Addendum

After more contemplation, I realized that the faith factor of this discussion must be considered with further magnification. For while both sides of this discussion have access to a large battery of questions, and logical complications, both sides also require faith. It is at this point where this argument becomes simpler. Let us then examine these focal points.

Let us begin with the tradition of the Reformation and the Textus Receptus. Those who hold to the position of the TR believe that God has promised to preserve His word. We believe that without the Word of God we would be lost. We believe that God used the Reformation, the TR tradition, and people like Erasmus to compile the Greek text we have before us today (I only make mention of Erasmus because the other side is sure to, and we need to have an idea in our mind of the proper role he did and did not play). Here is the focal point we have come to see. We accept by faith that God used these men, this tradition, and the Spirit working in the revived church to preserve this Text, between two covers, without error. This was done without inspiring any of those working on the texts, or anyone who was translating.

Those along the CT side follow much the same formula. They believe that God has promised to preserve His word. They believe that without this Word, we cannot be saved. They will admit that God worked in and through the Reformation, the TR tradition, and people like Erasmus. (Most, if not all, do call the TR a corrupt text though.) This side believes that the TR is not perfect. They believe God has kept His promise by preserving for us all His words spread throughout all the MSS. With this form of preservation, God’s word is not and cannot be between two covers. Instead it is found in all the MSS. Since it is found in all the MSS, then in order to know which words are God’s words in Greek, the CT person must trust that the translation committees of today will find God’s words for them. This is their point of faith.

The foremost factor here is faith. Do you trust that God worked in the Reformation and TR tradition to give us His complete Word between two covers? Or, do you believe that God preserved His word for us in all the MSS and that He uses dozens of different translation committees to show it to us? Obviously, we have a point of faith in each argument. Which is more believable? Which conforms to the Scriptural definition of preservation? That is the key.

Remember, everything must be tested with Scripture. The passages mentioned previously leave no room for doubting that the church will have the complete Scripture. Not spread throughout the world, but always in its possession. Further, the Great Commission requires that we teach all nations. This requires that we be able to consistently and faithfully translate this Greek text into languages spoken by the common people. Notice however, that in order to be able to translate with any certainty the words of God, that one must in fact have those words before him. If those words are spread far and wide, no person can truly undertake the necessary job of translating into the common tongue. We are then stuck waiting on the words from the scholars who cannot agree amongst themselves.

If we accept by faith that God worked in the TR tradition and the reformation to bring together His perfect word, then we do not have a problem understanding and accepting that some words in our Greek text have their support in the Latin. We don’t have a problem understanding that words that have miniscule support are given by inspiration of God. Just as the unregenerate looks at Scripture and says, “It isn’t possible that the church really found all the right books. You don’t even claim inspiration for them!” So, the textual critic of today looks at the TR and says, “It isn’t possible that the Reformers /TR tradition /Holy-Spirit-lead-church really found all the words God intended.”

Yes!! It is possible! The literal exegesis of the Scriptures requires it! We accept it by faith that God has kept His promises!


Addendum 2.

Note that the method and argumentation for the determination of the canon is virtually the same as the method and argumentation for the authority of the TR tradition. The canon was brought together to conform to that which God had already determined by the early church. This is a fact accepted by both sides, and often argued by both together against the unregenerate. This is the history of the formulation of the canon. As discussed briefly before, the canon was not simply given to the church as the canon, but holy men of God by the Spirit of God were lead to reject the false books, and accept those that God had truly spoken. These men were not inspired, nor were they perfect. But as men of God desiring to follow truth, they were lead by God to that truth; we now have the canon of the 27 NT books today. Then after the dark ages, God used the Reformers to reawaken His people and caused them to pursue and compile the TR tradition.

Addendum 3.

It is worth mentioning that there is a difference between the arguments of scholars/theologians and the common layperson. Not to differentiate at all in matters of importance, or intelligence, but rather, we should understand that these groups argue the same topic at different layers. In order to understand when/where they interact it becomes necessary to recognize them. This is not something that I will endeavor to do here. But the level of this discussion in most churches rarely reaches the depth of our discussion.

Addendum 4.

I have endeavored to define the above positions as those whose views align with the most conservative, and exegetically sound. Both sides have authors and proponents that are not consistent, and misrepresent Scripture. I have attempted to not represent either side by those in the outer fringe.