The following 270K document contains excerpts from a "debate" which took place in June and July of 1995 on the Theonomy-L mailing list. I have taken the time to put this together due to the fact that I have recently been sent a couple of "lectures" by Dr. Theodore Letis in which he makes numerous disparaging, and false, remarks about my book, The King James Only Controversy, and myself. For example, Dr. Letis informed an audience on March 6, 1997, that my book is nothing more than a point-by-point rebuttal of Gail Riplinger’s book. Anyone who has read both books has to conclude that either Dr. Letis hasn’t bothered to read my book, or he is being dishonest, one or the other. But what is most interesting is that Dr. Letis’ comments have come while addressing conservative, fundamentalist groups. As you read the following messages, you will see why this is so very ironic: Dr. Letis refers to such folks as "cultists" and the like. Those he once lampooned he now courts, for whatever reasons.

Approximately 25 pages into the text (click here to skip the context I have provided from the list) you will find the beginning of my attempted interaction with Letis. You will find him complimenting me on my book—something he isn’t doing anymore, to be sure.

Please note: Dr. Letis mocks such beliefs as inerrancy, and calls KJV Only folks "cultists" (see this note). Some of his language will be offensive to Baptists, "fundamentalists," etc. But, since he is seeking now to gain an audience in the very groups he has publicly denigrated, I believe those who would consider inviting him to speak should hear him "live," so to speak, so that they can make a truly informed decision.

I realize this file is really long, and I have not attempted to re-format these e-mail discussions. You may have some trouble figuring out who is who. But for those really interested in the debate, the following material should be very helpful. I’ve cut it down as much as possible, but it still formats out to 95 pages if printed. Enjoy!

Barry

 

> From: T Letis <ncoast!usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu!festival.ed.ac.uk!tletis>
> Subject: Re: Received Text
> To: dlh (daniel lance herrick) <ncoast.org!dlhpfm!dlh>

> Re: the textual debate, two considerations should be kept in mind: 1)
> The evangelical heresy of "inerrant autographs" has been the driving
> engine that pulls the evangelical agenda for doing text criticism, i.e.
> what I call "the quest for the historical text." 2) What I also call
> "the ideology of harmless engagement" has anaesthetized evangelicals
> from feeling the doctrinal implications of the modern "quest for the
> historical text" namely, its inexorable connection with the "quest for
> the historical Jesus" (i.e. the organic connection between the common goals of
> lower and high criticism), since the days of Bentley and Tregelles. That
> there has _ALWAYS_ been significant christological implications to the
> data of the lower criticism has been forever established by America's
> leading N.T. text critic, Prof. Bart Ehrman in his masterful and most
> important theoretical work on lower criticism in the 20th century (So
> said many at the SBL last year), _The Orthodox Corruption of
> Scripture:The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text
> of the New Testament_ OUP, 1993. That these doctrinal considerations have
> been a major factor in the development of the higher criticism I have
> amply documented in my own Ph.D. dissertation: _From Sacred Text to
> Religious Text: An Intellectual History of the Impact of N.T. Lower
> Criticism on Dogma as a Contribution to the English Enlightenment and
> the Victorian Crisis of Faith_.

I guess he is far enough along to send an abstract! Of course, I do not wish to critique the assertions made here, though without proof I find such a connection (between the search for the historical Jesus and the search for the historical text) a bit specious. Certainly Calvin and other early reformers saw the necessity of a pure text, and were aware of manuscript corruptions.

I assume that Mr. Letis is not suggesting that the autographa were *not* inerrant, but rather that in some way an inerrant text has been preserved, so that the restoration of the autographa is unnecessary, in the same way that it is uneccessary to get behind the canonical texts to discover the "real" Jesus. An intriguing concept, and an argument well worth considering. I will be interested in seeing how he overcomes the problem of the actual phenomenon of manuscript transmission and corruption.

> These are the REAL issues: the heresy of Inerrant autographs and the
> fallaciousness of the ideology of harmless engagement (as well as the
> entanglement of the American ecclesia in the corporate world of bible
> marketing for profit, but I shall not go into this factor here). These

You mean Zondervan, et al., are interested in making a profit? Noooo!

> two factors (three) are all the result of American "Evangelicalism" just
> as the loss of catholic identity because of the entrance of priestesses
> into the Anglican communion was the result of an "Evangelical Archbishop
> in Britain.

Of course, "the idealogy of harmless engagement" has to be defined. I think it might have something to do with the non-neutrality of information and knowledge, and thus the activity of textual criticism. But then again, many activities in this world which began with the wrong sorts of presuppositions nevertheless work very well - it has something to do with the fact that all people are created in God's image, and can never escape that fact.

> These factors must be
> addressed if anyone is at all earnest about getting to the heart of this
> issue. Dealing with the defects in Erasmus's first recension is like
> trying to explain the rise and fall of the Roman Empire by examining the
> quality of the stone used in the construction of Roman roads. To set

Poor example, since in fact a great deal of Roman success can be explained by the judicious use of superior technology, of which the road system was very much a part. However, I believe Metzger's point was that current editions of the Textus Receptus have never corrected the errors in question from the first edition. We may then wish to argue that these errors must be corrected, but then we have in some way set ourselves up as textual critics.

> such an agenda only illustrates how very duped most evangelicals are who
> as Benard Ramm noted a few years back, are frightfully dependent on a
> superfical grasp of issues and evidence (as they are provied by
> _Christianity Astray_ and the Pope of American fundamentalism, Carl Henry)
> and who have no real scholarship of their own because they are usually
> content, in his words, to "piggy-back" the scholarship of others. (I do
> not mean to be needlessly cruel or mean-spirited but to get to the heart
> of these issues quickly these things must be said.).

Quite often the case, alas. Of course, this proves nothing concerning the majority or eclectic text theory. But there is no doubt that we need more, highly educated and articulate leaders who can approach these issues with the same or greater depth than any non-Christian. In fact, we should be the ones setting the pace for scholarship, and instead, we always seem two steps behind...

> To help those interested in evidence supporting these claims please read
> the following, in the following order:
>
> T.P. Letis, "B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical
> Criticism."_Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society (American
> Presbyterians)_ Vol. 69, No. 3, (fall 1991):175-190.
>
> T.P. Letis "The Protestant Dogmaticians and the Late Princeton School on
> the Status of the Sacred Apographa." _The Scottish Bulletin of
> Evangelical Theology_ Vol. 8, No. 1, (Spring 1990):16-42.
> > T.P. Letis, "The Lutheran/Reformed Dogmaticians and the Language of
> Biblical Authority in Light of Anglo-American Modernist Developments."
> _Christianity and Society_, June, 1995.
>
> T.P. Letis, "The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of
> the Anabaptists" _Calvinism Today_ (I regret I do not recall the details
> on this one but perhaps Dan can provide them).
>
> On the silly and quite heretical reading our friend refers to at John 1:18
> in the Alexandrian MSS. see T.P. Letis "The Gnostic Influences on the
> Text of the Fourth Gospel: John 1:18 in the Egyptian Manuscripts." _The
> Bulletin of the Institute for Reformation Biblical Studies_ Vol. 1: pp.
> 4-7. Again Dan may be able to help you to get copies of this important
> study. Start reading and escape from Warfieldianism while you may!

That the reading might be silly is quite possible; that it is heretical is another story. Why would anyone have a problem with calling Jesus God, especially in the light of the overall witness to the deity of Christ? I simply offering this as evidence that not every textual change needs to be seen as directly attacking some doctrine.

> Theodore P. Letis
> --------------------------:<------------------------
>
> dan again: I wonder if we could gather these essays together and get
> them into the hands of Jonathan Barlow? His web page seems to have a
> place for them.

Dr. Theodore Letis

 

From: T Letis <ncoast!usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu!festival.ed.ac.uk!tletis>
Subject: Re: Received Text
Date: Sun, 14 May 95 22:24:20 BST

Barry, of course, begs the question as to whether those on the "quest for the historical text" are making corrections or re-introducing Gnostic heresy e.g. the subordination of Christ's divine nature to that of the Father's, such as the NIV and the NASB do at Jn. 1:18. And to compare what Calvin was doing with the Enlightenment quest for the historical text is a monumentally unhelpful distortion.

Also, I fear we are gaining such a dependence on the net that we are becoming lazy about using the library (God forbid!). It really is a bit of a waste of time to carry on this discussion when a proper agenda has not been set, and laymen are arguing with seminary students, who have entirely different points of reference in terms of data and training. I fully expect those on this list who have some theological training to actually _read_ the list of material I took the pains to provide and then enter into a seminar here on this list, one issue at a time, as suggested by the reading material, and let the others lurk and learn until we reach our inevitable impasse (although, I expect some lurkers to be well converted to the ecclesiastical text position as a result of the exchange, while those who have been well propagandized by the Warfield/Westminster approach will be all the more dug-in to their second-hand approach to the subject. Yes, it is a bit cynical but then I have a personal taste and sense of the infinite obstinance of this 20th century, interloping school of thought.

Theodore P. Letis

Dr. Theodore Letis

 

From: T Letis <ncoast!usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu!festival.ed.ac.uk!tletis>
Subject: Re: Ted Letis on textual criticism
Date: Tue, 16 May 95
12:50:49 BST

Bob Jones Univeristy types are just a few degree short of white-supremist, cultists--they do not even rank in my spectrum. When I use the term Fundamentalist I use it as it is universally understood and usually has reference to what cultists at BJU would call "neo-evangelicalism." I.e. somewhat intellectual but bound to Clarkian idolatry (exhalting logic to the third person in the Godhead) and the Warfieldian heresy of "Inerrant autographs."

From: T Letis <ncoast!usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu!festival.ed.ac.uk!tletis>
Subject: Re: Received Text
Date: Tue, 16 May 95 13:48:14 BST

Mr. Hofstetter continues to provide us with his rather mild pontificating (mild because he does so in good humor, generosity and the best intentions), while then begging away from grappling with the sources that will provide him with the data and "definitions" he requires. Rather he apologizes that his own interests take him elsewhere--I do not think we can allow you to have it both ways. If you do not prepare for the seminar it is not fair for everyone else to endure your less than informed comments. I _have_ treated Calvin's approach to text critical issues, and that of Beza, in yet another unread essay by you, and I will again assert that Calvin's treatment of these matters bears _no_ resemblance what so ever to what was taking place during the English Enlightenment. Do the words put up or...(sorry, I meant to say, it would be most helpful to all concerned if you would quietly read the material suggested or resist the urge to offer uninformed comment, since by your own forthright admission this is not your field of endeavour :-) ).

Theodore P. Letis

-------------------- I do hope reconstructionists recognize the immense value of the contribution Theodore Letis is making not merely to the revival of catholic Christianity but also, and more specifically, to the task of Christian reconstructionism. Rushdoony and I are so convinced of the inextricability of his ground- breaking work and the task of Christian reconstructionism, in fact, that we have enlisted him as a Chalcedon scholar. His Ph.D. dissertation (sure to be published by a major academic publisher) evinces the ecclesiastical source of modern secularization--lower text criticism employed in the service of antitrinitarians and other heretics.

Warfield, for all his yeomanly labor for the Reformed Faith, slipped badly here; and Westminster Seminary, among other supposed bastions of Reformed orthodoxy, has foolishly abandoned the rich confessional tradition and perpetuated the myth of textual neutrality confuted so succinctly but masterfully by Harvard scholar Edward Hills, Letis's mentor.

I urge reconstructionists to jettison the pervasively facile attitude toward this issue (as though it were ultimately nothing more than a fracas over which translation one prefers) and procure the books and essays-- Letis's especially--that furnish a sound grasp of the issues at stake in the debate. Admittedly, this may require a little more effort away from the repartee of the net (i.e., in the library at the shelves), but the immensity of the issue demands such dedication.

There will be no recrudescence of Christian civilization until there is a recrudescence of full-orbed Biblical authority; and there will be no recrudescence of Biblical authority until there is a recrudescence of the Reformation catholic texts and concomitant vanquishing of the silly old Enlightenment-inspired theory of the neutral objectivity of textual criticism.

Andrew Sandlin, Chalcedon

Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 11:38:40 -0500
From: Tom George <tgeorge> To: Theonomy-L%dlhpfm NCoast.org
Subject: Ted Letis on Clark, Warfield, BJU

Ted Letis said:

> Bob Jones Univeristy types are just a few degree short of
> white-supremist, cultists--they do not even rank in my spectrum. When I
> use the term Fundamentalist I use it as it is universally understood and
> usually has reference to what cultists at BJU would call

James Curtis commented:

> **Are those at BJU really "Cultists????" Whereas we have many disagreements
> with the BJU people I would say they that are neither cultists nor white
> supremists. They believe in the misconception that the races should not
> intermarry.
> JDC

Continuing with Ted Letis:

> "neo-evangelicalism." I.e. somewhat intellectual but bound to Clarkian
> idolatry (exhalting logic to the third person in the Godhead) and the
> Warfieldian heresy of "Inerrant autographs."

If Clark was an idolator and Warfield a heretic, then I suppose it would not be too far out of line to call BJU people cultists. But IMHO all three characterizations are wrong.

From: T Letis <ncoast!usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu!festival.ed.ac.uk!tletis>
Subject: Re: Ted Letis on textual criticism
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 10:38:55 BST

My call for a seminar did not work for me, and may material is actually published, what makes you think anyone would take you seriously. It is apparent to me that this is basically a "blather over the back face" club and not a serious endeavour to exchange thoughtful reflection resulting from reading "books." Moreover, I tossed out my provocative comments to flush out the closet fundamentalists lurking. How remarkable that some actually want to defend BJU. Extraordinary!

Date: Fri, 19 May 95 05:01:52 EDT
From: dlh%dlhpfm NCoast.org
Subject: Open Letter to Ted Letis

Ted,

This is being mailed simultaneously to you and to Theonomy-L.

How often have you been able to speak to a crowd of a hundred lay people who

1) Have read some Christian books that are not available in "Christian book stores"?

2) Have read some Christian books that are more than a hundred years old?

3) Perhaps half of whom read Chalcedon Report?

4) Are scattered all over the United States with a smattering from two or three other countries?

5) Includes an outspoken pompous representative of the other side whom you could easily tear gently to shreds in public if you chose?

6) Includes several (three or four) who are looking for the articles on your reading list?

7) Can tell the difference between the posturing of an ass and forthright declaration of truth?

I have given you such an audience, not for a one or two hour formal speech, but for a leisurely question and answer session.

Before I met Andrew Sandlin, I was willing to believe D. A. Carson on the subject. The audiotape of your radio interview settled that issue. Since I have read a couple things you have written.

I have provided you with a much higher quality audience than that radio interviewer did. If you would treat my audience similarly to the way you did his, you would add perhaps 75 tolerably influential, widely scattered, people to your cause.

Your performance thus far has been embarrassing. Anybody can get into a public pissing contest - the net is full of them. You saw some of what Andrew Sandlin did to himself in this forum two years ago. If you don't stop the arrogant stupidity in front of this crowd and treat the issue, you may build a reputation covering the entire English speaking world that you will never be able to live down.

Respectfully,

daniel lance herrick dlh%dlhpfm NCoast.org

From: T Letis <tletis festival.ed.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Open Letter to Ted Letis
To: dlh (daniel lance herrick) <dlh%dlhpfm ncoast.org
Date: Sun, 21 May 95 10:48:20 BST

Daniel, One man's bad reputation is another man's good. If you think my public reputiation of fundamentalism injures my reputation I will take all that kind of injury I can get. By the way, I trust you are forwarding everything I send you on to the rest of the list. Daniel, I do not even know you and it seems quite preposterous that you could find so much to anger you when I have said so little (and that in reponse to your BJU boys on a thread that I had no intention of addressing). You see how the agenda can be so seriously marred when there is no structure or format for an exchange. This is best provided by a seminar like arrangement, (which your Westminster contributor now seems to want to take credit for), which demands the reading of texts and then the informed probing of the issues addressed by the reading material, one topic at a time. Anything less than this and you just have the Oprah Winfrey Show--who needs it. Moreover, you cannot speak for all the lurkers on your list. It is my experience that there is always a thoughtful number of people who will take the time to read and reflect on a body of material. And then you have the grandstanders who are out to score points in public and who do not even have the good sense of judgement to know they are out of their debth. I have been at this for twenty years and I simply will not allow some dilettante set the agenda. Read my material, interact with my data and arguments, learn my presuppositions and let's go. Short of that, do carry on with your international destroying of my reputation but do be careful to establish on what grounds it merits disapprobation: 1) I maintain that BJU is just a few degrees short of white-supremacy and is cult-like; 2) fundamentalism is the root cause for the crisis of text criticism; 3) Warfieldian inerrancy in the original autographs theory is heresy. If you make your claims on these points you will be doing me a service. I abhor ad homenin and never tolerate it in myself or anyone else. My criticisms were never directed at any individual but were an analysis of a socio-religious phenomenon (BJU) or a theological paradigm (Warfieldianism).

inform your Westminster friend that if he will not read and interact with my published material why does he think he should have access to a dissertation abstract for which he does not have the full argumentation and data. He will see it when everyone else does--in its published form.

Date: Sun, 21 May 95 12:32:25 EDT
From: dlh%dlhpfm NCoast.org
Subject: A Public Apology to Ted Letis

Ted described to me in a message that I did not send to the list the ground rules under which he would appear here. They were sensible ground rules. He repeated some of it in his first message that I did forward to the list.

They were, roughly, that he would state his position and retire without participating in the lightweight extraneous by-play that is a characteristic of the net.

He asked me to send him responses to his article. I sent him everything, which was not really consistent with his initial ground rules. He responded in kind to some of the sniping (violating his own ground rules), without preserving anything of the context to which he was responding. Those responses, appearing at least 24 hours after the articles to which they responded, felt much like indictments of everyone present.

I have gathered all his contributions together in one place and reread them. He did deal with substance in his opening and some of his later messages. I regret my contribution to causing his participation here to create a different impression.

Some of the exchanges between Ted and Barry proposed a graduate level seminar / debate / panel discussion. It is clear that this would not work inside Theonomy-L. I think I see a way to set up the mechanics so it can work and will begin negotiations to try to put it together.

Basicly,

1) Agree in advance on ground rules

2) Agree in advance on topics to cover

3) Set up a mailing list that accepts postings only from the participants, sending that list to the audience as well as to the participants.

4) Have a moderator (in the panel discussion sense, not the net sense) who directs the discussion according to the agreed structure and mediates questions from the audience into the discussion at the agreed times. }

So, Ted, I'm sorry. For things I said and did. I helped you to create an impression that was not really justified; and then took you to task for it, publicly and privately.

More respectfully, dan

>> Daniel, One man's bad reputation is another man's good. If you think my
>> public reputiation of fundamentalism injures my reputation I will take
>> all that kind of injury I can get.

I hope this guy never has to teach an undergraduate class. He'd spend more time sneering at his students than teaching them.

A few of the American "fundamentalists" he disdains so much are helping fund his studies. I wonder if they would be so generous if they saw this side of Ted Letis. There's no better way to induce humility in a pompous doctoral candidiate than to threaten his purse strings.

Does anybody believe this guy is a credit to Christian scholarship? If I want this kind of snobbery I'll read The Door.

Chris Stamper clstampe mailbox.syr.edu Evangelical spokesman, dynamic speaker, prolific author, radio personality, our next president, survivor of graduate seminars, and all around good guy.

> From: "Greg L. Bahnsen"
> pulpit harder!) Notice as well the many inflammatory (and unargued) epithets:
> "modernistic invention," "knee-jerk reaction to baying hounds," "[Warfield]
> polluted Reformation bibliology," "pernicious theory," etc. This is a textbook
> example of the fallacious style of reasoning which should be shunned in any
> serious Christian scholarship.

Like Calvin's?

> No case is strengthened by emotive language and
> name-calling -- especially when the rhetoric is irresponsible and false.

"stream-of-consciousness hermeneutics"?

Date: 31 May 95 18:43:01 EDT From: "Greg L. Bahnsen"
To: "\"C. Paul Ferroni\"" <Paul.Ferroni cle.ab.com>
Subject: Re: Andrew Sandlin comments on IOA

It would appear that on or about May 24 Andrew Sandlin electronically posted an attempt to rebut and condemn a view which is virtually common-sense to any literary scholar and committed Christian. The view is that inerrancy, strictly speaking, applies to the original manuscripts of Scripture and not necessarily to any or all copies thereof. This viewpoint is set forth and defended by me in "The Inerrancy of the Autographa" which is found in the book INERRANCY (ed. Geisler) and is available from Covenant Tape Ministry (800 553-3938). I would strongly urge any who have seen the Sandlin piece to compare my article and draw your own conclusions.

Here are some of my own, offered with humble disapointment in my brother's effort. Sandlin's piece represents not serious analysis (or even accurate discussion) but simply pontification. (When the argument is weak, pound the pulpit harder!) Notice as well the many inflammatory (and unargued) epithets: "modernistic invention," "knee-jerk reaction to baying hounds," "[Warfield] polluted Reformation bibliology," "pernicious theory," etc. This is a textbook example of the fallacious style of reasoning which should be shunned in any serious Christian scholarship. No case is strengthened by emotive language and name-calling -- especially when the rhetoric is irresponsible and false. For instance, Sandlin attributes views to his opponents which they simply do not maintain (e.g., the outrageous suggestion that they say the Bible is inspired if infallible -- or even worse, only if infallible in our human judgment). For his own integrity Sandlin ought to issue a retraction and apology for such misleading red herrings and unfair misrepresentations. To take a crucial example: anyone who consults my article will find that those who restrict inerrancy strictly to the originals DO NOT, as charged by Sandlin, "undermine the extant potency and applicability of the authoritative word of God." And that is precisely because we believe that God's word IS INDEED preserved in all ages among the copies of Scripture -- and that none of the usual text families is so corrupt as to deprive God's people of the life-giving guidance they need. We simply do not hold the rationally untenable view that conflicting texts -- even WITHIN a text family -- can both count as precisely representing the original. How could anyone seriously question that? Well, Sandlin apparently does. Don't let anybody fool you. EVERYBODY has to do textual criticism and reconstruction. The argument is not over this necessity, really, but rather over the methods to utilize in that reconstruction -- although a reader would never pick this relevant fact up from Sandlin's discussion of the "pernicious" error of those who state the obvious (viz., not all manuscripts agree with each other textually, even though we hold firmly that the original was completely without error).

I should also humbly observe in passing, as someone with a bit of background in epistemology, that Sandlin has simply wandered into left field when he tries to make the issue "a rationalist standard of supposed scientific accuracy" to which we are allegedly trying to conform. To think that is the issue is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debate is about in the first place. It is not just rationalists and modern scientists who say two conflicting texs cannot both be original.

Finally, the repeated attempt to enlist the Reformed "forefathers" to bolster his pontification against those holding the inerrancy of the autographa (such pernicious men as John Murray, Cornelius Van Til, etc.) is not only questionable historically (since Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were not even known in the days of Owen, etc.), but it is ironically a contradiction of the very thing Sandlin presumes to be upholding -- the doctrinal authority of Scripture alone. Our forefathers would be sternly displeased to see their children trying to win arguments about theology and God's holy word by citing fallible human authorities as themselves. Shame on Mr. Sandlin for this unseemly diatribe.

Greg L. Bahnsen May 30, 1995

Dr. Bahnsen,

One man's "common-sense,"
is another man's non-sense,
and your Warfieldian revisionist history,
has given the modern confessing church, misery,
I believe this generation will be the one,
to make certain the heresy, of inerrancy, is undone,
you can give it your best shot,
but we done untied the knot,
and the torrent of historical accuracy,
will soon sweep you out to sea...

You recon' there's a record contract out there for me...

Theodore P. Letis, Ph.D.

June 1, 1995 To: Paul Ferroni at Allen-Bradley for T-L
Subject: Surrejoinder to Bahnsen on IOA

We recons have enough trouble with our dispensational and antinomian opponents without arguing loudly with each other. Nonetheless, I'll respond to what I deem the serious flaws of Greg Bahnsen's posting re: the novel "inerrancy of the original autographs" theory I assailed in my earlier posting. Greg's view on one side and mine and Rushdoony's on the other represent a clear division among recons, and we can't cover it up. I recall reading years ago Greg's essay to which he refers and thinking then of the sharp degree to which his notion deviates from historic Reformed bibliology. I do hope the members of this list will procure and read it, for it constitutes a precise articulation of the old Princeton, Warfieldian bibliology bearing the same sort of rationalism in textual criticism that the Reformed evidential apologists (apart from, and often in conscious opposition to, Van Til; Gerstner is a prime example) did in their field.

Greg criticizes what he terms my "unseemly diatribe" in my employment of rhetoric. Yet (suprisingly?), he avers his view "is virtually common-sense to any literary scholar [I believe he actually means textual scholar -- literary scholarship is a separate field] and committed Christian." Does he thereby imply I lack common sense and am no committed Christian? He patronizingly states "Shame on Sandlin" who has "wandered into left field." Apparently, what's rhetorical sauce for the goose is not rhetorical sauce for the gander. In contradistinction to Greg's statements concerning me, I do not question his common sense, commitment as a Christian, or scholarship; I merely question his bibliological orientation on the questions of textual criticism, the preservation of Holy Scripture, and the nature of Biblical dependability. (I should mention that it is a good thing that Luther and Calvin did not hold Greg's attitude toward rhetoric -- a third of their writings would be shaved away!)

If Greg believes there is no relationship between the modernistic theory he holds and the impotence of the church in its application of the Bible to all spheres of life, perhaps he can explain the coincidence of pietistic apostasy and the emergence of just this Enlightenment-bound theory of neutral criticism he champions. Of course, he may charge me here with _post hoc ergo propter hoc_; but Christians have a right to inquire into the theological and ideational causes of the present cultural apostasy and ecclesiastical impotence, and they may suspect that an event as crucial as such a sharp divergence from the historic Reformed bibliology as occurred last century may rival Darwinism and other deviations as causes of the present corruption.

Greg does throw in some red herrings of his own: I never claimed variants _both_ represented the "original," though I would much like to know what Greg means by "original": _autographs_ or _apographs_ ... or something else? I never claimed IOA defenders suspend inspiration on inerrancy (I suggest Greg read my statement more closely). I never claimed we can avoid textual criticism, as Greg implies I did. Members of this list should be aware, however, that the tack to criticism Greg takes is quite different from that of Calvin, Beza, Owen, Turretin, etc. He may contend that the best explanation for this is that they were not privy to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (as Pinnock does in _Biblical Revelation_, p. 84); but Greg can scarcely depict himself in the Reformed tradition on this issue.

Greg asserts that those who embrace his view are not interested in "a rationalist standard of supposed scientific accuracy." He is wrong. While he himself may not take this approach, one need only read J. W. Montgomery's "Inspiration and Inerrancy: A new Departure" and "Inductive Inerrancy" in his _The Suicide of Christian Theology_; Harold Lindsell's _The Battle for the Bible_; and Gordon Clark, in a number of places, but summarily in "The Bible A Truth" in _God's Hammer_, to observe the extent to which Enlightenment patterns of thought pervade the issue by both defenders and detractors (e.g., Dan Fuller, whose work on this issue Greg knows well) of "inerrancy."

Greg misunderstood my comments regarding accuracy: I was not speaking of "conflicting texts" (e.g., variants), but about the concept of truth and accuracy as it applies to the content of the Bible. We are not abstractionists who come to Scripture with a hellenic notion of accuracy and ask God to conform thereto; rather, we humbly allow the Scripture to delineate and determine for us what is truth. (This is a difference, of course, that we have with the Clarkians.)

It was gratifying that Greg implicitly acknowledged his notion of this issue is at variance with historic Reformed bibliology, for he certainly knows the data at this point are irrefutable. Read, along with Greg's essay, the works I mentioned in the last posting by Muller, Turretin, Weeks, Preus, Owen, and Letis. They constitute a quite significantly different approach to these issues.

Contrary to Greg's charges, then, it is not pontification to assert with reference to documentable data that the modernistic IOA theory deviates from historic Reformed orthodoxy; this is not pontification, but demonstrable _fact_, for all who wish to inquire.

Andrew Sandlin, Chalcedon

P.S. Since neither church history nor textual criticism is my field of academic expertise (nor Greg's, for that matter), it is hoped that Theodore Letis, to whom this thread has been forwarded, will proffer his studied opinion.

Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen

To: Paul Ferroni <cpferron cs.hh.ab.com>
Subject: Last comment on Sandlin

For those reading the Sandlin string re: the inerrancy of the autographa on Theonomy-L, I would add the following brief observations on his June 1 reply to me. Because Mr. Sandlin's highly personal, adversarial and rhetorical approach to debatable issues (it is not every day I have the experience of being called downright "pernicious") is the very spirit which has splintered the recon school of thought for years now, I have no intention of perpetuating an occasion for more of the same anamosity (in the place of reasonable scholarship). Mr. Sandlin is welcome to "the last word." The merits of the case (pro and con) are left to the reader and will not be changed by emotive and pontifical denunciations.

1. Yes, I do charge Mr. Sandlin with the fallacy of false cause reasoning. "Coincidence" is not proof of causation (e.g., crowing roosters do not cause the sun to rise). To endorse such thinking ought to be an embarrassment to Mr. Sandlin, but instead he challenges me to give an alternative explanation of the church's impotence. Very well. Everybody can see that the decline of the church is actually coincident with the widespread use of electricity. It is not textual criticism but light bulbs which are at the heart of the modern church's poor performance.

2. Another outrageous fallacy (hasty generalization) is found when Sandlin defends his categorical claim that those who maintian the inerrancy of the autographa are committed to a rationalist standard of scientific accuracy. His defense is that SOME do so, even if Bahnsen does not. Of course, that acknowledgement proves that the position does not logically or even psychologically commit advocates of my position to what he previously categorically charged. Two can play this ridiculous game. Those who hold Sandlin's position are actually Arminians. Why? Such pontification is warranted because SOME who hold his position are indeed Arminian in outlook. Case (mind) closed.

3. What, by the way, is the alleged reference of Sandlin's expression "scientific accuracy"? I do not think he knows what he is talking about here. Ditto for his strange comment about "a Hellenic notion of accuracy" to which I supposedly demand that God's word conform. This is nonsense. Anyone who knows a smidgen of my teaching knows better. God's word sets its own standard of perfection and nothing external to it can gainsay what God has Himself said. The issue -- to pull Mr. Sandlin back from the red herrings he keeps throwing out to deflect criticsm -- is WHAT has God genuinely [originally] said.

4. I suggest that Sandlin re-read his own original statements more closely. They indeed warranted the inferences and criticisms directed at them in response.

5. It is good that Sandlin at this point openly acknowledges the need for textual criticism. In so doing, he also acknowledges that inerrancy pertains to the original text and not every copy (which is why we try to determine *from among the copies* WHICH best represents the original) -- the very position he condemns with rhetorical relish.

6. Sandlin overinterprets my words for his own advantage. I did not "acknowledge" that my viewpoint is at variance with historical Reformed orthodoxy. What I said is that the opinions of Reformed scholars from the past are not RELEVANT as the standard of Reformed orthodoxy (as they themselves would ironically tell Sandlin). It is as unreasonable to grant a priori accuracy on textual issues to men who did not have the advantage of advanced manuscript evidence as it is to grant a priori accuracy on surgical matters to 17th century medical doctors who did not have the advantage of advanced medical insights we enjoy today. Sandlin's attempt to win an argument with ritual traditionalism and veneration for the "forefathers" is misplaced respect.

7. It might be good if Calvin and Luther had shaved away "a third of their writings" [Sandlin's inductive calculation, I suppose] where it dishonored themselves and their Savior by rhetorical excess -- especially when they were dealing with each other and fellow believers.

8. Sandlin wants to portray those who hold my viewpoint on restricting inerrancy strictly to the autographa as those who stand in "conspicuous opposition to Van Til." What rubbish. Van Til himself held the view which I defend -- apparently against himself, if Sandlin were to be believed. (By the way, Rushdoony's recent claim in an interview with Sandlin, that Van Til privately came over to the textus receptus position is pure imagination. I was in communication with Van Til until nearly his death and know better. Rather than exchanging "private" conversations which are beyond public checking at this point, I would encourage everyone simply to read Van Til's *published* comments -- e.g., the comparison of the autographa to a bridge submerged under the swollen stream and thus unseen, yet objectively there to support our crossing to the other side. This is the kind of error which discredits Sandlin and Rushdoony as reliable scholars.)

9. Sandlin and I apparently agree on one thing, though: we hope readers of the list will get hold of a copy of my essay on this subject and read it for themselves. If I am mistaken, I welcome correction in a teachable spirit. But in all humility, pontifical rhetorical and fallacious reasoning will not get critics very far toward changing my mind. That is, I believe, what a commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ requires of me -- not a "modernistic, rationalistic" departure from "Biblical dependability," as some have written with regrettable fervor (unkind and cutting claims which are neither demonstrat*ed* nor demonst*able*).

Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen June 1, 1995

Andrew Sandlin

To: Paul Ferroni at Allen-Bradley for T-L
Subject: Second response to Bahnsen on IOA

Since Greg has made his last posting on this topic, I'll try to keep this short. I am at a loss at his accusation that my June 1 posting is "highly personal, adversarial, and rhetorical." While he again impugns my scholarship (as well as Rushdoony's), I have never challenged his scholarship (but merely his orientation). To dissent from certain of his bibliological opinions is not tantamount to insistence on a highly adversarial relationship. I concur that the merits should be left with the reader: I pulled out Greg's carefully crafted essay last night and was again struck by the rigor of his logic (rivalled only, in my opinion, by the flaw of his orientation). It is an essay all should read, for he attemptes (valiantly, but, in my opinion, unsuccessfully) to make the case that the Bible itself can be construed to make distinctions between the _autographa_ and _apographa_. He argues that the writers and speakers whose words were recorded in the Bible assumed the accuracy of in-hand original-language copies (and the Septuagint) precisely because they represented a fair facsimile of the autographs. I dispute this point; and, in any case, it is not the position of historic Reformed orthodoxy. That the writers and speakers whose words were recorded in the Bible assumed the accuracy of in-hand original-language copies and that they believed these copies represented a fair facsimile of the autographs is not to be doubted. That they believed the latter secured the former is another matter altogether. It may be more reasonable to assume that they held that the text in their hand (and not merely the autographs) constituted the inspired word of God. Note that in 2 Tim. 3:14-17 it is the Scriptures Timothy know as a child -- and therefore certainly not the autographs -- which Paul depicted as inspired. I cannot do justice to Greg's long essay here, and do not wish in any way to misrepresent his views, but I will cite below an example of the sort of reasoning he uses to buttress his theory:

Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the
Scriptures as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely
assume that the first-century text of the Old Testament was a
wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally
given. Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so
approximate to the originals [he means the autographs] in their
message that he appealed to those copies as authoritative. The
respect that Jesus and His apostles held for the extant text
is, at base, an expression of their confidence in God's
providential preservation of the copies and translations as
substantially identical with the inspired originals [basically,
so far, so good]. It is thus fallacious to argue that
inerrancy was not restricted by them to the autographa and to
say that their teaching about inspiration had reference to the
imperfect copies in their possession (Bahnsen, 161).

I honestly do not understand how the last sentence logically concludes the rest of the paragraph. would it not be more logical to hold that the fact that Jesus and the apostles accorded the in-hand copies status as the very unamendable word of God indicates they did _not_ restrict the properties of inspiration and infallibility (I prefer this historically attested word to inerrancy, of late and of astronomical origin) to the autographs? Does not Greg's last sentence represent a serious _non sequitur_? I believe Greg can arrive at his conclusion about Christ's approach only by imputing to Christ Greg's own assumptions about the text. The data lead elsewhere.

I will address Greg's charges, preserving his numbering for clarity and continuity, though I must be brief.

1. I humbly suggest I am relieved Greg's expertise is theology, philosophy, and logic, since the criterion he establishes for historical causation no historian could meet! In suggesting that the pervasiveness of Darwinism has, among other factors, conduced to the effects of dehumanization, am I guilty of "false cause reasoning"? If so, I ask Greg, what _would_ constitute valid conclusions relating to historical causation? I doubt any macrohistory could be written within Greg's logical strictures. History is not the province of symbolic and formal logic conclusions.

2. Greg argues that since not all of his IOA colleagues hold to a "rationalist" form of scientific accuracy my comments linking the two positions are illogical. Of course, I never claimed that all of them held it. In fact, I claimed many of the errantists also held it. My point is that many on both of those sides (I am on a third "side"!) often hold these Enlightenment presuppositions. Now Greg is the trained logician and I am the trained "literati," but I cannot see how my assertion violates any laws of formal logic.

3. I am glad that Greg holds accuracy must be determined by Scripture -- many of the IOA do not. I could give copious citations.

4. I disagree, of course, that Greg's criticisms of my views are valid.

5. No, to say that textual criticism is necessary is _not_ to say inerrancy [i.e., infallibility] "pertains [only] to the original text." There is a totally different orientation to textual criticism besides Greg's idea of it as the infinite regress to the nth power at recovering the autographa. The other (older) approach is the one Burgon, Hills, and Letis advocate.

6. We must be careful we do not use "standard" in "standard of Reformed orthodoxy" equivocally. Of course, by ultimate standard we mean the Bible. But by its very nature a standard of orthodoxy includes what is _held_ to be orthodox: by this last definition (as well as, in my opinion, by the first), Greg's approach cannot be said to conform to historic Reformed orthodoxy. I again urge the readers of the list to consult the primary documents.

7. Greg wishes Luther and Calvin had jettisoned their hot rhetoric. Well, we all wish they had not dealt with brethren so derisively, but I doubt that carefully dispassionate formal logic would have broken the shackles of Rome...

8. I never said Van Til did not hold Greg's view (although Rushdoony claims that in personal conversation in later life that Van Til did not). I urge the list to re-read my earlier posting. I said that the rationalism among Reformed textual critics rivals the rationalism of some Reformed apologists. I believe Greg just did not read my statement carefully. Greg claims Rushdoony's relating personal conversation "is the kind of error which discredits Sandlin and Rushdoony as reliable scholars." I am mystified as to how my asking Rushdoony about Van Til's views of this issue discredits my scholarship. If so, would Greg's having elicited from Van Til his recollections of conversations with Gordon Clark discredit Greg's scholarship?

9. I do not believe I have uttered "unkind or cutting claims" in this post. I have just re-read it to assure the tone is not "highly personal, adversarial, and rhetorical." Admittedly, I have not questioned Greg's scholarship as he has questioned mine, or characterized his views or arguments as "ridiculous," "nonsense," and "rubbish" as he has mine. The reader may decide for himself whose claims are "unkind or cutting," and whose writing is "highly personal, adversarial, and rhetorical."

Mine is indeed a minority position (one I have held for a number of years). It is not the province of obscurantist boobs. Letis has just finished his dissertation and defense (the dissertation will probably be published by a major academic publisher) proving that it was precisely lower text criticism that undermined orthodoxy in Britain in the 18th century; it will be a bombshell on the field of "neutral, objective" evangelical scholarship.

I intend to address this topic more fully in an upcoming issue of the _Journal of Christian Reconstruction_, as will Letis in the _Chalcedon Report_.

Well, I see with lamentation that I failed to keep this short...

Andrew Sandlin, Chalcedon

P.S. Many thanks to our dear friend Paul Ferroni in his service as (to employ the modern buzz word) "facilitator" in this thread!

Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen

To: Paul Ferroni <cpferron cs.hh.ab.com>
Subject: Very Last Comment

It would be the course of wisdom for Andrew Sandlin to withdraw from perpetuating an unnecessary and sharply worded public squabble, and that I why I prayerfully decided to send a "last comment" and leave it to readers to do their homework, granting Andy the last word. Instead he has now sent along TWO missives, both quite lengthy. But even that would be alright with me, were it not for his continuing to misrepresent my view (and to misunderstand the nature of the dispute regarding the autographa). That is why I briefly and with regret re-enter the discussion with a "very last" comment. (I really have other duties I ought to be pursuing.)

In his second June 2 letter, Sandlin falsely attributes to me the notion that infallibility is lost in "the infinite regress of the lost autographa." He has no hesitation: "This search of infinite regress.. is EXACTLY what Greg contends in his essay." Sandlin claims to state my view "PRECISELY" that the "extant Biblical text" does not constitute the inspired word of God.

These MIGHT constitute public lies, except I do NOT for a moment suspect Sandlin of perpetuating falsehoods intentionally here. But the alternative is that he does not understand and/or is not careful to be accurate -- which only exacerbates his cutting pontifications ("pernicious," "rationalism," "devotees of IOA have miserably apostatized," etc.) and logical fallacies (guilt by association, hasty generalization, false cause, etc.). By not wishing to impugn his character, I was indeed forced to impugn his scholarship. He does not have a correct picture of his opponent's position (although insisting he is exact and precise) and presses unreasonable lines of thinking to reach a condemnation even of that.

Let me give but a sample of what I ACTUALLY wrote in my article on the subject before us:

"The permanent need of God's people for the substantial reliability of the extant biblical text is satisfied. We *can* believe our copies of Scripture and be saved WITHOUT HAVING THE AUTOGRAPHIC CODEX [the physical manuscript], for the Bible itself indicates that copies can FAITHFULLY REFLECT THE ORIGINAL TEXT and therefore function authoritatively." That is, we have lost the manuscripts, BUT NOT the original text that appeared on them. Because of variant readings, this original text needs to be reconstructed, but is NOT "lost," as Sandlin would have readers think I maintain.

Resting in the providence of God (who has preserved the original text among hundreds of copies -- but obviously not in EACH and every one, or even NECESSARILY only those available in the English segment of the wider body of Christ in 1611) and having reasonable confidence in textual science, I do not AT ALL fall into any "infinite regress" looking for the inspired text of God's word. I am happy and prepared to defend the book I hold in my hands today. But Sandlin says my view amounts to pernicious rationalism.

In my article I noted that some have ridiculed the textual "identity" of the inspired text with the original text as a position which says present day Bibles are not inspired. I openly repudiated that erroneous line of thought, and wrote "it confuses autographic TEXT (the words) with autographic CODEX (the physical document). Loss of the latter does not automatically entail loss of the former.... the words of these (original) manuscripts ARE STILL WITH US IN GOOD COPIES." I go on to reiterate that my view "does NOT imply that present Bibles, because they are not fully inerrant, fail to be the Word of God."

Hopefully the reader can understand, then, why I question Andrew Sandlin's scholarship. He has pinned on me nearly the opposite of what I actually wrote. I cannot appreciate being publicly and grossly misrepresented (by someone claiming he is "exact" and "precise" in portraying my view), especially as a prelude to publicly condemning it as pernicious apostatizing.

Maybe I am mistaken, but it would appear that Mr. Sandlin and others are trying to "win the argument" for their particular, chosen MANNER of doing textual criticism (taking the Byzantine family as the standard) by running down those who use a DIFFERENT manner of textual reconstruction. They are run down as "modernist innovators" because they believe the available data as well as textual science itself have advanced beyond what was available to the 17th century Puritans. Thus opens the door to a kind of Reformed ritualism which allows Sandlin to castigate those who will not arrest textual studies with the Puritans (and to beg numerous scholarly questions about Sandlin's chosen preference for the textus receptus).

I am grateful that Andrew's last letter diminished the emotive character of the previous ones. This helps. And if his previously "acerbic" words were not directed at me (but just at the general class of teachers of which I am a prominent member), there is *some* personal relief felt.

May the Lord be pleased to make this my "last" posting regarding this squabble -- and grant me the time lost for writing on more helpful and positive subjects! Andrew, I do hope you will be a friend.

Greg L. Bahnsen June 2, 1995

Dr. Theodore Letis

From: T Letis <tletis festival.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Sandlin comments on IOA To: "C. Paul Ferroni" <Paul.Ferroni cle.ab.com>
Cc: tletis festival.ed.ac.uk
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 95 3:05:54 BST

Paul, I must admit that the exchange between my dear friend Andrew and Dr. Bahnsen has just about put me to sleep (although I think it evident to everyone that Andrew is quite right--he has not maligned Mr. Apologist; Mr. Apologist has maligned poor Andrew). But I am most disappointed that no aesthetes have offered an evaluation of "rap-theology." I think I am genuinely hurt. Do we have no lovers of verse and jive out there?

Theodore P. Letis

Dr. Theodore Letis

>From tletis festival.ed.ac.uk Sun Jun 4 05:21:40 1995
From: T Letis <tletis festival.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 95 21:18:57 BST

Tommy, baby, thanks for replying to my bit of silliness. Perhaps you have come in late and do not know that we are structuring a seminar around about six or seven of my published essays on this subject. Ask Paul or Dick to forward the reading list to you. If you can get these (I believe Dick even offered to send out copies to those who _would_ actually take the time to read the required material--required so we will all be on the same plane of discourse). Please do get this material, read it and enter into the discussion. Until we actually commence this process/structure I am refraining from making _any_ remarks to avoid what just happened between Andrew and Bahnsen--numerous rabbit trails, name calling, bad temper (on the part of one of the parties, anyway) and nothing established--nothing resolved; everyone shooting from the hip (lip?).

My "rap-theology" was meant to defuse all the tension and stuffy pretension on the part of those currently outside the seminar, and to lighten up the mood a bit from one where some seem to take themselves much too seriously, particularly for having addressed a subject for which they are rather ill-prepared. I mean the very idea of saying this is all about wanting to legitimize one text-type over "modern developments" is not only rather simplistic, it was his way of redirecting attention away from the murky argument about inerrancy pertaining formally only to the autographa, and yet also pertaining to imperfect copies--not even Clark invoking the second person of his trinity, Logic, could sort that one out.

Theodore P. Letis University of Edinburgh tletis festival.ed.ac.uk

Dr. Theodore Letis

>From tletis festival.ed.ac.uk Thu Jun 8 04:49:01 1995
From: T Letis <tletis festival.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 95 9:47:10 BST

Interesting quote from Mr. Richard Simon, Mark, where have I seen that before...Hmmmmmmmm?

This surely is the most damning remark (Bahnsen) I believe I have ever read on this subject--quite remarkable, really. To refer to those who actually defined Protestant orthodoxy--in _just_ the way the Nicene fathers defined Christological orthodoxy in the fourth century--as a mere traditionalism makes my eyes water and my ears tingle with astonishment. This shows one precisely where Warfieldian revisionism leads--to the wholesale repudiation of classic Reformation orthodoxy. This is why I call Warfieldianism the first "Neo-Orthodoxy" in my Brevard Childs essay in the _Churchman_. Certainly if such an orthodox tradition has no relevancy to a modern Westminster-type Presbyterian the caviler dismissal of the same can be the only logical consequence. But how unbelievably revealing! One could carry on by pointing out that for any number of reasons we are in a superior position to make advances on fourth century Nicene Christology--in fact one could read all of modern theology, particularly on this theme, as following just such a project founded on just such a premise (see Alister E. McGrath _The Making of Modern German Chrisyology 1750-1990 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, 1994). Extraordinary!

Theodore P. Letis University of Edinburgh tletis festival.ed.ac.uk

Dr. Theodore Letis

>From tletis festival.ed.ac.uk Thu Jun 8 06:18:04 1995
From: T Letis <tletis festival.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 95 11:15:28 BST

Mr. Linn, a very apt analogy, indeed. In fact the position I am advocating is _also_historically varifiable in terms of the church _always_ having as its referent for the "sacred Text" an extant, localized edition. Mr. Bahnsen's advocacy that we enter into a "quest for the _historical_ text" is not only without precedent in the history of the Church (which as an argument seems to have no effect on him--perhaps one result of Westminster having a rather weak place for Church History in its curriculum), but as readers will discover once they have read my "Lutheran and Reformed Dogmatics and the Language of Biblical Authority in Light of Anglo-American Modernist Developments," the further back one goes the hazzier this artificial, scientifically "inerrant" text becomes, rather than the other way round. This also shows how taking a nineteenth century theoretical approach to the task (Warfield's legagy, in short) leaves one well outside of the actual data of the discipline.

Theodore P. Letis University of Edinburgh tletis festival.ed.ac.uk

Dr. Theodore Letis

>From tletis festival.ed.ac.uk Thu Jun 8 06:33:13 1995
From: T Letis <tletis festival.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Received Text
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 95 11:31:28 BST

I fear Mr. Ritchie intrudes too much Warfieldianism into the discussion with little or no critcal reflection on where he has picked up such rhetoric--all this theoretical a-priori stuff about what the "original autographs" _must_ have been like begs the question and assumes the validity of Warfield's paradigm, which is precisely what the counter position I am advocating seeks to questio by a return the catholic voice of Protestatn orthodoxy. I will just say it again, if we could only read the essays designed for the discussion so many of these issues will have been treated and we can get to grips with the new issues raised and the implications of the new data found in this collection of essays. We simply must become historically conscious of where this rhetoric of "inerrant autographs" comes from--the actually historical circumstances and moment that gave birth to it--before we can talk intelligently about it in terms of its departure from an earlier paradigm _and_ its invalidity in light of the actual discipline of text critcism.

Theodore P. Letis tletis festival.ed.ac.uk

James White

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 20:11:47 -0400 From: Orthopodeo aol.com
Subject: Response to Rev. Sandlin #1

Dear Rev. Sandlin:

I have accepted your invitation to temporarily join you in this forum to discuss the issue of the text of the Scriptures. I would like to begin by commenting on the posts you were kind enough to fax to me. The first is dated June 2nd, and seems to begin with referring to some interchange between yourself and "Greg," which I assume is Dr. Greg Bahnsen. A few thoughts:

You speak of "historic Reformed orthodoxy." I have learned that it is always convenient for someone to claim the term "orthodoxy" for their side in a debate. Yet, I have to wonder how useful such a term is when speaking of textual theories. Surely you would not suggest that the later viewpoint of *some* individuals in high Reformed scholasticism should be taken as the standard of "orthodoxy" so as to make anyone dissenting from that viewpoint "unorthodox," would you? Such hardly seems condusive to the best kinds of conversation.

What is more, would you not agree that this later development, seen in Owen or Turretin, is just that: a later development that was not a part of the original Reformed view? The high view of Scripture that one will find in Calvin, for example, is shared by all in this debate. But I have already encountered instances where the *later* view of *some* is read back into the words of Calvin or other early examples of Reformed theologians. We all know of instances where Calvin, for example, made conjectural emendations, and I would surely hope that no one would claim that the Reformers "chose" one particular "text family" over another. It simply was not the issue for them that it has become *since* then, so trying to drag their authority into this issue seems to me a bit counter-productive.

I have read a lot about how someone who doesn't hold this view is acting as a "rationalist." Yet, I have to wonder, again, at the use of such terms. Normally I've seen it used in setting up the alleged contrast between "rationalism" and "faith." Yet, I find such a charge to be little more than smoke, personally. I've met too many people who have propped up an illogical position by appeal to "faith," when in fact, there was no basis for such a "faith" to begin with. I think the truth is ill-served by the use of such terminology, which can do nothing more than inflame passions and obscure the issues. The same is true when terms like "believing criticism" come into play. I have been told that "believing criticism" results in holding to the TR, while, we are left to surmise, "unbelieving criticism" lies behind everything else. As a believer I reject such an idea, and don't believe it is a proper use of the term at all.

Now, I am encountering a great deal of ambiguity in the terminology that is used in this discussion. For example, you wrote:

"The reformers and their heirs believed that the extant Biblical text, and, in a derivative sense, faithful translations of the Textus Receptus of the NT, constitute the verbalized, propositional, inspired and infallible word of God, warts and all."

The KJV translators made reference to even the most "mean" translation being properly referred to as the "Word of God." It is the use of the above terminology that is confusing, however. First, the reformers, to my knowledge, never make refrence to the TR as a text itself. Calvin would have had access to five editions of Erasmus, plus Stephanus. Beza only added to the number. Which TR are you referring to here, or are you using TR as a catch-all for a basically Byzantine text? You refer to "warts." Are you saying the reformers knew about the warts and didn't bother to fix them? What are these "warts"? Would you include readings found in the 1894 Scrivener edition of the TR, the one that most TR advocates utilize, such as Luke 2:22, or Revelation 16:5? If so, does this not require some level of re-interpretation of how inspiration and infallibility apply to fallible texts, or do the errors become inspired as well? And most importantly, who is to decide?

Next I note your comments in a post dated June 7. You wrote,

"The entire point of the historic Reformed view is that since there is no recourse to the autographa we must predicate the qualities of Scripture of the apographa---which is to say, for all practical purposes, THE AUTOGRAPHS DO NOT COME INTO THE PICTURE AT ALL."

I don't know of anyone who would not say that, for example, codex K (017), the 9th century uncial text, does not "contain the Word of God" nor that what one would read there would not be authoritative for the Christian person. But I have to wonder about what is being said here. Since we don't *have* the autographa we do not seek to know what the autographa said? Or do we accept, for solely theological reasons (and I would strongly question the soundness of the theology), a particular *stream* of the manuscript tradition as having some kind of "ecclesiastical authority" (i.e., your citation of Burgon)? And from whence would such an "ecclesiastical authority" be derived? The LXX once had "ecclesiastical authority" due to use over centuries; so did the Vulgate. I doubt too many in this list will argue for either text on that basis. However, I'd suggest that both have equal, if not greater, "theological" pedigrees than the TR.

< continued in next post >

James White

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 20:14:49 -0400 From: Orthopodeo aol.com
Subject: Response to Rev. Sandlin #2

The apographs do indeed faithfully reflect the autographs, as per Turretin's quote. However, we all know that there is a "spectrum" to this faithfulness. Textual variation exists, even within the texts Erasmus used to begin work on the TR. The Byzantine manuscript tradition splits on various readings. Some of the most "popular" examples of how "corrupt" modern texts are, such as Colossians 1:14, in reality demonstrate errors in the TR, not the other way around. These are simple facts, are they not? The reality is right there before us. The question then becomes, what do we do with these facts? I am concerned that statements such as the one cited in your June 8th epistle might be taken in the wrong way. Here you cite from Owen,

It can, then, with no colour of probability be asserted (which yet I find some learned men too free in granting), namely, that there hath the same fate attended the Scripture in its transcription as hath done other books. Let me say without offence, this imagination, asserted on deliberation, seems to me to border on atheism. . . .

What is this "fate" to which Owen refers? Textual errors, or wholesale corruption? The fact of textual variation is beyond question, so to what is Owen referring, and how do you understand his words?

Back to your June 7th post, you wrote that "The idea is that they constitute the locus of inscripturated revelation, and the scribal warts must be accounted for without recourse to the supposedly inerrant autographs." Obviously you are not questioning the inerrancy of the autographs, right? How, then, do we deal with "scribal warts" *without* reference to what the texts originally said? How can textual criticism be undertaken at all without the goal being the restoration of the original text? You continued, "The point is not that the Scripture is not infallible, for it certainly is; it is that infallibility must be conceived in a context commensurate with the extant copies in usage in the church." Do I detect some kind of belief that the Church is infallible in making such decisions regarding the text? It would seem to me that this is a most dangerous, let alone untenable, argument. It was, as I have noted, the argument used against Erasmus not so long ago. "Usage" is a changing thing, as I documented and discussed in chapter 2 of my book. The LXX once reigned supreme with reference to "usage." It was eventually displaced by what was at first viewed as "novel," that being the Vulgate. But, of course, the Vulgate ended up being the version that could claim the authority of "usage" all the way up to the modern era. And, of course, when Erasmus and the other humanists cried "ad fontes," others cried "the Church has used the Latin text for a thousand years---such is sufficient for any pious person!" Today I hear people pleading the same argument for the TR, though its length of primacy, if such a term is correct, is far shorter than the Vulgate's. Yet if such an argument was invalid in Erasmus' day, or in Jerome's day, is it not invalid in our day as well?

What is more, when we speak of "usage in the church," what are we really saying? Is the church so unified today as to predicate such a usage? Or do we draw the circle quite close so as to give meaning to the phrase? I'd venture to say that many would draw me right out of that circle just to make it work. The primary text being used in scholarship and study today is not the TR, and it hasn't been the TR for quite some time. Could I not, in fairness, use this as an argument from "usage" as well? I wouldn't do that, since I don't believe the argument is valid to begin with, but we need to keep a close eye out on the matter of consistency.

Moving quickly to your post of June 8th, you noted, upon citing Owen, "Moderns, not excluding evangelicals, often smirk patronizingly at the simple faith of this dazzlingly brilliant man, particularly his belief in the inspiration (and perforce preservation) of the Hebrew vowel pointing." I noted in an earlier fax to you my own questions regarding such a stance. I can understand the desires that give rise to such a belief, but I have to question the validity of the belief itself. The vowel-pointing of the Hebrew text was a post-Christian innovation. The men who incorporated these items into the text were not Christian men. Do we really have a solid basis for asserting either a mechanical inspiration of the vowel pointing, or an inspired and infallible enlightenment of the scribes so as to provide an infallible interpretation of the grammar and syntax of the consonantal text? I don't believe so. Owen may have felt it necessary for whatever reasons, but one thing I hope we can all agree on is this: no matter how great the reputation of a particular scholar or theologian of the past, his views are subject to scrutiny and, if necessary, rejection. We dare not become stilted in a position that cannot allow for examination and growth unless we view ourselves as having "arrived" already.

Finally, a question regarding what you are calling the "net seminar." Please fill me in on what this seminar will involve. Thank you!

James>>> Orthopodeo aol.com

Dr. Theodore Letis

> From: T Letis <tletis festival.ed.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: SL on RTs and IOAs (forwarded from Theonomy-l)
>
> Mr. Linn's observations are true in themselves--surely it is a classic
> model that anyone who has been exposed to the basics of Biblical
> Introduction has appreciated: Incarnation/inscripturalization. I fear,
> however, that he has it in revearse in this case. Warfieldian
> inerrantists are the one's who ascribe what they "think" to be a
> comprehensively divine attribute of Scripture (i.e. "inerrancy" in the
> autographs), while those who wish to remain in the historic Protestant
> orthodox tradition are forced to accept the all too human element in
> Scripture because for them ONLY the apographa (i.e. extant copies)
> constitute the written word of God--warts and all. If seen this way Mr.
> Linn's model is of some considerable weight.
>
> Theodore P. Letis
> University of Edinburgh
> tletis festival.ed.ac.uk

(Beginning of Interaction)

Dr. Theodore Letis

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 20:54:42 BST From: tletis festival.ed.ac.uk
Subject: reply to White

Mr. White, It seems Andrew has also asked me to jump in on this so here we go...

May I begin by congratulating you for for writing a book addressing the KJV only cult (it is nothing less). I myself have written a work addressing this (which you no doubt mention in your own good work): _The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists_. If it is a reponsible work it will do a world of good, I am sure. I now begin my criticism proper.

Some of us have agreed to create a separate list to conduct a seminar on the subject of text criticism and classic Reformation orthodoxy as opposed to the modern innovative evangelical doctrine of "Inerrant autographs." Consequently, much that you have said will provide a nice preliminary example of what we will be dismantling, so nicely typical is your articulation. If at the end of the seminar enough information will have come to light to cause all the earnest participants to cringe every time they hear the words "inerrant autographs," my job will have been well done indeed.

When you ask Andrew, surely he must believe in the inerrancy of the autographs, it is like asking someone if they have stopped beating their wife. Not only is it the wrong question, but it reveals how terminally damaging these highly charged code words can be: before one can even raise the question as to its validity as a paradigm everyone is conditioned to suspect anyone raising the issue of either its formal or historical validity. For now I will say for the record that it is a modern heresy, which will put the discussion where I believe it belongs by putting the advocates of this Warfieldianism in need of addressing the issue outside of the comfort of the modern evangelical institutional status quo. Now to move on to more substantial issues.

I am not at all suprised to learn that you have no use for the Protestant dogmaticians--there weren't a Baptist among 'em. You don't find any of _your_ kinsmen in their number because there weren't no Baptist dogmatic tradition to parallel what the Protestants were constructing in response to 17th century Tridentine attacks (those in the seminar will have read by now my essay treating the dogmaticians). So how dare you be so dismissive of this tradition. Are you as dismissive of Nicene christology as "some kind of orthodoxy" as well, or are you content to piggy-back this non-Baptist tradition? (I do not mean to be harsh, but certainly provocative.)

As for the TR as an entity and the Protestant dogmaticians, one short quote from one whose memory as a fellow Lutheran historian and text critic I honour, will serve me well: "...it is undisputed that from the 16th century to the 18th century orthodoxy's doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed... [the] Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the 'original' text." (Kurt Aland, "The Text of the church?" Trinity journal 8 (1987), p. 131.

You dismiss the Protestant dogmaticians and you dimiss the final defining of what it _meant_ (means!) to be catholic and Protestant. But then these categories play no real role in your own ecclesiastical self-definition.

Theodore P. Letis, Ph.D. Director The Institute for Reformation Biblical Studies tletis festival.ed.ac.uk

Andrew Sandlin

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 16:11:42 -0400
From: Paul.Ferroni cle.ab.com
Subject: From Andrew Sandlin: re: James White (IOA) Another in the IOA series, from Andrew Sandlin.

To: Paul Ferroni at Allen-Bradley for T-L
Subject: A Rejoinder to White on IOA

I appreciate James White's long, irenic response to my various postings re: IOA. Preparing for a much needed (if not much-deserved) vacation, I won't be able to answer with the extensiveness of his posting, but hope that in due time I can address his comments and objections or that my dear friend Theodore Letis, the genuine "aficionado" of this issue, will do so. In any case, comments such as these will furnish excellent grist for the imminent seminar.

I wish to focus on one comment of James's that constitutes the heart of the issue; he states:

> Do I detect some kind of belief that the Church is infallible
> in making such decisions regarding text? It would seem to me
> that this is a most dangerous, let alone untenable, argument.
> It was as I have noted, the argument used against Erasmus not
> so long ago.

This really is the rub, isn't it? Superficially, the only alternatives are an infallible church speaking _ex cathedra_ re: the selection among variants, and the invention of a seperate classification of Scripture, "original autographs" (shades of the Platonic "Forms," a comparison, I believe, first used by Theodore Letis) toward which we are forever striving and never reaching, a locus forever just out of our grasp. It is necessary for James and others to understand that the Orthodox Protestant approach (no less Lutheran then Reformed), completely antedating the Enlightenment displays a completely different _orientation_ to the Bible than that of modern evangelicalism. The whole categories of thought are different. For example, the Protestants did not think of comparing the apographs with the mythically conceived inerrant autographs not merely because such a venture is impossible in the first place, but because they did not share the modern evangelical propensity to posit infallibility in such a fashion as to require the autographic "Forms." Thus, despite Greg Bahnsen's no doubt sincere assertions to the contrary, he does, in my opinion, adduce an inclination to set an extrabiblical standard of Biblical reliability, as do all advocates of IOA -- no matter what they may say and truly believe they hold, their textual views give them away. I am saying that it is _precisely_ the desire to uphold a certain Enlightenment- shaped form of the trustworthiness of Scripture that requires _a priori_ the retreat to the IOA theory.

The dogmaticians had a higher view of the inscripturated word of God. Good catholics that they were, they repudiated ecclesiastical consensus in textual issues no more than they did in Trinitarian and Christological issues -- and I would submit respectfully that the same reasoning James employs questioning the consensus text may be, and has been, employed by Clark Pinnock and theological modernists to overturn that "excessively 'Greek-oriented' and static view of God" enshrined in our catholic creeds.

I regret I cannot at the moment say more; I hope Dr. Letis will respond at his convenience.

Thank you, again, Mr. White for your extensive response.

Andrew Sandlin, Chalcedon

Dr. Theodore Letis

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 16:36:12 -0400
From: Paul.Ferroni cle.ab.com
Subject: from TLetis: AUTOGRAPHS
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 21:06:03 BST

Mark, Re the LXX you reveal that you have been reading some of the KJV "cult" literature. Please read my _The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the claims of the anabaptists_. The N.T. authors certainly DID quote from the LXX and may no one be deceived on this point.

Theodore P. Letis

Dr. Theodore Letis

> Greetings,
>
> Ted Letis writes:
>
> Mr. Linn, I fear you are a wee bit "anologycentric." While I paid you a
> compliment the rest of what I said was meant to add support to the truth
> that you analogy [i.e. no longer _you_, or your _analogy_], but the
>_truth_ your analogy was intended to communicate, i.e. the Church's emphasis
> on an extant text rather than some supposed "inerrant" archetype.
>
> You missed the point of my analogy. I was not criticizing
> either side.

Mr. Linn I missed nothing. I assumed the validity of your analogy and then went beyond it. You were out of the picture; you and your analogy. Do _you_ get _my_ point? because of this antagonism perhaps it would be better for us to choose not to exchange comments, commencing now...

Theodore P. Letis

James White

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 17:11:00 -0400
From: Orthopodeo aol.com
Subject: Re: MANUSCRIPTS, ARGUMENT

<
>The problem I have with these arguments is that none of them actually
>prove anything. Providence can be used to argue for either position.

Providence cannot be used to argue either position, because the Bible teaches Providential Preservation.>

Greetings, Mark. Here's hoping a change of venue, sans certain exacerbating elements, will be of assistance in making our conversation more in-line with Christian brothers.

The phrase "providential preservation" obviously means something very specific to you. You'll have to admit others would use the same phrase with a different meaning, right? To what would you attribute this difference of opinion?

< It is directly taught in the Scriptures themselves:>

It is a tall claim to say that a particular, definitive, and very specific, textual theory is taught "directly" in the Scriptures. Let's see if this is, in fact, the case: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations." Psalm 33:11

Yes, the counsel of the LORD stands forever. I see nothing in the language or context that would lead me to believe this passage is in the slightest bit relevant, however, to the issue of textual theories.

<"For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations." Psalm 100:5>

God's truth is enduring and everlasting, it does not change. This again, however, has nothing to do with textual theories, textual variation, etc. In point of fact, Mark, might I not urge such a passage against those who would say that the best we can do is to use a text that has "warts" and is based not upon inerrant autographs but upon a text that allegedly has "ecclesiastical authority" behind it? I wouldn't do such a thing, but I can't see how it would be wrong, in light of your own use of the passage.

<"The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness." Psalm 111:7-8>

All well and good, of course, but I fail to see how this directly, let alone indirectly, teaches a particular, definitive theory regarding the text of the Bible and the transmission thereof.

<"O Praise the LORD, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people. For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 117>

Praise Him indeed, but to equate God's truth with a particular textual theory is, again, unwarranted at best.

<"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. ... Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. ... Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:89,151-152,160>

Hopefully we are not limiting God's word, His commandments, and the like, to a particular textual theory or form. The truth of the unshakeable quality of the God's Word is not determined (and this seems key to me) by appeal to a particular text as the "be all and end all" of all things, and that due to some "ecclesiastical decision." I'd invite you to do what I've invited others to do: does your argument hold water when moved to another time frame? Can it be used consistently *against* your own position?

<"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." Isaiah 40:8>

Printed in the front of every NASB, as I recall, demonstrating that the text does not "directly" present any particular theory of textual transmission.

<"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11>

Even less applicable, if that's possible, in light of the fact that the context is speaking, primarily, of the prophetic promises and only secondarily and by extension to the specific written Word.

<"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." Isaiah 59:21>

One might actually urge such a passage against your position (oral transmission through the use of the term "mouth"), but again, I think we can all see that there is no particular textual theory being "directly" presented here.

<"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18>

Surely the most commonly used passage, I am discovering. Yet, again, are we to say the Lord Jesus is here speaking of textual issues? Is this the context? Something tells me we would find most Reformed commentators would not be seeing that as the context. I just glanced at Calvin's Commentary (p. 278) and he exegetes the passage in what would have to be called a "non-textual theory" way. In fact, when he speaks of the specific phrase you focus upon, he writes:

But what does it mean, that every part of the law shall be fulfilled down to the smallest *point*? for we see, that even those, who have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, are very far from keeping the law of God in a perfect manner. I answer, the expression, shall not pass away, must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine.

Calvin makes no comment here about the letters of the text. But let's grant your argument for a moment. What does this do with the idea that there are, in fact, "warts" in *any* textual tradition? The same comments could be made regarding the rest of your NT citations. I don't think we need to repeat them, since they all fall into the same category.

<And it is presumed by the Scripture writers: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Gal 3:16. Paul's line of argumentation here presupposes every word and letter of the OT was exactly preseved from when it was first written.>

It assumes that the Scriptures are truthworthy, but to extend that assumption into your textual theory doesn't follow. What do you do with the apostolic example of citing the LXX? "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim 3:14-17

<Notice that no distinction is made between the apographs Timothy knew from his childhood (v. 14-5), and the autographs (v. 16). In fact, you will notice this pattern throughout Scripture, that copies of copies are called "Scripture," the "Word of God," and the "lively Oracles of God.">

No argument at all, though again, that has nothing to do with a particular textual theory that would, for example, defend the TR reading of Colossians 1:14 as being authoritative.

<Paul says Timothy has has known the "holy scriptures" since childhood, and can here only be refering to copies of copies of the Hebrew Old Testament. He then goes on to say that "All scripture is given by inspiration" presumably including copies that Timothy.>

That seems like a leap there, Mark, but let me ask you: since Paul referred to the LXX as "Scripture," would you follow your own logic to the point of inspiring the LXX, too?

James>>> Orthopodeo aol.com

James White

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 17:14:01 -0400
From: Orthopodeo aol.com
Subject: Re: AUTOGRAPHS

>Why has noone brought up the Septuagint. This was the translation used
>by the apostles. It contains, sometimes, widely variant readings from
>the hebrew of the Masoretic text. Did the apostles follow the WCF
>chapter 1 on this point? Why not?

<I think it is oversimplification to say the Apsotles used the LXX. It is true that New Testament quotes of the Old Testament sometimes seem to agree with the LXX more than the Hebrew Originals,>

"Sometimes seem" Mark? The Apostolic use of a second-language translation as their source of choice in citation of the OT has created all sorts of interesting interpretations. The KJV Only folks like Ruckman and Gipp have an easy way out: there was no LXX. It was all a figment of Origen's imagination, they say. The vast majority of Christian scholarship has recognized the important role the LXX played, not only in the writing of the NT, but in the early propogation of the Gospel. In fact, someone might actually point to God's providence in this matter, in light of the usefulness the LXX had to the spreading of the Christian message.

<but this circumstance admits several possible explanations: 1) The Apostles sometimes quoted the LXX.>

I don't think I'm over-stating the case to say, "the majority of the time."

<2) The Apostle's allusions to the Old Testament sometimes accidentally agree with the LXX.>

An amazing position I hope no one would take.

<3) In some places where the NT seems to agree with the LXX actually agree with the Hebrew Original at another place.>

Huh?

<3) When the LXX was standardized by Origen, he sometimes made the Greek agree with the New Testament quotation.>

Sounds like a modified Ruckman/Gipp concept. What evidence is there to back up such an idea?

James>>> Orthopodeo aol.com

James White

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 13:26:42 -0400
From: Orthopodeo aol.com
Subject: Textual Issues

<May I begin by congratulating you for for writing a book addressing the KJV only cult (it is nothing less). I myself have written a work addressing this (which you no doubt mention in your own good work): _The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists_. If it is a reponsible work it will do a world of good, I am sure.>

I hesitate to use the word "cult," though Ruckmanism often qualifies for the use of such a strong, and normally pejorative, term. The positive response has been frankly overwhelming, for which I am grateful to the Lord. It seems the book definitely "scratches an itch," so to speak.

<Some of us have agreed to create a separate list to conduct a seminar on the subject of text criticism and classic Reformation orthodoxy as opposed to the modern innovative evangelical doctrine of "Inerrant autographs.">

And when might we know how one could subscribe to such a list?

I'd like to note something right up front. It is my intention to do my best, recognizing I will, undoubtedly, fail, to avoid unnecessarily provocative terms in this discussion. I believe such terminology is unfitting for Christian scholars especially in light of the importance of the topic. What is more, I wish to make it clear that I do not wish to drag denominational issues into this topic, again, no matter how tempting that might be. You later mentioned my Reformed Baptist stance in such a way that was, as you yourself admitted, provocative, and I will simply allow such "shots" to pass. I wish to focus upon the issues at hand, and make a promise to the list-readers to do my best to keep things focused. I readily admit I may well fail at times: I make no claims to perfection. But I would hope that others would join me in attempting to make this dialogue as useful as possible.

<Consequently, much that you have said will provide a nice preliminary example of what we will be dismantling, so nicely typical is your articulation.>

I will take that as a compliment, as it might be rephrased, "Much that you have said will provide a nice preliminary example of what we will be attacking, so typical of the vast majority of Christian scholarship is your articulation." The fact that the book itself is heartily endorsed by men such as Metzger, Carson, Archer, Geisler, MacArthur, Packer, Barker and Blomberg, proves that the work has the support of a very wide, and very deep, spectrum of Christian scholarship. I admit I find it strange to be in the majority for once: all of my previous works represented a distinct minority in the sense that the theology espoused and the topics addressed were not "main stream."

<If at the end of the seminar enough information will have come to light to cause all the earnest participants to cringe every time they hear the words "inerrant autographs," my job will have been well done indeed.>

A very interesting goal, if I might say so myself. My goal is to make sure everyone who invests the time to follow the conversation will have a very good idea of what the issues are, what the facts are, and how the arguments play out against one another. I don't seek to have anyone cringing, ducking, or engaging in any other unusual bodily movements.

<When you ask Andrew, surely he must believe in the inerrancy of the autographs, it is like asking someone if they have stopped beating their wife. Not only is it the wrong question, but it reveals how terminally damaging these highly charged code words can be: before one can even raise the question as to its validity as a paradigm everyone is conditioned to suspect anyone raising the issue of either its formal or historical validity.>

Possibly for someone so deeply involved in your particular perspective it is a "bad" question; however, the need for close definition of terminology is especially clear in this conversation, and when one "puts down" the phrase "inspired, inerrant autographs," it is a natural question to ask about a person's view on the subject. Hence, how it can be the "wrong" question is hard to see.

<For now I will say for the record that it is a modern heresy, which will put the discussion where I believe it belongs by putting the advocates of this Warfieldianism in need of addressing the issue outside of the comfort of the modern evangelical institutional status quo. Now to move on to more substantial issues.>

My goodness, that seems a rather cavalier way of putting it! Most scholars I know would say it is the historical position of the Church, in point of fact, and not a "modern heresy." I guess I will have to ask, do you really consider Warfield, or someone such as myself, a "heretic" for not following your particular textual perspective?

<I am not at all suprised to learn that you have no use for the Protestant dogmaticians--there weren't a Baptist among 'em.>

I have great use and respect for "the Protestant dogmaticians," including men like Gill for that matter. I simply do not believe that every theologian is equally well equipped to address every aspect of Christian truth. Most of us, I'm afraid, are tempted to over-step the natural boundaries God has placed upon us by His gifts. I guess it might be a "Baptist" thing to emphasize the necessity of my being a responsible exegete, and hence to question the conclusions of any theologian through reference to inspired Scripture, but I think such a stance is quite safe, as it is quite biblical.

<You don't find any of _your_ kinsmen in their number because there weren't no Baptist dogmatic tradition to parallel what the Protestants were constructing in response to 17th century Tridentine attacks (those in the seminar will have read by now my essay treating the dogmaticians). So how dare you be so dismissive of this tradition.>

A few years ago I debated Gerry Matatics on the subject of sola scriptura in Long Beach, California. The debate was well attended, with the audience filled with priests and nuns. Mr. Matatics came out swinging, doing all in his power to make me look like a Jack Chick clone. My own pastor indicated that my work was surely something he was not gifted for, as he would have punched Mr. Matatics in the mouth for his constant slams, insults, etc. But I have engaged in that type of activity so often over the years that I long ago learned that emotionally-charged words, bravado, and the like, may sway those liable to such tactics, but for those concerned about the *truth,* such things are not only meaningless, but detrimental. The debate did not go well for Mr. Matatics, because I simply absorbed his shots and stayed focused upon the issue at hand.

You over-react. Dr. Letis. I "dare" only to question the traditions of this tradition, so to speak. If there are solid answers to my questions, I would like to hear them. But I am not one to refrain from asking meaningful questions due to some fealty to an ecclesiastical tradition.

<Are you as dismissive of Nicene christology as "some kind of orthodoxy" as well, or are you content to piggy-back this non-Baptist tradition? (I do not mean to be harsh, but certainly provocative.)>

I'd say you are both harsh as well as provocative, and that, I'd submit, without any reason. There is no logical parallel, of course, to Nicene Christology and a modern-era theory of textual transmission. The one is plainly expressed in Scripture, the other is not. One is ancient, the other modern. I can answer questions directed against Nicene christology without reference to special pleading or "ecclesiastical usage." Can you answer questions directed against your textual theories in the same way?

<As for the TR as an entity and the Protestant dogmaticians, one short quote from one whose memory as a fellow Lutheran historian and text critic I honour, will serve me well: "...it is undisputed that from the 16th century to the 18th century orthodoxy's doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed... [the] Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the 'original' text." (Kurt Aland, "The Text of the church?" Trinity journal 8 (1987), p. 131.>

It seems Dr. Aland is plain on the same point I have made in the past: that this was not a direct choice on the part of these theologians, i.e., they were not pitting one "text-type" versus another "text-type." But I have to ask again the question I have asked of Rev. Sandlin: what *specific* text are you referring to? Are you referring to a general "text-type," which would include Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and maybe even the final decisions of the KJV translators, or can you point to a specific text that is obtainable today?

<You dismiss the Protestant dogmaticians and you dimiss the final defining of what it _meant_ (means!) to be catholic and Protestant. But then these categories play no real role in your own ecclesiastical self-definition.>

< chuckle > I will allow your prejudice to speak for itself, Dr. Letis. As anyone can see, there is a vast difference between "dismissing" these men and disagreeing with their textual theories. Surely you do not paint *everything* in such black and white colors, do you? I surely hope that you can focus more directly upon the *issues* rather than the *personalities* in our future discussions, Dr. Letis. I think all involved would be helped by that.

James>>> Orthopodeo aol.com

James White

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 13:26:48 -0400
From: Orthopodeo aol.com
Subject: Re: From Andrew Sandlin: re: ...

<I appreciate James White's long, irenic response to my various postings re: IOA. Preparing for a much needed (if not much-deserved) vacation, I won't be able to answer with the extensiveness of his posting, but hope that in due time I can address his comments and objections or that my dear friend Theodore Letis, the genuine "aficionado" of this issue, will do so. In any case, comments such as these will furnish excellent grist for the imminent seminar.>

I hope you enjoy your vacation. I am still hoping to get my family on its first vacation this fall (my oldest is now 9, so it's about time), but since our faithful car of six years died this week (engine melt-down, easily accomplished when living in Phoenix), it's hard to say. My wife and I are getting away this weekend, in fact, for a 160 mile bicycle ride over two days (indeed, how restful!).

<I wish to focus on one comment of James's that constitutes the heart of the issue; he states:

Do I detect some kind of belief that the Church is infallible
in making such decisions regarding text? It would seem to me
that this is a most dangerous, let alone untenable, argument.
It was as I have noted, the argument used against Erasmus not so long ago.

This really is the rub, isn't it?>

If one makes the Church into an infallible source of textual information, yes, that definitely creates a "rub," for many reasons. I don't see where the bible invests such an infallible ability in the church, and also, what "church" does one refer to? How would this argument, for example, play with our friend Patrick Madrid?

<Superficially, the only alternatives are an infallible church speaking _ex cathedra_ re: the selection among variants, and the invention of a seperate classification of Scripture, "original autographs" (shades of the Platonic "Forms," a comparison, I believe, first used by Theodore Letis) toward which we are forever striving and never reaching, a locus forever just out of our grasp.>

I find it historically noteworthy that Rome has really only once tried to provide that very kind of textual certainty, and she very quickly dropped the idea like a hot potato. The example of Sixtus' "infallible Vulgate" remains an embarrassing mark in Roman history.

<It is necessary for James and others to understand that the Orthodox Protestant approach (no less Lutheran then Reformed), completely antedating the Enlightenment displays a completely different _orientation_ to the Bible than that of modern evangelicalism.>

We might wish to keep in mind, Rev. Sandlin, that the very *existence* of this "Orthodox Protestant approach" in the form that it is being alleged is open to question.

<The whole categories of thought are different. For example, the Protestants did not think of comparing the apographs with the mythically conceived inerrant autographs not merely because such a venture is impossible in the first place, but because they did not share the modern evangelical propensity to posit infallibility in such a fashion as to require the autographic "Forms.">

How would you respond, sir, to the challenge that this kind of reasoning is anachronistic?

<Thus, despite Greg Bahnsen's no doubt sincere assertions to the contrary, he does, in my opinion, adduce an inclination to set an extrabiblical standard of Biblical reliability, as do all advocates of IOA -- no matter what they may say and truly believe they hold, their textual views give them away.>

It is very difficult for me to understand how this reasoning follows, either from the facts or from the theology. What is more, it seems to me, and please correct me here, that you are having, and eating, your cake, so to speak. You quote Burgon regarding ecclesiastical authority being necessary to the determination of the text, and yet you say Dr. Bahnsen is the one with an extra-biblical standard of Biblical reliability. Can you put these ideas together for me?

<I am saying that it is _precisely_ the desire to uphold a certain Enlightenment- shaped form of the trustworthiness of Scripture that requires _a priori_ the retreat to the IOA theory.>

Could you explain, please, how such Enlightenment concepts were part and parcel of the concerns of the early Fathers of the church, and that long before the Enlightenment? I mean, the early Fathers made reference to the transcriptional errors, variations, and the like, that existed in manuscripts of the Scriptures in their day. Men like Origen and Jerome recognized the problem and engaged the task of determining not merely an "apographic concensus," so to speak, but they sought to get closer to the originals (note Jerome's use of Hebrew), which seems to me to reflect a common-sense desire to examine variation and come to conclusions regarding the *original* reading. If this is an "Enlightenment" concept, we need to re-date the beginning of the Enlightenment. :)

<The dogmaticians had a higher view of the inscripturated word of God.>

A different view of the transmission of the text and the way of identifying it today. I reject the idea, and would hope list-readers would join me in asking that such terminology not be used, that the view proposed should be described as one that maintains a "higher view of the inscripturated word of God." It would be quite easy for me, Rev. Sandlin, to throw such terminology about and speak of my personal *feelings* about what your position *might* mean, but I would hope that you would realize that my view of the word of God is no lower than your own.

<Good catholics that they were, they repudiated ecclesiastical consensus in textual issues no more than they did in Trinitarian and Christological issues -- >

Excuse me? Could you show this to me, please, from Calvin, as an example? And could you draw out the logical connection between Trinitarian and Christological issues and your particular textual viewpoint?

<and I would submit respectfully that the same reasoning James employs questioning the consensus text may be, and has been, employed by Clark Pinnock and theological modernists to overturn that "excessively 'Greek-oriented' and static view of God" enshrined in our catholic creeds.>

I appreciate the terms in which you couch your accusation, but I can only say that there is not the slightest logical connection between my rejection of what you *call* the "consensus text" (the term is meaningless) and Pinnock's dive into process theology. What we have here, it seems, is the assertion that if one recognizes the historical reality of the genesis of the TR, and the reasons for the rise and predominance in history of the Byzantine text type, one is using reasoning that is just as rebellious as that used by someone who denies God's omniscience, omnipotence, or immutability. I think such an assertion is false on its face, and I have to only ask that we consider why such an assertion would have to be made if in fact this textual theory is so compelling and clear.

<Thank you, again, Mr. White for your extensive response.>

Thank you for writing, and I hope your vacation is enjoyable.

James>>> Orthopodeo aol.com

James White

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 13:26:53 -0400
From: Orthopodeo aol.com
Subject: Re: MANUSCRIPTS, ARGUMENT

> Greetings, Mark. Here's hoping a change of venue, sans certain exacerbating
> elements, will be of assistance in making our conversation more in-line with
> Christian brothers.

<Yes, pooh poohing the opposition without bothering to understand what they are saying is very brotherly.>

Hello, Dan. I'm sorry you misunderstood my posts.

> The phrase "providential preservation" obviously means something very
> specific to you. You'll have to admit others would use the same phrase with
> a different meaning, right? To what would you attribute this difference of
> opinion?

<There has been enough foundation laid in the thread you jumped into the middle of to tie that language to Chapter I Section 8 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.>

Yes, the allegation has been made that there is a connection, but I don't see the connection nor any compelling or necessary reason to concede the connection.

> < It is directly taught in the Scriptures themselves:>
>
> It is a tall claim to say that a particular, definitive, and very specific,
> textual theory is taught "directly" in the Scriptures. Let's see if this is,
> in fact, the case:

<You ignored the relevance of every passage you commented on.>

If I might suggest a different way of phrasing it: I did not accept the idea that there was any relevance to the particular textual theory that Mr. Johnson is proposing. It is not a matter of "ignoring" anything.

> <"For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth
> to all generations." Psalm 100:5>
>
> God's truth is enduring and everlasting, it does not change. This again,
> however, has nothing to do with textual theories, textual variation, etc. In
> point of fact, Mark, might I not urge such a passage against those who would
> say that the best we can do is to use a text that has "warts" and is based
> not upon inerrant autographs but upon a text that allegedly has
> "ecclesiastical authority" behind it? I wouldn't do such a thing, but I
> can't see how it would be wrong, in light of your own use of the passage.

<Mark is talking about the *doctrine* of providential preservation laid out in the Confession, he is not talking about *textual*theories*.>

Unfortunately, a doctrine without content and application is not much of a doctrine. You might be helped by the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and I are not new to this discussion: we have encountered one another in other venues, and hence I am not simply speaking with him for the first time. Mr. Johnson well knows I believe in "providential preservation" too---we simply disagree, greatly, on the hows and the results.

<The Psalmist declares that every generation will have the word of God.>

The Psalmist declares that God's truth will endure to every generation.

<Those who prate of *textual*theories* have the arrogant belief that the Church did without the word of God for a thousand years until 19th century scholars came along to find it again for her.>

I've not met anyone who believed that way, and I certainly don't, either. To whom, then do you refer?

<My church is engaged in a search for a pastor. We wrote a letter describing the man we are looking for. The first point in the description (which we labeled non-negotiable) was that he must be "confessionally reformed". We actually received one response from someone who was offering himself as a candidate who started by saying, "I don't know what 'confessionally reformed' means, but...." Your interaction with Mark's article is on the same level: "I don't know what 'providential preservation' means but obviously all these scriptures have nothing to do with this other topic that I think is important.">

Again, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I see little reason for taking your comments seriously. They seem borne more of emotion than serious reflection.

James>>> Orthopodeo aol.com

Dr. Theodore Letis

> I hesitate to use the word "cult," though Ruckmanism often qualifies for the
> use of such a strong, and normally pejorative, term. The positive response
> has been frankly overwhelming, for which I am grateful to the Lord. It seems
> the book definitely