Thomas2007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello,
I've noticed a consistent problem over the past year on this forum regarding discussions on the Biblical texts, it seems to me that two groups with different presuppositions are talking past one another. We are using similar language, but different terms and concepts. The way in which those terms and concepts frame the presuppositional basis of our thinking concerning the textual issues is never really addressed.
I would like to limit this thread, if anyone wishes to partake in it, to defining our terms and not debate. I think the two factions should at least expend some effort in trying to understand one another, and maintain the bonds of brotherhood and fellowship.
It is a longing of my heart to become a better Christian and more consistently Christian in my thinking, attitude and behavior. Certainly, we should presume we all have that common goal to become better servants unto our Lord. It does bother me, however, if my brother is needlessly offended, especially if it is because of my pride, sinfulness and shortcomings, or just ineffective ability to communicate my ideas.
Proverb 18:19 says, "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle."
I would, then, like to ask for forgiveness if my various posts over the past year or so on these issues has offended anyone. I am passionate about this issue, I think my position has merit and I think it is of utmost importance to the Church, but I will attempt to be more irenic and better at explaining myself.
I was disappointed that the previous thread, TR/CT debate - split from White/Ehrman debate thread, was shut down without the opportunity to respond to brother McFadden's last post. As I was reading his post, I got to the second paragraph and read his first sentence and I realized that we really are talking about two completely different ideas.
Brother McFadden said:
After reading that, and after a year of discussing this in various threads, I'm thinking, "How doesn't he understand that this is not what the TR advocates are concerned with?" Well, we are talking about two different things, "inerrancy of the Bible" (CT Position) vs "infallibility of the Bible" (TR Position)
Concerning text critical matters "inerrancy of the Bible" is not what those that hold to the RT position are primarily concerned with. While we certainly desire to maintain faithful and accurate texts, we are not concerned with inerrancy. When we get into discussions about the WCF and what it means, we are not holding "inerrancy of the Bible" presuppositional in our thinking. I think it is important to understand that.
It's my hope that discussing the disparity between these two views can, at least, lead to a settling of contentions. If we disagree, then at least we can disagree understanding why we disagree, and the strife implicit in our various arguments might be able to be settled. I honestly do wish to maintain bonds of fellowship and brotherhood, even if we disagree.
In some research on Google in trying to figure out how to explain this, I found an essay by Dr. Theodore Letis published is the fall of 2004, that does a better job than I could do. While I was familiar with the concepts in this article, I had not seen it before last night. Please understand that his essay is poignant and direct. If you disagree with it and want to debate the merits and demerits of his article, that is fine, please open your own thread, that is not my desire here.
His article was published in the October 2004 issue of Christianity and Society published by the Kuyper Foundation, it is colorfully entitled:
"Don't You Believe in the Inerrancy of the Original Autographs"? or Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife Yet"
I've noticed a consistent problem over the past year on this forum regarding discussions on the Biblical texts, it seems to me that two groups with different presuppositions are talking past one another. We are using similar language, but different terms and concepts. The way in which those terms and concepts frame the presuppositional basis of our thinking concerning the textual issues is never really addressed.
I would like to limit this thread, if anyone wishes to partake in it, to defining our terms and not debate. I think the two factions should at least expend some effort in trying to understand one another, and maintain the bonds of brotherhood and fellowship.
It is a longing of my heart to become a better Christian and more consistently Christian in my thinking, attitude and behavior. Certainly, we should presume we all have that common goal to become better servants unto our Lord. It does bother me, however, if my brother is needlessly offended, especially if it is because of my pride, sinfulness and shortcomings, or just ineffective ability to communicate my ideas.
Proverb 18:19 says, "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle."
I would, then, like to ask for forgiveness if my various posts over the past year or so on these issues has offended anyone. I am passionate about this issue, I think my position has merit and I think it is of utmost importance to the Church, but I will attempt to be more irenic and better at explaining myself.
I was disappointed that the previous thread, TR/CT debate - split from White/Ehrman debate thread, was shut down without the opportunity to respond to brother McFadden's last post. As I was reading his post, I got to the second paragraph and read his first sentence and I realized that we really are talking about two completely different ideas.
Brother McFadden said:
"As an orthodox Christian who holds to the inerrancy of the Bible, I want my English Bible to be based upon the closest thing we can get to the original autographs. The CT and TR crowd are both trying to do that."
After reading that, and after a year of discussing this in various threads, I'm thinking, "How doesn't he understand that this is not what the TR advocates are concerned with?" Well, we are talking about two different things, "inerrancy of the Bible" (CT Position) vs "infallibility of the Bible" (TR Position)
Concerning text critical matters "inerrancy of the Bible" is not what those that hold to the RT position are primarily concerned with. While we certainly desire to maintain faithful and accurate texts, we are not concerned with inerrancy. When we get into discussions about the WCF and what it means, we are not holding "inerrancy of the Bible" presuppositional in our thinking. I think it is important to understand that.
It's my hope that discussing the disparity between these two views can, at least, lead to a settling of contentions. If we disagree, then at least we can disagree understanding why we disagree, and the strife implicit in our various arguments might be able to be settled. I honestly do wish to maintain bonds of fellowship and brotherhood, even if we disagree.
In some research on Google in trying to figure out how to explain this, I found an essay by Dr. Theodore Letis published is the fall of 2004, that does a better job than I could do. While I was familiar with the concepts in this article, I had not seen it before last night. Please understand that his essay is poignant and direct. If you disagree with it and want to debate the merits and demerits of his article, that is fine, please open your own thread, that is not my desire here.
His article was published in the October 2004 issue of Christianity and Society published by the Kuyper Foundation, it is colorfully entitled:
"Don't You Believe in the Inerrancy of the Original Autographs"? or Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife Yet"