CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi:
I have not listened to the debate, but I plan on doing so. What troubles me about this is that Dr. White is standing within the same "tradition" of textual criticism as that of Dr. Ehrman. Dr. White's commitment to Calvinism forces him to be inconsistent with the teachings of the Critical Text. From the little I have read so far on the debate I will give an example:
Dr. Ehrman's view is that since there are textual varients in the MSS of the NT, then God must not have inspired the NT (or the OT for that matter).
Dr. White challenges this idea by questioning Dr. Ehrman that if such is the case, then if the Koran has varients in it, is it misquoting Muhammed?
From Dr. Ehrman's perspective the answer is "yes." Such an answer undermines the inspiration of the NT because the NT is now looked upon as any other human written document - such as the Koran. Though Dr. Ehrman was unwilling to reply to this challenge: one asks what would be an adequate response within the Critical Text tradition that could answer the point?
To make this less obtuse: Since, in the mind of Dr. Ehrman, textual varients render any writing: Muhammed, Plato, Aristotle, the Bible etc, to the level of a human work, then we can conclude that the Bible is not inspired by God. Though Warfield would not subscribe to such a view - this is definitely the leaning of the Alands, Metzger, and Dr. Ehrman.
(The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs.)
The "modern conservative" (Dr. White) view that accepts the CT as the inspired Word of the Living God has to baulk at the Orthodox view of Providential Preservation. Because then they would have to admit that the TR is the Providentially Preserved MSS, and that their (CT) collation of the Greek Text was never known throughout Church History. Consequently, the CT is not a Providentially preserved MSS, but a colocation done based on certain philosophical principles of the 19th Century. These principles are Liberal in nature, and they naturally lead to the conclusions that Dr. Ehrman has come to believe and advocate.
Dr. White's "inconsistency" in applying Biblical and Reformed theology to the principles of textual criticism opens the door of unbelief to the unwary who may equate CT principles as orthodoxy. The Westminster Confession, and, if I am not mistaken, the 1689 Baptist Confession, gives clear testimony as to the Orthodox position:
Consequently, the atheism of Dr. Ehrman is substantiated rather than diminished. Dr. White's inconsistency would deny that such is the case, but given the principles of textual criticism that he holds to one cannot deny the logical conclusions in this inconsistency.
Thus, I am troubled...
Blessings,
Rob
I have not listened to the debate, but I plan on doing so. What troubles me about this is that Dr. White is standing within the same "tradition" of textual criticism as that of Dr. Ehrman. Dr. White's commitment to Calvinism forces him to be inconsistent with the teachings of the Critical Text. From the little I have read so far on the debate I will give an example:
Dr. Ehrman's view is that since there are textual varients in the MSS of the NT, then God must not have inspired the NT (or the OT for that matter).
Dr. White challenges this idea by questioning Dr. Ehrman that if such is the case, then if the Koran has varients in it, is it misquoting Muhammed?
From Dr. Ehrman's perspective the answer is "yes." Such an answer undermines the inspiration of the NT because the NT is now looked upon as any other human written document - such as the Koran. Though Dr. Ehrman was unwilling to reply to this challenge: one asks what would be an adequate response within the Critical Text tradition that could answer the point?
To make this less obtuse: Since, in the mind of Dr. Ehrman, textual varients render any writing: Muhammed, Plato, Aristotle, the Bible etc, to the level of a human work, then we can conclude that the Bible is not inspired by God. Though Warfield would not subscribe to such a view - this is definitely the leaning of the Alands, Metzger, and Dr. Ehrman.
(The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs.)
The "modern conservative" (Dr. White) view that accepts the CT as the inspired Word of the Living God has to baulk at the Orthodox view of Providential Preservation. Because then they would have to admit that the TR is the Providentially Preserved MSS, and that their (CT) collation of the Greek Text was never known throughout Church History. Consequently, the CT is not a Providentially preserved MSS, but a colocation done based on certain philosophical principles of the 19th Century. These principles are Liberal in nature, and they naturally lead to the conclusions that Dr. Ehrman has come to believe and advocate.
Dr. White's "inconsistency" in applying Biblical and Reformed theology to the principles of textual criticism opens the door of unbelief to the unwary who may equate CT principles as orthodoxy. The Westminster Confession, and, if I am not mistaken, the 1689 Baptist Confession, gives clear testimony as to the Orthodox position:
By creating a "new Greek text" which was entirely unknown by the Church through the ages - the Biblical and Orthodox teachings are undermined.The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them, Ch. 1, Sect. 8.
Consequently, the atheism of Dr. Ehrman is substantiated rather than diminished. Dr. White's inconsistency would deny that such is the case, but given the principles of textual criticism that he holds to one cannot deny the logical conclusions in this inconsistency.
Thus, I am troubled...
Blessings,
Rob
Last edited: