Over at SharperIron, perhaps the most well-known fundamentalist blog and forum on the internet, the owner/editor, Aaron Blumer, a very decent Christian man, has written an article on preservation. He separates positions on preservation to two, and one of them, what he calls the discrete position, is the one we take. I wouldn't call it the discrete view, nor do I think it should be called that, but it is what Aaron thinks of it. I believe he is being far, far more fair than most on this issue. However, he does not represent our position fully and therefore not accurately either. He references our book, but what he writes doesn't seem to have interacted with it much (in the comment section, you will see that Aaron hasn't looked at our book---ooops!). I will be answering his post here at my blog.This is a heads up. This is dealing with it as a news item with the heads-up too that I will be answering him. I'll be doing it next on the blog here, that is, the very next post here will be on this, Lord-willing.
Aaron was very fair. I can see him taking some criticism from the other side on this. One thing you should know about SharperIron, however. You won't get anyone, anyone who can represent our position there that is a member. You've got people there who are probably supporters, but you don't have anyone who participates in conversations who represents our side well, even well enough to say that he is representing it. Then in the comment section you get some big problems being brought in that I've answered here many times, the time honored critical text support gets brought in the comment section with no answer. That is unfair and misrepresentative. For a long, long time, no one has been at SharperIron to present the position Aaron is talking about.
For instance, Bob Hayton brings in the Septuagint argument in the comment section, really the only thing that the critical side has going for it, and there is no answer to it that is given. John Owen himself answers Bob's argument in his Biblical Theology. That's right, this was dealt with in the 17th century---about 5 pages on it. No one references Owen's argument, because they don't even know about it. You haven't dealt with history on this if you haven't read Muller's book, and in my opinion, that is the elephant in the room. If someone hasn't read Muller, he most likely doesn't know what he's talking about. For one, Muller can read Latin, so he's read what people wrote in Latin. Another man in the comment section of SharperIron, Charlie, brings in an argument that is also an old critical text one, that is, that "word" isn't speaking about God's written Word, so we can't say that these passages are guaranteeing the preservation of written Words. That one is fraught with neo-orthodox danger and smacks against historic understanding. I've dealt with that argument here before too.
I appreciate Aaron's thoughtfulness. I'll be answering his post. Stay tuned.
10 comments:
Critical Text time-honoured, my foot. It is only honoured if one is a Gnostic, seeing that every place where the CT and TR versions differentiate it was the Gnostics who favoured the CT while the Orthodox favoured the TR. Probably the best that I have heard on this subject has been Dr. Mark Cowles, pastor of the Highway Bible Church, Placerville, CA. One of the things that he has done is go through Gnostic writings, such as the Nag Hammadi Library (which includes but is not limited to the following: the so-called and pseudo gospels of Thomas and Philip, the Trimorphic Protennoia - which I looked at once while in Seminary, and found it as he told me, a devilsh and blasphemous document - and Zostrianes). He told me that he does not recommend reading these, but has done so to see if the changes in the modern Bible versions are found there - no surprise - they are.
I'm eager to read both Aaron's post and your response. Take care.
Claymore - "Critical Text time-honoured, my foot. It is only honoured if one is a Gnostic, seeing that every place where the CT and TR versions differentiate it was the Gnostics who favoured the CT while the Orthodox favoured the TR."
Exactly!
As a general comment, I still don't understand why the LXX is considered to be such great evidence by those on the CT side of the debate. It's a poor translation, and we can't even be sure that the LXX we have now is the LXX that was originally translated between 250-100 BC. With regards to the book of Daniel, in fact, we can be pretty sure that it's NOT. The Septuagint Daniel is a second century AD retranslation by an Ebionite heretic named Theodotion.
hey Brother Kent,
I haven't corresponded in a while to much in the blogosphere these days but still check up with some of those blogs to which I used to comment/contribute from time to time. I haven't read the article in question yet (even though we linked to it on our KJVO blog, of which I'm a contributor - which shows how out of the loop I've been lately), but I definitely will. I just wanted to comment on the Owens thing. At your prompting, during a conversation we had in a post of mine several months ago, I purchases his Biblical Theology. Personally, I don't think Owen "answers" the Septuagint problem. I was expecting something completely different. But I appreciate the recommendation, and I've enjoyed digging through other parts of the book.
Hi Damien,
Long time, no see. I saw a college friend of yours when I was up in Maine preaching. About the Septuagint question, it's interesting, because I believe he takes care of that problem very nicely. I will cover that in my next post and quote Owen on it. So again, stay tuned, and, of course, you'll judge. Good seeing you you.
Pastor B.
I would also suggest Muller's "Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology" to have available along side his Vol. 2 book. I was swimming through some of that stuff he wrote about, and I drowned.
Hi, Kent. Thanks for the tip on my article and also the forthcoming response.
Just wanted to point out that though variations of text critical arguments appear in the comments, I did not use any argument of that nature in my article. This was intentional because I believe that part of the debate tends to distract from aspects that matter a lot more.
Also, it's true we don't seem to have anybody at SI to argue for your view. That's not intentional. Didn't kick them out or anything. Actually I do know of one--who happens to be a moderator (her view would be very similar to yours, I think). But she prefers to stay out of discussions on the topic.
But you sort of sell Bob Hayton short a bit I think. He has already helped me understand aspects of your view I was not aware of. So bits and pieces of it are there.
Furthermore, I did mention your book as a good place to go and read. And I've got at least one link there to your site, too. So.. trying to be fair.
Looking fwd to your post and if I write a sequel, I'll be sure to link to it.
Kent:
I’d like to take a little different tact in regard to your opening comment, which was, “SharperIron, perhaps the most well-known fundamentalist blog”
And this from Aaron, “Also, it’s true we don’t seem to have anybody at SI to argue for your view. That’s not intentional. Didn’t kick them out or anything.”
Based on SI’s long history of strong promotion of and affinity for the so-called “conservative” evangelical camp, its star personalities and fellowships I would have to say that SI is NOT a Fundamentalist blog. IMO, SI is at best a pseudo-fundamentalist blog.
SI may not have kicked anyone out, but SI has surely has driven many away. SI can’t get anyone to take “your view” on preservation. SI can’t even get a good debate going over Calvinism any longer.
Finally, the fact is that most self-identified Fundamentalists who reject the ce camp and the historic left-lean of SI have long since left SI or never joined in the first place. Proof of SI’s state of decline is that it if it were not for the SI staff, Aaron primarily, posting the lion’s share of thread comments SI would nearly grind to a halt.
FWIW,
LM
Kent:
For the record my preface is for the KJV. I chose to read and study from the KJV because I believe it is the most reliable translation. Second, I do enjoy the language as it is in the KJV. My first Bible, which I bought on my own initiative when I was saved at 23 years of age was the Living Bible. Seemed good to me at the time. Figured it out later.
When I was a missionary on deputation and in furlough meetings, most churches I went to were KJV, not all. Some used the NIV or NASB. Use of a paraphrase would of course be problematic.
I never did react to a non-KJV church by renting my garment and running back down the aisle shrieking “heresy.”
The way I have always handled another man’s or churches use of a non-KJV Bible has been to allow for soul liberty and autonomy of the local church.
LM
I enjoyed looking over your blog
God bless you
Post a Comment