I’ve heard that Confessional Text Position (CTP) advocates have inconsistent methodologies depending upon the text, is this true?
No. This is a failure to listen to CTP advocates on the part of RTC advocates. Our methodology is the same for every textual variant. We go to Scripture to see what it teaches about its preservation and for how we are to evaluate Greek mss and their variants.
But don’t you go to textual data to support the inclusion of the Pericope de Adultera and the Longer Ending of Mark?
1) Our argument for including these passages is that the Holy Ghost has borne witness to God’s people throughout history that they are the word of God.
2) We look at the mss evidence to show that the RTC advocates are being inconsistent when they reject these passages. This is called “answering a fool according to his folly.” (Proverbs 26:5)