According to Robert Spencer, National Review decided to cave in to pressure from the Council on American Islamic Relations because they were “choosing their battles.”
   While it’s definitely true that National Review has done a great deal to expose the agenda of radical Islam, and I’m not going to stop reading them, I disagree strongly with their decision to remove advertisements for books critical of Islam and I’m very disappointed at their lack of resolve. This is anything but an insignificant battle; it’s a pivotal part of CAIR’s anti-democratic jihad to have all criticism of Mohammed or of Islam declared “hate speech,” and National Review has now set a dangerous precedent that will certainly embolden CAIR to intensify their efforts.

I believe that Dr. White has a very problematic understanding of "tradition" (as I outlined here). Accordingly, examples of what I am calling nuda Scriptura in Dr. White's Reformed Baptist views are not hard to find. His opposition to paedobaptism, for instance, relies upon the notion that paedobaptists do not exegete Scriptures about the New Covenant correctly because they allow their "traditions" to get between them and the inspired texts. Take the “traditional” clothing off the Scriptures, Dr. White seems to be saying, and presto, credobaptism shines forth in all its “objective”, exegetically “pure” glory. What is this if not an outright appeal to the “naked” text of Scripture?

The most glaring example I have found in White’s writings is the October 22, 2004 entry (go here, scroll down) which, via a metaphor, openly questions the IQ of people who try to sail boats (theological systems) without removing the trailer (tradition) first.

Especially as I read some of White's recent blog posts, I find it exceedingly difficult to imagine having to retract many things I have said about his views on this point. I believe that James White is defending what he honestly believes to be true on this point, but at the same time I honestly believe that White's view of sola Scriptura bears almost no relation to the principle and practice of the Protestant Reformers themselves but is instead better described as nuda Scriptura. This view of "naked texts" subsequently affects his view of hermeneutics and the nature and prospects of the exegetical task, and how he approaches and tries to reason with the members of other Christian denominations. Similarly, my view of sola Scriptura affects my thinking and practice on those points.

   Well, the times, they are a-changin.'
   Partly due to Mel Gibson's treatment of Mary in The Passion of the Christ, partly due to cooling passions from the Reformation, partly due to Catholic apologetics, and partly due to thoughtful Protestant leaders who have been speaking out on the subject: Mary is now getting more of the respect and devotion she deserves in Protestant circles.
   I've been quite surprised at the changes taking place. One Protestant apologist I know speaks very openly about Mary and sounds very Catholic in doing so, even defending titles like Mediatrix on her behalf.

In Matthew's Gospel Codex Sinaiticus contains another suggestion about Jesus which conflicted with the theological views of later Christians and was therefore suppressed. Speaking (in Matthew chapter 24) of the day of judgment, Jesus, according to Codex Sinaiticus, observes that 'of that day and hour knoweth no-one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.'
   Other ancient manuscripts also contain the words 'neither the Son'. But the suggestion here that Jesus might not be on the same level of knowledge as God was unacceptable to later generations of Christians, and the phrase was suppressed.
   At this point even Hort was momentarily tempted to suspect a theologically motivated suppression, admitting that the omission of these words 'neither the Son' can indeed be explained 'by the doctrinal difficulty which they seem to contain'.

I admit that profane men lay hold of the subject of predestination to carp, or cavil, or snarl, or scoff. But if their petulance frightens us, it will be necessary to conceal all the principal articles of faith, because they and their fellows leave scarcely one of them unassailed with blasphemy. A rebellious spirit will display itself no less insolently when it hears that there are three persons in the divine essence, than when it hears that God when he created man foresaw every thing that was to happen to him. Nor will they abstain from their jeers when told that little more than five thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the world. Of course, this third assertion should not have been classed with the first and second, which respectively concern the Trinity and Gods Omniscience, since it involves a chronological computation assuming no gaps, based on the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, together with several assumptions about the chronology of Genesis 1. (For further reference see notes on Book One, Chapter XIV, section 1.) For they will ask, Why did the power of God slumber so long in idleness? In short, nothing can be stated that they will not assail with derision. To quell their blasphemies, must we say nothing concerning the divinity of the Son and Spirit? Must the creation of the world be passed over in silence? No! The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders of the ungodly, as Augustine powerfully maintains in his treatise, De Bono Perseverantiae (cap. 1420). For we see that the false apostles were unable, by defaming and accusing the true doctrine of Paul, to make him ashamed of it. There is nothing in the allegation that the whole subject is fraught with danger to pious minds, as tending to destroy exhortation, shake faith, disturb and dispirit the heart. Augustine disguises not that on these grounds he was often charged with preaching the doctrine of predestination too freely, but, as it was easy for him to do, he abundantly refutes the charge. As a great variety of absurd objections are here stated, we have thought it best to dispose of each of them in its proper place (see chap. 23). Only I wish it to be received as a general rule, that the secret things of God are not to be scrutinized, and that those which he has revealed are not to be overlooked, lest we may, on the one hand, be chargeable with curiosity, and, on the other, with ingratitude. For it has been shrewdly observed by Augustine (de Genesi ad Literam, Lib. 5), that we can safely follow Scripture, which walks softly, as with a mothers step, in accommodation to our weakness. Those, however, who are so cautious and timid, that they would bury all mention of predestination in order that it may not trouble weak minds, with what color, pray, will they cloak their arrogance, when they indirectly charge God with a want of due consideration, in not having foreseen a danger for which they imagine that they prudently provide? Whoever, therefore, throws obloquy on the doctrine of predestination, openly brings a charge against God, as having inconsiderately allowed something to escape from him which is injurious to the Church.

Dear James R. White, Regarding John 20:28 Mr. Al Kadhi brings up a case of discrepancy between Greek Bible manuscripts : "Secondly, the word translated in this verse as "God" is indeed the Greek "Ho theos" (The God), and not "theos" (divine). However, when studying the history of this verse in the ancient Biblical manuscripts from which our modern Bibles have been compiled we find an interesting fact, specifically, that the ancient Biblical manuscripts themselves are not in agreement as to the correct form of this word. For example, the codex Bezae (or codex D) is a fifth century manuscript containing Greek and Latin texts of the Gospels and Acts, which was discovered in the 16th century by Theodore Beza in a monastery in Lyon. The predecessor of the codex Bezae and other church manuscripts do not contain the article "Ho" ("THE") in their text (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman, p. 266)." (Taken from http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Al-Kadhi/r01.2.2.11.html) 1)According to the newest edition of the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament and/or the newest edition of the UBS Greek New Testament, what is the original reading in this verse, Ho theos or just theos (please state if you are talking about Nestle Aland or UBS or both)? 2)Hypothetically speaking, if we take the original reading to be just theos rather than Ho theos would that mean Thomas didnt address Jesus as God? 3)Which reading would you say is the original and why?

1114: "Adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consensus . . . of the Fathers," we profess that "the sacraments of the new law were . . . all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord." (Quotation of the Council of Trent, DS 1600-1601)
1117: As she has done for the canon of Sacred Scripture and for the doctrine of the faith, the Church, by the power of the Spirit who guides her "into all truth," has gradually recognized this treasure received from Christ and, as the faithful steward of God's mysteries, has determined its "dispensation." Thus the Church has discerned over the centuries that among liturgical celebrations there are seven that are, in the strict sense of the term, sacraments instituted by the Lord.

For example, in the first chapter of Mark's Gospel we are told of a leper who says to Jesus, 'If you will, you can make me clean'. Codex Sinaiticus continues, Jesus, 'angry, stretched out his hand and touched him, and said, "I will; be clean"'. Later manuscripts, perceiving that to attribute anger to Jesus at this point made him appear, perhaps, too human, alter the word 'angry' to 'moved with compassion'.

"Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites [do], for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees [what is done] in secret will reward you."

As if this were not enough to shock those schooled on older versions of the gospels, Codex Sinaiticus even minimizes some of the punishments in store for the wicked, according to the traditional texts. St Mark's Gospel, chapter 9, for instance, describes hell as a place 'where the worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched' (a description taken from the last verse of the Old Testament prophet, Isaiah). Codex Sinaiticus omits the words.

So also ends White's claim that there is no "meaningful connection to Romans 9 other than purely wishful thinking," for the connection is clear in the general nature of the language used by the Hebrews, and the specific examples of the idiom cited, not only in Jer. 7:22, but also in the other passages cited by Whitney. White stands convicted of scholastic incompetence, and his position stands not only refuted, but buried and dead.

Jeremiah 7:22 For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices...

By [this Skeptic]'s line of thinking, Jeremiah 7:22 "stands in flagrant contradiction of what the last four books of the Pentateuch say" with their many commands of offerings and sacrifices. Presumably we are to think that Jeremiah represents some "anti-cultus" faction that denies the Mosaic heritage -- some would say, that he is speaking against a recent forgery of Deuteronomy "discovered" in the Temple.

The simple answer to this notes that this is rather the use of hyperbole to effect a point. The purpose of this phrase is to show the relative importance of sacrifices, etc. in terms of inward attitudes...

...Jeremiah (as well as other Biblical writers - cf. Amos 5:21-5, Micah 6:1-8, Is. 1:10-17) here employs a type of idiom designed to grab the attention of his hearers and cause his message to be noticed and remembered...in our verse (22), a rhetorical negation is used to bring attention to the fact that internal posture is more important than external ritual. By expressing the matter in terms of a negation, the hearer/reader is first shocked, then realizes from the admonitions following what the actual point is: As it is expressed in 1 Samuel 15:22 --
...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Exegesis - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives