John 6 and the "Pristine Faith Restoration Society" (#4)

08/07/2006 - James White

I continue my review of Tim Warner's attempt to subvert the testimony of John 6 to the sovereignty of God. I note in passing that I have come to understand that aside from misrepresenting and evidently misunderstanding basic elements of the Greek language, such as the subjunctive, Warner's group likewise seems to promote a form of TR Onlyism, including the accusation that John 1:18 is "corrupted" in the "Westcott and Hort Text." In reviewing Warner's comments on John 1:18, his utterly uncritical use of English translations of patristic sources (he doesn't even seem to give consideration to the need for a critical text of those sources), and his ability to stand logic on its head in the examination of that topic, I can now see why he has problems with basic exegesis in this text as well.
I will be a bit briefer in this portion. There were a few red herrings and errors in the subjunctive discussion provided by Warner I needed to "clean up" before moving on. First, it is hard to take seriously the argument that John 1:6-7 is relevant when it is painfully obvious that the meaning of "all" assigned by Warner is absurd on its face. Yes, I'm sure it was God's intention that every person living in China in A.D. 30 believe through John's testimony. And yet that is what Warner is forced to assert to try to get around the text. He ignores the completely different context of John 1 and John 6; tries to make parallel a statement of the purpose of God's testimony to the Christ with the will of the Father for the Son, puts two completely different contexts together (the clarity of John's testimony and its resultant rejection by Israel over against the express purpose of the Father for the Son in the eternal covenant of redemption) and as a result of all of this ignoring of context provides a basis for again misreading the text so as to do what we documented last time: taking an over-arching modal concept and forcing it on a text rather than recognizing immediate context determines modal function. The use of a subjunctive in one form or for one purpose in one context is not grounds for demanding it in another, especially when the result is absurdity, as we saw last time. I may be repeating myself, but I need to make sure those attempting to follow this discussion get this much: the meaning of the subjunctive is contextually derived. Just as it is always wrong to go to a lexicon, grab a meaning for a word, and force it into every usage, so too it is wrong to go to a syntactical grammar, grab a basic meaning for a mode, and force it into every usage. While that kind of thing is maddeningly common on the Internet, it is a sure sign to anyone who has actually worked with the language for years that the person speaking really doesn't know which end is up--they are "tools translators" rather than "language readers" because they are following an errant mechanical process rather than "hearing" the flow in the language itself. That's one of the reasons I miss teaching Greek and Hebrew (haven't had the opportunity in a few years now), since when you do so, you get to spend more time actually immersed in the text, and it helps you to avoid slipping into these kind of rather "lazy" errors. But Warner's presentation of the subjunctive isn't a lazy error: he simply has no idea what he's talking about. I don't wish to be uncharitable, and I suppose it is possible that he was just having a bad day here, but the fact of his misrepresentation of Wallace and of the language is truly beyond question. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

11:01:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

John 6 and the "Pristine Faith Restoration Society" (#2)

07/28/2006 - James White

   The primary reason for addressing Tim Warner's arguments on the subject of John 6 is found in the assertions made therein regarding the exegesis of the text. Each time examples can be provided of errors in exegesis, it is hoped our readers will be better equipped to detect such mistakes in a wider variety of contexts.
   As noted before, Mr. Warner has adopted a particular kind of "progressive dispensationalism" that allows him to cut the New Testament (and the Bible) up into sections that are then said to be no longer relevant today. So, if Jesus uses a present tense verb during His ministry, and the specific situation of His ministry has now "changed," that present tense verb, if it has to do with the peculiar understanding adopted of Jesus' ministry, can be said to be irrelevant now, since it only had to do with what was happening then. The result of such thinking will be seen in specifics below.
   At times it is difficult to follow Warner's reasoning. He writes,

Jesus indicated that He, like Moses, was sent by God. His confirmation of this fact to the Jews was that His own flesh was to be given for their spiritual food (as the manna was given for their physical food). Partaking of Jesus' flesh was a cryptic way of saying that one must partake of Christ's sacrifice of His flesh in a spiritual sense, as the Israelites partook of the manna in a physical sense (see vss. 60-63). Jesus was teaching an important truth here in parable. It had nothing to do with being the "bread of life throughout all ages." That is purely Mr. White's assumption that he has read into the text with zero support from the context. I hope you can see the logical fallacy committed here by Mr. White. His circular argument goes like this: He assumes a universal truth (Jesus is the bread of life throughout all ages). He reads that back into the text solely on the basis that Jesus called Himself the "bread of life" (without any reference to "throughout all ages" — the critical point of his argument). He then claimed that Jesus was teaching this alleged universal truth, which Jesus nowhere hinted at!

It would seem to follow that only the Jews of Jesus' day could be saved by partaking of Christ's sacrifice of His flesh---but, of course, that makes no sense, since Jesus spoke these words before the cross; but, if we remember John wrote these words decades later, and the truth Jesus spoke then is valid in that context, then we have no problems. And that, of course, is all I have been saying. There is nothing in the text to tell us that Jesus only meant His words to be relevant to Jews in Capernaum at a particular time. This is Warner's imposition, one he seemingly wishes to be able to assert without proof. But when the result of your imposition is absurdity, one has warrant to reject the position being espoused. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

18:45:02 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

John 6 and the "Pristine Faith Restoration Society"

07/26/2006 - James White

   Last week I received a note chiding me for not responding to a man named Tim Warner, a "progressive dispensationalist" who is likewise anti-Reformed. I had noted his attempts to deal with key texts quite a while back. He replied, and the writer was chiding me for noting Hunt's unwillingness to debate while I had not replied to Warner. Of course, I pointed out there is no parallel: I have commented on Warner's dispensationalism and the over-riding role it takes in his commentary resulting in eisegetical errors in John 6 and elsewhere. I do not have to commit myself to a never ending series of give and take articles with every unusual interpretive system that finds a voice on the Internet, and this is particularly true with the wide range of "dispensationalisms" that are developing as the movement shatters into a thousand different streams.
   In any case, I looked at the articles, and have chosen to respond, not so that another endless series of articles can be produced, but because I see value in illustrating when tradition (in this case, some kind of "progressive dispensationalism") distorts exegesis resulting in error. This is surely the case here, especially, as we will see in time, when the writer completely robs the believer of his assurance of salvation by torturing the Greek subjunctive into something even the sources he cites admits it is not. But I do not have so much extra time as to be exhaustive in this response. I will have to focus upon the key issues.
   First, it is not fairly dealing with the historical context of John 6 to force some kind of unique dispensational "spin" on the text. The historical context is that of Judaism in the first century in Capernaum, not an artificial construct produced by a particular interpretation of "progressive dispensationalism." Mr. Warner confuses the two in his first response, found here. It should be noted that this kind of dispensational hermeneutic would mean that nothing before the cross--no teaching, no example, no command--could be seen as having any enduring quality. It is this kind of application of an over-arching concept that has given rise to every form of dispensational abuse of the text, such as is seen in the "Paul Only" churches where nothing but the writings of Paul are allowed to speak with authority to the church.
   The issues addressed by our Lord in the Synagogue at Capernaum were over-arching and remain valid to this day. He was addressing unbelief. He was addressing men who had listened to him teaching for hours on end the day before. And yet, despite hearing, they did not believe. Despite seeing (the miracle), they continued in unbelief. Despite "seeking" Jesus, He explains they are unbelievers. And it is in that context that He explains who comes to Him and who does not. There is not a hint that this has anything to do with a particular hardening of Israel so that the crucifixion could take place. There is not a hint that what Jesus says about the nature of unbelief, of the drawing of the Father, and of Himself as the very center of Christian experience, our life-blood, the giver of spiritual life, is only true for the brief period of time left before the crucifixion, at which time all of this was going to change anyway. And what a wonder that the Holy Spirit would record these words for us and preserve them when they would have little or no meaning for the church as a whole. So while Mr. Warner says I am committing the error of eisegesis "because he is assuming a universal application when the text does not warrant or demand such," the reality is that I am simply listening to the text in the context in which it was given without presupposing some kind of dispensational hermeneutic that inserts extraneous conclusions into the discussion. Unbelief, the drawing of the Father, Christ as the bread from heaven, and the strong demands of discipleship are all just as relevant today as they were in Capernaum, and it is Mr. Warner that has to demonstrate otherwise. He consistently fails to do so. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:01:00 - Category: Exegesis - Link to this article -

Debate Set: Sunday Night, March 30th, Twin Lakes Church, Aptos, California (Updated)

01/25/2008 - James White

For those who recall the series I did last summer responding to the lectures of Steve Gregg against Calvinism, a debate is scheduled for Sunday night, March 30th at Twin Lakes Church in Aptos, California.
In preparation Mr. Gregg has indicated that his views have evolved, I guess would be the term, since he recorded the programs I responded to. So in downloading the literally hundreds of pages of web board posts that represent his current position, I found these comments:

   I have been reading, for the past few days, the debate between Dr. White and Dave Hunt. I confess that it has been vexing, as both men seem too interested in attacking each other personally than in sticking strictly to the issues. Mr. Hunt, in my opinion, stuck more with the issues and answered James's points more consistently than James did with Mr. Hunt's points.
   James seemed to think that, instead of presenting air-tight arguments favoring his own traditions, he could simply say that Dave Hunt was depending upon "the traditions of man" (a term White gratuitously used about a zillion times---per page!), and that, instead of answering Mr. Hunt's strongest scriptural points, he could simply accuse his opponent of not using (what Dr. White regards as) "exegesis."
   If Dr. White cannot do better than this in debate, I may have to deprive myself of sleep for two or three days before our debate, just to make it fair (I am not suggesting that I am smarter than Dr. White. I am sure that I am not! However, no matter how smart you are, when you argue against the truth, you place yourself at a disadvantage).

Elsewhere, I found Mr. Gregg referring to my "raving" out how "exegetical" Calvinism is, with these thoughts:

Then I realized that Dr. White holds to a rather narrow definition of the word exegesis. When I use the term, I am speaking of rendering an explanation of a text, based upon:

1) the meanings of words (vocabulary),
2) the relationships of the words to each other (grammar), and
3) the relationship of a sentence to other sentences in the flow of thought (context).

By contrast, it would appear that, to Dr. White, the chief feature of exegesis is a painstaking analysis of Greek syntax (a feature of #2, above). This is a convenient (though truncated) definition for him to adopt, since he has special training in such matters of the Greek language, whereas few in his audience can understand his arcane explanations, giving the following false impressions:

1) that he knows more than they do about the Bible,
2) that his interpretation (something different from translation) must be correct, and
3) that even if his interpretation is not correct, the problems involved in understanding the text are so complex as to render it impossible for the common man to know if he is right or wrong.

So he wins his point by default---unless his opponent knows Greek as well as he does, and can clearly explain why his point is not established by his intricate arguments.

Those who have read my work to any depth at all well know how far off Gregg's views are. I cannot offer any explanation for what would cause such a complete misreading of my materials. And I must confess, this is the first time since my first debate in 1989 I've had an opponent say he may have to deprive himself of sleep before the debate just to make it fair. In all those years Roman Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, proponents of atheism, homosexuality, etc...none have uttered such words.
At the end of this particular post, wherein Mr. Gregg demonstrates that he has yet to have the slightest idea who I am, what I believe, what I teach, etc., he quotes from Matthew 11,

"I thank you, Father...that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them unto babes!"

The irony is he doesn't read the text in its context:

Matthew 11:25-27 5 ¶ At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26 "Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

   In the context, Jesus is rejoicing in God's judgment, and in that context affirms that this is in accordance with the Father's will. Then we have the direct statement that to know the Father, the Son must will to reveal Him to you. There is an exclusivity in the Son's revelation of the Father, and it is one based upon the Son's will, not upon man's! If one wishes to say that it is the Son's will to reveal the Father to all indiscriminately, then why put these words in the context of judgment? No, these words are directly parallel to those in John that emphasize so clearly the divine right of self-revelation to those given by the Father to the Son.
   All I can say is it is going to be an interesting debate.

UPDATE
   DeoVolente pointed my attention to another post added to the thread I quote above. I will be honest folks: I never expected this from Steve Gregg. I mean, I obviously found his presentations horribly flawed and pointed out numerous problems with them, but never, in 19 years of formal debating (starting with Gerry Matatics in Long Island in 1989) have I ever encountered anyone who, before a debate, would make comments like "I may have to deprive myself of sleep for two or three days before our debate, just to make it fair." I suppose some may have said that privately to some friends, but I personally never heard such commentary. Anyway, on 12/1/07 Mr. Gregg added these comments:

In hearing his comments and reactions to my lectures, I got the impression that he is not going to be a very formidable opponent. He seems to neglect most of the important considerations in exegesis, and then distracts his audience from this fact by accusing his opponent of "eisegesis," "following tradition," and other canards. My assumption is that intelligent audiences will notice what he is doing, and it will weaken his case in their eyes.
I am now much more familiar with James White's writings and debate methods, and I am more convinced than ever that my first impressions were correct. Whether he is debating Tim Warner, Dave Hunt or Norm Geisler (or me), he always resorts to the same tactics and the same name-calling. Some people have asked me whether it makes me nervous about being on the receiving end of that kind of treatment in a public forum. I don't know why it should. Only if I succumb to the temptation to respond in the same manner will I or my case look bad. I should think that Dr. White would himself be nervous every time he debates—not that his opponent will make him look bad, but that he will make himself look foolish.

I am left speechless by such rhetoric, honestly. I will gladly allow the fair-minded readers of our comparative works, and the fair minded listeners to our programs, our presentations, and eventually, our debate, to decide the matter. But I simply point Mr. Gregg to two of my opponents who did, in fact, come to our debates with the idea that they were going to have an easy time of it: Father Peter Stravinskas and ACLU board member Barry Lynn. A word to the wise.

17:14:47 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -