The author's acknowledgement that all Christians need to
consider the issue of textual criticism is to be applauded but I'm left a
little baffled by his tepid response to the issue of CBGM or the
Coherence-Based Genealogical Method of textual reconstruction.
It seems that he's suggesting that an investigation of the
issue is warranted because there will certainly be questions regarding the
changes in the text and the method utilised to bring them about.
And yet even reading a summary of what CBGM is should be
disturbing to all Christians who are concerned with the authority of Scripture.
This is not simply an 'issue' but an attack on the foundations of our faith.
But sadly the Church is ill-equipped to fight this battle as its teachers and
so-called stalwarts have already (for more than a generation) worked to erode
the authority of Scripture by the embrace of textual criticism. In other words
an investigation of this issue reveals that many 'conservative' leaders and
theologians are exposed (at least on this point) as being closer to the camp of
theological liberalism and the Higher Critics than they are to the historic
position regarding the text, let alone the position of the Puritans and
Reformers they claim to revere.
What will it take to wake people up? Maybe if English translations
actually reverse the meaning of a passage like 2 Peter 3.10, the people in the
pew will rise up. It would seem that in many cases their intuitions are better
suited to fight this battle than the compromised clerics who ever live in fear
of rattling the cage or engendering controversy. And yet I say that with a
fading hope. The current edition of the ESV has already modified 2 Peter 3.10,
changing the meaning of the verse. However the latest iteration of the Critical
Text (NA28) mentioned in the review will not just modify the verse's meaning
but completely reverse it, causing it to state a doctrinal point contrary to
the historic text. There should have been more of a protest by now and I'm not
without hope as indeed some have started to take notice and turn against the
ESV – and yet thus far these protests are but whispers in a windstorm.
The elephant in the room is the now largely lost and even
rejected doctrine of Providential Preservation. If the Scriptures are
supernaturally generated then it follows that they are also supernaturally
preserved and are ever the province of the Church. The compromise that is
Christendom and the error of the scholastic approach to theology created the
conditions in which the sacred text was handed over to the academy which
proceeded to dismantle it. Preservation was discarded and Textual
Reconstruction was embraced, even by those within (what seemed to be) the most
conservative of circles. Little did they realise they opened the gates and let
the enemies of Zion rush in. And now they make mockery of us in handing the
text over to computer algorithms. Mathematical formulae play the role of the
Holy Spirit in reconstructing the divine text. The very notion is in fact
blasphemous.
In reality, there is no Sola Scriptura without a doctrine of
Preservation. Through the denial of corollary buy key concepts such as
Providential Preservation and the Sufficiency of Scripture, little by little
the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has been eroded.
Given that this less than clarion call to resist this
trajectory was made by a minister within the OPC, by many accounts considered
one of the bastions of Confessionalism is telling and an indication of just how
far things have progressed. If the reviewer indeed expresses doubt one hopes
that he would proclaim it with greater resolve. I hope I have not misunderstood
him but it seems to me he could (and should) have said a great deal more.
It will take a couple of generations for the embracers of
CBGM to end up like the PCUSA or other mainline groups. The change won't happen
overnight but it is today's leaders that will bear the blame. They have opened
the door to this gravest of errors. Hirelings for the most part, they are
handing their sheep to the wolves who stand ready to devour them. The stage is
being set.
The dilemma will be for those who see through this issue and
face the day in which their congregations begin to use these corruptions of the
sacred text. Most of the time it won't be an issue but there is a virus at
work. It played out in our congregation some months back when the pastor,
working his way through the Gospel of John proceeded to dismiss John 5.4 and
then weeks later utterly trash the pericope
adulterae (John 7.53-8.11) and announced to the confused congregation that
it wasn't Scripture. He of course backed up his statements by appealing to the
popular and revered leadership of New Calvinism. The quotes provided by
commentators such as MacArthur, Carson and White were to him the end of the
discussion, QED. If the provided
quotations from that crew weren't disappointing enough, he also provided quotes
from Westcott, Hort and Metzger too if I recall. What should seem strange
company, supposed stalwarts hand in hand with liberal scholarship is now no
longer worthy of notice. The Inerrantist-Textual Reconstructionist Revolution
is complete. Indeed, they own the field.
Somewhat to my astonishment he still tangentially preached
the passage which (if one considers the implications) is equally as troubling.
If it isn't Scripture as he asserted, how dare he stand in the pulpit and
preach it? And yet to simply pass it by seemed also problematic to him and thus
what are we left with? ... chaos and confusion, a fog only the enemy could
relish.
The answer is clear but it's one not provided by the
reviewer. The Nestle-Aland Critical Text tradition and the Warfield-ite
inerrantist-reconstruction project needs to be rejected in toto, and exposed for what it is... a compromise with
theological liberalism.
"But that would make us into Fundamentalists," some
will protest. And indeed nothing to them could be more abhorrent than to fall
from middle class socially respectable grace. Fundamentalism is a confused term
that has different meanings in different contexts. The real issue here is one
of antithesis and on a more basic level it is the separation of the holy from
the profane. A generation dominated by a theology that has confused these two
principles has clearly lost its way. The Church, its authority and its
doctrines are not subject to the world nor do they need to find coherence with
the philosophy that governs the academy, the Western Tradition or the epistemological
impulses that govern modern intellectualism. Once again the unfortunate concept
of Christendom plays a role here, confusing the West and its intellectual history
with the Kingdom and its concerns. Historic doctrines stand ready to be changed
as the review admits and yet even in the face of such an assault, these leaders
(seemingly) will not make a stand. In other cases I can think of Reformed
leaders and academics that have not only embraced Textual Criticism but have
also embraced CBGM with great relish.
We're not here to argue but to proclaim what has been
revealed. This simple truth has been lost and overblown eisegetical readings of
passages like 1 Peter 3.15 have done great harm. It is not a philosophical imperative but rather a
call for us to point to Christ. He is our reason, not a massive philosophical
apparatus that allows the legacy of Athens to govern our categories, terms and
indeed our very epistemological methods and assumptions.
A small number have rejected this overall trajectory and I
hope the embrace of CBGM is (for others) a step too far, a veritable bridge too far that drives a multitude to turn their backs on the Warfield tradition and its
unfortunate legacy. I hope that it will also provoke a return to this larger
set of issues and maybe in God's merciful Providence this issue can become a
catalyst for a larger reconsideration of the theological package that's been
sold to the larger Protestant world over the past 75 years.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.