The Real Choice: Confessional Reception or Scholarly Reconstruction
The dispute is not finally about Erasmus, manuscript counts, or loyalty to one English Bible. It is whether the church receives a text kept by God or awaits…
Open record →Category: Confession or Reconstruction? Answering James White’s Case Against Confessional Bibliology
13 published records in this controlled archive.
The Moving Critical Text and the Demand for Certainty
Critical editions are designed to change as methods and evidence change. The issue is not whether scholarship may correct mistakes, but whether an indefinitely reconstructed text can serve…
Open record →Which Text Did the Reformed Confessions Identify as Authentic?
The confessions name no printer, but they do not point to an unknown future reconstruction. They identify the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures actually received, used, translated, and appealed…
Open record →Manuscripts Are Witnesses, Not the Word’s Magisterial Judges
Confessional Bibliology does not reject manuscript evidence. It assigns manuscripts their proper office: real and necessary witnesses that serve the authentic text without constituting its authority.
Open record →Circularity, Ultimate Authority, and the Myth of Neutral Textual Criticism
James White calls Confessional Bibliology viciously circular. The proper answer distinguishes unavoidable ultimate-authority reasoning from arbitrary question-begging and restores evidence to its ministerial place.
Open record →Did the Westminster Divines Confess an Abstract or Accessible Text?
A text that exists only as unidentified readings scattered among witnesses cannot be translated or finally appealed to. WCF 1.8 speaks of an accessible Hebrew and Greek norm…
Open record →