Herman Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, trans. by H. De Jongste, rev. by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing Co., 1988), 9.
Has not Ridderbos succinctly and clearly defined the necessary historic, orthodox understanding of the nature of holy Scripture? Can you find any legitimate reason for rejecting Ridderbos’s assessment of the self-attesting Word? Is not “the divine character that eminates from it” (10) as true of Scripture today as it was in the 1st c.? The “which TR” question is answered with “the self-attesting words of Scripture kept pure in all ages.” Calvin’s response to questions about the canonicity of James is helpful here. He writes, “I accept it, however, gladly, without reservation, because I cannot find any legitament reason for rejecting it.” (79) Against the united testimony of the Church since the early 16th c. what are your legitament reasons (against the mountains of pre-critical comment and theology) for criticizing or attacking the King James Bible and its underlying Greek text. To be legitimate the issue must show that the readings in either the Greek or English are not rationally permissible. Trying to make the case that readings of the TR or King James Bible are not rationally permissiable is to be engaged in what Gaussen says is “wonderfully insignificant,” as if the Word, Spirit, with and though the saint are not infinitely superior Witnesses to the authority of Scripture.
Blessings!
Standard Sacred Text.com 