”, but to a consistent CT guy it would by necessity care very much weight.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 26, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> You can say this, Logan, as a “Byzantine guy”, but to a consistent CT guy it would by necessity care very much weight.



I disagree with that, and you'll see that I worded my post accordingly. Keep in mind we're talking about some hypothetical manuscript discovery that contains heretofore unknown readings that impact doctrine. If you think anyone, CT or otherwise, would overturn the rest of the manuscript testimony based on that, then you'll have to present some support. Because I don't know of anyone who would.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 26, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> is there online access to this lecture?











Tradition, Text, and Translation of the KJV


Dr. Michael Barrett | Geneva Reformed Seminary




www.sermonaudio.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 27, 2022)

Taylor said:


> One of the figures I rarely see discussed regarding this topic is Robert Dabney.





Taylor said:


> In short, his concerns have to do with the spurious nature of many of the modern "canons" of textual criticism. In my opinion, he dismantles many of the assumptions the textual critics take for undisputed fact (e.g., "older is better"), and quite effectively.


James White argues that Dean Burgon's (who lived in the same century as Dabney) scholarship is dated because papyri discovered during the early 20th century has taken us closer to the original text and this papyri is part of the critical text family of manuscripts. The argument is that the closer we get to the originals, the closer this takes us to the critical text methodology and presuppositions. A few years ago I heard James White say that if Dean Burgon was alive today and saw this papyri, he probably would become a critical text supporter. I guess White would say the same about Dabney. 

I would love to see more scholars analyse this argument - including scholars along the lines of Wilbur Pickering and Maurice Robinson.

Reactions: Like 1 | Wow 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 27, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> James White argues that Dean Burgon's (who lived in the same century as Dabney) scholarship is dated because papyri discovered during the early 20th century has taken us closer to the original text and this papyri is part of the critical text family of manuscripts. The argument is that the closer we get to the originals, the closer this takes us to the critical text methodology and presuppositions. A few years ago I heard James White say that if Dean Burgon was alive today and saw this papyri, he probably would become a critical text supporter. I guess White would say the same about Dabney.
> 
> I would love to see more scholars analyse this argument - including scholars along the lines of Wilbur Pickering and Maurice Robinson.


White’s claims about Burgon and others of the past are pure speculation. Nobody should ever make the claim that “if so-and-so were alive today, they would [insert pet issue here].” We simply cannot know this, and it’s irrelevant, anyway.

Regarding “older is better,” the canon is just a bare assertion and is never defended. It is simply assumed to be fact. What Dabney argues is that there is a missing premise between “oldest” and “best.” I agree. As it stands, there is no logical connective between the two. And until we can provide one, we need to stop asserting it. Oldest is not necessarily best. At most, oldest _could_ be best.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 27, 2022)

Logan said:


> ,I think there are multiple things that attract people to this position, not just the outliers. Mostly I think it has to do with the perception of certainty.
> 
> Web searches are filled with results that will give you "the best printer on the market". Those who are into Linux are constantly looking for "the best" version of Linux. People looking for a translation of Dostoyevsky will often ask the question "which is the best translation". Here on the PB when Calvin's Institutes are discussed, people will agonize over which is "the best" translation. We have this innate and oftentimes subconscious desire for the gold standard.
> 
> ...



What is wrong with certainty? Does the Christian faith encourage doubt? Does is encourage one to doubt the truth or trustworthiness of Scripture? The truth of God's promises? The truth of the virgin birth and the resurrection? The truth of the divinity of Christ? When I read the Puritans it's not their _doubt_ which strikes me.

It's very trendy now to bash certainty as if its a failing, the hallmark of a backwoods rube. Well Scripture teaches that certainty can be a very good thing: we are to make our calling and election *sure* (2 Peter 1:10. It's telling that the one area of certainty we are allowed today is in our own salvation. All we need do is agree with the Westminster Confession and we're saved!). The example of the "best translation" of Dostoevsky is a good one: why wouldn't one want to read the best translation of his work? Why would one purposefully choose a poor translation? What is gained?

The justification of the CT camp is as much about self-justification as any other camp. You have to justify why there are so many translations today; to argue that it is a good thing that this work has not actually got us closer to _the_ authentic version of the Scriptures but farther away. You have to justify your grants, and your projects and your ridiculously expensive bespoke printings of version 129,326 of the Greek NT (James White just loves to show these off, bound in burgundy goatskin on papyrus from the 13th century BC).

And if the CT side wishes us to take them seriously then _they_ should police those like James White who clearly have a deep, personal antagonism towards the KJV and the TR and who regularly mocks and demeans those who hold to a KJV Only position (which I don't even subscribe myself). His arrogance and presumption- which is not uncommon on the CT side, from what I've observed- is certainly not helpful in winning people over.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MarrowMan (Sep 27, 2022)

Taylor said:


> White’s claims about Burgon and others of the past are pure speculation. Nobody should ever make the claim that “if so-and-so were alive today, they would [insert pet issue here].” We simply cannot know this, and it’s irrelevant, anyway.
> 
> Regarding “older is better,” the canon is just a bare assertion and is never defended. It is simply assumed to be fact. What Dabney argues is that there is a missing premise between “oldest” and “best.” I agree. As it stands, there is no logical connective between the two. And until we can provide one, we need to stop asserting it. Oldest is not necessarily best. At most, oldest _could_ be best.


Your post highlights the issues I have with the CT. While I see the reasoning behind the principles, I do not see that they necessarily follow and there is no means to actually verify how often they hold true. Personally, I adopt a modified providential preservation position that lends greatest weight to which textual line has, among other things, the widest geographical spread.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 27, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> What is wrong with certainty? Does the Christian faith encourage doubt? Does is encourage one to doubt the truth or trustworthiness of Scripture? The truth of God's promises? The truth of the virgin birth and the resurrection? The truth of the divinity of Christ? When I read the Puritans it's not their _doubt_ which strikes me.



There is nothing wrong with certainty. But "certainty" that ignores reality is delusion. "Certainty" that is misinformed is false. "Certainty" that attacks others is divisive.

Here is an example:
Absolutist says: "God said he sends the rain upon the just and the unjust, therefore I am absolutely certain it rained _on my house last night_. I stand upon the sure promise of God, to do otherwise would be to doubt God's promises."

Person B: "I'm pretty sure that means a general providence, not that your house received it last night."

Absolutist: "I stand with all the historical church against unbelief. John Owen quoted this verse."

Person B: "Yes, but I can't find anyone in history that supports your view that that verse means your house last night."

Absolutist: "Why are you doubting God's word?"

Person B: "I'm not doubting God's word, I just think you're jumping to a very _specific_ and unwarranted conclusion."

Absolutist: "Why don't you want me to have certainty? I stand on faith."

Person B: "It doesn't rain everywhere every single night, so your specific view of providence would deny providence to anyone but yourself."

Absolutist: "I believe in God's word that it rained at my house. Why you are doubting."

Person B: "Okay, let's just go outside. See, the ground is bone dry, it can't have rained here last night. But that doesn't undermine God's word at all."

Absolutist: "That doesn't mean the ground wasn't wet at some point last night."

Person B: "It couldn't dry out that fast but okay, we can look at the weather report. It says there was a 0% chance of rain last night."

Absolutist: "Why would I trust those people, they don't do believing exegesis of the Bible."

Person B: "Okay, we can look at all your neighbor's rain gauges, all of them are dry."

Absolutist: "They could have all emptied them out in the morning and then dried them. And look! There is one that has a drop in it!"

Person B: "But that one is right next to a sprinkler which was clearly just on."

Absolutist: "No, this completely validates my belief that it rained all over my house last night."

Person B: "Look, you had a hypothesis, we tested it, and there is no evidence for it and all the evidence is against it. Your hypothesis must be wrong because your specific view of that verse is unwarranted."

Absolutist: "You just don't believe the Bible. I refuse to allow Satan to cast doubt on God's word. I'm going to debate everyone and urge people to consider leaving their churches over this key point of confessional meteorology."

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 27, 2022)

Logan said:


> There is nothing wrong with certainty. But "certainty" that ignores reality is delusion. "Certainty" that is misinformed is false. "Certainty" that attacks others is divisive.
> 
> Here is an example:
> Absolutist says: "God said he sends the rain upon the just and the unjust, therefore I am absolutely certain it rained _on my house last night_. I stand upon the sure promise of God, to do otherwise would be to doubt God's promises."
> ...


This is a great illustration


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 27, 2022)

Logan said:


> There is nothing wrong with certainty. But "certainty" that ignores reality is delusion. "Certainty" that is misinformed is false. "Certainty" that attacks others is divisive.
> 
> Here is an example:
> Absolutist says: "God said he sends the rain upon the just and the unjust, therefore I am absolutely certain it rained _on my house last night_. I stand upon the sure promise of God, to do otherwise would be to doubt God's promises."
> ...



I'm afraid I fail to see the relevance of your example. It presupposes a shared, agreed upon Scripture. This is exactly what is being debated. The CT camp disputes certain portions of Scripture which the TR camp holds to.

And being divisive is not wrong if it is for the Truth. The Truth _is _divisive. Intentionally so.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MarrowMan (Sep 27, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> I'm afraid I fail to see the relevance of your example. It presupposes a shared, agreed upon Scripture. This is exactly what is being debated. The CT camp disputes certain portions of Scripture which the TR camp holds to.
> 
> And being divisive is not wrong if it is for the Truth. The Truth _is _divisive. Intentionally so.


Certainty is all well and good, where it can be had. But certainty built upon a foundation that cannot sustain it is another thing altogether. That type of certainty is fideism. What the modern CB position postulates cannot bear what it claims.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Physeter (Sep 27, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> What is it about the TR/KJV that attracts such odd outliers?


I have to agree. I have run across some theologically bizarre individual attaching themselves to the TR/KJV only arguments. Just the other day I ran across a man who rejected the Nicene and Athanasian creeds.

I will qualify this by saying I do not hold the CT position.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 27, 2022)

MarrowMan said:


> Your post highlights the issues I have with the CT. While I see the reasoning behind the principles, I do not see that they necessarily follow and there is no means to actually verify how often they hold true. Personally, I adopt a modified providential preservation position that lends greatest weight to which textual line has, among other things, the widest geographical spread.


Ah! Nice to meet a fellow Sturzian!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 27, 2022)

If someone doesn't mind, give me a bite size definition of what "Confessional Bibliology" is, and why in your opinion it is or isn't a valid position. Thanks!


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 27, 2022)

De Jager said:


> If someone doesn't mind, give me a bite size definition of what "Confessional Bibliology" is, and why in your opinion it is or isn't a valid position. Thanks!


This thread would fill in some of the blanks:





Chapter by Chapter Review of "Why I Preach from the Received Text"


Some things first. I am interacting primarily with the problems in this book. This should not be interpreted as an indication that I have no areas of agreement with the authors. There are vast areas of agreement. In fact, being a Sturzian actually means, practically speaking, that I will wind up...




www.puritanboard.com


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 27, 2022)

De Jager said:


> If someone doesn't mind, give me a bite size definition of what "Confessional Bibliology" is, and why in your opinion it is or isn't a valid position. Thanks!


It’s a view of the text of the Bible that claims to be the sole “confessional” position, and the only true position that gives us (in the Textus Receptus) a text “kept pure in all ages.” (To quote the WCF 1.8)


----------



## Logan (Sep 27, 2022)

De Jager said:


> If someone doesn't mind, give me a bite size definition of what "Confessional Bibliology" is, and why in your opinion it is or isn't a valid position. Thanks!



Tall order but I'll take a stab.

I see it as a relatively recent movement that purports to be going back to the confessions, specifically Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 1 section 8 which says

"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical..."

The crux of the position is the words "kept pure", which the proponents will say meant that that the authors of the Confession believed they had the pure Scriptures and there was no need to do further textual criticism. It also says that since this text (or line of printed texts) was used in the proof texts, this is further evidence that the authors relied upon it and therefore to maintain this line of printed texts is confessional.

There are several issues with that. That the Divines considered their printed texts authoritative, no one should doubt. However, the point of dispute is whether they thought that there was no improvement at all that could be made, or whether they taught that their printed texts exactly represented the autographs.

One issue is that none of the authors, in their writings, appealed to printed texts. I have produced many quotes that show they appealed to the true reading found in the "copies" (manuscripts). Turretin stated that yes the apographs are authoritative but they are authoritative only as far as they accurately represent the autographs. Owen might come closest (calling their "received text" deserving of being a standard), but he also said that alternative readings from good copies deserved to be studied and produced.

Another issue is that "kept pure" is followed by "in all ages". The "TR" as printed in the 16th and 17th centuries, has readings which were not part of the Greek manuscripts prior to that. So a wooden reading of "kept pure" that denies any additional modification, would also deny that past manuscripts were pure.

Another issue is that the "TR" itself went through over a dozen iterations, with variations in each. Knowing that, "kept pure" has to allow for some variation, and if so, how much is "too much"?

I maintain that despite Confessional Bibliology's claims, the framers themselves did not hold the views that they are being claimed to have held, although again, they undoubtedly trusted their printed text, they also showed evidence that they disagreed with it at times, appealing to "some manuscripts say this", or "the best copies read" that, and none of them appealed to the printed text as equal to the autographs.

So I don't think that this particular flavor is a valid position, because it makes claims about what the Divines taught that can easily be tested. 

I suppose there are other flavors of "confessional bibliology" that might say that it was the text of the Confession therefore we have to use it in order to be confessional.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 27, 2022)

Logan said:


> I disagree with that, and you'll see that I worded my post accordingly. Keep in mind we're talking about some hypothetical manuscript discovery that contains heretofore unknown readings that impact doctrine. If you think anyone, CT or otherwise, would overturn the rest of the manuscript testimony based on that, then you'll have to present some support. Because I don't know of anyone who would.


Well, that’s essentially what happened with the discovery of Sinaiticus and the “rediscovery” of Vaticanus. Because “oldest is best” and various other questionable “canons” of text criticism, W-H and the 1881 revision committee upended readings held dear for centuries. So while White and Wallace may not change their Bibles in light of such hypothetical discoveries, I would argue they would be inconsistent in rejecting the impact of such discoveries.

I would not charge you or Lane as such, and I have respect for the well-reasoned Robinsonian/Sturtzian views you guys hold.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 27, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Well, that’s essentially what happened with the discovery of Sinaiticus and the “rediscovery” of Vaticanus. Because “oldest is best” and various other questionable “canons” of text criticism, W-H and the 1881 revision committee upended readings held dear for centuries. So while White and Wallace may not change their Bibles in light of such hypothetical discoveries, I would argue they would be inconsistent in rejecting the impact of such discoveries.
> 
> I would not charge you or Lane as such, and I have respect for the well-reasoned Robinsonian/Sturtzian views you guys hold.



Even there though, they were not new readings. They had been discussed for almost the entire history of the Christian Church. Those manuscripts lent new weight however (although I agree it was a disproportional weight). No text critic I have ever heard of, including W-H would simply grab the oldest manuscript they can find. There's a lot of nuance, and admitted subjectivity, to how weight is assigned.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Knight (Sep 27, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I’m not sure I understand you here.
> 
> I have to go back and watch the whole debate. Once I do that, I’ll see if I have any questions.
> 
> I’m curious, do the other CB guys consider Dr. VK a solid voice that strengthens their position?



Not to my CB friend, who thought VK was a very poor representative. 

To elaborate on the following statement you didn't understand:

_"At the same time, I think I understand what primarily motivates the TR-advocates: the desire for assurance of which we can know. That is - and this is just my impression - I think TR-advocates want to have reflective access or to be self-aware regarding what truth they know and ground any claims to assurance on that, not a mere feeling of confidence."_

CBs want epistemic certainty. They think the textual position to which they hold will enable them to have and defend epistemic certainty. Why are they so motivated to have and defend epistemic certainty? 

I think they would say that if we can't have epistemic certainty, someone might have legitimate grounds for doubting Christianity due to a variety of unanswerable "what if" questions, e.g. "what if many manuscripts are discovered that conflict with what we currently possess?" This undercuts Christian assurance. 

That is, CBs will argue that those who hold to the critical text are attempting to reason to what God's word is through, for example, empirical investigation. Therefore, CBs will argue that those who hold to the critical text are logically committed to the position that what ought to be regarded as God's word is an open question, for manuscript discoveries might overthrow our current understanding of what God's word is (including what we currently think God's word says about itself). There can be no epistemic certainty on such grounds, and these sorts of skeptical worries prevent the sort of assurance, describes in italics above, that a CB wants. Hence, there is an analogy between this discussion and epistemic internalism and externalism.

Thus, CBs prefer a "closed system" (TR-advocacy) in which what ought to be regarded as God's word cannot be open to revision. Since there are a variety of TR iterations, it is not surprising that there are a corresponding variety of CBs; in common, however, they all are essentially openly presuppositional about their understanding of textual issues (and will claim everyone has such presuppositions anyways). Their presuppositions are designed to allow them to filter any historical or empirical discovery through said presuppositions to allegedly maintain epistemic certainty.

I say all this dispassionately, by the way. I sympathize with some CB motivations - even if I would go about addressing them a different way - and this is the heart of their concern as I understand it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 27, 2022)

Logan said:


> Even there though, they were not new readings. They had been discussed for almost the entire history of the Christian Church. Those manuscripts lent new weight however (although I agree it was a disproportional weight). No text critic I have ever heard of, including W-H would simply grab the oldest manuscript they can find. There's a lot of nuance, and admitted subjectivity, to how weight is assigned.


yes, I understand all that. which is part of why White’s constant chanting of “the papyri” is silly

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 27, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> yes, I understand all that. which is part of why White’s constant chanting of “the papyri” is silly


I don’t get all the contempt for James White. Even if you don’t agree with him on every point, he does a good job at explaining his position and not running into novelty or what have you. I hope to be as consistent as he has been over decades of faithful ministry.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## MarrowMan (Sep 27, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I don’t get all the contempt for James White. Even if you don’t agree with him on every point, he does a good job at explaining his position and not running into novelty or what have you. I hope to be as consistent as he has been over decades of faithful ministry.


I suspect it's White's demeanor and his resistance to being corrected that puts people off. For me, I'm much more concerned with his willingness to jettison his 1689 affiliations to hobnob with Apologia and Doug Wilson.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 27, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I don’t get all the contempt for James White. Even if you don’t agree with him on every point, he does a good job at explaining his position and not running into novelty or what have you. I hope to be as consistent as he has been over decades of faithful ministry.



White is good on issues like textual criticism and cults. As of lately, though, he's getting out of his lane and it doesn't look good.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 27, 2022)

I can’t say I’ve dug deep enough into Doug Wilson to comment on that. 

Where does James White need to be corrected that he is unwilling?


----------



## ZackF (Sep 27, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I can’t say I’ve dug deep enough into Doug Wilson to comment on that.
> 
> Where does James White need to be corrected that he is unwilling?


Some would say he has responded to correction in eschatological views the past few years.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 27, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I can’t say I’ve dug deep enough into Doug Wilson to comment on that.
> 
> Where does James White need to be corrected that he is unwilling?


Depends on who you ask. The great traditionalists aren't big fans. I tend not to be a fan of the great traditionalists. But I don't feel like arguing about it anymore.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 28, 2022)

MarrowMan said:


> Certainty is all well and good, where it can be had. But certainty built upon a foundation that cannot sustain it is another thing altogether. That type of certainty is fideism. What the modern CB position postulates cannot bear what it claims.



Obviously certainty cannot be had where certainty cannot be had. But who decides? Criticising the desire for certainty- as @Logan did and others like R. Scott Clark do- is as useless as claiming certainty is possible in every conceivable situation. The example Logan used of the translation of a Russian book exposes the weakness in the argument: what is gained by seeking an inferior translation of the work? We should always seek the best translation. There may be debate over what that is, and what constitutes "best", but the desire is still right. When it comes to Scripture we have a situation where one side (the TR camp) claims to have the authentic apograph. The other side, whilst rejecting that position, cannot produce an alternative. They can only produce a myriad of alternative*s*, with new ones added all the time. 

If a translator said to me - "I've produced this pretty good translation of _Crime and Punishment_ but this paragraph I'm not sure about, and this paragraph maybe shouldn't even be here, and I'm not even sure I translated the definitive _Russian_ edition" - why would I be content to read that translation? Especially when a very well respected translator had already produced an English version based on the definitive text and which had been highly regarded by other translators and the general reading public for generations?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Logan (Sep 28, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> What is wrong with certainty?





Logan said:


> *There is nothing wrong with certainty.* But "certainty" that ignores reality is delusion. "Certainty" that is misinformed is false.





alexandermsmith said:


> Criticising the desire for certainty- as Logan did and others like R. Scott Clark do



Alexander, you're going to have to try to understand what people are actually saying if we're to have a conversation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 28, 2022)

Logan said:


> Alexander, you're going to have to try to understand what people are actually saying if we're to have a conversation.



You wrote a post in which you criticised the desire for certainty in relation to the Greek text, arguing that it was one of the underpinnings of the TR position and thus arguing that the desire for certainty as to which text is the authentic text is illegitimate. If this was not your intention, if you believe that it is possible to be certain that we have the autographs, then you should say so. But that is not what you clearly implied in this post:



Logan said:


> I think there are multiple things that attract people to this position, not just the outliers. Mostly I think it has to do with the perception of certainty.
> 
> Web searches are filled with results that will give you "the best printer on the market". Those who are into Linux are constantly looking for "the best" version of Linux. People looking for a translation of Dostoyevsky will often ask the question "which is the best translation". Here on the PB when Calvin's Institutes are discussed, people will agonize over which is "the best" translation. We have this innate and oftentimes subconscious desire for the gold standard.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 28, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> You wrote a post in which you criticised the desire for certainty in relation to the Greek text, arguing that it was one of the underpinnings of the TR position and thus arguing that the desire for certainty as to which text is the authentic text is illegitimate.



This conclusion is a complete mischaracterization. The desire for certainty it is not illegitimate and I did not criticize it. Why would I? But it _is_ illegitimate to insist on certainty for a specific which does not comport with reality. As MarrowMan said, that's fideism.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 28, 2022)

Logan said:


> This conclusion is a complete mischaracterization. The desire for certainty it is not illegitimate and I did not criticize it. Why would I? But it _is_ illegitimate to insist on certainty for a specific which does not comport with reality. As MarrowMan said, that's fideism.



Well if the distinction you are drawing is between legitimate and illegitimate certainty, then the obvious conclusion from your bringing up the issue in relation to the TR position is to argue that is an example of _il_legitimate certainty. Especially as you went on to talk about "traditionalism" and "tribalism" (I'm assuming you meant these negatively). You then said:

"We want deeper reasons than that and I think we try to *rationalize our feelings* by coming up with something that *seems* like a good argument. It might even be subconscious. *We know we have a good reason, we just have to find it!* Like it's *"confessional"* or it was the view of *"all the Reformers"*, or *some philosophical reason why there should be one Bible*, or an exegetical *latching onto a couple of verses and then feeling like it's the only possible orthodox way to interpret them*, or a canonization, or something something something."

The highlighted portions are either negative descriptions or imply a weakness. Your post was a list of illegitimate reasons why people hold to the TR, or CB, position. And you started by saying: "Mostly I think it has to do with the perception of certainty."

What other conclusion could one draw from your post than that the seeking of certainty in this area is wrong?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 28, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> The highlighted portions are either negative descriptions or imply a weakness. Your post was a list of illegitimate reasons why people hold to the TR, or CB, position. And you started by saying: "Mostly I think it has to do with the perception of certainty."
> 
> What other conclusion could one draw from your post than that the seeking of certainty in this area is wrong?



Alexander, can you truly see no other conclusion? Those are rationalizations I provided to a specific question. If they are true (i.e., match history, reality, etc.), they may indeed be legitimate. If they are not true, then they are not legitimate: they are merely rationalizations that don't match reality. How does that in _any way_ imply that the only possible conclusion is that seeking certainty in this area is wrong? We all strive for that, myself included. I intentionally used "we" all throughout that post and you've reinterpreted that as "TR people".

Please cease misinterpreting me and putting words in my mouth that I never said.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 28, 2022)

Certainty is good. I possess certainty that my Bible is the Word of God. What’s not good is faux-certainty built on sandy foundations that don’t line up with reality.

Though he is not well-loved here, James White has a great statement on this matter: The CB position “trades truth for certainty.”

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 28, 2022)

Logan said:


> Alexander, can you truly see no other conclusion? Those are rationalizations I provided to a specific question. If they are true (i.e., match history, reality, etc.), they may indeed be legitimate. If they are not true, then they are not legitimate: they are merely rationalizations that don't match reality. How does that in _any way_ imply that the only possible conclusion is that seeking certainty in this area is wrong? We all strive for that, myself included. I intentionally used "we" all throughout that post and you've reinterpreted that as "TR people".
> 
> Please cease misinterpreting me and putting words in my mouth that I never said.



When you, again and again, in thread after thread, post comments critical of the TR position and then give reasons why you believe people hold to the TR position the _only _conclusion is that you believe those reasons are illegitimate. I did not put words in your mouth I merely quoted your own words back to you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 28, 2022)

Alexander, the point of focus seems to have shifted here somehow. First you were charging Logan with “criticising the desire for certainty,” now you are talking about “believ[ing] those reasons are illegitimate.”

I’m trying to figure out how your comments relate to Logan’s point, but I don’t see it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 28, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Alexander, the point of focus seems to have shifted here somehow. First you were charging Logan with “criticising the desire for certainty,” now you are talking about “believ[ing] those reasons are illegitimate.”
> 
> I’m trying to figure out how your comments relate to Logan’s point, but I don’t see it.



I have charged him with "criticising the desire for certainty" because he believes the such a reason to hold to the TR is illegitimate. The post in which he criticised the desire for certainty (which I quoted at length above) was a post in which he gave a number of reasons why he believed TR-advocates are such. These reasons were either negative or implied a logical weakness. He is a frequent critic of the TR position. One can only conclude that reasons he gives for why some hold to the TR position are reasons he considers illegitimate or weak.

If, as he says in post #110, we all (himself included) strive for certainty in the text we use then certainty should not be listed as a _distinctive_ reason for holding the TR position (which was the question he was directly replying to) and it certainly shouldn't be given as the main reason ("mostly" as he said in his post) TR-advocates hold to their position.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Sep 28, 2022)

Alexander, this is foolishness so let me state this clearly so there is no mistake: _you are misrepresenting me._

You've conflated at least three different issues and ignored clear statements I've made in order to state my position in a way which I find unrecognizable and yet which you repeatedly state is the "only conclusion". You don't know my position or my motivations better than I know it myself so please cease.

I've clearly stated that there is "nothing wrong with certainty" or with the desire for certainty (you keep ignoring the "we" parts of my statement). Yet you insist that by reading between the lines I'm saying something entirely different. What I've instead insisted is that certainty must match reality. Otherwise, as MarrowMan said, it is fideism.

If you need clarification I'm happy to provide it. But to engage in mind-reading to insist I mean something I know I don't and didn't say, and to double down on that against _my own testimony_, is foolishness.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Taylor (Sep 28, 2022)



Reactions: Like 4


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 28, 2022)

Logan said:


> Andrew, this is foolishness so let me state this clearly so there is no mistake: _you are misrepresenting me._
> 
> You've conflated at least three different issues and ignored clear statements I've made in order to state my position in a way which I find unrecognizable and yet which you repeatedly state is the "only conclusion". You don't know my position or my motivations better than I know it myself so please cease.
> 
> ...



Then you should have worded your post more clearly.

And you have mis_named_ me: my name is Alexander, not Andrew.

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## MarrowMan (Sep 28, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> Obviously certainty cannot be had where certainty cannot be had. But who decides? Criticising the desire for certainty- as @Logan did and others like R. Scott Clark do- is as useless as claiming certainty is possible in every conceivable situation. The example Logan used of the translation of a Russian book exposes the weakness in the argument: what is gained by seeking an inferior translation of the work? *We should always seek the best translation. There may be debate over what that is, and what constitutes "best", but the desire is still right.* When it comes to Scripture we have a situation where one side (the TR camp) claims to have the authentic apograph. The other side, whilst rejecting that position, cannot produce an alternative. They can only produce a myriad of alternatives, with new ones added all the time.
> 
> If a translator said to me - "I've produced this pretty good translation of _Crime and Punishment_ but this paragraph I'm not sure about, and this paragraph maybe shouldn't even be here, and I'm not even sure I translated the definitive _Russian_ edition" - why would I be content to read that translation? Especially when a very well respected translator had already produced an English version based on the definitive text and which had been highly regarded by other translators and the general reading public for generations?


There's no disagreement here. I've no problem with the desire to have the best translation possible. That's not what the discussion has been about. Rather it is about specious arguments some put forward to assert that their's is "the best" and the following polemic. You can have the best translation while articulating the worst reasons.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## MarrowMan (Sep 28, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> *Then you should have worded your post more clearly.*
> 
> And you have mis_named_ me: my name is Alexander, not Andrew.


Petty.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 28, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> Criticising the desire for certainty- as @Logan did and others like R. Scott Clark do- is as useless as claiming certainty is possible in every conceivable situation.



That's not what Clark and others are doing. We are not criticizing certainty itself, only illegitimate forms of certainty.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 28, 2022)

MarrowMan said:


> I'm much more concerned with his willingness to jettison his 1689 affiliations to hobnob with Apologia


I have been wondering about this too. Are you implying Apologia has a weak view of Reformed Confessions?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 28, 2022)

I plead for the thread to stay on topic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 28, 2022)

Anyone else listen to the debate yet?

After the part of PVK I watched, and the reviews, I’m wary of wasting my time.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> That's not what Clark and others are doing. We are not criticizing certainty itself, only illegitimate forms of certainty.



Who decides what's legitimate and not? Clark includes six day creation under _his_ QIRC. I should take advice from him on what is and isn't legitimate?


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 28, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> Who decides what's legitimate and not? Clark includes six day creation under _his_ QIRC. I should take advice from him on what is and isn't legitimate?


Certainty based on specious argumentation is by definition illegitimate certainty. 

No person is needed to proclaim legitimacy.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 28, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> Who decides what's legitimate and not? Clark includes six day creation under _his_ QIRC. I should take advice from him on what is and isn't legitimate?



That's actually a logical fallacy, but that's not the point at the moment. The thing is we have routinely demonstrated your quest for certainty to be false. Therefore, continuing seeking that type of certainty is obviously illegitimate.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MarrowMan (Sep 28, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have been wondering about this too. Are you implying Apologia has a weak view of Reformed Confessions?


I could be corrected on this, but I don't see anything that indicates they are a confessional church. If they hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession, they don't advertise it publicly.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MarrowMan (Sep 28, 2022)

John Yap said:


> I plead for the thread to stay on topic.


My apologies, redirecting back to the topic.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Sep 28, 2022)

MarrowMan said:


> I could be corrected on this, but I don't see anything that indicates they are a confessional church. If they hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession, they don't advertise it publicly.



Having attended there a number of times, I can tell you that Apologia Church claims to officially hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession. It used to be prominent on their website, and when I talked to Jeff Durbin about it he seemed surprised to hear that it wasn't listed on there anymore (I don't think that he personally closely polices their website).

As part of their liturgy they also recite the Baptist Catechism (also commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as Keach's Catechism).

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## MarrowMan (Sep 28, 2022)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Having attended there a number of times, I can tell you that Apologia Church claims to officially hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession. It used to be prominent on their website, and when I talked to Jeff Durbin about it he seemed surprised to hear that it wasn't listed on there anymore (I don't think that he personally closely polices their website).
> 
> As part of their liturgy they also recite the Baptist Catechism (also commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as Keach's Catechism).


Thanks! That's helpful!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Oct 4, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Anyone else listen to the debate yet?
> 
> After the part of PVK I watched, and the reviews, I’m wary of wasting my time.


Seeing it was Dr. Van Kleeck’s first debate, he didn’t do his best to represent his camp, of which I am not in. When he posted that theorem to prove the TR = autographs, he lost me, as I’ve never heard of that theorem before.

I could not help but roll my eyes when he declared himself the winner when he didn’t clearly state his position. Dr. White won the debate, but his opponent had never been in one. Hopefully he does more and grows and better states his position.


----------

