<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14792577\x26blogName\x3dPLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3757314713231228019', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>


The poor boy is 'realy quite weary'...

This is an example of the weary last stand of a Critical Text follower, who at this point doesn't even believe his own justifications:

"I'm really quite weary of this debate and typically avoid it because the claims for skepticism are always one way. You accept as an article of faith that if someone rejects your detailed account of how God has Providentially preserved the text then you claim a lack of faith in preservation. It is a tautology that I need not accept. Furthermore, WCF 20 leaves my conscience unbound to anything but Scripture. Every historical argument you make for the method by which the text has been preserved is not found in the Scriptures themselves but are an appeal to an external standard that I need not be bound unto in order to affirm that God has preserved His Word. I rest on Deut 29:29 and the inscrutable ways of God. I need not attempt (nor am I permitted) to state with certainty how God's Providential ways have worked but trust that He accomplishes what He promises. Thus, let's stop the tired comparison that those who are non-TR represent a sub-class of Christians who do not believe in the Providence of God simply because they refuse to accept the certainty of the report from TR-advocates that they know the mind and ways of God in historical detail."

Divine providence does not suggest a constructed text. Divine providence suggests a received text. It is at that point that you need to just accept that man needs the Bible more than the Bible needs man. Once the subject has been made known to the believer such an acceptance is a mark of regeneration.

The damage done by the constructed Critical Text versions is exactly the damage done that the Romanist counter-Reformation desired to be done by those mutilated and poisonous manuscripts.

When people are self-identified believers yet short of actual regeneration (they're proud and yet to be broken, and usually they are shallow, and along with that they always fear and revere man more than God) they always gravitate towards the shadow of the Beast church and adopt the *foundational* Beast church doctrine. There is no more foundational doctrine than what is the actual word of God.

It is the *received* traditional text, Hebrew and Greek, which underlies the Authorized - King James - Version. The giggling and mocking at this fact is no different than what is heard from inside the bowels of the Beast Romanist church throughout the centuries.


Post a Comment

<< Home