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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 12919 by request
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!!!
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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".

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
One of the figures I rarely see discussed regarding this topic is Robert Dabney.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
,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.

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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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."
This is a great illustration
 
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."

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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! :cheers2:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top