On the last post, I noted that Dr. Kloha responded to me and put up a larger response linked in the last post. I have a couple of points to make about Kloha's defense in general.
Claiming that these are merely "lecture notes" is not really accurate
in the least. This is a very fully developed essay with footnotes.
That he wanted to tinker with this piece, I accept. Nevertheless, I
think that if he distributed the piece at the conference or elsewhere, he is responsible for what he
wrote in it. Claiming that they are merely "notes" and therefore he
cannot be held responsible for what they say, does not make sense. The main problem seems to be that he only intended them for a certain audience and people he did not wish to read it got a hold of it.
The women's ordination discussion, according to Dr. Kloha, was not
something he actually decided to speak on in the conference itself. For that reason, I cannot
fault him in regard to speaking on these things in public.
Nevertheless, that being said, he, again, did distribute the piece and
can be held accountable for it. Again, I think it is very odd that the issue has become the procedure and people getting a hold of his ideas, when the real issue should be his ideas.
3. As noted above, Kloha
keeps on describing them as mere "notes." Nevertheless, he goes back-in-forth on the issue of whether or not they are notes. Sometimes he claims that they
are mere "notes" and so, he cannot be responsible for their content. Then at other times, he claims that they were in fact
a full- blown copyrighted essay and that Pr.
Wilken did not have the right to distribute it. So, my question would
be: Which is it?
Dr. Kloha claims that I do not understand the text-critical issue
present in the new edition of Nestle-Aland that he is dealing with. I
think I do. What Dr. Kloha's central concern is is that in light of the
Nestle-Aland new edition, it has become clear (at least to Dr. Kloha)
that we cannot even pretend that we have an approximate original
version of the NT. I made several points about this 1. We have no
reason to think that we cannot approximate the original NT based on our
current manuscript evidence, or, at minimum, the same doctrinal content. 2. We have textual evidence for all
necessary doctrines. 3. We have the testimony and continuity of the
historic Church within which the Word and the Spirit have been active testifying to said doctrines. 4. I developed a logical criterion by which we could identify what Lutheran scholasticism called a Autographa, in light of our current knowledge the historical context of Scripture and textual-criticism. 5. The main issue is that we have the correct doctrines, not that every single word is the same, something which is more than defensible. Hence, the text of the NT is not a magical book, with a magical configuration of certain words, which have never changed one iota. Rather, it is infallible, inerrant, and reliable prophetic and apostolic tradition that has been handed down to us by both the Holy Spirit and fallible human agents.
nevertheless bring us to the central issue though, which Kloha has not
really responded to and ultimately which places him in opposition the
historic Lutheran tradition. Namely, if we reject entirely the notion
that we can at the very minimum approximate the original kerygma of the
NT, then we fall into a sort of Enthusiasm. My deep concerns about Dr.
Kloha remain because he A. Rejects the idea of there being ultimate
criterion in an Autographa. In fact, he rejects the very notion of the Autographa, it would seem. B. Constantly appeals to the Spirit and its work in the consensus of the baptized.
5. In all this, it has not really been my goal to ignore the issues present in modern textual criticism. My position as outlined in the previous post is a critically-realistic one. I recognize the limitations of our knowledge. Ultimately, though it may not be his intention, I feel that Dr. Kloha's position drifts towards an unfortunate theological anti-realism.