Monday I was ill and looked forward to a full night’s sleep before production day Tuesday. I nearly turned off my scanner to make sure I’d sleep, but the last time I did that, I missed the biggest fire…

Last weekend, our state press assocation held its annual editorial awards banquet in Norfolk. It’s always a fun weekend getaway, with the chance to see the top print journalism in a state that includes the Washington Post and the…

Chris Sligh has a great interview with AOL….

Things are going wonderfully! I was at Bible Conference last week and learned alot. I miss hearing that kind of preaching every day! It was also so very wonderful getting to see Drew again! It had been more than 2 months since we had seen each other. I stayed with Renee in her room. It was fun! I got to see all my friends again. I miss it there so much! I just don’t miss the school work!
Well, there are only 2 more months till the wedding! Things are getting exciting! I love watching how everything just happens to work out just right! I have my next fitting on the 6th of April, and then my next shower on the 14th of April! Lots going on!!
The only point of sadness is that I am really missing mom this month. I have been thinking of her constantly and so many memories have been coming back to me. I wish she were here so badly! There are times I absolutely just ache for her to be able to pull me into her arms again and hug me close and stroke my hair like she would when I was younger. She always knew how to make everything better.
I sat in dad’s room watching family videos all evening. Mom was such a beautiful woman both inwardly and outwardly! The way I like to think of it is that God knew how special mom was and couldn’t stand to be apart from her so he took her home earlier than normal. I guess that the hardest part is not knowing why.
Anyway….this post is titled “Joy.” Right now dad is in Michigan visiting his girlfriend, Kathy. She is such a wonderful woman. Very sweet and caring and she loves the Lord. I am so glad that dad has found his smile again!
The biggest lesson that I have learned in the last year is that God may bring very hard times into our lives, but he promises to never leave us nor forsake us and he will bring us joy in the midst of sorrow. This last year was a roller coaster ride of emotions. But without the joy that God brought into our lives we wouldn have never gotten past the sorrow. No matter how hard things might get in life, God is always there always willing to help us and give us the strength to get through the roughest storms and show us the joy that he has waiting for us on the other side. I have found Joy.

Yesterday was a very sad day for me. I was enjoying some great music with friends when I received the…

My husband always gets excited about Pi Day, March 14…..you know, Pi, 3.14??? A group at his office (probably the whole office) always celebrates by bringing different varieties of pies and eating until they can’t hold any more. They delayed…

These photos were from Christmas Day. Gabe was just on the verge of crawling, and I have to wonder if this helped convince him he needed to do so. Almost got it! I’ll get it one way or another!…

Recently, I received an e-mail from Kent Brandenburg regarding my post on SharperIron questioning the reality of a “received” text in church history. I asked and got permission from him to post his e-mail and reply to it on my blog. Kent’s e-mail to me, where he argues for the reality of a “received” text is shown below in the blockquotes. My response appears below each of his various points in italics. Please keep all comments respectful to both sides.

The people who called the traditional text of Scripture had a reason. They did not pull textus receptus out of a hat. The name or label came from Scripture. They gave it that name because they too believed that God preserved His Words, not actual papyrus or ink, but the Words. You see this truth in these texts, among others: You see this truth in these texts, among others:

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

Acts 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

When the Elzevir brothers printed in their preface that their text was the one received by all, I highly doubt that they had these passages in mind. But regardless of that, it is clear that “received” in the passages you list does not mean that they gave their official approval to the texts or translations under consideration. It means they embraced God’s Word with a desire to hear and do what God said to them through those Scriptures. These passages say nothing about churches validating certain text types.

Those who believe in providential, Divine preservation of God’s Words, a doctrine we read in the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, and the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, believe that God would fulfill His promises of preservation.

You talk about the “best preserved manuscript evidence.” What evidence was there from 1500-1800, 300 years, of the critical text? If we believe in the availability of every Word of God, based on God’s promises (presuppositional apologetics), then we believe His Words were and are available. The best evidence that these were God’s Words are that churches guided by the Holy Spirit accepted them as God’s Words for hundreds of years.

I don’t believe that God promised the availability of every Word of God. I think there is Biblical warrant to say that God inspired His Word so that it would be preserved to some degree but I don’t see any Biblical justification for insisting on the general availability of every jot and title of the entirety of the Old and New Testaments. The verses I use to teach an expectation of providential preservation are not the same (in most cases) as what you would use to prove verbal/plenary preservation. I think you are misreading and misinterpreting those verses.

The text received by the churches is the text they used. There is no magisterium, as you write. Neither is there a magisterium that is the basis of canonicity. We acknowledge the books that the churches copied and used. We take our basis for that from God’s Word too.

OK, this really gets to the heart of my question. This is what I want to talk about.

When you say “the text received by the churches is the text they used,” isn’t that begging the question? They used what they had. You take tribes in Africa, or any other third-world country and Christians use what is available. Rarely is it the complete Bible and rarely is it even a decent translation. Those in England in the 1300’s might have had access to an English translation based on the Vulgate, if anything at all. Those in the 1500’s used what they had available and today, we use what we have available to use. Christians and churches tend to want to use the best available text and translations. Churches today, for the most part, use versions based on the critical text because that text is an improvement on what was available back in the 1500’s. The church today is “receiving” the critical text if they are “receiving” anything today.

You actually do not have any evidence that they did not use the text received by the churches. Manuscripts wore out, were discarded, other copies were made, and we don’t know based on “manuscript evidence” what they used. We have a tremendous number of copies of the TR today.

Neither of us knows for sure what anyone used back then. You have assertions and we have assertions. At the very least, though, we have evidence that what we say they read and used was actually in existence back then. Your position does not.

On your side are theories. Wescott and Hort’s rules of textual criticism. The counting of manuscripts by the “majority text” people. The eclectic people who pick and choose based on any number of reasons what words are in the Bible. Those don’t fit what we read about preservation in Scripture. They are all positions of “reasonable doubt” and less than 100 % assurance.

My understanding of your position leaves you with “reasonable doubt” as well. You have to do textual criticism with the TR family of manuscripts. No position has 100% assurance of every word. The only way for your position to receive 100% assurance is if you adopt the KJV/Scrivener text as your standard, but that basically reduces to an English translation dictating the reading of the Greek and Hebrew. And even then you have differences among the various KJV versions (Cambridge vs Oxford, etc). So, really, is it even accurate to say you have 100% assurance?

I contend, Kent, that your position and my position, in the end, amounts to the same thing, except in regard to the manuscript evidence that we allow ourselves to consider when evaluating variants. We both have to evaluate variants. I see no Biblical or historical reason to reject out-of-hand non-TR manuscripts.

A lot of people imagine that the doctrine of God’s sovereignty has Him somehow forcing people against their wills to believe. Theologians sometimes use the expression “irresistible grace” when they describe the way God brings sinners into the kingdom. Don’t think for a moment that there is any kind of violent fervor or coercion involved when God draws people to Christ. Grace doesn’t push sinners against their wills toward Christ; it draws them willingly to Him–by first opening their hearts. It enables them to see their sin for what it is and empowers them to despise what they formerly loved. It also equips them to see Christ for who He truly is. Someone whose heart has been opened like that will inevitably find Christ Himself irresistible. That is precisely the meaning of the expression “irresistible grace.” That is how God draws sinners to Himself. The Lord simply opened her heart to believe–and she did.

JOHN MACARTHUR
Twelve Extraordinary Women
(The book was worth the read for that definition of irresistible grace. wow.)