Hello JD,

Thanks for your question, I can attempt to do so, although I'm not aware of your present knowledge of the issues. So, I'll just start here:

Our Reformation inheritance is the Received Text. We talk a lot about "What is Reformed Theology?" In so doing we are discussing the interpretations of Scripture and their meaning, but this is all presuppositional upon the question, "Why the Reformation?" We've forgotten this critical question in many ways and it's answer, which is Sola Scriptura. The creedal defense of that doctrine is the Received Text, not the "inerrant original autograph," nor various hypothetical reconstructions out of the whole body of existing manuscripts.

The issue was and still is Authority, the Reformers simply held that Authority didn't inure to the Pontiff, didn't inure to the visible Church, but was, is and always will be in the Word of God. To them, though, this was an identifiable and existing text in use by the Greek speaking Church. The "Received Text" is only a change in the transmission of this text from a handwritten manuscript form to a printed form. It is this text that they identified with the term Sola Scriptura as the physical manifestation of Christ's Prophetic Office given unto us and Providentially preserved for us. Nominally, we only still agree with this presupposition today, but it's been redefined to mean the inerrant original autograph, which we do not have nor has Providence preserved in that form. It's a hypothetical text. As such, Authority has been transferred from the actual words once again to men, the "textual critical" or Scribe as a new priest class. In order for the concept of the Priesthood of the Believer to have meaning in this paradigm it has become necessary for every man to become his own textual critic, or "Priest," as judge over the word of God.

We now have a radical individualism in our Churches because we hold to the uniformity of worship under the Regulative Principle, but we have half dozen or more different texts and translations of Scripture in our Congregations and no Confessional unity. Without Confessional unity we cannot maintain uniformity, and so we splinter and fractionalize all the more, and ultimately it's impossible to bind any man to anything that he doesn't personally define himself since every dispute becomes, at bottom, a translational dispute which is often a cloaked textual dispute.

The historic Reformation creedal and scholastic defense of Sola Scriptura was the Received Text until the 20th century when that was fundamentally altered by BB Warfield and his departure, which everyone has followed, from historic Reformed orthodoxy. This was because science was rising and assaulting Christendom on every front, it was doing so in terms of the Received Text as well, Warfield errantly believed he could stand upon enlightenment ground and defend historic orthodoxy. The concept of a Providentially "preserved" text was altered to mean a Providentially "restored" text in terms of the inerrant original autograph, as a result we have numerous hypothetical texts and translations of those texts that really have never been used by any Christian in history in that form. The propensity of science to utilize society as a sociological test laboratory has simply been brought into the Church as a sociological test laboratory in terms of the Scripture.

The Reformers simply didn’t accept every “obscure private copy…to be admitted as a various lection.” Nor did they accept the opinions of “textual critics,” on the contrary, as Owen explains:

“Let it be remembered, that the vulgar copy we use, was the public possession of many generations; that upon the invention of printing, it was in actual authority throughout the world, with them that used and understood that language….men may, if they please, take pains to inform the world, wherein such and such copies are corrupted or mistaken, but to impose their known failings on us as various lections, is of course not to be approved….[t]he generality of learned men among Protestants are not yet infected with this leaven…And if this change of judgment which hath been long insinuating itself, by the curiosity and boldness of critics, should break in also on the Protestant world, and be avowed in public works, it is easy to conjecture what the end will be. We went from Rome under the conduct of the purity of the originals, I wish none have a mind to return thither again, under the pretence of their corruption.” John Owen, Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture, pg 473 to 477

To the Romanists the Reformation was heresy, for the first sixty years or so they were asking the question, "What is this theology?" When they got their ducks in a row and started asking, "Why is it?" They then developed Trent and set out with the Tridentine attack upon our Authority - Sola Scriptura. This is where the arguments over variants begins and it is a Romanist argument, they simply argued that we can't possibly hold to Sola Scriptura because we can't know for certain what those words are without Papal Authority and Church Tradition. It was about another century before they refined a weapon to combat Sola Scriptura at the hands of Romanist Richard Simon, that is "New Testament Textual Criticism." It was developed upon enlightenment and humanistic grounds and still is standing upon that ground.

It is this ground that Greisbach and Wescott and Hort worked upon and it was BB Warfield that attempted that attempted to straddle the Confessional fence with one foot on either side that established the redefinition of Sola Scriptura as the hypothetical "inerrant original autograph."

The Bible you use is the Bible you have to defend. I stand upon the Authorized Version and I comprehensively defend the Authorized Version. When I do that I end up at 1776 and an alteration of the Westminster Confession that reflects a major change of Authority in terms of historic Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura as it affects continuity between private, religious and public life. When I try to defend every other text I once again end up at 1776 with Griesbach in Germany. So, I look at the fruit of these things, the philosophies behind them, one is the American Revolution and the other is the French.

The Reformers cried "Ad Fontes," they had a controversy of religion; but once they did that and identified their Authority they stood upon it comprehensively for all of life, and worked to bring continuity in terms of life. We are crying "Ad Fontes," but I'm told repeatedly by the textual critics that they've made no fundamental change to the doctrine, what is the purpose for it then? What is the heresy we are trying to correct?

What I do find, as a result, though is a denial of the historic Reformed orthodox definition of Sola Scriptura at the beginning of the 20th century. Since Authority no longer rests in an identified text, it no longer has Authority and it no longer has Authority for all of life, private, religious and public life. In turn, this has resulted in a discontinuity of private, religious and public life; because if the Church isn't going to stand upon this, then neither is the State. Scripture as Authority, even by those that nominally claim Sola Scriptura, has been reduced to a Kantian concept of mental assent - not true Authority that men are subject to.

I believe that this textual battle we are embroiled in today isn't theological, it's political; it's an argument of Authority and for the present Rome has won the Reformed Church back to it's presupposition, and it's done it through the Tridentine plan and weapons it forged, honed and sharpened for that purpose.

While we are told that no fundamental doctrine has been changed, that isn't true, Federal Vision is a good example of the results of textual criticism. The defense mounted against that today is asking "What is Federal Vision?" It's attempting to anathematize it as a departure from Reformed theology, but it rests upon a departure from Sola Scriptura and it can't be answered until we ask and answer "Why Federal Vision?" Everyone is busy dissecting it's soteriology and ecclesiology, but it's doing so in terms of developed creedal doctrines, not in terms of the text. Federal Vision can't stand upon the Received Text, it can only stand upon Rome's text and its hypothetical twins delivered to us through textual criticism. So, we can't defend ourselves against this because the Reformed Church has abandoned the Reformed text from which its doctrines were derived, and the march back to Rome has been accelerated, as it's already won the civil realm and now it is restoring the ecclesiastical.

Anyway, we can go into much more detail and discuss this at more length if you like, but this should help you understand my points a little more.

Cordially,

Thomas

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana