"I did not come to destroy the law or the prophets"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Paul manata
Define Bible, Fred?

Thanks for the confession note. But you didn't highlite the proper phrase

WCF 1:8 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.

Now, "kept pure" can't mean what you are implying now since you agreed that there were minor errors. So, if "kept pure" is defined as "having ZERO errors, discrepencies, varient reading, etc," then it hasn't been kept pure. So, if that's what you mean then you ned to deal with all those things I can bring up... which you know about.

[Edited on 12-19-2004 by Paul manata]

The Bible is the written special revelation of God preserved in writing that is necessary for man (cf. WCF 1.1).

I did highlight the right section. I am not arguing (and haven't ever) that translations are inspired; they are not. that is what your bold proves, and I agree with the Confession (shock! alarm! surprise! :D ) What I am arguing for is the providential preservation of the inspired text (which my emphasis in the Confession proves). Now we are not talking about a subjunctive vs. indicitive, or a prepositional phrase, or some other incredibly minor point. We are talking about taking an entire pericope and all it teaches out. This is a big deal. It is exactly what others try and do to parts of the Pentateuch, other parts of the Gospels they don't like, and sections of Pauline epistles.

So let's not worry about copyist errors. Find me another whole section - 11 verses, about half the length of a Pauline chapter - that can just be "taken out" without cutting against the Providential care of God. You see there are two critical doctrines of Scripture: (1) inspiration and (2) preservation. If you reject divine preservation, you are left with only two options: (a) a fallible (and thus non-authoritative) Bible, and (b) an inspired translation/transmission. Neither is the historical position of the Church (the WHOLE church, not just Reformed theology).
 
Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat
I am saving my lunch money for The Institutes of the Christian Religion and The City of God.

I already have a paperback, abriged Institutes though.

I wish there was a list of all the essential theological books that every Reformed person must have.

Hi Mark,


Start with one of the great Reformation catechisms to ground you. At www.christreformed.org you'll see lots of free down-loadable sources to clarify the Reformed Faith. Most wonderful are the Ursinus' Large/Small & Heidlberg Catechisms!

This is 186 pages to print - but printing double sides will half that.

Of course the catechisms are not to supersede Holy Scripture - but they are sound - rock solid studies/summaries of what Scripture teaches - put together by many passionate Christians - studying Scripture more diligently than you or I. What rich and faithful discipling these catechisms offer. They clarify-organize and confirm exactly what The Faith is about. At great personal cost, our brothers in Christ struggled to bring these written confessions to the Church. Again, think of the catechism as a summary of Scripture (which they are.)
.
BTW, the above catechisms originated from Scriptural references - yet, not noted on these particular volumes.

If you want a Heidlberg with Scripture references - I'd be happy to send you one.

The Heidlberg is a great starting point....

Robin :)
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
I hold to preservation and all the rest of what you said. My point was, is, that the autograph is inspired, which you now appear to agree with (as well as bahnsen, now;) ).

Never doubted that you did.
045.gif

But you cannot stand on preservation and say that a section of the Scriptures that has been in the canon and recognized for centuries, can all of a sudden have been wrongly preserved.

Originally posted by Paul manata
You are saying that something that as doctrinal importance would be removed. I want to know what doctrine or effect it would have on the Bible's teaching, if it were removed? You still haven't defined what it means to be "kept pure" as well as what it means for God to providentially keep something when you admit varient readings and other errors. it obviously can't mean that God did not let one jot or title become corrupoted, since you've admitted otherwise. So, until you define those things I don't even know where you're comming from.

The point is that if I find a slight change ("we" for "you") or a tense change in the Greek form, we basically have not only the same "doctrine" but the same sense to the passage. That is manifestly not the case when we take out AN ENTIRE passage. That means that an entire pericope is lost. This is miles different than a variant reading. Not even in the same class. Not even close.

If one takes earlier manuscripts as having more authority then you have a problem. All I'm addressing is that it is a disputed passage and I've seen no reason from you that counters that, since your arguments, as I understand them now, prove too much That is, they even disprove your admitions of error.

That's why one should not take such earlier manuscripts, but leave them in the Vatican trashcan where one at least was found. First, the testimony of the Church should be sufficient to put up a rebuttable presumption for authenticity. Second, the fact that it is a whole passage should require the one taking it out to show by manifest and egregious error, something like a false doctrine or heresy in it, as to why it should come out. In the balance of a bunch of scholars (many of whom are manifest non-believers who profess a hatred of Christ) against Christ's Church, uhh, I'll take the Church. Whether a doctrine would be "lost" is immaterial. Would we say that the Bible would be the Bible if any duplicative or correlational passage was deleted, so long as its "doctrine" was elsewhere? How about taking out the Adam/Christ passage in 1 Cor 15, since we have it in Romans 5?
 
Originally posted by Robin
Hi Mark,

If you want a Heidlberg with Scripture references - I'd be happy to send you one.

The Heidlberg is a great starting point....

Robin :)

I would love one, how much do you charge? :2cents: (lol)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top