I look at Bible Version Beliefs Classification as something that tries to sort out various views about the Bible, at various levels (and keeps narrowing so as to demonstrate both concordance and discordance). If I believe (and I do) that my translation or text of the Bible is definitely the word of God, then I share in common an idea – in a very broad way – with everyone else who believes their translation or text of the Bible is definitely the word of God.
Then we consider the next level. Do we both believe that the same translation or text of the Bible is definitely the word of God? If not, then we are separated at that point. If so, then we consider the next level. Do we both believe that the same translation or text of the Bible is definitely the word of God in the same way? If not, then we are separated at that point. If so, we ask another question. And so on. So, for example, I agree with Peter Ruckman that the King James Bible is the word of God, but as we narrow the parameters, we demonstrate we do not hold the same view about the King James Bible.
We do this in all sorts of other areas or beliefs. I am a Baptist. Here in the United States, we have some Baptists who are rank heretics. Unfortunately, I am broadly in the same category with them. If we change and look at Bible views, I can be (generally, with perhaps minor differences) in the same category with a Presbyterian like Christian McShaffrey and very far away from the rank heretical Baptists who deny the word of God! However, if we change and are classifying churches according to denominations, Brother McShaffrey and I will end up in different categories. I do not think the principle is overly complex once we understand what we are doing in trying to classify or categorize various views about Bible versions.
I know what I believe. I don’t need a classification to understand that. On the other hand, where I am classed might help someone else get a general idea of what I believe. If they want to know exactly what I believe, they will need to ask.
Sometimes there is an issue of someone is using classification as a tool of debate rather than as a tool of instruction. This can bring about a different take on things (e.g., an association fallacy).
I hope this might demonstrate a bit of how I approach the categorization of Bible views.
5 comments:
Robert,
This is one of my favorite aspects of the TR/AV advocacy: Burgon was an Anglican, Hills was a Presbyterian, Letis was a Lutheran, etc.
It is our unity on this fundamental — we have the Word of God — which enables brotherly discussion on other doctrinal differences.
Happy to stand together against the monstrous regiment of modern textual agnostics (as well as the heretical Baptists and Presbyterians),
Christian
Christian, thanks for stopping by and commenting. You make an excellent point. If we cannot agree on the fundamental of what the word of God is, we remove our basis for brotherly discussion of the Bible, doctrines, doctrinal differences, and even doctrinal commonalities. I believe the word of God is foundational to this.
McShaffrey, Burgon would be ashamed of modern TR/AV advocacy! The position of Burgon is NOT synonymous with that of Hills, Letis, Riddle or any other current CB hack.
Matthew, if by hack you mean an old worn out horse, feel free to call me that. I will appreciate it, though, if you do not call Hills, Letis, Riddle, et al. by that moniker, whatever you mean by it. Thanks.
Noted. FWIW, I certainly wasn't referring to you, Robert. (Nor Hills or Letis for that matter.)
Post a Comment