Very good points on both sides thank you for doing this! I fall somewhere between you brothers on the issue, but this debate has given me more avenues to approach the issue. God bless!
I think Daniel did a very good job here. I appreciated the debate. I agree we need to be honest about the history of the text. To me, the received or traditional text position seems like special pleading to avoid the historical evidence that we have. I don’t understand the point that many traditional text advocates make that the work Erasmus did does not generally correspond with the work that modern textual scholars are doing or that we don’t know how Erasmus may have handled the breadth of textual evidence that we have now. If he had it, I think it’s quite clear that he would have used it, at the very least to some degree. It’s concerning to me that we would reject as evidence manuscripts in the original Greek that are some of the earliest we have.
It's Academy editors (i.e. NA/UBS, Germany) who will drive text decisions that will surface in the upcoming NA29, UBS6, the CBGM and the ECM. These publications will then furnish the text for the next "new and better modern Bible". Their website states: “the existing text required extensive modification” that will result in a “hypothetical reconstruction” of the wordings as they existed." This is terrible. Yet this "is" the text presupposition the Academy brings to the table per their Critical Text methods. Sean Cheetham argues a presuppositional that is the opposite of "hypothetical reconstruction"; it's what the Framers of the WCF and 2 LBCF simply meant in Ch 1:8... no need for gymnastics or enlightenment light here. Yet, we little if ever hear Evangelical/Reformed apologists or Professors who hold to the Critical Text deal with the CT worldview that's driving that school. I find that staggering on such an important subject. While I don't question motives or even reach of scope, I do wonder if the silence is perhaps so loud because good men (perhaps unaware of the fountainhead) could not make a defence of such a presupposition / worldview that's so contra-Bible? Sola Scriptura!
Not necessarily. Look at Erasmus. He had views of scripture that we as conservative confessional Christians would recoil at (read Beyond What Is Written). But it certainly helps to. My view (Daniel) may not reflect that of my cohost or the other PB team members.
Daniel Vincent contends at some length that TR advocates "misapply" (not sure if that was his exact wording) Van Til's presuppositional grid to the sacred text and reminds us to articulate history with accuracy. Fair enough. However, Dr. Jeff Riddle (Stylos at www.jeffriddle.net/2020/10/was-mature-van-til-tr-onlyist.html) notes that Christian McShaffrey recently brought to light some historic fact that, later in life, Van Til embraced the text position of Dr. Edward F. Hills (a noted/credentialed Text Critic and TR advocate and, interestingly, a student of Van Til) as consistent with his own presuppositional apologetic method. You can read about this here: www.fivesolas.church/cornelius-van-til-and-the-textus-receptus
(This is Daniel) Thank you for your response. I actually address this from the perspective of K. Scott Oliphant who was a student of Van Til in his later years and editor of the Fourth Edition of Van Tils book "The Defense of the Faith". My thoughts are here and Sean's is the post previous this. theparticularbaptist.net/2020/10/11/thoughts-on-the-textus-receptus-a-critical-text-view/ Thanks!
@@TheParticularBaptist The link above leads only to a lengthy admission that Van Til did not mention a specific Greek text while upholding the authority of scripture. The reasons then offered for rejecting Rushdoony’s testimony are rather weak: Reason 1: Van Til did not recant - Why would he when he had not even endorsed a text? Should we expect a man publicly to re-cant something that he never did chant in the first place? Reason 2: “The Defense of the Faith” is still printed as representing Van Til’s methodology - Why should this matter? The debate is not over his methodology, but which conclusions are most consistent with it. Reason 3: Oliphant knew Van Til and did not mention the “alleged key shift” in his philosophy - Argumentum ex silentio: a conclusion based on the absence of any positive statement. This also confuses, once again, Van Til’s general methodology with specific applications of it. No “key shift” of presuppositional philosophy is required to conclude that the TR is authentic. Here is the bottom line, brothers: Rushdoony made a positive public statement that Van Til changed his mind on this one application of his apologetic method and Oliphant makes no positive statement (public or private) to the contrary. This does not establish the matter according to biblical law (Deut. 19:15), so can anyone summon an *actual witness* to prove or disprove Rushdoony’s claim?
@@TheParticularBaptist yeah. I was shocked when I saw him on Michael lofton channel. Reason and theology comedy hour pastor Anderson. That was not funny !
Very good points on both sides thank you for doing this! I fall somewhere between you brothers on the issue, but this debate has given me more avenues to approach the issue. God bless!
Thanks for this good and charitable debate between both these brothers; and good moderating!
(this is Daniel) glad you enjoyed it!
I think Daniel did a very good job here. I appreciated the debate. I agree we need to be honest about the history of the text. To me, the received or traditional text position seems like special pleading to avoid the historical evidence that we have. I don’t understand the point that many traditional text advocates make that the work Erasmus did does not generally correspond with the work that modern textual scholars are doing or that we don’t know how Erasmus may have handled the breadth of textual evidence that we have now. If he had it, I think it’s quite clear that he would have used it, at the very least to some degree. It’s concerning to me that we would reject as evidence manuscripts in the original Greek that are some of the earliest we have.
It's Academy editors (i.e. NA/UBS, Germany) who will drive text decisions that will surface in the upcoming NA29, UBS6, the CBGM and the ECM. These publications will then furnish the text for the next "new and better modern Bible". Their website states: “the existing text required extensive modification” that will result in a “hypothetical reconstruction” of the wordings as they existed." This is terrible. Yet this "is" the text presupposition the Academy brings to the table per their Critical Text methods.
Sean Cheetham argues a presuppositional that is the opposite of "hypothetical reconstruction"; it's what the Framers of the WCF and 2 LBCF simply meant in Ch 1:8... no need for gymnastics or enlightenment light here.
Yet, we little if ever hear Evangelical/Reformed apologists or Professors who hold to the Critical Text deal with the CT worldview that's driving that school. I find that staggering on such an important subject. While I don't question motives or even reach of scope, I do wonder if the silence is perhaps so loud because good men (perhaps unaware of the fountainhead) could not make a defence of such a presupposition / worldview that's so contra-Bible?
Sola Scriptura!
Should not christians hold that translations and text critical work should be made by people that has the correct (christian) presuppositions?
Not necessarily. Look at Erasmus. He had views of scripture that we as conservative confessional Christians would recoil at (read Beyond What Is Written). But it certainly helps to. My view (Daniel) may not reflect that of my cohost or the other PB team members.
@@TheParticularBaptist Ok, but did not Erasmus believe in the doctrine of preservation?
Daniel Vincent contends at some length that TR advocates "misapply" (not sure if that was his exact wording) Van Til's presuppositional grid to the sacred text and reminds us to articulate history with accuracy. Fair enough. However, Dr. Jeff Riddle (Stylos at www.jeffriddle.net/2020/10/was-mature-van-til-tr-onlyist.html) notes that Christian McShaffrey recently brought to light some historic fact that, later in life, Van Til embraced the text position of Dr. Edward F. Hills (a noted/credentialed Text Critic and TR advocate and, interestingly, a student of Van Til) as consistent with his own presuppositional apologetic method. You can read about this here: www.fivesolas.church/cornelius-van-til-and-the-textus-receptus
(This is Daniel) Thank you for your response. I actually address this from the perspective of K. Scott Oliphant who was a student of Van Til in his later years and editor of the Fourth Edition of Van Tils book "The Defense of the Faith". My thoughts are here and Sean's is the post previous this. theparticularbaptist.net/2020/10/11/thoughts-on-the-textus-receptus-a-critical-text-view/
Thanks!
@@TheParticularBaptist The link above leads only to a lengthy admission that Van Til did not mention a specific Greek text while upholding the authority of scripture.
The reasons then offered for rejecting Rushdoony’s testimony are rather weak:
Reason 1: Van Til did not recant - Why would he when he had not even endorsed a text? Should we expect a man publicly to re-cant something that he never did chant in the first place?
Reason 2: “The Defense of the Faith” is still printed as representing Van Til’s methodology - Why should this matter? The debate is not over his methodology, but which conclusions are most consistent with it.
Reason 3: Oliphant knew Van Til and did not mention the “alleged key shift” in his philosophy - Argumentum ex silentio: a conclusion based on the absence of any positive statement.
This also confuses, once again, Van Til’s general methodology with specific applications of it. No “key shift” of presuppositional philosophy is required to conclude that the TR is authentic.
Here is the bottom line, brothers:
Rushdoony made a positive public statement that Van Til changed his mind on this one application of his apologetic method and Oliphant makes no positive statement (public or private) to the contrary.
This does not establish the matter according to biblical law (Deut. 19:15), so can anyone summon an *actual witness* to prove or disprove Rushdoony’s claim?
@@fivesolaschurch5781 and @The Particular Baptist Thanks for response Daniel and also for yours, Pastor McShaffrey!
Is Pastor Anderson a Baptist?
Pastor Anderson?
@@TheParticularBaptist yeah. I was shocked when I saw him on Michael lofton channel. Reason and theology comedy hour pastor Anderson. That was not funny !
Do you mean Steven Anderson from AZ?