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

Jeri Tanner

Administrator
Staff member
One could argue that it is better to say that the people who contributed to this volume are misinformed. Conversely, one could say that ministers of the gospel, who are supposed to be heralds of truth, ought to know better and need to be judged more strictly than the average person.
I think it would be best to keep the conversation to one's personal interpretation of the data, and to pointing out actual, provable erroneous claims. If one side speaks mistakenly, for example, about when a manuscript was discovered, that is misinformed. If one side is found to be lying, that's another matter.

Much of the conversation seems to surround interpretation of historical facts, and of course one's interpretation will depend on one's doctrinal presuppositions. I appreciate the need for forceful language at times. This is an extremely important matter.

And Daniel, I'm surprised that you were turned off to further investigation by rhetoric. The truth is the truth and one should never stop seeking. I hope that you settled the matter for yourself based on conviction rather than just being turned off by people's ways and words.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I think it would be best to keep the conversation to one's personal interpretation of the data, and to pointing out actual, provable erroneous claims. If one side speaks mistakenly, for example, about when a manuscript was discovered, that is misinformed. If one side is found to be lying, that's another matter.

Much of the conversation seems to surround interpretation of historical facts, and of course one's interpretation will depend on one's doctrinal presuppositions. I appreciate the need for forceful language at times. This is an extremely important matter.

The first paragraph is about actual, provable erroneous claims. I agree we should focus on that. You then say that "much of the conversation" surrounds the interpretation of historical facts.

So which is it? Are we engaging in facts or the interpretation of facts? Both have their place but it looks like you shifted gears.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
And Daniel, I'm surprised that you were turned off to further investigation by rhetoric. The truth is the truth and one should never stop seeking. I hope that you settled the matter for yourself based on conviction rather than just being turned off by people's ways and words.

Jeri, you have misread me. As I explained, I was turned off their position because I found it to be factually incorrect upon investigating it.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
And I do agree that the rhetoric itself does not necessarily make a position wrong. Some people who argue for EP have used rhetoric that I cannot condone, but that does not make the position mistaken. The problem with the rhetoric of the extreme TR/AV purists to which I alluded was that it went so far as to fall into the category of being profane, rather than simply being uncharitable. I would also add here that someone like Steve, as far as I am aware, has not used such rhetoric in any of his posts that I have read nor has he outrightly condemned other translations of the Bible.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
I know I do not post very often but I would add my voice to those who believe the review posted here is unduly negative and, it appears to me, exaggerated. I have not yet had the opportunity to read the book but I plan to, and would not be put off of doing so by this review.

Just to choose one example, in the above section on Mr Mehrshahi's chapter, I believe it is both inflamatory and intellectually wrong to state he has committed "an outright lie" in the statement you quote. It is based on a very forced and, I think, misconstrued reading of his quote; even without the full context, it appears obvious to me that his statement has nothing to do with the separate point you are making. I do not think any objective reader would understand him to be saying that the CT is different from the TR in almost every verse. What he appears to be saying is that the critical text generally takes a small number of the available texts (presumably referencing, e.g., Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) as the authority and goes with their readings the vast majority of the time - nothing more and nothing less. It may be that in the majority of the text the CT manuscripts being referred to agree with the TR, but that does not make it factually wrong to say that the CT is generally based on the minority of available texts. The CT is generally based on those texts, both when they agree with the TR and when they do not agree with the TR. The crux of the matter is obviously where the manuscripts do not agree, and Mr Mehrshahi is simply making the point that where there is divergence, the CT generally goes with the minority manuscripts.

So it seems unwarranted to make so much out of this point in your review, even to the point of calling it an "outright lie". If you feel that TR advocates do not give sufficient acknowledgment to the amount of overlap between the CT and TR, you are free to make that point, but it seems unfair to use Mr Mehrshahi's words as a hook to do this, especially with the strong language used.

Without dwelling on it, I would also take issue with what you have said about the proof text point. I will not get into the question of whether strict subscription to the Confession includes the proof texts, but it does feel like your description of them downplays their standing somewhat. When you say these were "added later" . . . lest anyone reading the thread misunderstand, it is true that in the first draft sent by the Westminster divines to Parliament the proof texts were not included (though they had been discussed extensively by the Assembly), but they were added by the Westminster divines in 1647 (at the request of Parliament) and present in the final Westminster Standards as approved by Parliament.
A couple of points in response. Firstly, it is factually incorrect to state of an eclectic text, based on eclectic principles that it is based on only a few manuscripts. That is factually wrong, in that it is precisely opposite to eclectic principles. There is no universe of discourse where that is a true statement. At the very least, it shows ignorance of the eclectic text position. It is also ironic, given that the TR is based on a very few manuscripts. The TR is not the Majority text. His comment seems to assume a Majority text argument, which is not consistent with the TR position, as I have noted previously. As for the proof texts, the OPC, PCA, URC and others (I know it is true of these at least) do not require subscription to the interpretation of the proof-texts as part of confessional subscription.

Rev. Keister, you made many fair points in your review. You are right to call out the in places absurd rhetoric. You are right to call out what is schismatic and divisive. However, accusing ordained ministers of "lying" is much different than boldly, manfully, or even sharply, refuting what you perceive as error.

I can only speak for myself. In your review of my chapter, you were correct that I misspoke. I don't know how I didn't catch my error to be honest. I should have added "*English speaking* reformed preaching", or left it as "the TR". Thank you for pointing out that error as others have. Perhaps I will make a video addressing some of the errors I made in my chapter.

To your point, I am all for repudiating much of the rhetoric in the TR movement. It is much needed. But we won't get anywhere if "you guys" on the "other side" employ the same rhetoric.
Dane, thanks very much for this. I appreciate your teachable spirit (which I find frankly rare in the TR movement). As I said in my response to Jeri, if one wants to substitute "untruth" for "lie" that is fine by me. I don't cling to a necessarily intentional untruth. However, there are definitely untruths in this book. And no one has yet even engaged on those particular points as to whether they are true or not. I will certainly not back down without logical refutation being part of it.

As for rhetoric, as Daniel has pointed out now, I tried the gentle approach (for the most part) for the last 15 years, and got precisely nowhere with the points I was trying to make. The guys I have in mind never had their gloves on. I was fighting with cushioned gloves, and they were bare-knuckle. I took the gloves off on this review to hold up a mirror to the TR movement. This is the kind of thing the TR movement has been getting away with for decades now. But now that it threatens the peace of the church, my gloves come off.

To others simply launching the ninth commandment violation response against me, mere assertion on your part will not move me one iota. You have to prove to me that I violated the ninth commandment. To do that, you will need to actually interact with what I wrote, and not just its tone. Otherwise, I will not answer such charges, which border on ninth commandment violations themselves.
 

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
I am not a pastor or elder, but I do teach sunday school, and I have to brush up on topics. I've mispoken and misunderstood things I have taught on, or not researched them thoroughly enough. In fact, one example is I taught a series on "Why we can trust the Bible" and we looked at some of the disputed and difficult passages that are different between different Bible versions. I repeated the now I've realized unsubstantiated story about why I John 5:7 was included in the 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus. I heard it from Dan Wallace who cited Bruce Metzger, and even went as far as to look at Metzger and read it there. It was through the PuritanBoard I learned that this story has not been confirmed as truthful and that even Metzger has retracted it from later editions of the same works. I might have gotten there if I were researching for an academic paper, but I'm a laymen who is using the best sources I have available, which are not infallible.

Pastors of course have a special calling and have a lot to know -- and head knowledge is not their primary calling! Examination is thorough in many areas for would-be ministers, including in areas of bible, church history, theology, the confessions which interact with all of these, and so on. Most pastors are not experts in every area they have taken a position on. Just this past Lord's Day I was worshipping out of town at a church in my denomination and heard a defense for why we should have evening worship on the Sabbath, a position I heartily I agree with. In the course of arguing it, the minister said that Sunday morning and evening worship was the consistent pattern of the church from the Apostles up to and and including all branches of the Reformation and so we should follow their example. I'm not sure if this is true. I actually have been meaning to research this. But my hunch is that this is not true, though certainly Sunday evening worship has been much more common in past eras of the church than it is today. My pastor said the Septuagint was made at the direction of Alexander the Great. As far as I can tell, this is not true (but certainly, Alexander the Great's influence led to the translation of the Hebrew Bible to Greek and may have even been directed by his general's son). Are these examples of lies? Untruths? Being mislead? I'm not sure. Regardless, I think we have to admit that pastors make errors with regards to particulars just like the rest of us do. They should be held accountable.

I do think much greater precision is demanded in the context of writing a broadly published work like essays for his volume. I try to be careful about faithful representation with forum posts like this one, speaking to a friend, or whatever the case might be; but certainly, there is even greater precision demanded in a written context. The majority of contributors to this volume are not textual scholars. They are writing essays similar to what they would use to explain to their congregations why we use a particular Bible translation based on particular manuscripts.

In a FCoS(C) congregation, I remember hearing lots of statements about the text of the Bible. It was hard not to hold to a TR position when you heard the TR consistently equated with the Confessional view, with the correct view, and others being problematic. But when I dug in and asked more questions, I found the arguments incomplete or inconclusive. This book is extremely helpful to me because I'm able to see these types of arguments I heard for years laid out and they can be responded to easier than in ad hoc conversations. I still have a deep respect for many TR advocates. I know several who are far more knowledgeable about the Bible and far more profitable servants of the Lord than I am. But I find nothing wrong with Lane's post, even as it critiques many men that the Lord has used in my life.

There is a lot of heated rhetoric on this topic, which isn't surprising. We are talking about dearly held beliefs. It shouldn't be for only one side to be able to state things strongly. Yes let's be respectful, use charity, and
be accurate in our statements as much as we can, but we shouldn't be afraid to strongly state topics. I say this as someone who is actually quite "middle of the road" on this topic -- if the most faithful church in my area used the TR or the CT I would be okay with joining. It's low on my list, as I believe Bibles based on both traditions are faithful.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
I repeated the now I've realized unsubstantiated story about why I John 5:7 was included in the 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus. I heard it from Dan Wallace who cited Bruce Metzger, and even went as far as to look at Metzger and read it there.

To be fair, Edward Hills said much the same, defending the KJV, on pg 162 of his KJV Defended:
"Erasmus omitted the Johannine comma from the first edition (1516) of his printed Greek New Testament on the ground that it occurred only in the Latin version and not in any Greek manuscript. To quiet the outcry that arose, he agreed to restore it if but one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. When one such manuscript was discovered soon afterwards, bound by his promise, he included the disputed reading in his third edition (1522), and thus it gained a permanent place in the Textus Receptus. The manuscript which forced Erasmus to reverse his stand seems to have been 61, a 15th or 16th-century manuscript now kept at Trinity College, Dublin. Many critics believe that this manuscript was written at Oxford about 1520 for the special purpose of refuting Erasmus, and this is what Erasmus himself suggested in his notes."

I have not been able to find the location referred to in Erasmus' annotations to verify one way or the other.
 

Jie-Huli

Puritan Board Freshman
A couple of points in response. Firstly, it is factually incorrect to state of an eclectic text, based on eclectic principles that it is based on only a few manuscripts. That is factually wrong, in that it is precisely opposite to eclectic principles. There is no universe of discourse where that is a true statement. At the very least, it shows ignorance of the eclectic text position. It is also ironic, given that the TR is based on a very few manuscripts. The TR is not the Majority text. His comment seems to assume a Majority text argument, which is not consistent with the TR position, as I have noted previously. As for the proof texts, the OPC, PCA, URC and others (I know it is true of these at least) do not require subscription to the interpretation of the proof-texts as part of confessional subscription.

I will refrain from getting too much into the specifics. You can quibble about one's choice of words but I think it is pretty clear what point Mr Mehrshahi was making in the sentence at issue - that where there is a divergence in manuscript families, the CT position generally follows the "minority" position (i.e. relying heavily on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). To prove his statement is factually wrong, that is what one would need to disprove. It is well and good to refer to the CT as an "eclectic" text, in the sense that the textual critics looked at a lot of manuscripts, but if in fact they gave outsized weight to a small number of these where there are differences, then the substance of his statement is true. In any event, I don't think he conflates the TR and MT positions (he works closely with TBS and is well-versed in all of this) - but TR proponents still recognise the TR stands much closer to the majority of extant manuscripts than what the CT has arrived at, and I see no irony in it being pointed out.

But my main point was that to say the statement was an "outright lie" is just not defensible. In your subsequent responses you seem to view the concerns we have expressed on this point as unimportant, and you seem to view "lie", "untruth" and "factually incorrect" as basically interchangeable, as though if someone doesn't like the word "lie" they can just mentally substitute a different phrase. But you must know that "committing an outright lie" carries a very different moral connotation than being "factually incorrect" (which is still debatable in any event and I think that, in this instance at least, you are misunderstanding/misconstruing the writer's position), and accusing a minister of "committing an outright lie" is a serious charge. It is not just a bit of colourful rhetorical flourish. And I think you should be much more sober minded in making such charges.

No doubt some will say that this is just a deflection from the issues at hand, focusing on your manner of expression rather than the substance, or that we are being prickly about criticism. But I do not think that is the case at all. As I said before, robust criticism (even with powerful language) is fair game; but making unwarranted and inapt charges of "lying" is not, and I don't really think it helps your cause.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Lane (@greenbaggins ), all, I got an email from Pastor Rob McCurley. Someone snipped portions of the review and sent them to him. He disagrees with the criticisms sent him, was not fazed by them, nor by the harsh language, and thought the diligent reader could discern the rebuttals he would give. I’m not posting the note because Rob is not an internet warrior and I’m not taking this up by proxy. I had determined not to say anything at all for this reason, but I changed my mind to say this much to ward off any more sharers of info; he knows; he’s not upset with criticism per se; neither is he upset or concerned by the strong language used. That was a part of the discussion, which I moderatorally approved, but as far as he’s concerned at least, he’s not bothered by it. He also said that he bears no ill-will toward Lane. Folks who've read both the review and Pastor McCurley's chapter certainly feel free to agree or disagree with the review; this is not meant to squash discussion. But I thought it important to pass along the things noted.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
I will refrain from getting too much into the specifics. You can quibble about one's choice of words but I think it is pretty clear what point Mr Mehrshahi was making in the sentence at issue - that where there is a divergence in manuscript families, the CT position generally follows the "minority" position (i.e. relying heavily on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). To prove his statement is factually wrong, that is what one would need to disprove. It is well and good to refer to the CT as an "eclectic" text, in the sense that the textual critics looked at a lot of manuscripts, but if in fact they gave outsized weight to a small number of these where there are differences, then the substance of his statement is true. In any event, I don't think he conflates the TR and MT positions (he works closely with TBS and is well-versed in all of this) - but TR proponents still recognise the TR stands much closer to the majority of extant manuscripts than what the CT has arrived at, and I see no irony in it being pointed out.

But my main point was that to say the statement was an "outright lie" is just not defensible. In your subsequent responses you seem to view the concerns we have expressed on this point as unimportant, and you seem to view "lie", "untruth" and "factually incorrect" as basically interchangeable, as though if someone doesn't like the word "lie" they can just mentally substitute a different phrase. But you must know that "committing an outright lie" carries a very different moral connotation than being "factually incorrect" (which is still debatable in any event and I think that, in this instance at least, you are misunderstanding/misconstruing the writer's position), and accusing a minister of "committing an outright lie" is a serious charge. It is not just a bit of colourful rhetorical flourish. And I think you should be much more sober minded in making such charges.

No doubt some will say that this is just a deflection from the issues at hand, focusing on your manner of expression rather than the substance, or that we are being prickly about criticism. But I do not think that is the case at all. As I said before, robust criticism (even with powerful language) is fair game; but making unwarranted and inapt charges of "lying" is not, and I don't really think it helps your cause.
In context, Mr. Mehrshahi was contrasting the TR as a whole from the CT as a whole. That this is proven is clear from the immediately preceding sentence, where he plainly contrasts the two: "The Received Text is mainly based on the vast majority of extant readings. It is the fullest and most authentic text, which has been preserved by God and used by the true people of God. The critical text is generally based on the minority of available texts" (emphasis added). He cannot possibly mean that the CT is based only in the variants on the minority of texts. He has to mean that the entirety of the CT is based only on a few manuscripts. It is actually quite clear that he means what I said he means. It is equally clear that such a claim is completely wrong. Jie-Huli, if I am to be more sober-minded in such judgments, then what about these claims from the TR folk that are so completely out of court that they cannot possibly be said to be sober-minded?
 

Smeagol

Puritan Board Graduate
“If you cannot do this (due to conscience), politely request that your membership be transferred to a nearby church of like faith and practice” (255). This is a first-order issue for them. It is worth leaving a church over, at least for some people. This is divisive. Even entertaining the possibility that someone should leave a church over this issue is something I find objectionable. If someone objects, "But this is Scripture we are talking about!" My answer is simple. The objection assumes that the TR has Scripture and no one having a Bible based on the CT has the Scripture at all. The issue is not whether someone has Scripture at all, but whether the differences between TR and CT are worth leaving a church over. In my opinion they are not.
How does this avoid the label of TR- Onlyism (which currently defaults to KJVO)? Lane I at least concur with you that this is highly divisive to the body. We are dealing with manuscripts that themselves have variants! Thanks for reviewing, the portion I quoted from you above is the most disheartening quote you cited, in my opinion.
 

Imputatio

Puritan Board Freshman
I also find it mind-blowing that they suggest “If you cannot do this (due to conscience), politely request that your membership be transferred to a nearby church of like faith and practice” (255). This is a first-order issue for them. It is worth leaving a church over, at least for some people. This is divisive. Even entertaining the possibility that someone should leave a church over this issue is something I find objectionable.
I didn’t catch this on my first read through.

For context, at the end of the book there is given a step-by-step process for an “average church member” (254) “who would like to see the church reconsider its position on the text of scripture” (ibid). After you give this book to your pastor, and follow-up with him a couple months after, “if there is no openness to change [on his part]…you should begin considering your ability to remain in your church as a faithful member while holding a different opinion on this particular issue. If you cannot do this (due to conscience), politely request that your membership be transferred to a nearby church of like faith and practice. The online “TR-friendly Church Directory” may be a helpful resource in such a case” (255).
 
Last edited:

Imputatio

Puritan Board Freshman
I didn’t catch this on my first read through.

For context, at the end of the book there is given a step-by-step process for an “average church member” (254) “who would like to see the church reconsider its position on the text of scripture” (ibid). After you give this book to your pastor, and follow-up with him a couple months after, “if there is no openness to change [on his part]…you should begin considering your ability to remain in your church as a faithful member while holding a different opinion on this particular issue. If you cannot do this (due to conscience), politely request that your membership be transferred to a nearby church of like faith and practice. The online “TR-friendly Church Directory” may be a helpful resource in such a case” (255).

I’ll sleep on it before I give my thoughts.
The more I think about this, the worse it seems.

This book—this movement—is more or less telling Christians to divide over textual issues. The implications are staggering.

I wanted to look at Jeff Riddle’s church’s website to see what they say publicly.

In its “What We Believe” section, this is included:

“Our church's doctrinal statement also affirms "The providential preservation of God's Word in the received or traditional text of Scripture. We shall prefer to make use of Bible translations based on the traditional text of Scripture in our public teaching and worship."”

I’m assuming the eldership at this church must hold to this if it is an essential part of their doctrine.

Two questions:

1. Would this go beyond the biblical qualifications of an elder, to add this as necessary to eldership? Is it wrong to have this as a qualification? They would say it’s an essential part of the faith apparently.

2. What would you do if you were a member of their congregation? Leaving aside how you came to be there, what would you do now?

 
Last edited:

danekristjan

Puritan Board Freshman
Yeah I am very very unhappy with the divisive advice given at the back personally. I was heartbroken when my copy arrive and I read those words in the back.

Under no circumstances should a church member ever, ever leave a church merely over what translation of the Bible it employs in its preaching and teaching. Ever. The issue of what text one uses is, at best, at BEST, tertiary.

(For syllable catchers: with the obvious modifier that the texts and translations are those common, conservative, faithful Texts and translations)
 

Jie-Huli

Puritan Board Freshman
In context, Mr. Mehrshahi was contrasting the TR as a whole from the CT as a whole. That this is proven is clear from the immediately preceding sentence, where he plainly contrasts the two: "The Received Text is mainly based on the vast majority of extant readings. It is the fullest and most authentic text, which has been preserved by God and used by the true people of God. The critical text is generally based on the minority of available texts" (emphasis added). He cannot possibly mean that the CT is based only in the variants on the minority of texts. He has to mean that the entirety of the CT is based only on a few manuscripts. It is actually quite clear that he means what I said he means. It is equally clear that such a claim is completely wrong. Jie-Huli, if I am to be more sober-minded in such judgments, then what about these claims from the TR folk that are so completely out of court that they cannot possibly be said to be sober-minded?
This really does feel like words over substance. I am sure he knows the textual critics who feed into the CT position have looked at lots of manuscripts. For the sake of argument, let's posit that the minority CT manuscripts we know he is referring to (e.g. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) overlap with the TR or MT 90% of the time (obviously not the real numbers, this is just for the sake of demonstration). If the CT position matches up with this 90% (which does include the minority manuscripts) and also generally matches up with the minority manuscripts in the 10% of instances where they differ from the TR or MT, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that it is "generally based on" the minority of available texts, meaning the CT generally follows / relies especially on the minority of manuscripts. You could argue it would be better to say "generally follows" or "relies on", but it hardly seems worth making such a big point out of this one sentence, especially to the point of calling it an "outright lie".

Obviously summary statements always risk oversimplification. We all know there are complexities and nuances to all of this. (Westcott and Hort did not follow Sinaiticus and Vaticanus 100% of the time, for example). But I think the thrust of what Mr Mehrshahi was saying is quite well known - a minority of old manuscripts were given special weight in the CT position. There can be debates about why that was, the rightness or wrongness of it, their various other principles of textual criticism, etc. . . . as there always have been.

I am happy to leave it there from my perspective . . . people can read and judge all of this for themselves.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
Going back to the point about accusing godly men of lying, we must keep in mind that even men of exemplary godliness can be given to such sins. King David was a man after God's own heart, yet telling lies appears to have been one of his besetting sins. Others among us likewise struggle with lust, pride, unjust anger, and much else. I do not think that we should go overboard on this point, though, as not every factual error constitutes a lie. Conversely, when people say things to the effect that a certain text/translation undermines the deity of Christ when it demonstrably does not, then I believe that it is fair enough to call that statement a lie. As Christians, we are to place a high value on truth and facts and not be like those who, to borrow a phrase from the AV, follow "cunningly devised fables" - even when such cunningly devised fables reinforce our opinions.
 

Jeri Tanner

Administrator
Staff member
Yeah I am very very unhappy with the divisive advice given at the back personally. I was heartbroken when my copy arrive and I read those words in the back.

Under no circumstances should a church member ever, ever leave a church merely over what translation of the Bible it employs in its preaching and teaching. Ever. The issue of what text one uses is, at best, at BEST, tertiary.

(For syllable catchers: with the obvious modifier that the texts and translations are those common, conservative, faithful Texts and translations)
Who would have written those words in the back?? That is very disturbing. My copy of the book arrives today, I look forward to reading.

I will say that the contributors to the book would not necessarily have known of this. I know our ministers would never make such a recommendation. I can also say that I have never known of this issue being raised since my time in the FCC. No one has ever inquired into what translation I use privately or at church for that matter. I have found a grand total of 2 sermons from FCC ministers (in our U.S. presbytery at least) on the topic and those are from almost a decade ago.
 

retroGRAD3

Puritan Board Junior
Who would have written those words in the back?? That is very disturbing. My copy of the book arrives today, I look forward to reading.

I will say that the contributors to the book would not necessarily have known of this. I know our ministers would never make such a recommendation. I can also say that I have never known of this issue being raised since my time in the FCC. No one has ever inquired into what translation I use privately or at church for that matter. I have found a grand total of 2 sermons from FCC ministers (in our U.S. presbytery at least) on the topic and those are from almost a decade ago.
Ultimately the blame can be placed with Mcshaffrey and Riddle since they edited the work. I agree, the other contributors didn't necessarily know about it. Same with the Satan's Bible comment.
 
Last edited:

Ulsterscot

Puritan Board Freshman
"His quotation of Matthew 5:18 in support of his position is a gross twisting of Scripture."

Well there goes the Westminster Divines and their gross Scripture twisting. The only proof text recorded in support of "and by his singular care and providence, kept pure...." is Matt 5:18.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
"His quotation of Matthew 5:18 in support of his position is a gross twisting of Scripture."

Well there goes the Westminster Divines and their gross Scripture twisting. The only proof text recorded in support of "and by his singular care and providence, kept pure...." is Matt 5:18.
I do not agree with the Westminster divines at all in attaching this text to WCF 1.8 as a proof text. The text is not talking about textual preservation, but rather the enduring of the law in opposition to false charges laid against Jesus for supposedly abolishing the observance of the law. Of course, we know that observance changes from OT context to NT context, but that does not abolish it.
 

Ulsterscot

Puritan Board Freshman
I do not agree with the Westminster divines at all in attaching this text to WCF 1.8 as a proof text. The text is not talking about textual preservation, but rather the enduring of the law in opposition to false charges laid against Jesus for supposedly abolishing the observance of the law. Of course, we know that observance changes from OT context to NT context, but that does not abolish it.

Clearly, but my point was in a post that you are concerned about rhetoric, you may be guilty of the very thing you allege. I simply pointed out your comment and the Westminster Divines conviction concerning that text. It would seem they disagree with your limitation of the application of that text. Your charge is of their gross scripture twisting.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
John Owen viewed Matthew 5:18 as relevant to the providential preservation of scripture. One may, of course, hold that view of the text without subscribing to the idea that providential preservation applies exclusively to the TR. And let us not allow ourselves to get distracted by this minor point. Lane's comments on this verse made up only a small section of a very lengthy review.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
You say, "Clearly, but my point was in a post that you are concerned about rhetoric, you may be guilty of the very thing you allege. I simply pointed out your comment and the Westminster Divines conviction concerning that text. It would seem they disagree with your limitation of the application of that text. Your charge is of their gross scripture twisting."

My response, in addition to reminding you that you need to obey the signature requirements (as we do not allow anonymous posting, in general terms), is that my concern is far more with substance than with rhetoric. Yes, I object to much of the rhetoric. I am more concerned with the untruths (especially the misrepresentation of non-TR folk, which NO ONE has yet addressed), the lack of nuance (which no one has addressed), the lumping of all non-TR folk into one enslaved-to-WH group (which no one has addressed), and other such problematic elements of what is said.

There appears to be little attempt on the part of anyone to address those main concerns of mine. Some have addressed individual small points, but not what I regard as the heart of matter, which is all the problems with this book.
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
And let us not allow ourselves to get distracted by this minor point. Lane's comments on this verse made up only a small section of a very lengthy review.
It is far from a distraction since Lane wrote "His quotation of Matthew 5:18 in support of his position is a gross twisting of Scripture." I do not have the book so I have refrained from discussing his review but I could not allow this point to stand without a response.

Perhaps the book is as terrible as he says, but this is an ugly review.
 

Imputatio

Puritan Board Freshman
It is far from a distraction since Lane wrote "His quotation of Matthew 5:18 in support of his position is a gross twisting of Scripture." I do not have the book so I have refrained from discussing his review but I could not allow this point to stand without a response.

Perhaps the book is as terrible as he says, but this is an ugly review.
How can you assess a review without looking at the book?
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
I’m just curious: would someone be so kind as to point me to a post in which one of our resident TR/KJVonlyists has *condemned* language from their sides to the effect that the rest of us use a Satanic perversion of the Bible?

Not the back peddling in this thread that has been brought about by Lane’s brave review… no, prior to it. Show me, please.

And then I’ll be interested in hearing their criticisms of Lane’s choice of words in regards to their thought leaders.
 
Top