Keep sharing good news without ads.
Discussion of the ET Claims
Well, greetings. Welcome a screen flow video. Not sure how long it's gonna go. I'm gonna try to be brief. But it's a subject that's very important to me. Started a conversation last evening concerning Well what some people call the ecclesiastical text position.
I had first encountered this position and interacted with one of its advocates back in the 1990s mid -1990s Theodore Letus was his name the late Theodore Letus. Some of that extensive interaction is still available lurking in some archives someplace this was back in the days of BBS's and things like that before the Internet really got rolling big-time, but in any case I really have serious problems with the ecclesiastical text position and What I mean by that is I truly believe that it is the end of meaningful Christian apologetic interaction defense it it I find it to be thoroughly inconsistent with Reformed presuppositions even though it's mainly the children of the Reformation that hold to it it seems to Really share Certain Assumptions that are I find completely inconsistent with what we believe about sola scriptura and things like that.
Now I Tried to begin some discussion with this on Facebook. Last evening the problem was that I was getting stuff sent to me from within forums. I don't have access to And there were like two or three threads where things were being posted and It just it just became impossible to even try to keep up with stuff it's very confusing and and would take a tremendous amount of effort and and So I pretty much gave up on anything I feel like giving up on any meaningful interaction and social media to be perfectly honest with you.
It doesn't work very well but the reason being is that I was Provided with a statement from again within a forum that I'm not a part of. But I found extremely offensive a low blow below the belt just Really amazing that this would come from a fellow Reformed Baptist elder.
I was Well, I I guess I shouldn't say shocked, but it was very disappointing. And it said I just came across this in the James White message linked above it is exceedingly painful. There is a reason why the Muslims want him to lecture in their mosque, but it isn't what James White thinks it is.
Just take a look all over YouTube at how Muslim apologists are using James White's defense of the critical text now it's Very very obvious that the writer of these words again you really think that The Muslims have invited me to do debates in mosques because of the critical text versus Ecclesiastical text up.
They don't even know what that is you've got to be kidding me and Secondly as most people know People like Muslim by choice we have over and over again use that particular individuals ignorance of these issues as a mechanism for education to point out Where it is that they completely misunderstand the issue.
For example Muslims believe that if we Admit that there is any textual variation whatsoever Any textual variation whatsoever that we're admitting that our text is corrupt well even an Ecclesiastical text advocate has to admit that there are variants between all five editions of Erasmus Stephanus Baysa That there are variants in the majority text platform in the Byzantine text platform.
So I'm sorry. But a person who could make statement like this just has obviously never engaged any meaningful Islamic apologists at all. And that's one of the problems of the ecclesiastical text position.
It really seems to me that it just sort of only exists in the backwaters of reformed them. I've never met a person who's actually out there Doing the work that's presenting. This is a meaningful apologetic methodology for dealing with any other world religion or anything else I just haven't I find it amongst people that spend most their time reading Just reformed stuff and they don't wander out of that safe little environment and do anything else with that.
So The fact the matter is that Muslims believe that Any admission of any variation say they don't know about the history of their own text? Vast majority of them don't some do but They they don't know That their own text has a history that it has textual variation within it they very rarely know anything about the specifics of this on a manuscripts or or fogs palimpsest manuscript or any of those types of things and so sure, there are lots of YouTube videos out there of people who are grossly ignorant of The subject going see they admit corruption when all we're talking about is textual variation.
Not the corruption of the text not the not the loss of the text. And so we have produced a number of videos correcting those misapprehensions. So what are we supposed to do? What is the ecclesiastical text response to this?
Because remember When we listen To what the Muslims want the New Testament to look like what they want to look like is their controlled transmission traditional text view. Well, there is a parallel there and In fact, if you listen to the debates, I've done London and done a potter's room more the one in London Where the Muslim there presented pretty much the Muslim version of an ecclesiastical text view.
We've got Uthman's revision as long as we've got that that's all we need because that's what God has preserved. Well, that's a theological conclusion. Not a historical conclusion. There's a lot of reasons to question that and yet, how would a Ecclesiastical text advocate respond to that but saying oh no.
No, that's not the text God preserved. This is the text God preserved and neither one of them can actually muster any meaningful historical argument for that because if the ecclesiastical text position is that well, this is the text that God preserved and He didn't preserve all these other texts, even though we possess them today.
Well, the Muslim says this is the text God preserved and it doesn't matter what those palimpsests over there say. It doesn't matter what that over there say doesn't matter what the earlier manuscripts say.
This is what has been preserved. You've got two equal positions. No means whatsoever of accomplishing anything in that that conversation at all. Because there's no there's no historical information that can be brought to bear that would be relevant.
So are we just supposed to not? Admit the existence of textual very are we supposed to do what many Muslims do and say? Oh, no. No. No. There's what we have today is Absolutely exactly what was given to Muhammad.
That's what they say. Are we supposed to say the same thing? Oh, no. No what we have today in in the TR or Whatever the ET is I've never seen the official ET. We'll talk a little more about in a moment.
This is what's been providentially preserved even though we can't, you know, really be specific. In lots of places, but you know, it's the general it's the general thing that matters. It's a vibe of the thing for those of you in Australia so It's just Very much concerns me that just as Rome was emphasizing the Traditional Latin text and said well, this is this is the text God's preserved this this is the church God has given the church this text.
Are we supposed to is are we supposed to embrace the idea that well Rome was wrong about that? But it was just wrong about which text it was I See a subjugation of The inspired text to an ecclesiastical authority.
Now, I want to ask my reformed ET proponents. When did the church make this decision. Which council was it who is involved what manuscripts were examined what textual variants were examined. Um when the Church met to decide these things.
Did they have access to everything we have access today? Did they know the difference between the Byzantine text platform and the Western text and the Alexandrian text and and. Did they have good representations of each one and did they think through the historical realities of well the Islamic?
Expansion going across North Africa and the impact that had upon Upon the church in those places and the switching over to Latin in the Western church starting in the very end of the second century and and The fact that you have the majority of text being produced around Byzantium and that there's a historical reality for that.
Did they take all that into consideration? Where are their deliberations? Which council was that who was involved? I've never gotten answers any of these things. It's just well, it's a general usage you say It's it's what was used by the Westminster Divines or it was what was used by the the framers and London Baptist Confession of Faith.
Well, God bless every single one of them, but none of them were infallible not a single one and The text they used well, we all know Calvin Adopted a number of readings rejected a number of TR readings even introduced some emendations himself.
Which may be why Beza introduced the emendation of Revelation 16 5 but but They didn't seem to have this view of any Ecclesiastical text that well this this this has always been used. And so this is the text that's been preserved etc. Etc they didn't seem to have that idea and so maybe later generations came up with that, but I don't believe in the infallibility of reformed scholasticism and I hope nobody else says either I believe in solo scriptura, and I believe in Semper Reformanda and I Am quite honestly concerned That there are some people who don't seem to recognize that some of our forefathers didn't have all the information that we have today and If new information comes to light are we just supposed to oh, no.
No, no camp. That'd be compromised. Can't can't look at that that that very very much concerns me and As a result, I Said this back in the 90s has been well, basically it's been 20 years now I've been saying the same thing and that is the ecclesiastical text position as as Theoretically wonderful as it may sound in a online chat room or in the old BBS forums.
It cannot answer direct questions about specific readings now, it's now it's interesting this particular writer Had specifically said that the ecclesiastical text position does not produce the text it receives the text.
Well, that's right again. That sounds wonderful, but it answers no questions. Let me let me demonstrate how that's it's empty rhetoric to make that statement. What text Did the Eccles did the church the ecclesia receive at Revelation 16 5?
There's no question that at least up till 1598 we know what Revelation 16 5 read and all the Greek manuscripts so as Long as there was a church before then then what had been received is what is in the modern?
Eclectic text not in the Texas Receptus. So there has to be an admission that the TR has to be Able to be amended but what's the basis for the amending? Is it the Byzantine text platform? See once you start doing this, you've got to engage in textual criticism.
Where has the church ever done this? Where has the church said we'll use these principles these the manuscripts where has the church done that a church that has authority over me? Where has this happened?
I'm asking reformed people to answer this question. Where is that happen? It hasn't happened. You and I both know that. So How about Luke 2 22? That's the one that I asked Douglas Wilson about. I I'm sorry, I did not get a meaningful answer as to how you determine What the reading of where you have specific specific variants?
How about where you have splits in the Byzantine manuscript edition where you have? A Near split as far as numbers in the majority textures. What do you do? Then you have to have textual critical principles.
If you just have theories about the church You can't produce you can't answer questions. That's why it's apologetically vacuous Ephesians 118. Ephesians 3 9. 2nd Timothy 2 19. These are all places where the the TR reading is basically indefensible.
Is that the ecclesiastical text reading? What is the ecclesiastical text? How do you determine it? I asked the question because Just assuming its existence is very much insufficient. There are some people have counted as many as 1 ,800 differences Between the TR and the majority text.
How do you how do you determine what those which what's the original? These are these are questions that need to be answered and I don't think that they're there. Few people have pointed out that For example in the verse citation materials in our confessions Texts like first John 5 7 are cited and they are That was the default text of the day.
There were plenty of people then that knew it was a later edition, but there were others that did not. So, what are we supposed to do. Here is where I really I honestly have to outline because if you defend the comment You have no basis whatsoever For assuring anybody with a straight face that we continue to have the original readings in your testament.
You just don't if an entire vitally important Theologically relevant text can completely disappear from the Greek manuscript tradition then There's there's no reason to believe we continue to have the original reading and When I encounter someone who will go to the map in defense the comet and I I know I'm dealing with a zealot that's just Going to be holding to views that will be detrimental to anyone who's trying to Defend the faith in the context that we're called to minister today, and that is an extremely anti-christian culture that is soaked with the false information and the anti biblical presuppositions of the Bart Ehrman's of the world then last thing here in One last comment that I pulled from Facebook I began seeing a merging of a very troubling merging of by this same writer of Canon issues with text issues and of course canon text are very related to one another but To confuse the two as this author is doing again leads us straight back to the arguments of Rome and Ironically of more conservative forms of Islam that does not make the arguments wrong.
It just means you need to recognize that's what you're dealing with and that's what you're what you're presenting. The the lines were I read read earlier the ecclesiastical text position does not produce the text it receives the text.
It does so on the grounds that this is the text. It was handed down through history by the providence of God. Well The reality is The text that has been handed down through history by the providence of God is not just a narrow spectrum of the Byzantine manuscript tradition.
There's was the providence of God not involved in the preservation of the papyri is P72 P66 p75 p45 those those are not part of the providence of God um. There's just there's just so much packed into these words That a lot of people don't don't think through.
Then I was asked two questions and this is where it gets very concerning me. Upon what basis do you have any confidence that one third John is? Canonical seeing as it was not mentioned until the middle of the third century and was debated up until the fifth.
Number two upon what basis you accepted the Pentateuch as we now have it looks anything like the original work of Moses now. When you jump from Manuscripts of the New Testament to dealing one with canon issues and two with Old Testament textual issues.
Seems like an abandonment of the actual subject. But it likewise introduces connections and confusions that really worry me because If I didn't know who this came from. Sounds like it comes from Catholic answers.
Because it's the Romanists who say well We can we can help you solve all these problems because the church determines both the extent of scripture canon and the content and meaning of scripture as. Well as the extent of tradition and the meaning of tradition which is why I keep saying Rome believes in sola ecclesia so are we supposed to what what.
What does it what does what follows from this from the first question that third John is canonical because it's found in a particular number of Byzantine manuscripts or is it canonical because Carthage and Hippo said so.
Now we're happy now. We're gonna start dealing with all of the same issues that I raise all the time for Roman Catholics on this the differences of the canons provided by Carthage and Hippo and then Trent seems to have a different understanding and then you get the issues the Apocrypha and you know all the rest of this stuff comes up, but That's not normally what I'm I'm dealing with with my fellow Reformed brethren, but seems to be so here.
Now I believe that God expended the exact same amount of effort to preserve his word and to make his word known as he did in inspiring it. There isn't a question here about the preservation of scripture the question is methodology and result and the great gift that has been given to the Christian Church is The entire breadth of the New Testament manuscript tradition, which makes it possible for us to without blinking without sacrificing our minds.
Without dissembling to look at somebody in the eye and say it is impossible. I Can look at a Muslim say it is impossible. For the kind of corruption you claim has taken place in the text of New Testament to have ever taken place.
It is Impossible for that to have happened. And I don't have to say and it's just because I accept this group of manuscript. Because of the immediate that as I've called multifocality multiple authors multiple times multiple audiences.
There was never anybody to control it the text of New Testament explodes across the the the known world at that time. Even though Rome tries to destroy it still it is the most Widely earliest and best attested work of all of antiquity.
I'm talking about the New Testament here. How the Old Testament was passed on we'll talk about in a moment. That's that is our strength and it's sacrificed by the ET position it's it's gone. That's what really really really concerns me.
So what's the ET answer this question? I Mean any book of the New Testament is Canonical because it's they honest us not because of how many manuscripts it appears. It's not a counting noses thing. And how do we know the text of?
Third John. What's the methodology? I Don't know what the ET claim being made here is and then the Pentateuch. Well, that's a completely different subject, isn't it? Maybe you think otherwise, maybe you think no no because the scripture is produced by the church well again, I I hope you don't take this into a debate with the Roman Catholic because You're toast I Don't even know what to say at that point.
I mean, you're you're both just gonna be saying well, no my ultimate story that says it's well my ultimate authority says that well Let's all go home because we're not gonna be able to deciding with this because we both actually do the same thing.
Just based upon different ultimate authority. We can talk about the lines of transmission that lead to the Hebrew Masoretic text the Aramaic Targums the Greek Septuagint and It's a completely different world in talking about Old Testament text because you're talking about such a and much more older text That is produced over such a much longer period of time in Different languages and it's not meant to be distributed around the world until it's already a thousand years old.
So it's completely different as to the methodology of its transmission over time. But I'm really concerned when I hear a reformed person. Possibly I hope I'm wrong here, but possibly suggesting that the reason we know What the Pentateuch is is because the church says so when you know, does the church hear The voice of Christ in Scripture or determine what the voice of Christ in Scripture will be.
Just makes me wonder Exactly where this ecclesiastical text stuff goes. Really does it it's very concerning to me. So I Want to make some comments on this and I've invited This writer to substantiate what he said in his First statement and we can discuss these other issues On the dividing line.
I'm gonna be gone all next week, but we here all of August and we can set something up and we can Just just a phone call in or Skype or Google Hangout or whatever works best because You know if you if you really think that the reason that Muslims are engaging me in debate is because oh, we're good.
We're getting all this. He's he's on our side said Wow. That's that's amazing that that's that's really amazing. Think you think you missed something. But there's other things to be discussed as well, and I'd like to know what is the objective? methodology that the ecclesiastical text position presents To answer the questions concerning variant readings in just some of those texts that I say I think that's I think that's an important thing to ask.
So there you go. There's there's some of the some of the Issues that we need to address regarding the ecclesiastical text materials, I hope this has been useful to you and Thanks for watching.