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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hopefully he actually addresses what was said and refutes it with argumentation rather than just claiming to be a victim and cry about that.

Unfortunately I found Riddle's response to be his normal response: play the innocent victim and repeat the "accusations" against him in the worst possible interpretation and which is obviously not meant. It's almost like he goes out of his way to misunderstand critiques. In the end, he indicates that Lane has "Received Text Derangement Syndrome", and sounds like an unhinged KJV-onlyist. Riddle concedes not one single criticism.
 
Unfortunately I found Riddle's response to be his normal response: play the innocent victim and repeat the "accusations" against him in the worst possible interpretation and which is obviously not meant. It's almost like he goes out of his way to misunderstand critiques. In the end, he indicates that Lane has "Received Text Derangement Syndrome", and sounds like an unhinged KJV-onlyist. Riddle concedes not one single criticism.
Good grief.
 
Is this a quote?

His transcript is here. The Riddle quote I was referring to is toward the bottom and states:

"I don’t know this man, but the review tells me a lot about him. Back when the 'Orange Man' was in office some of his most unhinged critics were described as having 'Trump derangement syndrome.' Sometimes it seems that there are those who have 'Received Text derangement syndrome.'"
 
to be fair, I don’t think Dr Riddle has knowledge of the long history Rev Keister has with interacting with the TR movement. Without knowledge of that, the review may be seen as “out of nowhere”, which it isn’t
 
I’m beginning to understand why Mark Ward recently released a video about why he is no longer publicly interacting with the CB camp.

@greenbaggins , are you willing to get into a back-and-forth with Riddle?
 
Inferior and Unreliable – how is that much different from “satanic” and “illegitimate”? All our Bibles – CT, ET, TR, ESV, NIV, NASB, CSV, AV etc – are sacred to those who hold them and commune with their Lord through them.
Very different! They aren’t moral judgments. I would assume a TR supporter should consider a CT Bible inferior. im not bothered by that. I’d even say an ESV user calling the NKJV (which I prefer of the two) inferior is fair game. I’m not bothered by it.

I‘lol concede on “unreliable.” “Less reliable“ is better but perhaps being more positive (“I think my text is more reliable“) would be better. You might say the TR is more reliable. Farstad would say the same about the MT, Wallace about the CT, and Lane here about the Sturzian text (is that a thing?) I would expect no less if that’s your position!

But these are very different from the many TR/KJV advocates (e.g. Riddle, Myers, Van Kleeck) who are subtly hinting - if not downright accusing - MT and CT advocates of SIN. That’s a step away from questioning their salvation, and that’s coming. I don’t know ANY CT advocate that accuse the TR position of innate sinfulness - some of their methods are definitely sinful, but the position is morally neutral.

It‘s making a difference of opinion and understanding into an article of faith, a matter of sin, and a reason to separate. It’s IFB KJV onlyism all over again. Early fundamentalists went from the “KJV-standard utilizing other translation” folks like John R. Rice to the angry, bitter, schismatic and cultic Ruckman and Hyles positions fairly quickly. Many of us in the CT (and MT and possibly even the moderate TR camp) see the TR movement headed in that direction.
 
Many of us in the CT (and MT and possibly even the moderate TR camp) see the TR movement headed in that direction.
There definitely seems to be something of a similar attitude—and I’d guess it’s instantly off-putting to many who aren’t already convinced of the position.

If the errors and inconsistencies keep getting pointed out, I wonder if the CB position’s rhetoric will also increase accordingly.
 
Daniel, the apostle Peter did the work of Satan. More than once. So have I, so have we all. I’m probably doing it by keeping on with this thread (when I have duties I’m neglecting). It’s not blasting someone to the pit to speak this way.

True, I accept that it is not condemning someone to hell if we speak in this manner. But if we are bold enough to speak in such a fashion, then we have to be prepared to receive a dose of similar medicine from our opponents.
 
I think I understand you. We can have certainty that apographs (plural) contain or are the original reading, but we may not have certainty that a given apograph (singular) is the original reading.

If that's true, I think you would dispute the argument of [some] CBs who analogize the recognition of which canon of Scripture is God's word (e.g. Roman Catholic vs. Protestant) to the recognition of which specific, textual variant is God's word. They frame this in terms of macro-canon (biblical books as a whole that we can find in a table of contents) and micro-canon (specific verses within these books): "If the former is self-authenticating, the latter must also be self-authenticating, for there is no macro-canon without the micro-canon." Or so the argument goes.

Have you seen this argument? How would you respond to it? In my opinion, this is the argument that seems to be at the root of CB.

I'm not trying to pester you, by the way, just work through the issue myself.
Ryan, you are being the farthest thing from pestering, I assure you. You are asking the right questions. I would respond by saying that the worst manuscript we have in existence is still God's Word (and the early church fathers said that, and some of the Reformers also said that). Any position that consigns manuscripts to the flames of history is therefore too narrow in its application of God's preservation.
 
I have responded to Riddle here. It is an article because the PB apparently didn't like my word formatting. Sorry for that. It is in a pdf, which I knew would go through.
 
I’m beginning to understand why Mark Ward recently released a video about why he is no longer publicly interacting with the CB camp.

@greenbaggins , are you willing to get into a back-and-forth with Riddle?
Which video is this? I would very much like to see it. I have posted a reply to Riddle (see the immediately preceding post).
 
Hello Lane,

You said (post #147),

Steve, very much appreciate your last two posts in particular, and I agree with most of them. I do have a question, though, about one particular argument that you raise about Roman Catholicism, and Roman Catholic interaction with textual criticism. Why does Vatican involvement of the production of the modern CT texts indicate anything at all? And why is this not the poisoned well fallacy? This fallacy says that something is incorrect because of its origin. It is a variant of the guilt by association fallacy with particular reference to origins..."​

Put in a nutshell: I much rather choose the judgment of the Reformation scholars and editors in their textual choices, over those by Catholics and Anglo-Catholics. It’s a no-brainer to me. I don't discount the value of having another textual tradition, though – even though I think it not as good. This is not poisoning the well or guilt by association, but my sober judgment in choices, having all the data in mind.

I can, and/or have, answered the various objections to the TR itself you've listed in your review, and I can respect your view. You're one of few really eclectic scholars here on PB. When you say, “we have the Word pure and complete” – but to discern it is “immensely difficult and painstaking” [emphasis added], I take this to mean that I, or your congregation, must depend on your scholarship to get this "pure and complete" (or close) product of your labors. I'd rather place my confidence in the Reformation scholars, and what I believe is the text God preserved through them. Between us, we can differ amicably on this.

I have a far greater concern though, and that's the spirit of the Puritan Board now.

I'm preaching through Mark these days, and of Mark 4:24, William Hendriksen in his commentary (p 163) says, "In accordance with the measure whereby you measure it shall be measured back to you … If the one who does the measuring is kind, he will judge favorably, will take delight in giving credit where credit is due, in bestowing favors (see Luke 6:38). On the other hand, if he is of the opposite disposition, he will easily fall into the habit of judging severely, unkindly (see Matt. 7:1–5; especially verse 2). Whatever it be, the measure he gives will be the measure he gets."

As one of the leading scholars on textual matters at PB you have dealt very harshly with men who put forth another view, which you deem divisive and destructive. You know my own stand regarding what is divisive and condemning (see #116 here, and in your other thread as well), and how I also oppose it. As one of the seniors here you set the tone of the board in great measure, which is becoming rancorous and harsh toward the TR view holders. Many here, who have held you in high esteem as godly and learned, are dismayed at the tone being set. They also are many, and are valued and godly members.

We are becoming a divided house, here. We depend on our admins to be not only firm, but gracious, and kind, and Christ-like. I realize that many members here are tired of the TR view, and even the respectful and "moderate" presentations / defenses of it are grievous to them, and many support your harshness. You should know the state of the flock here, and be a peacemaker. A lot depends on that for this board to flourish.
 
Taking in the whole picture of Lane’s past with this text issue, and what he believes is at stake, I think he is correct both in his arguments and tone.

Further, those on the other side, after having sent up the smokescreen of being “troubled by his tone,” have mostly vanished now that the smoke has cleared.

Lane’s arguments have not been answered adequately. Apart from a couple people, it’s all quiet on the CB front.

With that said, I ask for forgiveness for any harshness of tone, as well as not striving to partake of these conversations in love. Please forgive me.

I believe the same things still, but how I have carried myself in that belief leaves more to be desired by me.
 
Steve, thanks for your interaction on all these matters over the years. By and large it has been most pleasant, even where we have disagreed.

On the matter of the TR and Roman Catholicism, I am curious why then you trust the work of Erasmus, who was Roman Catholic, not Reformed?

On the issue of the tone of the PB, I doubt I have that much influence on the tone. If I did, my gentle approach of the last 15 years would have made a dent in the strong/extreme camp, and it did no such thing. In addition, I have repeatedly stated that my quarrel is not with the TR or with the KJV. If you look closely, my responses towards folks like Andrew, Dane, and yourself have been quite moderate. Even my review of Dane's chapter is not harsh. It merely expresses disagreement on particular points (and this is true of my review of a number of chapters). To anyone who says, "I prefer the TR, I prefer the KJV, because I think they are the most accurate, or the best" I have absolutely no quarrel. I have every quarrel with anyone on this board attacking non-TR Bibles in a sectarian and divisive manner. Again, here I am not talking about simple critique of the ESV. The ESV is open to critique on individual points, as is any English translation. I have a few critiques of the ESV myself. I am rather talking about "The ESV is not God's Word," "The people who use the CT have depraved worldly methodologies," or "those who use non-TR Bibles use a Bible based on Satan's Bible." These comments have not been limited to the book I reviewed. They have been on the PB. And on particular arguments, like the foolish argument about Sinaiticus being worthless because of where it was found (poisoned well fallacy), or the equally foolish argument that Alexandrian manuscripts are worthless because Arianism was around, or that WCF 1.8 is specifically referring to the TR, when "in all ages" completely precludes that understanding of the sentence; these "arguments" have been pointed out as fallacious in gentle fashion before, but on completely deaf ears.

As I have mentioned, I have a very specific reason for answering with the sternness I did. It was to hold up a mirror to how the strong/extreme TR position has come across to non-TR folk for a very long time, both here on the PB and in other places. Those not on the receiving end will no doubt try to justify their harshness. But let me be very clear: it was precisely by showing this harshness in a mirror that I am trying to meta-regulate the tone on text-critical issues. The kind of thing judged acceptable by the TR folk in defense of their position is not acceptable. There are ways of critiquing the CT and the ESV et al without the kind of rhetoric employed in the book and on the PB in the past. That is what really needs to happen. I am saying "Enough is enough." Enough with too many TR advocates (not yourself) lacking in self-awareness of how they are coming across to people. Enough with the one-sided rhetoric.

The division on text-critical issues has always been here. I didn't introduce that. What I did do was find arguments in favor of saying that any responsible Greek edition is God's Word in the New Testament, ranging from the TR to the CT. What I did do was to call "enough" on the TR position's all-too-divisive tendencies (tendencies you, Dane, and Andrew for example, among others, have been able to avoid). If you think my tone was too harsh, then please tell me what I could have done differently, given the following parameters: 1. Everything gentler had failed; 2. The tone of the strong/extreme TR folks had not changed one iota; 3. The book in question is highly divisive and sectarian; 4. I made an oath to the OPC to promote the peace of the church, and I see this book as a serious threat to that peace. 5. Therefore, this is not an academic discussion where the thrust and parry must always be made politely. This is an issue of holding together the body of Christ, and not allowing the differences between TR and CT to rise to first-level importance, worth splitting a church or the denomination over. Yes, I will fight tooth and nail to prevent such a split from happening. So how would you go about doing this with those parameters in mind? How could you do that without an ounce of harshness? I didn't see a way. Otherwise I would have done so. I certainly do not relish this kind of thing. If it weren't for my oath, I would never have engaged in this manner at all.
 
"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.
Cut the Divines some slack...they had a deficient copy of the Scriptures. ;)
 
Wasn't referencing you (or anyone specifically) just generally speaking.
Ok, sure. The only difficulty is that the person you quote was quoting my review in a place where I have now retracted what I said. That's why I brought it up. The line ""His quotation of Matthew 5:18 in support of his position is a gross twisting of Scripture" is from the original version of my review.
 
Taking in the whole picture of Lane’s past with this text issue, and what he believes is at stake, I think he is correct both in his arguments and tone.

Further, those on the other side, after having sent up the smokescreen of being “troubled by his tone,” have mostly vanished now that the smoke has cleared.

Lane’s arguments have not been answered adequately. Apart from a couple people, it’s all quiet on the CB front.

With that said, I ask for forgiveness for any harshness of tone, as well as not striving to partake of these conversations in love. Please forgive me.

I believe the same things still, but how I have carried myself in that belief leaves more to be desired by me.
I posted a response to this earlier but then deleted it as I really don’t want to drag this out. But I will point out the irony that, in a post ostensibly asking for forgiveness due to “tone”, you basically state two paragraphs above that those who have an issue with the “tone” of the original review (e.g. accusations of “outright lies” by ministers who contributed to the book) were just using that as a “smokescreen”; thereby continuing to belittle the real concerns that were expressed (and were certainly about something more than “tone” in the touch-feely sense).

It is a fallacy to imply that supporters of the TR don’t have answers for the “substance” of the review, such as it is, just because we have not engaged with each point. For one thing, several substantive points have been addressed. For another thing, some of us have not read the underlying book yet so would be wary of debating it at length before we have. After all, even a correct position can have better and worse arguments advanced in favour of it. But there were some statements that called out for a response just on the basis of what was in the review itself.
 
I posted a response to this earlier but then deleted it as I really don’t want to drag this out. But I will point out the irony that, in a post ostensibly asking for forgiveness due to “tone”, you basically state two paragraphs above that those who have an issue with the “tone” of the original review (e.g. accusations of “outright lies” by ministers who contributed to the book) were just using that as a “smokescreen”; thereby continuing to belittle the real concerns that were expressed (and were certainly about something more than “tone” in the touch-feely sense).
It is a fallacy to imply that supporters of the TR don’t have answers for the “substance” of the review, such as it is, just because we have not engaged with each point. For one thing, several substantive points have been addressed. For another thing, some of us have not read the underlying book yet so would be wary of debating it at length before we have. After all, even a correct position can have better and worse arguments advanced in favour of it. But there were some statements that called out for a response just on the basis of what was in the review itself.

Thank you for your response. I’ll work through it when I can, brother.
 
*I am using the word "lie" (note the scarequotes) as a perfect synonym of "untruth." There is no judgment being made on the character of Mr. Sheffield, and there is no accusation here of any "intent to deceive." His statement on Romans 9:5 in the CT is simply false. That is what I mean.
You just made this footnote to your original post. It is a lame attempt to cover over the slander of an ordained minister of the gospel. I will not debate you because you have exhibited an astounding lack of moderation in this discussion from the outset and continue to do so.

You have accused me of lying. By definition, you have accused me of making an untrue statement with the intention of deceiving. I did not do that and therefore, your accusation is slanderous. You should be ashamed of yourself and repent. I do not mind you saying my arguments are terrible or even misleading. But accusing me of lying crosses a line. And you know that in your conscience, or should.

I am asking you to withdraw that statement and apologize. That is all that duty requires in this situation. I've requested this multiple times privately to no avail and so now I am asking publicly. My request is just and reasonable. We all sometimes say things we later regret. When that happens, the manly thing to do is to be humble enough to admit it and apologize. That's what you need to do now, brother. You are only aggravating your sin and making things worse for yourself by not doing so.

I would also kindly ask the other admins (@NaphtaliPress @Jeri Tanner @Herald @Semper Fidelis @Contra_Mundum @py3ak) of the board to help in this matter. Rev. Keister has violated the ninth commandment by accusing me of lying. I only ask that he withdraw that comment and offer a public apology. Thank you for your help.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top