A Layman’s Take on the Plastic Text of the New Testament — Part 3, Conclusion and Issues

Part 1 of this series set forth the premises and resolves of two overtures in the Convention Workbook 2016 of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod concerning a paper by Dr. Jeffrey Kloha about ongoing revisions to the text of the Greek New Testament. Those two overtures triggered this series.

Part 2 summarized from a layman’s perspective the contents of what appears to be the final version the paper.

This part gives my layman’s conclusion and issues regarding the paper.

I should be transparent about, as they say, “Where I’m coming from” as I approached this matter. I grew up in the American Lutheran Church when it had a formal quia subscription to the Book of Concord, and a decent confession of the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture. During the same era as the Seminex walkout in Missouri, the ALC was wound up in the same controversies about Scripture. We just didn’t have a notable, galvanizing event like the walkout. Whereas, in the outcome, and as a whole, Missouri succeeded, the ALC failed. Defection from the doctrine of Scripture resulted in the destruction of my beloved ALC. Nearly everything you see wrong in the successor body, the ELCA, stems from that.

I am in Missouri now because of its strong commitment to Scripture and the Lutheran confessions. But every now and again we see symptoms in Missouri that could indicate a disease similar to what destroyed the ALC. When that happens, I take special interest because I don’t want to go through another synodical destruction.

When a preliminary and provisional draft of Dr. Kloha’s paper was leaked, the paper looked to me like it could be a symptom. Some apparently qualified people all but said that heresy was being taught at the seminary. That alarm bothered me.

On December 5, 2013 at 10:27 a.m., I sent an email to Dr. Kloha asking him a question about his paper. Imagine how that had to look on his end. My email plopped into his inbox out of left field. He and I never have met, nor had we ever spoken or corresponded before. And I am nobody in the synod. But, later the same day, he replied. It was apparent that the leaked version was preliminary and provisional. After receiving his reply, I promised to keep it in confidence. What he said satisfied me partly, but not completely. I told him I did not think his reply would be enough for his readership as a whole.

As things have developed, some – I say, some – of the people who spoke about the leaked draft jumped farther than Evel Knievel to monstrous conclusions.

When what is apparently the final version of the paper was published as a chapter in a book in Germany, I ordered a copy and waited with anticipation for it to be shipped across the pond.

For the sake of further transparency, as I read the chapter, I came to it in a tension between two impulses:

  • I am wary of textual criticism of Scripture.
  • I try to confine my reading of someone’s writing to its purport.

Some notable textual critics have made the enterprise suspect. Some of them postulate that the church dishonestly corrupted the text of the New Testament. For example, they say that during the Christological controversies, the church messed with the text to protect church dogma.

What pretends to be only bias against the church and its corruption of the text really is prejudice against Christ. First, they deny the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation, and then they counter-mess with the Greek text (assuming the church ever did mess with it, which I don’t believe) to protect their anti-Christian commitment.

Without the Incarnation, there is no atonement. Thousands of people have been crucified, and without the Incarnation, Jesus is just one more. Without the Incarnation, there is no justification. At the altar, we do not receive the true body and blood of Christ. We do not receive what his blood was shed for, the forgiveness of sins. Everything collapses, and the rubble falls into a sink hole.

Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. [1 John 4:2-3]

I don’t want to turn over control of the text to Antichrist.

Besides, I tend to have a catechetical response to issues like this. I read Luther’s explanation of the First Article, and I can’t feature the Father giving me clothing and shoes, but not his Word in the Bible in my hands. I can’t feature Jesus Christ giving me his body and blood, but not his Word. I can’t feature the Holy Spirit keeping me and the whole Christian church on earth in the true faith without giving me his Word. The Bible is God’s gift to me. I am naïve like that. Catechetically, Luther encourages such naivety.

At the same time, I try to confine my reading of someone’s writing to its purport. One of the most chronic causes of unnecessary disagreement is to interpret what someone says beyond its purport, and then dispute something the person didn’t say. We do have literary devices for saying things without saying them. So I do not constrain the purport for artful dodgers. I count those devices as locating a proposition within the purport.

With that tension between wariness of textual criticism and constraining reading to an author’s purport, I read the chapter. When I had gotten through it once, I had not found any false teaching. I read it again, taking notes. Still didn’t find any false teaching. Reading it a third time, I made a sketchy outline of the chapter. That did not identify any false teaching. I concluded that if any false teaching is there, it is too slippery for me to detect. But I didn’t sense any slipperiness, either.

Not everyone doing textual criticism brings a heretical prejudice to the task. Dr. Kloha is not known to have any heretical views.

On the whole, the discovery of new manuscripts has been remarkably reaffirming of Scripture. As one of the doctors of the church has pointed out to me, the variants do not affect any biblical doctrine, and except for three passages, the variants are not significant. It is possible to do textual criticism well for the good of the church.

Dr. Kloha’s discussion of textual criticism that is happening simply reports what other people are doing. While affirming the inspiration and authority of the New Testament, he says our way of accounting for the text is not standing up to new challenges, and we need to add a new, Lutheran way of doing it. Then he proposes one way, and so far as I can see, it fits into orthodox Lutheran theology, by an analogy to homologoumena and antilegomena.

Then the Convention Workbook 2016 was published. It had two overtures about Dr. Kloha’s paper. So I wrote to the Editor of Brothers of John the Steadfast proposing this series of articles. I said, “I have not identified anything unorthodox in Kloha’s paper.” The Editor signaled for me to go ahead. This was before the first edition of Today’s Business was published.

It is comforting that Dr. Kloha met with Synodical President, Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, Seminary President, Rev. Dr. Dale A. Meyer, and Rev. Dr. Daniel Preus. What President Harrison reported to the Regents of the seminary reflects well on all of them for the way they handled the matter. The report is that there is no false doctrine in the final paper. I have confidence in President Harrison and Rev. Preus. I am not implying anything negative about Dr. Meyer. I just happens that I never have met him and have read little of his writings.

Having said that I find no false doctrine in the paper, I do have some critiques of it. Let me make plain that now I am leaving the subject of true and false teaching, and moving on to something different.

My critiques relate to:

  • Dr. Kloha’s assessment of the impact of textual criticism on laity.
  • The prospect for good impact of his proposed solution on laity.

Dr. Kloha exhibits great concern and passion about what the issues of textual criticism are doing to the faith of lay people. That is nice to see in an academic paper.

It is sad how many of my friends seem to have been drawn away to unbelief by History Channel programs about the Bible, and by some of the other things Dr. Kloha mentions. For example, I’ve had a friend spend hundreds of dollars on mail order materials attacking the inspiration and authority of Scripture, including on grounds of manuscript variations and church corruption. He became an evangelist of the attack, and sought to get his family, friends, and acquaintances into it, including me.

But in deeper conversation with friends like that, I have found that people seize upon the criticisms of the transmission of the text opportunistically after they already don’t want to believe the Bible for other reasons.

The vogue reasons these days are desires for universalism, and if we can’t have that, then at least give us annihilationism. Before they ever heard of textual criticism, they rejected the Law’s condemnation of sin with its threat of hell, or they rejected the Gospel’s proclamation of forgiveness in Christ on the basis of his cross. They already wanted an untormented destiny aside from the cross, and the History Channel merely lets them back fill their desires with rational-sounding reasons that set hell and the cross aside.

But, my critique is only anecdotal and limited to my small range of experience. Lay people are strongly affected by their own anecdotal experiences, you know. Maybe this should be a topic of legitimate research.

I question the prospect of an analogy between textual variations and antilegomena of whole books being helpful with lay people. Among theologians, pastors, and academics, it might work quite well. But lay people are a different kettle of fish.

Many lay people never have heard of antilegomena. So we are going to reassure them about the inspiration and authority of Scripture by telling them not to worry about this word or phrase that we now are calling antilegomena, because that is just like Hebrews being antilegomena. Won’t many of them say, “Wait, what? You mean not only are we unsure of the Word at this location where a word or phrase is uncertain, but that’s okay because already many whole books are uncertain?” You’ll answer, “Well, yes. Isn’t that reassuring?” Won’t they ask, “Which books?” You’ll answer, “Hebrews, James, 2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation.” I question the effect of salving a small wound by inflicting a bigger one.

A couple of final thoughts:

Since all this textual criticism takes place well out of the view of lay people, and we don’t know who the people doing it are or what they believe about Christ, sin, and salvation, it is not necessarily a bad idea to have at least one of our own guys in there, studying what is going on and talking about it. Maybe we should have several of our own guys in there. Then we wouldn’t have to take just one such person’s word.

Since the publication of the first two articles in this series, Dr. Kloha has provided me citations to additional writings of his that are intended for lay audiences. It is good that this concern and effort is being expended for lay people. Hopefully I will get the time soon to write about those materials.

About T. R. Halvorson

T. R. Halvorson was born in Sidney, Montana on July 14, 1953, baptized at Pella Evangelical Lutheran Church in Sidney, Montana on November 8, 1953, and confirmed at First Lutheran Church in Williston, North Dakota in 1968. He and his wife, Marilyn, are members of Trinity Lutheran Church (LCMS) in Sidney, Montana. They have three sons and six grandchildren. T. R. farms at Wildrose, North Dakota, and is Deputy County Attorney in Sidney, Montana. He has been a computer programmer; and an author, conference speaker, instructor, and consultant to industry in online legal information. He is among the authors of the religion column in the Sidney Herald at Sidney, Montana. He is the Editor of LutheranCatechism.com.

Comments

A Layman’s Take on the Plastic Text of the New Testament — Part 3, Conclusion and Issues — 77 Comments

  1. Dear T.R.,

    Thanks for your third essay in this series. I think you have been fair and accurate in dealing with the issues involved. You are a real blessing to have in the LC-MS: a competent lay theologian who is also a lawyer by trade. I look forward to your future writings.

    Dear BJS Bloggers,

    With regard to the matter of the illicit publishing of the original paper, some of us have gotten into bad habits due to the ubiquity of the Internet. Some of it is due to bad example set by others; others simply due to ignorance.

    It is still and always wrong to publish the entire content of an author’s work without his permission. I am not an expert in “fair use,” which allows for quoting sections of a work, but even that is primarily for research and scholarly purposes.

    Dr. Kloha’s paper was “used” unfairly. The entire paper was published and shared on the Internet without his permission, with the full intent of attacking him and the seminary. That is hardly for research and scholarly purposes. An author always has a right to publish his work when and where he wills.

    Why then does the seminary or Dr. Kloha not sue the persons involved? It is because in 1992 the LC-MS made it something of a felonious crime for any of its rostered members to initiate a lawsuit–for which the complainant is certain to go to “synodical hell” (C.R.M.) with no opportunity for repentance. I am exaggerating a little bit here, but see for yourself what I mean in the CTCR “I Corinthians 13” document.

    The truth is that an LC-MS rostered church-worker can kiss his call goodbye if he initiates a lawsuit. That means that he or she is a sitting duck for all sorts of offenses, losses, etc., which no lay member of the LC-MS would ever put up with.

    So that means that anyone can publish Martin R. Noland’s materials, and even make a profit on it (i.e., the profit that would belong to me), and I can’t do a thing about it–as long as I am a church-worker in the LC-MS. Those of you who are in the creative arts (authors, artists, musicians) should be aware that if you become an LC-MS church-worker you will not be able to sue for theft, damages, or loss of your created work.

    Did Dr. Kloha’s paper need to be reviewed by the proper church authorities, and not just by his peers to whom he presented the paper? Certainly—if there was concern about its doctrinal statements. But the Christian way to do that is through the proper church authorities, not blasting it with criticism of the work and the individual on the Internet or printed journals.

    On the matter itself, the practice of textual criticism always raises consternation among believers not trained in theology. Explaining what is involved is more than a one hour lecture. But the basic principle is entirely sound.

    The ancient manuscripts that we have today are the concrete, irrefutable evidence for the text of Scriptures. What causes the problems are the numerous copy-editing errors which are called “variants.” As T.R. notes, except for the three standard cases, they are all insignificant. Those cases, if my memory serves me correctly, are the woman caught in adultery, the ending of Mark, and the “missing” Trinitarian proposition in I John 5.

    Actually, according to communication theory, the number of manuscripts is not a problem, but overwhelmingly supports the reliability of the text we have, i.e., the more communication lines that “get through,” the more reliable the final transmission.

    It was only through Dr. Kloha’s paper that I became aware that the discipline of textual criticism in the secular academy has reached a “dead end.” In my opinion, Bible-believing theologians are going to have to come up with their own principles, methods, and textbooks in this field. They may have to publish their own Greek New Testament based on those principles.

    Why has textual criticism reached this impasse? It is not because the evidence has changed, but because nearly all the universities and divinity schools in the US and Europe have given up the practices of traditional theology. They are now controlled by feminists, liberation theologians, and identity-politics-theologians. Most of them only see the Bible as an object of their wrath, not as something to be worked at with care, discipline, and impartiality.

    I know this, because I am a Ph.D. graduate (1996) of Union Theological Seminary, New York and in my doctoral studies became aware of what the divinity schools, mainline seminaries, and universities were doing theologically already in the late 1980s. Bart Ehrman is not “the” problem. Most of academia is the problem.

    On the business of “antilegomena,” the term does not mean that the book itself was “spoken against” in the early church, but that its authorship was questioned by some people, though not by all. See Johann Gerhard, “On the Nature of Theology and Scripture” (CPH), where he talks about the “antilegomena.” Gerhard prefers the language of “first rank” and “second rank,” and I agree with his reasoning. Sorry I can’t give page and section #, as I am at home without my Gerhard at hand.

    Again, great job by T.R. on a difficult subject!!!

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  2. @T. R. Halvorson #49

    Sir,
    I believe I take your points. And to clarify myself on prior statements I’ve made in this discussion: 1. If I fault anyone for not making the original and final versions more available, it is not Dr. Kloha. It seems to me that the synod itself had an interest in allowing transparency on all of this — after the original got out. That can be debated, too. 2. My statement above about how I have received a loan of the book could be misinterpreted. I meant it in a friendly way to Dr. Kloha, who himself lent me a copy! How could I not feel grateful to him in the face of that offer? 3. There are probably other problems with my language, which I will be happy to address with anyone. 4. I don’t want my name coming up at Steadfast in Internet searches by the general public.

  3. I totally support mbw’s wish to keep his identity private.
    “there are legitimate reasons not to have one’s name all over this site or any other”
    We should listen to what he says, not worry about whether he is
    Martin Bohlmann Walther
    or
    Muhammed bin Wali.
    Privacy is important on the internet, even in forums like this.

  4. T.R, Thank you for your research and clear explanation of the Kloha controversy. I am a lay delegate to this year’s convention. Like you, I came to the LCMS, from another denomination that has bought into historical criticism enthusiastically. Unlike you it wasn’t Lutheran. In the past 11 years I have come to love and trust our doctrines and confessions. I,be experienced how quickly bad doctrines destroy denominations. We can’t treat it lightly. When this controversy first arose I was quite worried. As much as I admire Pastors Harrison and Preus, and President Meyer, I wanted to better understand how they came to their conclusion that Dr Kloha was not in doctrinal error. Your columns offered the explanation I was seeking. Great work.

  5. No matter what we name it, our goal should be to get back to the original words of Scripture a closely as possible with the copies we have. Is it a heresy to suggest that?

  6. @twl #53

    Thank you twl. Every editor that I’ve interacted with here knows me one way or the other. And anyone is welcome to write to site mgmt and request an email be forwarded to me.

    If site readership could be limited to Lutherans whose identities and church membership have been confirmed by site mgmt, I would use my name. I have no intent to hide from other Lutherans e.g. Dr. Kloha knows which comments here are mine. Lutheran discussions offend most Lutherans! let alone the general public.

    If you omit the middle name, I like your first example! I’m just an obscure layman, but I might have done better in life with that name!

  7. @Richard Lewer #55

    > get back to the original words of Scripture

    Someone can correct me, but I believe that the existence of “the” original words was in play, or thought to be.

  8. I believe God whenever He says in Psalm 12: “The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. You shall keep them, O Lord, You shall preserve them from this generation forever.”
    Either He has fulfilled His promise and continues to do so, or He is not God. He preserves the Scriptures. He has promised this. Why do we have to have these theologians create such controversy and confuse the laity? (Perhaps I can answer my own question, with another – who is the author of confusion?)

  9. It is a fact that we do not have the original autographs of the books of Scripture. It is also an amazing fact that the many copies agree so well with each other. No other ancient documents have such a great number of copies with anywhere near such agreement. We praise God for this. Nevertheless there are differences among the copies and it is legitimate to try to sort them out in a humble way.

    It also true that there are those who are tying to convince us that none of the copies are viable because the church deliberately corrupted them from the beginning. We need to be clear about what the issue is. There is no need to form a circular firing squad. We have enough real enemies.

  10. Dr. Noland’s reply #51 should have summed up the issue as his replies usually do.

  11. @Richard Lewer #60

    Agreed, but I doubt that the participants at Oberursel were sworn to secrecy, and letting out the entire paper was arguably more fair than only selectively citing it, which could have been less vulnerable to any claim of copyright violation.

  12. Mr. Halvorson,

    Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your careful reading of Prof. Kloha’ paper, and I hope to read it myself at some point because of all the controversy that has come up. I do have one critical question that I would be very sincerely interested in hearing your answer to.

    Let’s suppose for just a moment that Prof. Kloha had written something about the text of the NT that we regard as unorthodox. For example, let’s suppose he had argued that most of the manuscripts of the NT turn out to have come from the 13th Century. “Sorry folks, here are ten reasons, it’s a fact, the manuscripts are all from the 13th Century. In fact, they don’t appear to have any verifiable historical connection to the apostles because they all got ruined in the crusades.” It seems to me that applying a doctrinal critique (=he can’t say that because it’s conclusions are unorthodox) would be a wrong way to respond. Either his claims should be historically falsifiable or considered for their implications.

    The thought that you have read his paper to scrutinize it for orthodoxy seems strange, if the paper is primarily dealing with historical matters. If Prof. Kloha had said something that contradicts our traditional ideas, would we then have to run him out? What if he said something challenging, but was right? It seems to me that if the Gospel as we teach it is true, then we shouldn’t actually need a dogmatic criterion to argue against historical claims. Instead, historical claims should be argued over time and on the basis of historical premises. For instance, the JEDP theory is pretty defunct now, as I understand, precisely because it used theories that really didn’t have a sound basis. Or the Markan priority theory. Does this make sense? Why not just read his paper carefully to find out if his conclusions follow from his premises, if they are argued on the basis of sound assumptions, etc?

    By analogy, I have a Mormon friend. He tells an elaborate story about how the Church ceased to exist shortly after the Apostles and how the Book of Mormon was given by revelation. When I say, “Yeah, but Jim, look at all these texts and baptistries and Churches. See, Christians did not stop being Christians etc…,” he says, “Well, this is a matter of faith. We don’t teach that.” It’s kind of similiar, right? If Kloha had said – Look, here’s evidence for y-position that is going to be a challenge for us, would you just toss the 1580 Book of Concord at him and say, “sorry, we aren’t allowed to think such things?”

    I know that last line is a bit of a caricature. I’m just trying to get the idea across. Thanks for your thoughts.

  13. @Martin R. Noland #51

    “It is still and always wrong to publish the entire content of an author’s work without his permission.” There’s a few bloggers and at least one newspaper publisher who ignore this basic doctrine of copyright law. It’s ironic when someone wants others to heed what they say while they’re concurrently stealing someone else’s work. The end does not justify the means. It’s also wrong to publish a portion of an author’s work without attribution, which occurs with some regularity.

  14. Dear BJS Bloggers,

    First, in reply to “mbw,” “letting out the entire paper” is publishing it. “Publishing” means to “make public” what previously was private, and it can be done in any number of ways.

    I have been both an editor (LOGIA and CHI) and publisher (Luther Academy and CHI), so I know a little about this field, though probably not as much as Mr. Halvorson. I will concede to his expertise if he corrects my statements here.

    Editors and publishers have two primary duties. The first is to make sure that no copyrights or property rights are being violated when a private document is made public. Typically this is done by a letter (or email today) indicating permission to publish. The second job is to make the author look as good as possible. That is why the editor or his assistants do copy-editing, to remove factual, grammatical, syntactical, or other sorts of errors that would be embarrassing to the author.

    Second, we should distinguish between what is right (i.e., ethical) and what is legal. In the matter of copyright and property rights, there are things that are legal but are not ethical. Stealing property from someone who has no recourse to reclaim it may be legal, but it is not ethical (see Luther’s Large Catechism, Seventh Commandment). As a church-worker in the LC-MS, I have no legal recourse if someone decides to publish–without my permission–my sermons, articles, etc., due to the I Corinthians 6 document of the CTCR (see http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=415 ). It is a rather odd thing when you think about it, but thievery of intellectual property is protected by the LC-MS and its canon law in that I Corinthians 6 document.

    Third, I am not saying that those who published Dr. Kloha’s paper without his permission are garden-variety thieves. They probably thought they were doing the right thing, so we have to excuse their ignorance, but that excuse does not make what they did right. The advent of the Internet and blog-publishing has opened up a whole new area of law, in which Mr. Halvorson advises, but that area is more about application than inventing new principles.

    Fourth, when scholars meet to discuss the products of their scholarship, they do not “swear themselves” to secrecy. They know the rules, which are intended to protect intellectual property. They know that they can be removed from their “guild” for violating those rules. Papers given at such conferences are typically works in progress, offered for the sake of mutual criticism prior to publication. Scholars know that they do their work as part of a team, so a first draft is always considered tentative. This is a form of “peer review.”

    Fifth, the church has an interest in ensuring that the work of its scholars conform to its official doctrine. That is why we have an enormous amount of bylaw verbiage pertaining to the various procedures for raising concerns about errant lectures and writings. If people who are concerned about such things follow the bylaws, then the scholar cannot complain that his rights were violated. If they do not follow the bylaws, then he has a right to complain and to be defended by everyone who cares about fairness, justice, and the rule of law in the church.

    Sixth, I keep hearing from people in the LC-MS a confusion between higher criticism (which we reject) and textual criticism (which we do not reject). Our “Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles” (see http://www.lcms.org/doctrine/scripturalprinciples ), in section IV on Holy Scripture, under the heading “Infallibility of Scripture,” states the basic problem that textual criticism attempts to solve: We recognize that there are apparent contradictions or discrepancies and problems which arise because of uncertainty over the original text.

    The most recent issue of Christians News (June 27, 2016, pages 5-7) again confuses higher criticism and textual criticism, by quoting statements of theologians who are rejecting higher criticism, and then using such quotes against the practice of textual criticism. That is confusing apples and oranges. It would be very helpful to everyone if they keep this distinction between higher criticism and textual criticism straight. In a recent essay on Dr. Kloha’s work, Dr. John W. Montgomery makes clear that he is not rejecting textual criticism.

    If you know your lay delegate to this convention, you might explain to him or her the difference between higher criticism and textual criticism, in the event the topic comes up at the convention. I assume all LC-MS pastors know the difference, but I could be wrong about that.

    Seventh, and finally, I appreciate Dr. Montgomery’s work in this area of theology and I appreciate his concern about subjective method–at least that is what I understand his primary concern to be. In other words, the person practicing textual criticism should not be able to “cherry-pick” any variant he/she wants out of the “basket” of options. There should be objective principles that inform the decisions of the text critic and there should be at least a minimal methodology that we can agree to follow.

    Our conservative Lutheran scholars will need to work on those principles and methods for some time before we come to consensus. I am hoping that informed and reasonable lectures and articles will move us in that direction. T.R. Halvorson’s articles have been informed, reasonable, and helpful in moving us in that direction!

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  15. @Viator #62

    The thought that you have read his paper to scrutinize it for orthodoxy seems strange, if the paper is primarily dealing with historical matters.

    I say again, for the fourth time, the trigger of this series of articles is the fact that two resolutions appeared in the convention workbook for the 2016 synodical convention of the LCMS. A great deal of controversy surrounds those resolutions, and a great deal of controversy has been swirling since 2013. I am a voting delegate to the convention and needed to prepare myself for debate and voting on the issues. Some people implied or all but said that Dr. Kloha was teaching heresy at the seminary. In that context, I read the article to see if there actually was any false teaching. Such a reading is a much a test of the accusations against Dr. Kloha and of the merits of the resolutions as it is a test of his paper.

    Had there been no such controversy, I would not have been reading to see if there was false teaching.

    Before reading it, how was I to know how much of it was dealing with historical matters or reporting on what others (textual critics) do? I don’t know what is in an article until I read it. Reading the article is what revealed that, and that revelation needed to be made to a large audience because it is one of the key parts in correcting unfair treatment of Dr. Kloha.

  16. @mbw #71

    unhelpful

    You asked, “Whence came they.” Whence they came is the Convention Workbook 2016. So I said that.

    You asked, “Is there a way to access the resolutions you have mentioned?” As a delegate, I have them in hard copy. So I had not concerned myself too much with where they might be online for those who are not delegates. But the title that I gave, Convention Workbook 2016, which also was in all three parts of this series of articles, is the key to find it online. I should have thought that was helpful, short of me doing your work for you to help you with an agenda that I don’t agree with.

  17. What about Kloha’s statement on Luke 1:46 Elizabeth not Mary probably said the Magnificat? Where did this come from? Is Luke now to be considered antilegomena? As a simple layperson the mention of this possibility creates only doubt not assurance in our Bible. I once heard a LCMS Lutheran pastor say in a sermon that he learned in Israel that John the Baptist didn’t actually eat locust insects but the pod of a plant as no Jew would eat an insect. Kloha’s Magnificat statement just a detrimental. What about the known problem of liberal translations such as RSV and ESV and new genderless translations? Is this not a larger problem or are the writers of these the ones making the changes that Kloha is talking about?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.