I’m a regular listener and enjoy the program, but don’t you think there are some major problems with some of the things that Wallace said from a Reformed/orthodox perspective?
He reinterprets the doctrine of divine preservation of Scripture (contra article one of the WCF and 2LBC).
He makes the old claim that contemporary text criticism has no impact on doctrine. How about the doctrine of providence (preservation) and the doctrine of the canon of Scripture. Canon involves not only books of the Bible but also the text of the Bible (e.g., Mark 16:9-20 is roughly the same length as 2 John). While we’re on the issue of canon, what would happen if Dr. Wallace discovered an ancient copy of Romans in a library somewhere that omitted chapters 9-11, and the world’s best academic text critics (neo-evangelicals among them) decided this was the most ancient text of Romans. Would we then remove these chapters from our Bible?
He says that the Gospel record of Christ’s words contain merely the ipsissima vox and not the ipsissima verba of the Lord. Do you concur?
He drives an artificial wedge between Jesus and the Bible, claiming that he does not want to make Jesus the handmaiden of the Bible but the Bible the handmaiden of Jesus. But, from where does he learn about Jesus but from the Bible? The two are not at odds.
I was glad that someone challenged his views on the “incarnational” approach to inerrancy, but I wish some of these others issues had also been raised as well.