The Spectrum of Received Text Advocacy

https://www.thegreaterheritage.com/product/why-i-preach-from-the-received-text-an-anthology-of-essays-by-reformed-ministers-book/

A friend and I frequently exchange notes regarding the text of the New Testament and some of the controversies surrounding it. We're both committed to the now minority position regarding the so-called Byzantine Text and the Textus Receptus and we both reject the Critical Text which has been widely embraced even by many who would otherwise claim to be conservatives and/or Confessionalists.

As such, we certainly keep tabs on the players involved and what's being said and produced. We debate the merits of the different positions such as the Ecclesiastical Text position of Ted Letis and the Confession-rooted views of Jeff Riddle and like these men we are both filled with concern over the degree of compromise found within the larger Evangelical and Confessional worlds. And if the embrace of many of the canons of Higher Criticism among 'conservatives' wasn't bad enough, there's the fog spawned by those within the King James Only Movement, a group whose errors not only generate confusion but afford the enemies of the historic text and notions of Providential Preservation an occasion to mock and make false (and at times deceitful) associations. There's even a spectrum to the KJO movement with some camps falling into what must be identified as heretical and novel views of inspiration.

For the record in terms of English language Bibles I tend to use the King James, New King James, and often the Third-Millennium Bible (or New Authorized Version).

My friend and I were discussing the upcoming book on the Received Text that's linked to this article. I was pleased to note that he agreed with my concerns and conclusions regarding the book and those associated with it in the following (slightly edited) statement. I wrote:

What's unclear is the basis for their adherence to the Textus Receptus. Like I've said before with the likes of Jeff Riddle it's a question of Confessionalism - an issue I have zero interest in. I appreciate what he's doing but ultimately I cannot rest my argument on something as flimsy as Westminster or the London Baptist Confession.

We all employ metanarratives but the ones utilized by the Confessional sects are not Biblical, but rather are rooted in a narrow and highly selective (and thus highly dubious) read of Church History - and also rooted in some rather dubious prolegomenical assumptions. It saddens me that several of the names associated with this publication (McShaffrey and Einwechter to start with) are Theonomists who may be sound on the question of the New Testament text but exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of what Scripture is covenantally and thus are highly prone to Judaizing and the misuse and abuse of the Old Testament.

That said, seeing the forest through the trees I'm appreciative of their work on this point.

---- 

I do look forward to reading the book and will continue to follow Riddle and some of the others. The point here is that while I'm hardly in agreement with these men on what the Scriptures say – as I'm not a Theonomist or a Baptist, and by most accounts I would no longer even qualify as a Calvinist, I nevertheless appreciate the work that's being done. It's needed, all the more as the celebrity teachers have capitulated on this point and are setting the stage for future defection on a substantial scale. They're building their houses of 'ministry', and quite impressive they are by worldly measure, and yet with their views of Scripture, they are built on foundations of sand. They're laying the groundwork for a future fall and maybe one not so distant as growing numbers of Evangelicals embrace critical views of the text and are only retaining their theological 'conservatism' by backdoor arguments and theological forms and frameworks reminiscent at times of Barthianism. In other respects many of today's Evangelicals would qualify as the theologically Conservative Liberals of another generation.