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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
It is far from a distraction since Lane wrote "His quotation of Matthew 5:18 in support of his position is a gross twisting of Scripture." I do not have the book so I have refrained from discussing his review but I could not allow this point to stand without a response.

Perhaps the book is as terrible as he says, but this is an ugly review.

In relation to the entire review, it is a relatively minor point. If we were to omit that section entirely, it would make little difference to the substance of Lane's review. To be truthful, I agree with Lane that appealing to Matthew 5:18 to justify the exclusive claims of the TR is a misinterpretation of scripture. Still, as I have said a couple of times already, I do believe that we may appeal to that verse to justify the concept of providential preservation. I think that Lane's case would have been stronger if he had confined his remarks regarding Rev. McCurley's use of Matthew 5:18 to support what Lane sees as his overly narrow view of providential preservation.
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
How can you assess a review without looking at the book?
As I said this point required a rejoinder. And the review loses its credibility not merely because of one point but because he has been corrected on it and refuses to acknowledge the inflammatory and misleading language.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Moderating. Both sides have done the "he said that and therefore nothing else he's said I'm listening to". That's fallacious on either side. At least some authors of the book have lamented the "satan's bible" and separatistic tone of the book in which their chapters appeared. Has the pro review side been as willing to lament the tone of Lane's review which he himself owns was written in anger,? So, how do we move off the outrage over missteps on either side that are not the main point and address actual arguments? Ponder that and act accordingly; otherwise, this is going nowhere In my humble opinion.
 

retroGRAD3

Puritan Board Junior
So much pearl clutching going on. If you all have a refutation of what was written, now would be the time to state it. If all that can be done is get offended, then perhaps the points Lane made are completely valid/on target?
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Pausing. Unpausing. Sorry folks. Fell asleep. Let's all move beyond the way some things have been said; otherwise, the end result is it shuts down the discussion of the arguments.
 
Last edited:

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
There's a lot of good discussion about Matthew 5:18 as a proof text for providential preservation in this thread: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...vidential-preservation-of-tr-tradition.97375/

I thought this was helpful to the discussion: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ion-of-tr-tradition.97375/page-6#post-1190510

A similar analog to Matthew 5:18 being the proof text for the relevant portion of WCF 1:7 is that Matthew 6:11 is the proof text for daily family worship. I don't think this is primarily what the Lord is teaching us in by "give us this day our daily bread" but it certainly applies in a spiritual sense, and taken together with what is being hung on this doctrine it makes sense to reflect on this if you want a single verse.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
As I said this point required a rejoinder. And the review loses its credibility not merely because of one point but because he has been corrected on it and refuses to acknowledge the inflammatory and misleading language.
Since you have panned the entire review as "ugly" (ironically an ugly thing to say), I don't think any backtracking on my part would alter your opinion of it. You would find some other reason to reject the whole without addressing the substance of the misrepresentations, lack of nuance, untruths, etc. Never mind that such is illogical.

As I said in a previous post, this review was supposed to act in part like a mirror. Non-TR folk have not exactly been treated well by the strong/extreme TR crowd for quite some time (and the rhetoric from the strong/extreme TR crowd dwarfs anything I said in the review by miles and for decades). But by all means ignore the log in the TR eye in your quest to seek for the speck in the non-TR eye. I could just as easily reply that your failure to note the problems in the TR position makes your panning of my review lose its credibility.
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Senior
Hey if we keep having "fun" topics like this my post count will be up there with you soon.
Alas, even as a 12-year member (granted, I took about a 5 year hiatus), I still need 29 more posts just to reach the mere rank of Senior... So I'm always glad to glom onto posts like yours to eek out one more irrelevant posting in my painstaking quest for greater PB status, and eventual internet immortality...
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Since you have panned the entire review as "ugly" (ironically an ugly thing to say), I don't think any backtracking on my part would alter your opinion of it. You would find some other reason to reject the whole without addressing the substance of the misrepresentations, lack of nuance, untruths, etc. Never mind that such is illogical.

As I said in a previous post, this review was supposed to act in part like a mirror. Non-TR folk have not exactly been treated well by the strong/extreme TR crowd for quite some time (and the rhetoric from the strong/extreme TR crowd dwarfs anything I said in the review by miles and for decades). But by all means ignore the log in the TR eye in your quest to seek for the speck in the non-TR eye. I could just as easily reply that your failure to note the problems in the TR position makes your panning of my review lose its credibility.
As you note in your initial post, we ought not to lump everyone in one basket simply they have similar or even identical concerns or convictions. Do you even know what my convictions are?

For the record, I am a strong TR-advocate and I think the position is defensible but I am not the man for the job. Moreover, I have not read the book so I am no place to agree with you about your criticism in substance but in manner, especially due to your gross overstatement concerning Matthew 5:18 with respect to Mr. McCurley's engagement of it in his argument. Nor did I wish to get involved in this issue but, in my opinion, you have crossed a line in the tone of your post. Now that you refuse to draw back I think I am entirely justified in reacting the way that I did. It was not just what you wrote that provoked me but your continual defense of it in light of how it been falsified (or at least undermined).

Perhaps I should have clarified but in case there is any misinterpretation I think your review is ugly in spirit, not in logic.

Am I not allowed to engage some of your words without engaging all? There is no moral or logical requirement for me to engage in every aspect of your review. I am convicted, however, that men whom I take to be in good standing in the church should be defended against misrepresentations and wild accusations (though, again, not their convictions).

Personally, I have always found you to be a reasonable person in all of your interactions. I can also understand how your buttons might be pushed and you thought a strongly worded response was necessary. And I have no problem with strong opinions but not when they veer into this kind of territory. Be a better or bigger man, amend the post, and let it stand or fall on its own merits without the rhetoric.
 
Last edited:

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
I can also understand how your buttons might be pushed and you thought a strongly worded response was necessary.
Does this constitute an acknowledgement of the many problems in how TR advocates have expressed themselves? Just to be clear, it is my opinion (being on the receiving end of this for years now) that TR misrepresentation, distortion, etc. far outdoes anything I've said. With the measure you use, etc. from the Sermon on the Mount. If it is your considered opinion that I have crossed the line, it is my opinion that TR advocates have crossed the line thousands of times, and with far more heated rhetoric. If you are acknowledging this, then I am content to modify that part of the review. It could be stated more accurately.
 

MarrowMan

Puritan Board Freshman
Does this constitute an acknowledgement of the many problems in how TR advocates have expressed themselves? Just to be clear, it is my opinion (being on the receiving end of this for years now) that TR misrepresentation, distortion, etc. far outdoes anything I've said. With the measure you use, etc. from the Sermon on the Mount. If it is your considered opinion that I have crossed the line, it is my opinion that TR advocates have crossed the line thousands of times, and with far more heated rhetoric. If you are acknowledging this, then I am content to modify that part of the review. It could be stated more accurately.
While I share your sentiment concerning the absurd polemic from many on the TR, I'd encourage you to edit some of your more problematic word choices. There is little to be gained in a back and forth over word choice while the substance is ignored. It perpetuates the cycle. Break the cycle. Yes, the most bombastic are often the most thin-skinned, but that reality isn't germane to discussing the actual substance of the review and being satisfied with hollow acknowledgements runs the risk of being seen as petty.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
Lane, I would recommend dropping the point about Matthew 5:18. When I first read the review, I knew that people would run with this point because the WCF uses that verse as a proof-text for providential preservation. (Yes, I know providential preservation does not equate with the TR, but I presume that you get my point.)
 

Knight

Puritan Board Freshman
Certainty is, I believe, a common idol among TR advocates. If there isn't 100% certainty, then we don't have God's Word. One of his criticisms of the CT is that “there are many uncertainties in the Critical Text” (p. 121).

Hi, Rev. Keister. If I can just single out this statement of yours from the original review, I get that the following is fallacious: "If there isn't 100% certainty, then we don't have God's Word." That is, no one has to become a capable apologete, theologian, or philosopher before one has God's word.

On the other hand, suppose we reformulate the statement: "If there isn't 100% certainty, then we don't [know that we] have God's Word." Let's set aside that "knowledge" can have a range of meanings and focus on just this meaning (which is not clearly fallacious, even if it turns out to be unsound).

That is, do you think that epistemic certainty is not a worthy goal? Is epistemic certainty unobtainable in this domain? Is this one difference between what a TR-advocate would claim about providential preservation and what you would claim? Thank you.



As an aside: most of this thread has been a chore to read (for me, at least). As an interested observer, is there anyone who is willing to attempt a rebuttal of the substance of the original post?
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Does this constitute an acknowledgement of the many problems in how TR advocates have expressed themselves? Just to be clear, it is my opinion (being on the receiving end of this for years now) that TR misrepresentation, distortion, etc. far outdoes anything I've said. With the measure you use, etc. from the Sermon on the Mount. If it is your considered opinion that I have crossed the line, it is my opinion that TR advocates have crossed the line thousands of times, and with far more heated rhetoric. If you are acknowledging this, then I am content to modify that part of the review. It could be stated more accurately.
No. Though I am certain, human nature being what it is, that many TR advocates have expressed themselves inappropriately and perhaps as often as you claim. But I have not engaged much if any in these threads in the past or other online discussion. Most of my convictions come from literature so I am not in a place to own (or own up to) anything from those who share my convictions. I do not represent anyone here but myself.

Forgive me if it feels as if I am picking on you (and just so there are no misunderstandings I say that sincerely and not sarcastically) but I am simply responding in the context of this thread which you started. As such, I would rather that you modify your review because of a spirit wrought conviction, than one that requires some redress from others before your own. And, as an expression of true contriteness, I believe we would all gain good from it, regardless of how others respond.

However, your statements do cause me to consider how much my convictions may cause me to overlook such rhetoric from those who hold to the same convictions as I, in which case I should be more sensitive to it in the future.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
While I share your sentiment concerning the absurd polemic from many on the TR, I'd encourage you to edit some of your more problematic word choices. There is little to be gained in a back and forth over word choice while the substance is ignored. It perpetuates the cycle. Break the cycle. Yes, the most bombastic are often the most thin-skinned, but that reality isn't germane to discussing the actual substance of the review and being satisfied with hollow acknowledgements runs the risk of being seen as petty.
While I don't exactly see a "cycle" going on here (generally speaking, it is decidedly one-sided), my critique of McCurley still points out plenty of real problems without the Mt 5:18 point. I still believe that text is NOT talking about providential preservation, let alone being a prophecy of the TR fifteen centuries before its existence, as some seem to think.
Lane, I would recommend dropping the point about Matthew 5:18. When I first read the review, I knew that people would run with this point because the WCF uses that verse as a proof-text for providential preservation. (Yes, I know providential preservation does not equate with the TR, but I presume that you get my point.)
I have done so.
Hi, Rev. Keister. If I can just single out this statement of yours from the original review, I get that the following is fallacious: "If there isn't 100% certainty, then we don't have God's Word." That is, no one has to become a capable apologete, theologian, or philosopher before one has God's word.

On the other hand, suppose we reformulate the statement: "If there isn't 100% certainty, then we don't [know that we] have God's Word." Let's set aside that "knowledge" can have a range of meanings and focus on just this meaning (which is not clearly fallacious, even if it turns out to be unsound).

That is, do you think that epistemic certainty is not a worthy goal? Is epistemic certainty unobtainable in this domain? Is this one difference between what a TR-advocate would claim about providential preservation and what you would claim? Thank you.



As an aside: most of this thread has been a chore to read (for me, at least). As an interested observer, is there anyone who is willing to attempt a rebuttal of the substance of the original post?
We have certainty that God's Word is in the apographs. We don't need certainty in a particular manuscript or edition. God's Word says NOTHING about having certainty in a particular edition of the Greek NT. The main difference here is that the TR proponents say that we have epistemic certainty in a particular edition, and in a particular, narrow set of manuscripts.

No. Though I am certain, human nature being what it is, that many TR advocates have expressed themselves inappropriately and perhaps as often as you claim. But I have not engaged much if any in these threads in the past or other online discussion. Most of my convictions come from literature so I am not in a place to own (or own up to) anything from those who share my convictions. I do not represent anyone here but myself.

Forgive me if it feels as if I am picking on you (and just so there are no misunderstandings I say that sincerely and not sarcastically) but I am simply responding in the context of this thread which you started. As such, I would rather that you modify your review because of a spirit wrought conviction, than one that requires some redress from others before your own. And, as an expression of true contriteness, I believe we would all gain good from it, regardless of how others respond.

However, your statements do cause me to consider how much my convictions may cause me to overlook such rhetoric from those who hold to the same convictions as I, in which case I should be more sensitive to it in the future.
Fair enough, but by the same token, then, you cannot regard my comments about crossing the line as being primarily addressed to you. If I can put a sliver of self-reflection and self-awareness into the TR camp by my review, then it will have been worthwhile. I have seen precious little of it in the past.
 

Knight

Puritan Board Freshman
We have certainty that God's Word is in the apographs. We don't need certainty in a particular manuscript or edition. God's Word says NOTHING about having certainty in a particular edition of the Greek NT. The main difference here is that the TR proponents say that we have epistemic certainty in a particular edition, and in a particular, narrow set of manuscripts.

In the case of significant textual variants - variants that affect the meaning of a verse or passage - then, you would say that we can be certain God's word is preserved as one of those variants, right? Would you also say we can pinpoint with epistemic certainty which variant is God's word? If so, can you explain or point me to where your position would outline how this can be done?
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Fair enough, but by the same token, then, you cannot regard my comments about crossing the line as being primarily addressed to you. If I can put a sliver of self-reflection and self-awareness into the TR camp by my review, then it will have been worthwhile. I have seen precious little of it in the past.
I don't and I thought that was clear. By speaking of representing myself I only meant in terms of speaking for a certain group, not for standing up for others whom I deem to be misrepresented. I matter not. You were criticising others, and I said that you should not do so in that manner.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
Let me just make a general observation here. TR folk are blowing up at me wanting me to be winsome. The irony in the thread should be obvious. But I will go on to say that I know of no sector of the Christian world that has been less winsome in its presentation in general than the TR position (strong/extreme) has been. On many occasions, the behavior has been palpably un-Christian towards their brothers and sisters in Christ, accusing them of Satanic affiliation, liberalism, unbelief in God's providence, being uncaring of God's Word, slaves of WH, subtracting from Scripture (usually intentionally), and many other hate-filled accusations. At least, they sure feel hateful to those on the receiving end. So blowing up at me while not seeing these problems on your side of things has a name, and I will leave you to come up with that name. Some of you do see these problems, and I am grateful for it. But if you really truly think that the things I said are as problematic as the above accusations, then there is also a severe lack of discernment.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
In the case of significant textual variants - variants that affect the meaning of a verse or passage - then, you would say that we can be certain God's word is preserved as one of those variants, right? Would you also say we can pinpoint with epistemic certainty which variant is God's word? If so, can you explain or point me to where your position would outline how this can be done?
Yes, God's Word is one of the variants. In most cases we can pinpoint which variant, though there will still be some disagreement about it. How to find that variant is a long and complicated process that has many moving parts. I have explained it in other threads, which I recommend to you.
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Let me just make a general observation here. TR folk are blowing up at me wanting me to be winsome. The irony in the thread should be obvious. But I will go on to say that I know of no sector of the Christian world that has been less winsome in its presentation in general than the TR position (strong/extreme) has been. On many occasions, the behavior has been palpably un-Christian towards their brothers and sisters in Christ, accusing them of Satanic affiliation, liberalism, unbelief in God's providence, being uncaring of God's Word, slaves of WH, subtracting from Scripture (usually intentionally), and many other hate-filled accusations. At least, they sure feel hateful to those on the receiving end. So blowing up at me while not seeing these problems on your side of things has a name, and I will leave you to come up with that name. Some of you do see these problems, and I am grateful for it. But if you really truly think that the things I said are as problematic as the above accusations, then there is also a severe lack of discernment.
One of the PB moderators, someone who like yourself I take to be a voice of reason, and in fact the first one to respond critically to your post, said your review was severe. But I see that as something different than calling for winsomeness, which I generally deride.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
One of the PB moderators, someone who like yourself I take to be a voice of reason, and in fact the first one to respond critically to your post, said your review was severe. But I see that as something different than calling for winsomeness, which I generally deride.
Pretty sure this is missing my point. Whether you want to call it my stopping being "ugly in spirit" or "being more winsome," the former being a phrase you did use, and the latter merely being my paraphrase of what you meant, people have been calling for my being more winsome when understood in that way. It seems pedantic at this point to introduce a distinction between "being more winsome" in the way I was talking about versus "being more winsome" in the way you deride. May I ask if you are deriding my call for the TR position to be more winsome?
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Professor
I hope we can settle this serious dispute amicably – and we ought to be, as we all acknowledge the word and Spirit of our King as our law and standard of conduct.

Lane has good and important – crucial! – points to make when he says that condemning any of our Bibles as satanic, or delegitimizing their status as authentic Bibles within the context of Puritan Board – whose members use a variety of Bible versions, and some under the derogatory labels just mentioned – should be forbidden as divisive and destructive of the unique Reformed community we are. The same forbiddance would – or could – apply to local churches whose members use similar varieties of versions, that their “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3) not be broken.

As a serious and vigorous TR proponent this makes God-honoring sense to me, for if this “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” is not kept we will be a divided house which will not stand. There is a command that supersedes all the others – given sincere godliness – and that is, “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you” (John 15:13).

And as I am defending Lane in saying this, let me go back to Ephesians 4 and also cite from Eph 4:1, 2: that we walk worthy of the calling to which we are called, “With all lowliness (humility) and meekness (gentleness), with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love”.

For two years Lane has felt the oppression of a condemning spirit from the “strong” and “extreme” CBTR sectors – both as a churchman, and as an admin here – and the publication of a book, in parts, supporting this oppression, well, just sort of snapped something, like the straw that broke the camel’s back. Even so, Eph 4:2 is our law from the King. I do not believe any of the authors deliberately and knowingly lied – per Lane’s charge – and being self-deceived and/or mistaken is quite a different thing.

Even were these authors instead Muslim captors and guards mistreating him and his fellow prisoners, our marching orders are, to “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matt 5:44). I would say – as perhaps the eldest among us, not in wisdom or experience, but simply years (at 80) – that forgiveness ought to be asked of those defamed as liars, when the judgment of charity would say “mistaken”.

I have not always been, in Lane’s terminology, a “moderate” TR/AV sort. Perhaps 12, 13 years ago here, in a discussion regarding confessional adherence to the WCF at 1.8, pastor Fred Greco said to me, in effect, “If I, in good conscience and careful scholarship before my Lord, have a view of preservation different than yours, am I to be condemned as ‘unconfessional?’ ” Well, that powerfully affected me and raised my awareness, for I am not the lord over any man’s sincere and godly conscience. And in the years following the Lord has continued to work on my heart.

Pastoring in churches where a variety of versions are used, my focus was not to require adherence to my views, but to build up the faith, understanding, and Christ-likeness of my brethren. Yes, I taught what I thought sound – in the area of textual criticism – but did not require it. There was a freedom of conscience in such matters.

Yes, if there is a local church that believes this matter may be pretty much required of its membership – whatever version is in question – that is that church’s business before the Lord. There are many such churches. But not my church, where varying versions are used. My approach to this is well known here. Being here at PB has somewhat civilized me, being among gracious and godly men and women. I desire to see this community thrive, and it will only be done if we abide in the word of the Lord.

I love this PB community, and so does our King – may You work in our hearts, Lord, such as is pleasing to you.
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Pretty sure this is missing my point. Whether you want to call it my stopping being "ugly in spirit" or "being more winsome," the former being a phrase you did use, and the latter merely being my paraphrase of what you meant, people have been calling for my being more winsome when understood in that way. It seems pedantic at this point to introduce a distinction between "being more winsome" in the way I was talking about versus "being more winsome" in the way you deride. May I ask if you are deriding my call for the TR position to be more winsome?
Yes and I stand by that phrase. I used a strong word that fits the severe nature of your review. The call to "winsomeness" I deride because it often means do not say things that hurt other people's feelings or "offend" others so perhaps we understand it differently.

To the question, a straight up no because, it seems to me that, I have no right to do so.
 

Knight

Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, God's Word is one of the variants. In most cases we can pinpoint which variant, though there will still be some disagreement about it. How to find that variant is a long and complicated process that has many moving parts. I have explained it in other threads, which I recommend to you.

Can you point me to something a bit more specific? One other statement in your review - "I would question whether absolute certainty is something God intended for us to have in textual criticism. In my opinion, if God had wanted us to have that level of certainty, He would have preserved the actual autographs themselves." - gave me the impression that you believed we could not have such epistemic certainty from apographs.
 

Jeri Tanner

Administrator
Staff member
Rev. Keister, in your review of Rob McCurley's essay, you said,

"Overblown rhetoric characterizes this chapter as well. Saying 'Likewise, the believer does not depend upon unbelieving methodology, nor may he employ the world's depraved assumptions in grappling with textual questions (p. 145). It's obviously a bad thing modern confessionally Reformed text critics of any non-TR position employ the 'world's depraved assumptions' in doing their work. I question this statement's charity, truthfulness, and even sanity."

I wanted to go ahead and interact with this, so I read Pastor McCurley's essay (just got the book yesterday).

The essay is titled "Scripture Identifies Scripture." Pastor McCurley fleshes out this title in the 5th paragraph of the essay. In this essay I see assertions and beliefs expressed which, if held with conviction, do have ramifications and consequences, and will lead to decided views on courses of action. They are logical, whether one agrees with his take on the main assertion expressed in the title, and with his beliefs and convictions surrounding it, or not. I did not see overblown rhetoric, but did see firm language, based on a real and present danger if Pastor McCurley is correct in his views. For context, I thought I'd briefly sum up the paragraphs preceding it.

The first paragraph comments on how Satan has attacked God's word from the beginning ("Yea hath God said...?") and that nothing has changed since that day. He notes that 4,000 years later, Paul was still warning the Corinthians, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3).

The second paragraph describes Satan's limited arsenal for assailing the Scriptures: limiting physical access to them, tempting men to turn away their hearts and minds from the truths of Scripture, and undermining men's confidence in the Scripture. "Given these varied assaults, we are warned to watch, to stand, and to resist."

The third paragraph describes Rev. McCurley's growing up like so many, with multiple translations in use in his home and church, but with no one to furnish the reasons or provide tools and resources to decipher and assess.

In the fourth paragraph he comments on his practice now, a few decades later: "I have served Christ in the gospel ministry for over 20 years. In my personal studies, our family worship, and in all aspects of my pastoral ministry, I confine myself to the Received Test in the original languages and to the English language translation based on that text, known as the Authorized (KJV) Version. This present volume seeks to supply an answer to the question: Why?"

In the fifth paragraph he gives his answer; this supplies the quote above from Lane in its context:

"What then is the answer? I preach from the Received Text out of personal conviction and commitment to biblical principle. I believe that the scriptures identify the text of Scripture. God alone supplies his word, specifies his word, and sustains his word. And he reveals that to us in the Bible. We ought to answer questions about the text and translation of Scripture based on the Bible itself. God has not left the church to the whim of computer geeks who must develop software and run algorithms in order to inform us what text should be included in our Bibles. Likewise, the believer does not depend upon unbelieving methodology, nor may he employ the world's depraved assumptions in grappling with textual questions regarding God's word. We must look to the Lord and turn to our Bibles on matters of such enormous magnitude. The church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth, must receive the word that God provides."

These aren't words of overblown rhetoric in my opinion but rather is direct talk from a pastor's conviction that we must derive our doctrine of the preservation and purity of Scripture from Scripture itself; and that he sees the Bible's teaching to be such that we can know we have that preserved and pure Word in the RT. Yes, they are scathing words; but if he is correct in his doctrinal approach, then worldly methodologies and assumptions are indeed at work in the CT field, and 'depraved' is the strong, but accurate, definition of worldly things touching those things that are holy. I am sure we all admire stalwarts of the past who spoke so against threats to the church; so even if you don't believe Pastor McCurley is correct in his take, you can take into account that he is speaking in that admired vein, and charity "believing all things" will compel you to take mildly those descriptions and not apply them to yourselves.

My time is so limited to engage and I am so slow! I will have to leave it here as far as interacting with the review.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
Jeri, are you seriously going to defend his rhetoric after bulldozing me for my far milder rhetoric? That is unbelievably offensive. You can't possibly interpret my rhetoric in the same vein as your pastor's, can you? I would like to know how "depraved" in describing the approach of Warfield, and the vast majority of today's Reformed scholars is ONE WHIT less objectionable than the Satan's Bible comment. I assure, to me, it is not. And not all your attempts to excuse it will move me one iota on that. You are demonstrating the exact tone-deafness I am trying to point out. You seem to think that any rhetoric is acceptable if the position is correct, but my rhetoric is unacceptable even if I am correct. But you can't see how uneven this playing field is?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top