"The doctrine of Redemption is one of the most important doctrines of the system of faith. A mistake on this point will inevitably lead to a mistake through the entire system of our belief.
   Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when he died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ’s death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man’s will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ’s atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in hell as for Peter who mounted to heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was as true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High.
   Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when he died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ’s death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, “What did Christ design to do by his death?” we answer that question by asking him another — “What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by his death?” For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ’s love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold — we are not afraid to say what we believe — that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving “a multitude which no man can number;” and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom he died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father’s throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned, we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in hell when Christ, according to some men’s account, died to save them. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

11:05:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Dr. Stauffer: Brave Behind the Keyboard, Unwilling to Defend His Assertions

03/25/2006 - James White

   Well, I've given him more than enough time. I know he has received my e-mails. He simply will not respond. Though I have asked him to back up his strong statements, Dr. Douglas Stauffer, author of One Book Stands Alone, will not do so. Though he has stooped to unsubstantiated, false ad-hominem, he will not so much as respond to an invitation to appear on the DL, let alone do a debate. So, he joins a long list of KJV Only advocates who will attack you, lie about you, but when faced directly by you, will run and hide, all the while waiting for you to "go away" so they can begin their diatribes again.
   In case any of my gentle readers have forgotten the kind of rhetoric KJV Only folks produce, here is a portion of the last e-mail one of those KJV Onlyists sent me just a few days ago:

Listen you filthy devil: people don't bother debating you because you're still smoking from every time someone has taken the time you set you straight already. You're what's called a reprobate. You've been hardened by God. You are going to hell. You hold to the devil's line no matter what. Good riddance. Have fun with your filthy, satanic manuscripts in hell. In hell when you can finally meet in person your little spiritualist masters Westcott and Hort. Oh, what fun.

16:30:36 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

Greetings From Our New Offices!

03/25/2006 - James White

   Greetings! I am writing this from my new office...a first! It is a total disaster here, of course, as all offices are as you are dragging in boxes, putting up blinds, running wires, etc. But at least I have connectivity to the net and power to the computer! First things first they say. Only time to say hello and get back to climbing under desks and adjusting this and that and...all that kind of stuff.

15:13:34 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Pray for Us

03/23/2006 - James White

   Well, it is starting. Rich has been working long, long days for weeks now, mainly doing carpentry work, but also being electrician, painter---you name it. The offices are looking great, but we are finally at that point where we must need to make the leap. That is, starting tomorrow, we have to get all the computer equipment down there and installed and working. That will effectively "open" the office. However, there is this little thing called The Dividing Line that folks like to listen to. That means all the equipment that makes that happen has to get down there. It has to be installed. The window has to be put in. The door has to be hung. I sorta need a place to sit down. I also need a computer from which to play things like the Davis sermon. In other words, we are going to be working long hours for the next number of days to get this working. Rich has already put in three months worth of work in 1/3 that time, so if you would, pray for us. It will all be worth it down the road, but getting there is quite the task.

21:25:18 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

Tony Byrne and S.M. Davis on the DL Today

03/23/2006 - James White

UPDATE: Here's the program.
SECOND UPDATE: Tony Bryne contacted me and very kindly apologized for the comments I had found offensive, so I have removed this article (though there isn't much I can do about the DL!). I appreciate Mr. Bryne's response and am encouraged as a result of this.

11:00:45 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Exegesis, or Eisegesis, of Revelation 5:9-10?

03/23/2006 - James White

   This morning I posted another memory verse and made some brief comments about Revelation 5:9-10 and its witness to the perfection of the atoning work of Christ in behalf of His people. Fairly quickly the following was sent through the website:

Good piece of eisegesis James! Results of the Atonement Seen? Results, yes. The full extent of "how", NO. The only thing that this portion of Scripture conveys is that it "describes" what has been done; not "how" (to its full extent). No where is the "world" (as the Calvinist thinks) defined like you want it to. All it says is that God has made a "kingdom and priests" from "every tribe and tongue and people and nation". No where does it say that God slam-dunked people into salvation against their acceptance of God' teaching. This would go aaginst Jn. 6:45...ALL OF THE VERSE. Come on James, think outside of your Calvinism.

   Come on, Steve, think outside your Arminianism! It is easy to make those kinds of statements. It is a lot harder to demonstrate that someone is, in fact, allowing their exegesis to be determined by external factors. Of course, I would argue Arminianism is inherently philosophical before it even comes to the text of Scripture, but that's another issue. Let's take Steve's assertions apart here.

Results of the Atonement Seen? Results, yes. The full extent of "how", NO. The only thing that this portion of Scripture conveys is that it "describes" what has been done; not "how" (to its full extent).

   OK, I must confess, this is confusing. Looks like we agree that the result of the atonement, that being Christ by His blood redeemed men from every tribe, tongue, people and nation. But I don't get the "how" part. What is unclear about the statement "You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." The how of the purchasing for God is quite clear, is it not? "By your blood." Not "by your blood plus the free will actions of men" or "by a potential atonement plus...", right? If the term "by" (evn tw/| ai[mati, sou) is not explaining the "how" of "redeemed for God" or "ransomed for God" (hvgo,rasaj tw/| qew/|), then how is it functioning? Remember, the Lamb here is being praised for what He has done, not for what He has made possible. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:01:00 - Category: Mail Bag - Link to this article -

The Results of the Atonement Seen

03/22/2006 - James White

And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth." (Rev. 5:9-10)

   One of the glorious truths of Scripture is that Jesus is not a hypothetical Savior, a mere wanna-be who fails with regularity. No, we proclaim a powerful Savior who perfectly does the will of the Father. His death did not make the purchase of men from every tribe, tongue, people and nation possible, it actually accomplished that which the Triune Majesty intended. Why so many long for an "atonement" that atones not I will never understand, but when they make reference to the extent of the atonement, point them to this text that defines what it means to speak of the "world" in a New Testament context.

08:00:00 - Category: Godly Disciplines - Link to this article -

Waiting to Hear From Dr. Stauffer

03/22/2006 - James White

   I've written to Dr. Stauffer and asked him to stand behind his published statements. I've invited him to join me on the DL, and inquired about his willingness to publicly debate the issues. Though a number of days have passed, he has so far declined even replying to my e-mails. I'm wondering if he will end up like D.A. Waite, another KJV Only advocate who is brave and boisterous in monologue but utterly unwilling to defend his statements in the presence of knowledgable opposition. One can only think of this statement, which I will quote from the KJV itself:

He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. (Proverbs 18:17)

The point is more clearly expressed here, however:

The first to plead his case seems right,
Until another comes and examines him. (NASB)

00:01:00 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

Today on the DL: S.M. Davis' Sermon, Finally

03/21/2006 - James White

   I listened to both of Dr. Davis' anti-Calvinism sermons today on my ride (they were worse than I remembered) and since a month from today I am debating an attorney who is a member of his church on this same topic, I would like to go through the sermon and highlight all the straw-man arguments, etc. I will let my future opponent know of the programs in the sincere hope that our debate will be as straw-man free as possible. And since Davis' stuff is almost nothing more than Hunt's materials organized and presented more forcefully, there's a wide application for everyone facing that kind of argumentation.
Quick Update: Actually took the first half hour to discuss the re-emergence (no pun intended) of the imputation issue, then got into the Davis sermon. Here's the program.

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

School of Theology Schedule Published

03/21/2006 - James White

   I received my full-color brochure for the 2006 School of Theology at the Metropolitan Tabernacle this July. This link isn't as colorful, but it has the same information. I'm very much looking forward to this wonderful opportunity of ministry in London, and am very thankful to Dr. Masters for his kind invitation. I know each speaker has forty minutes (I have heard a fairly regular speaker at the SoT goes much longer, but given that I do so many debates, I have no excuses for going over time). Piling the most important Da Vinci Code info into forty minutes will be challenging, to be sure, but it can be done. Same with my second topic. But I especially look forward to meeting the saints and enjoying the fellowship. Of course, I can't miss the irony that I will be speaking on July 4th. Wreteched colonials!

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

On Painting with Broad Brushes

03/20/2006 - James White

   A lot of you were a bit shocked at the vitriol expressed by Mr. Dries a few days ago. Believe me, in the years since I wrote The King James Only Controversy I've seen it all before. "You God-hater! You Bible-hater! You are trying to destroy people's faith!" etc. and etc. Emotionalism is an ever-present part of dedication to that particular system. And for the few who thought that might bother me, let me assure you: after the fiftieth time you are called the "high priest of the Alexandrian cult" or the like, it really doesn't have the sting it once had.
   Some might say, "Hey, you are painting with a broad brush." I wasn't painting at all. There is a wide, loud, vitriolic stream of KJV Onlyism out there. Ruckmanism, Riplingerism--call it what you will. Even Mr. Dries, an alleged Calvinist, was promoting a book written by a hyper-dispensationalist whose views are very much in line with Ruckman. Are all KJV Only folks a part of this stream? No. In fact, men like David Cloud, though anti-Reformed and surely guilty of poor research in the field, recognize the utter incongruity of the kind of behavior exemplified by these folks and a profession of faith in the Bible: he well knows how difficult it is to maintain some kind of decorum as a promoter of the KJV and yet refrain from behaving in the Ruckmanesque style. He takes heat from that "side" all the time, for to be anything less than utterly nasty is to "compromise" from their viewpoint.
   While I was in the UK I sat down over lunch/dinner with a fine Christian brother. I could never identify this brother simply because he would never hear the end of having broken bread with the anti-Christ himself. Let's call him Rob. I think he would accept the identification of at least being TR Only, if not KJV Only. We discussed, specifically, the Comma Johanneum. We did so forcefully, but in the bonds of brotherhood. I did not convince him, he did not convince me. I personally think I asked some questions that I hope he will think through, but the fact of the matter is that he will remain my brother in Christ whether he does or does not. I pray for him, appreciate his kind spirit and his smiling countenance, and I hope and pray that he recognizes in me the Spirit of Christ and the heart of one who loves the Lord. Not everyone "over there" is as nasty as Mr. Dries.
   But it is just here I have to point out that Rob is the exception that proves the rule. In other words, it is his rarity that exemplifies the attitude we saw in the Dries e-mails, that we see in Stauffer's twisting of almost anything I say, in Ruckman's writings, etc. and etc. The fact that a conversation with him is memorable proves that most of the conversations I have had were just the opposite. It is hard to get very far when the other person identifies you as a "devil-priest." So, I am truly not seeking to paint with a broad brush: I appreciate the minority in that camp that can hold their position without putting me on a greased aerodynamic bobsled destined for a lightning fast ride to the seventh level of hell itself. But the fact that those folks are in the minority is just that: a fact. Anyone who would dare to address the issue directly, as I have, knows I speak the truth.

00:01:00 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

What I Believe About Regeneration

03/18/2006 - James White

   1. Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
   2. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead. (LBCF 10:1-2)

   “Of his own will begat he, us.” Regeneration and all consequent blessings come to us entirely through the absolute but gracious will of God. He is not bound to give; he may, if he wills, withhold. We have no claim upon God, except the claim of justice; and what would that involve but that he should punish us for our sin? We are felons against the Majesty of heaven. We have forfeited all the rights we ever had under the divine government. The right to punishment is the only right we can now claim upon the footing of justice. Henceforth we are simply in the hands of God awaiting his sentence. He may, if he wills, save the entire human race; if it pleaseth him, he may save none. If so he wills, he may make this mien a monument of mercy, and leave his neighbor to reap the due reward of his works. This is what God has a right to do, and he claims his sovereign prerogative. Are not his own words heard through Scripture like peals of thunder, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion; so then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy”? There are some who, in their blindness, grow wrathful at this doctrine, as if it were ungracious to mention a fact which it is impossible to disguise; they will almost froth at the mouth when the subject is broached. Well, let them do so, it still standeth firm as a rock and fast as the eternal hills. Jehovah giveth no account of his matters. He doeth as he wills among the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of this lower earth. So,-

“Mortals, be dumb; what creature dares
Dispute his awful will?
Ask no account of his affairs,
But tremble, and be still.”

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

21:30:44 - Category: Reformed Baptist Issues - Link to this article -

A Bit More on Stauffer

03/18/2006 - James White

   Evidently Dr. Stauffer is a hyper-dispensationalist, limiting the NT Scriptures that are "for the church" to the Pauline epistles, etc. No wonder his "exegesis" of Titus 2:13 is next to impossible to understand. David Cloud writes,

According to Stauffer, Paul is THE spokesman for the church age (p. 17); the general epistles of Hebrews to Revelation, while containing some church age applications, are actually written for Great Tribulation saints (pp. 20, 27); salvation is obtained by works during the Tribulation (p. 23); Hebrews and James do not teach eternal security (pp. 23, 29); Peter did not preach the gospel of the grace of God (p. 26); the seven churches of Revelation 1-3 are not the body of Christ (p. 29); the epistle of first John teaches that salvation is through works (p. 56); the book of Acts was not given “to show how to establish the local church or its functions” (p. 72), Abraham had to keep his salvation through works (p. 175).

   He likewise identifies Ruckman as the source of Stauffer's views. Irony of ironies. Mr. Dries, who claims to be a Calvinist, relying upon Ruckmanite hyper-dispensationalism. The world is truly an odd place at times.

12:36:32 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

I've Received Stauffer's One Book Stands Alone

03/18/2006 - James White

   First impression: absolutely nothing new here, nothing beyond what KJV Onlyism has been offering for forty years. Not a smidgeon of meaningful interaction with my own work. Same ol' same ol'.
   But, there are a few almost humorous things, and some completely absurd things. You will find this book filled with standard KJV Only "loaded language" throughout. In the index under my name, we read some really fascinating stuff. For example:

admits modern versions use of different manuscript

Shocking!

admits that Mormon's [sic] challenged his faith

   OK, gotta look that one up. I did? Hmm. Could Dr. Stauffer actually misread me that badly? Answer? Well, if you listened to the DL, you know the answer. Of course he could.
   In my book I had narrated my first encounter, at age 19, with LDS missionaries Reed and Reese (a story I've told often). Here's what I wrote, in context:

In Other Words . . .
   Most people who are not committed to the KJV Only position will admit that the AV needs some level of revision. No matter how strongly AV Only believers assert the alleged simplicity and clarity of the KJV, the fact remains that there are many passages that are anything but clear and understandable in this venerable old translation. And, at times, those ambiguities get in the way, and even give ammunition to those who would attack the Bible.
   The first alleged “contradiction” that was ever shown to me was based upon the KJV translation. Two young LDS missionaries, Elders Reed and Reese, were sitting in my sister-in-law’s home, explaining to me that I could not really trust the Bible because it had been “translated so many times.” I was a young person at the time (I was the same age as the missionaries), and had not encountered too many real strong challenges to my faith, so I asked them for examples of the “errors” they were talking about. They took me to the KJV at Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. (228-229)

   After this I went through the alleged contradiction, much as I did in Letters to a Mormon Elder as well. This is part of the chapter documenting problems in the text of the KJV itself.
   Now, for all regular folks, the reason I mentioned elders Reed and Reese and the context of my first encounter with the alleged contradiction is clear. But, what does a commitment to KJV Onlyism do to your ability to read fairly? Let's find out. After quoting the immediately preceding paragraph cited above, Stauffer writes, ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:01:00 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

The Spirit of KJV Onlyism

03/17/2006 - James White

   The gentleman on the Puritanboard (since banned) that I replied to Tuesday on the DL--the one who referred me to Stauffer's book--has informed me of his views of me and my replies to his statements. I post this to illustrate the spirit of KJV Onlyism and as evidence, since some seem to need it, in support of my statement that the nastiest folks I run into are KJV Only folks.

   Sorry, the Holy Spirit doesn't fall into the category of a circular argument. You're similar to, once again, atheists who argue that quoting the Bible on the existence of God is circular. It's called faith and having the Spirit of Truth inside you and having, hence, discernment and ability to see.
   This is a regeneration issue. Anybody who can't see the devil's hand in the corrupt manuscripts and the devil's ability to cast delusions and illusion over the eyes of people regarding them, usually with throwing some worldly motive and gain into the picture, just doesn't have the discernment that comes with regeneration and having the Spirit of Truth.
   That you mock Christians who defend the Word of God against your atheist higher critics and your ridiculous 'better manuscripts' (just your thinking that that ridiculous story about a man going to a monastery and finding scraps in a garbage can and going back and having a manuscript presented to him "wrapped in red" - oooh - is somehow evidence of the glorious nature of God's providence, when everything that occured in the Reformation regarding the Bible coming into the light after the darkness of the Rome and Protestants literally giving their lives for it to happen IS GOD'S TRUE GLORIOUS PROVIDENCE AT WORK, whereas everything you write and speak is the devil's demands manifesting through his servants - shows you are warped on this subject) again, that you mock God's elect while defending atheist 'scholars' and manuscripts that oh just so happen to delete and distort the Word of God in areas that the devil would want the Word of God defiled and distorted shows you are working for the darkness.
   The Word of God is the foundation of the faith. You'll pay for what you been doing. God comes down hard on any who affect to teach in His name and do as much damage to the faith as you and others like you have done.
   Have fun in hell, witch. - mdries
   Listen, devil-priest, just post the entire email. The ENTIRE email, if you do. This one too. And be sure to throw in the de riguour 'sic' where appropriate. Yes, as you read from my own reply to you the Spirit is indeed the Spirit of Truth. And the Spirit of discernment. You don't have it. You fear man and side with man. You have to fear only God to have the Spirit of Truth and discernment in you. By the way, your recent statement that only specialists should have opinions regarding manuscript issues was very Roman Catholic of you, hence my opening above. God's elect know the voice of the Shepherd, devil-priest; what you push is the filth and death of the devil. You're not even a Calvinist. Like theonomists and Federal Visionists and other similar knaves within the tent of Calvinism you just use Calvinism to get an audience, but your main effort is to do the work of the devil in pushing the devil's manuscripts. No, you're not even a Calvinist; and if you tried to push those devil manuscripts on Calvin himself he wouldn't even bother to burn you. He'd pin a note to your collar and buy you a ride to Rome... - mdries

04:51:49 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

Last Evening on the DL

03/17/2006 - James White

   Reviewed the claims of Dr. Stauffer in his work, One Book Stands Alone regarding Titus 2:13 and the proper translation of the text. Pretty amazing stuff. Here's the program.

00:01:00 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

A Bit More on the Comma (Continuation of Previous)

03/16/2006 - James White

   I promised to continue responding to Sean McDonald (who called the DL) and the article he posted on the Puritanboard. He asked,

3. Is it just defense of the Johannine Comma which earns your stern rebuke, or do you include Byzantine priority and (general) defense of the TR in said rebuke?

   I think I've been very clear that this entire discussion began because I "draw the line" at the Comma Johanneum as far as serious scholarship is concerned. I simply do not see how a person can have a full grasp of the current state of the question and continue to defend the Comma outside of a pre-commitment to a particular theological tradition that has nothing to do with the history of the text. I think we have seen this in the responses offered by supporters of the Comma on the board and surely in the kind of rhetoric that I have found in Stauffer's writings.
   Further, I think it is important to differentiate between those who attempt to support the Textus Receptus as an established textual platform and those who support Byzantine priority (such as Dr. Robinson). Dr. Robinson is dealing with the modern textual situation; those defending the TR (however they decide to define it, if they are even aware of the issues involved) often do so by using "majority text" arguments, but if they truly knew the history of their own text, they would realize they cannot do so. Hence, the only real defense of the TR is a theological/historical one, one that I believe is fraught with special pleading and circular arguments.

4. On what basis did the (non-KJV) Continental Reformers argue for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma (since it was not adherence to the KJV that was driving their argumentation, as could possibly be said for post-Westminster British Calvinists)?

   I would have to ask for specifics here, as I do not know what Mr. McDonald is referring to and I would not like to attempt to hazard a guess. But once again, as I explained on the Dividing Line, none of these men are overly relevant witnesses today for the simple reason that any argument they would have made was not based upon any meaningful textual foundation in comparison to what is available to us today. Further, I have to wonder: is there something wrong in noting that textual criticism is a specialized field and that those who have never prepared to discuss it might not be in a real good position to offer weighty opinions on it? I mean, did the Westminster Assembly go out and do Jay Leno style "Jay Walking" segments to get a nice "broad, catholic" view of such issues as the procession of the Holy Spirit or the nature of justification just to avoid any inkling that maybe specialized study goes into doing good theology? If we recognize that it would be better to be John Owen than Dave Hunt on theology, why is it that everybody's opinion on textual critical matters, even if they are not particularly trained in that area, are "equal"? Isn't this the reverse of giving particular theological weight to a theological statement made by a textual critic? ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

11:19:18 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

For Thursday's DL...

03/15/2006 - James White

   I would like to respond to Dr. Stauffer's incredible attempt to deal with the translation of Titus 2:13 by the KJV noted earlier on the DL on Thursday. This kind of argumentation reminds me a great deal of Thomas Holland's attempt to defend the KJV by saying Romans 9:5 is not a proof text for the deity of Christ. Anything to protect the KJV, even if the KJV translators would have recoiled in horror at such an activity and attitude. If no callers wish to take up the topic, I really do need to get back to the Dr. Davis "Why I'm not a Five Point Calvinist" sermon in light of that material being the background to my upcoming debate in Sedalia on that topic (4/21).

18:05:17 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Dr. Stauffer on Codex Sinaiticus

03/15/2006 - James White

   I did a little looking around the net for materials by Dr. Stauffer, and very quickly ran across this article. And it took just a moment to read this:

The Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope's library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai) were the two texts that influenced the Alexandrian text type the most.

   I'm sorry, but any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest. I remember correcting Dave Hunt on this very same error a few years ago in St. Louis. Sure it is common to say this, but repeating an error does not make it true. And for someone who claims the level of expertise necessary to write a book on the translation of the Bible and the issues of the King James Version should surely know better than to repeat errors like this. What is worse, he cites from my book frequently, which means he knows this statement is factually untrue. Here is the section from my work:

   The single greatest example of an uncial codex written on vellum is Codex Sinaiticus, which today is almost always abbreviated with the single symbol of the Hebrew letter “aleph,” written like this: a. This great codex contains the vast majority of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, in Greek. The story of how it was found(1) is evidence of God’s providence. Constantin von Tischendorf embarked on a journey to the Middle East in 1844 searching for biblical manuscripts. While visiting the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, he noted some scraps of parchment in a basket that was due to be used to stoke the fires in the oven of the monastery. Upon looking at the scraps he discovered that they contained part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This was exactly what he was looking for, and so he asked if he could take the scraps to his room for examination, warning the monks that they should not be burning such items. His obvious excitement worried the monks, who became less than cooperative in providing further information about manuscripts at the monastery. Years passed by. Tischendorf attempted to find more manuscripts at the monastery in 1853, but to no avail. Six years later he visited yet once again, and this time on the very evening before he was to leave he presented a copy of the Septuagint (which he had published) to the steward. Upon looking at Tischendorf’s gift, the steward remarked that he, too, had a copy of the Septuagint. From the closet in his cell he produced a manuscript, wrapped in a red cloth. The monk had no idea of the treasure he held in his hands, for this was none other than Codex Sinaiticus, which at that time was no less than 1,500 years old! Tischendorf, having learned his lesson years earlier, hid his amazement and asked to examine the work. He spent all night poring over it, and attempted to purchase it in the morning, but was refused. The story of how the codex was eventually obtained is long, involved, and controversial. It resides today in the British Museum. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:01:00 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

Today on the DL: the Comma Revisited

03/14/2006 - James White

   Today on the DL I responded to a series of posts that appeared on the Puritanboard web-board, and then took two calls, one from one of the folks on the Puritanboard itself (though not the fellow who I invited to call in). We even went a little long to get our second caller in. Here's the program.
   One of the comments made by a defender of the Comma was that I must be "afraid" of a 2001 book, One Book Stands Alone by Doug Stauffer. Evidently, the sure proof of this is that I haven't responded to it. And, as I said on the program today, I had never heard of the book. I have ordered it now, and just this evening I was directed to a URL containing portions of the book. Here's the link. I haven't read all of it yet, but I did read his attempt to deal with Titus 2:13 and Granville Sharp's Rule. I am simply speechless. This kind of writing is being promoted by a Reformed man? I would gladly invite anyone to read my comments on Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 and then read Stauffer's incredible attempt to defend the KJV rendering. To call it amazing is an understatement.
   I am glad to have been directed to this book. I would very much like to see if Dr. Stauffer would be available to debate the topic, both on the DL as well as in formal, moderated debate.

19:32:21 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

Apostasy in Alaska Courtesy of the BAS

03/14/2006 - James White

   You may be one of those who received an e-mail from the Biblical Archaeology Society today. In case you had ever thought of supporting this group, I hope the following will give you an idea what they are really all about. BTW, this cruise costs more than three times what ours did. I wonder where that extra money is going? Hmm.

Jesus Is Not Who You Think He Is
There's More to Jesus Than You Know
(And learn it on a 10 day cruise through Alaska’s Inside Passage.)
Let Professor Bart Ehrman, best-selling author and prominent Biblical scholar, lead you through the mysterious Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, James, Peter, and the lost Gospels of Mark and John.
• Learn why the true meaning behind the Gospels of Mark and John might have been lost in translation.
• Learn what happened to Mary before the birth of Jesus and why she was chosen to be the mother of Jesus in the Proto-Gospel of James.
• Learn about the mischievous, but powerful, five-year-old Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.
• Learn what actually happened when Jesus emerged from the tomb and why his cross is shown speaking to the heavens in the Gospel of Peter.
• Learn how Jesus’ secret teachings, and their correct interpretation, can bring eternal life in the famous Gospel of Thomas.
• Learn why Jesus reveals different secrets of salvation to a woman in the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
• Discover how these lost gospels are changing the most powerful religion in the world.
AND LEARN IT ALL WHILE TAKING A 10-DAY VACATION TO ALASKA’S FAMOUS INSIDE PASSAGE

   If that doesn't prove Ehrman is on a crusade, what possibly could? Just unreal. See for yourself.

19:15:01 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

James White Like an Atheist?

03/14/2006 - James White

   I was just reading a post by Michael Dries of Christ Community Church, Folsom, CA, which likened me to an atheist and refers to my "sophistry." I think I'll respond to Mr. Dries on the DL this morning, and if perchance he should be made aware of this (I looked for an e-mail address, but could not find one), I invite him to call in. I'd love to dialogue about his assertions.

09:52:39 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

What Does the Reality of Apostasy Mean?

03/14/2006 - James White

   Apostasy abounds in Western culture today. Much of the confusion as to what the Christian faith teaches is due to apostates who refuse to leave the church but instead corrupt it from within. But there are many apostates who have completely abandoned the faith; some simply disappear and go back to their worldly ways. Look at the huge baptism numbers reported each year in many mega churches and then consider the fact that in most of those churches, 80-90% of those "baptized" are completely out of contact with any church within two years.
   But there are always those who abandon their profession of faith and they do not simply go quietly into the world: they vocally proclaim their apostasy and seek to encourage the same attitude of unbelief amongst as many others as possible. And, of course, the Internet provides them with a ready-made platform.
   The existence of apostasy is troubling to many, though, again, if people would live in light of that phrase, "theology matters," they would be significantly less liable to being disturbed by it. The fact is that the New Testament names apostates who entered that condition even during the ministry of the Apostles. Jesus gave us parables that warned us ahead of time of the reality of apostasy and its reasons (such as the parable of the soils). Entire books, like 1 John, are filled with references to those who were troubling the church who had once been leaders within her number.
   A few weeks ago I specifically addressed the issue of hypocrites in the church and how the proclamation of the gospel will often compel these people into false religions or open apostasy. At that time I pointed out that a balanced view of Scripture would give us a solid foundation upon which to view the reality of apostasy. This is especially true in today's context of the church's ministry within a society under the wrath of God, where God is allowing such a wide-spread existence of false teaching that apostasy of every possible kind can be observed today. One must have a truly biblical view of salvation to make heads or tails out of what is happening around us.
   Take the inconsistent position held by many tradition-bound evangelicals today, those who deny the foundational truths often called "Calvinism" and yet hold, for some odd reason, to "eternal security." Not only is their doctrine of "eternal security" unbiblical and unsound, but they have no meaningful basis for believing it in the rest of their theology. And the result is predictable: since they have no means of understanding false faith, let alone the judgment of God in causing those who refuse to love the truth to believe a lie, they are left scratching their heads at those who professed faith for a season, even a long season, and yet today deny what they once professed.
   These thoughts have been prompted by a blog article by an anonymous person named "exbeliever" that I read only today as I arrived home from ministry in Auburn. I made reference to a series of questions posted on this particular blog that "debunks" Christianity yesterday. Well, it turns out that one of the contributors to this blog claims to be a former student of mine. Here are his words:

   I found this quote interesting for personal reasons. Though, as I've explained, I hope to keep my anonymity, it might interest some readers that I was once one of Dr. White's students. I took a class in Christian Philosophy which Dr. White taught as an apologetics class.
   During that (albeit, short) class, Dr. White was very complementary of my work. Because of my background, the two of us often chased rabbit trails that most of the other class members could not follow. I got an "A" in that class.
   After reading Dr. White's quote, I couldn't help wondering what he would think of me now. He, obviously, doesn't believe that one can be a "'former' Christian," so would he, now, believe that I had fooled him?

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:01:00 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

The Puritanboard and the Comma Continued

03/13/2006 - James White

   The discussion continues in articles posted on the Puritanboard by my fellow Reformed believers regarding the Comma Johanneum. Two immediate things: I have been asked why I don't just join the Puritanboard and post there. Simple answer: I don't have time to join all the web boards out there where relevant conversations are taking place. However, I have received a number of e-mails thanking me for this particular discussion on this blog, and, though this sounds self-serving, it is merely a statement of fact: a lot more people read this blog than read the Puritanboard. Therefore, as long as I believe the wider audience would benefit from the conversation, I will continue to invest time in it.
   Secondly, I am disappointed that my primary objection to the inclusion of the Comma has seemingly passed by the supporters of the Comma on the Puritanboard without so much as a single attempt at response. Once again, let me make it as plain as I can. There are plenty of readings found in Codex Bezae Catabrigiensis that are likewise mirrored in a small number of Greek manuscripts as well as Latin versions (Bezae is a bilingual manuscript in Greek and Latin) that, if the textual arguments proffered by supporters of the Comma are consistently applied would have to be included in the TR, calling for a very large realignment of the text itself. Yet, we all know why it is that no one is calling for this re-editing of the TR: the TR is the standard here, and its readings are being defended, albeit in a circular fashion. The only reason these brothers find any of the arguments put forward in defense of it compelling is because they are already pre-disposed to the acceptance of the TR (well, at least the TR that is post-AV, depending on just how you define the term "TR" in the first place). If these same arguments were used to support an emendation of the TR, such arguments would be dismissed instantly (and rightfully so). But such inconsistency is the sign of untruth, is it not? Personally, I would like to hear a meaningful explanation of this objection.
   Now, to some of the statements posted since our last installment:

Yes, it's a pity that Dr White has his textual criticism blinkers on and can't see that the question of the Comma is decidedly nothing to do with T.C. If it were, then the question would be long over since there are precious few Greek texts in which it occurs.

   Am I wearing textual criticism "blinkers" or is this brother wearing "TR Tradition" blinkers? But please note the admission inherent in this statement: this brother accepts the Comma not because it has been transmitted within the manuscript tradition. Instead, "internal evidences" take precedence: once again using one standard for the TR, another standard for all others. Would this person, for example, accept the "internal evidence arguments" for reading "God" at John 1:18 over "Son"? If not, why not?

The question, insofar as there is one, concerns the internal evidences as I posted before. Did the Holy Spirit inspire John to use some rather dodgy grammar at that point, or was the Comma excised at some stage from most Greek texts by over-zealous Arians?

   Note again that this would, logically, open up a Pandora's box whereby all readings that could be questioned on a grammatical basis (as if we have a basis for so doing) no matter what their textual basis become "fair game." Again, this is clearly not this writer's intention, but he is operating within a context that not only allows the use of double standards, but encourages it by avoiding apologetic defense of the text outside theological circles. As I have pointed out before, this kind of argumentation goes absolutely positively nowhere in dealing with critics of the faith.
   Secondly, if the Arians could do this to one text (a text that is not nearly as strong against Arianism as so many others), what did the Sabellians manage to mess up before the Arians came along? This brother simply does not see that he is, in essence, sacrificing the entirety of the NT for the sake of a tradition regarding the TR. And given the relatively late date of the Arian controversy, we know that numerous manuscripts would already exist containing the reading that no Arian could ever get to, and many would have read those manuscripts and would have continued to use the text in defense of the truth. This kind of "internal argument" is vacuous at best, and tremendously dangerous at worst.

I wish Dr White well in his discussions with the Moslems, but I seriously doubt if anyone is likely to be converted one way or the other by arguing about the text. In my, admittedly limited, discussions with Moslems, the matter has never come up. The question to broach with Moslems IMO is the need of a Saviour.

   I'm disappointed this brother would think that all I do is "argue about the text" with Muslims. But I would like to ask him: how do you proclaim a Savior to the Muslim who does not believe the Bible is the Word of God because it has been corrupted? And if this brother has not spoken to a Muslim who believes that, well, he obviously has not spoken to many Muslims.

Dr White is of course right that Henry, Dabney et al did not have access to all the Greek manuscripts that are available today. However, they had sufficient to know that the Comma was not in most of them. Their support for it was based on other reasons than the texts.

   The point that this brother is missing is that with the tremendous expansion of knowledge of the earliest form of the manuscript tradition, our confidence in the entirety of the text, including the exclusion of the Comma as a much later addition, has been greatly increased.
   Finally, this particular brother wrote, "Dr White can have his Critical Text and God bless it to him. However, I feel very confident using the NKJV and cannot see where it is likely to lead me into theological error." I never said using the NKJV leads you to theological error. I have, however, lamented the willingness to abandon, en toto, a defensible, historical, consistent view of the transmission of the text of the New Testament just so that a later addition will remain in one's tradition. I do believe a person who commits himself to the text underlying the NKJV (which Byzantine priority proponents will confirm demands emendation and editing) for the reasons this brother has offered is putting himself in a very difficult position should he ever find himself having to "refute those who contradict" as is the duty of every elder.
   I will respond to brother McDonald as time allows. Honestly, I believe I have responded to much of what he said by posting my comments from The King James Only Controversy. Let me just respond to his first statement regarding the nature of the arguments in defense of the Comma by referring he, and others, to a disputatio I did with Douglas Wilson a number of years ago where, I believe, we find Wilson (following Letis) presenting just such an argument as he says is not being made. Here's the link.

21:28:18 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

Three Cheers for Liberty University

03/12/2006 - James White

   Liberty University wasn't going to play Mel White's game. Here is a report on the arrest of people from the "Equality Ride" who trespassed on Liberty's property. I can only hope the other schools will likewise stand firm against the attacks of this "peaceful group" so that their funding will be depleted simply in paying fines and bail monies. Here is their schedule.
   Don't be fooled by Soul Force's rhetoric: they claim their goal is "freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance." Their real goal is the overthrow of biblical morality, its utter abandonment by Christian people. Ironically, I had mentioned to someone just yesterday that the first time Mel White (by his own admission) was told he was a "Christian homosexual" he was talking to a female professor from Fuller Theological Seminary. Yes, as I always say, theology matters.

15:17:33 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

John Loftus "Debunking" the Faith

03/12/2006 - James White

   I was looking over Evan May's blog this morning when I ran across a link to some comments posted by John Loftus on the "Debunking Christianity" blog. I noted with some humor the presence of Dan Barker as one of the contributors to that blog. I will never forget the radio programs I did with Barker, both by phone and in person on the Tom Leykus show many, many years ago. Anyway, Loftus, allegedly a former "Christian" with an Th.M. from Trinity (I haven't bothered to check out the claim, it's fairly irrelevant given the nature of this material) posted a series of "questions your Pastor will hate." I don't have time today to tackle all of them (I believe someone over at Triablogue already did), but I wanted to quickly note one of them as it is being repeated so often people are starting to believe it merely due to repetition. Here is the question:

"Why does the Apostle Paul, who writes most of the New Testament, NEVER quote Jesus, tell a story of his life or death, discuss a miracle or teaching?" Answer...Where do you get this stuff?

   Paul referred to the death of Jesus Christ constantly. Surely Mr. Loftus has read the NT at some point in his receiving a Th.M.? When Paul spoke to the Corinthians of having a commandment from the Lord, or not, he was referring to whether there was a specific teaching of the Lord contained in the apostolic teaching and preaching which was only at that time being put into written form in the gospels. But why on earth is this question even being asked, given the purposes for which Paul's epistles were written? Is it not painfully obvious that Paul was fully aware of all of these things, as were those to whom he was writing, so that repeating that common body of knowledge (seen, for example, in the Carmen Christi at Phil. 2:5-11) would be a foolish act? The entire foundation of the question shows either gross ignorance of Paul's writings, their context, and their purpose, or, more likely for apostates, a disregard for the facts and simple honesty. That has been my experience: "former" Christians, freed from the constraints of morality, express their hatred for the faith in the most outrageous ways, and rarely do you find a high regard for fairness or accuracy in their writings.
   If time allows (I begin moving my office this week, which includes multiple thousands of volumes of books) I will respond to more of these alleged objections to the faith.
   Finally, irony of irony, it is currently 83 degrees here in Auburn...and 50 back in Phoenix. Wouldn't you know I'd be gone the one time winter shows up in Phoenix?

12:25:20 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

Replying to My Reformed Brethren

03/12/2006 - James White

   I would like to offer some replies to those commenting on the textual issue on the "Puritanboard."

However, it's unfortunate that White has a bee in his bonnet about the Greek Text. What heresy is one imbibing if one holds to the Johannine Comma? That 1John 5:7 is true is beyond dispute. Why all the fuss?

   I believe I have explained this: if we are going to be consistent in our apologetics, we cannot use one standard in defending the text against the likes of Ehrman or Ally and another "internally." The defense offered of the Comma would be torn to pieces by any well-read Islamic apologist, and for good reason, since the vast majority of competent critics, including conservative Calvinist scholars, reject it for the later addition it so clearly is. Are we truly to defend the inspiration and preservation of the text of Scripture by arguing, "Well, you see, history may tell us that John did not write this, however, we believe the Reformation was a great move of God, and this text had a small role therein, and was part of the text generally used at that time, so, it must be original because it has been blessed of God!" Would anyone accept that kind of argumentation if it was used in reverse? "Oh, yes, there may be variants in the text of the Qur'an, however, Ayatollah Khomeini read this Surah in this fashion, and he was blessed by Allah, so the historical fact of the variants is irrelevant." I do not get the idea that those defending the Comma are the same folks doing front-line defense of the faith in the apologetic realm. I simply do not see how their defense could be presented with a straight face in that context.

Moreover, to discard the views of men like Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry and Robert Dabney because they are not 'modern' is a wretched argument.

   The question at hand is a textual one. The state of the body of data available on that subject has radically altered since the days of Poole, Henry and Dabney. Beyond that simple and compelling fact--a fact that has been sufficient to convince the vast majority of those who study in the field--having read these men I find their arguments utterly convincing for one major reason: the consistent application of their arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy, there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR. But, of course, none of these men argued in that fashion. They stand convicted, therefore, of inconsistency, one borne, to be sure, of orthodox desires, but inconsistency nonetheless, and unless we are going to openly admit that we will use one set of arguments in defense of orthodoxy and hold our opponents to a completely different set, we cannot follow them no matter how well meaning they may have been. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:01:00 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

And Some More on the Comma

03/11/2006 - James White

   I had not intended to spend so much time on this, but those who have been following the topics on this blog for the past few months realize how very relevant to my current work the issue of textual criticism, and in particular, the Comma Johanneum, really is. That is, given that I have been dealing with Islamic attacks upon the Scriptures (Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally) and those of unbelievers (Bart Ehrman), the reason for my concern over seeing fellow believers defending the simply indefensible should be plain. If I am to be consistent, and I point out the errors of Muslim apologists, for example, should I then close my eyes when my fellow believers make inconsistent statements about the text of Scripture? I can't, if I am to be honest.
   Just to make sure we are all on the same page, here is what I wrote about the Comma Johanneum in The King James Only Controversy:

Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum
   The single most famous incident that is related to Erasmus’ work on the New Testament revolves around the words of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Most KJV Only preachers and believers make the acceptance of this passage the test of “orthodoxy.” If your Bible does not have this passage, you are in deep trouble.
   The story of how this passage ended up in the King James Version is very instructive. When the first edition of Erasmus’ work came out in 1516 this phrase, dubbed today the “Johannine comma,” or in Latin, the Comma Johanneum, was not in the text for a very simple reason: it was not found in any Greek manuscript of 1 John that Erasmus had examined. Instead, the phrase was found only in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus rightly did not include it in the first or second editions. The note in the Annotations simply said, “In the Greek codex I find only this about the threefold testimony: ‘because there are three witnesses, spirit, water, and blood.’” His reliance upon the Greek manuscripts rather than the Latin Vulgate caused quite a stir. Both Edward Lee and Diego López Zúñiga attacked Erasmus for not including this passage and hence encouraging “Arianism,”(1) the very same charge made by KJV Only advocates today. Erasmus protested that he was simply following the Greek texts. In responding to Lee, Erasmus challenged him to “produce a Greek manuscript that has what is missing in my edition.”(2) Likewise Erasmus rebutted Zúñiga by pointing out that while he (Zúñiga) was constantly referring Erasmus to one particular Greek manuscript, in this case he had not brought this text forward, correctly assuming that even Zúñiga’s manuscript agreed with Erasmus’ reading. He also said, “Finally, the whole passage is so obscure that it cannot be very valuable in refuting the [Arian] heresies.” (3) ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

20:55:54 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

Another Example of Tradition

03/10/2006 - James White

   I noted that my brief commentary on the Comma Johanneum came up on a web board recently. One of the participants commented,

So I guess that John Calvin, Theodore Beza, the Westminster Assembly, Francis Turretin, Matthew Poole, the 1689 Baptist Assembly, Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Brown of Haddington, Robert L. Dabney, and Edward F. Hills are all to be considered "outside the realm of meaningful scholarship"?

   What caught my eye was the constant (and errant) assumption on the part of such folks that these great names from the past are, in fact, relevant to the current discussion. They are not. The only person on the list that could be put in the modern era (i.e., after the finding of the papyri manuscripts) would be Hills, and he honestly admitted that his reasons for accepting the Comma were theological, not historical/textual. (I note with a smile the lack of Burgon's name: at least this writer knows Burgon rejected the Comma). The others were all pre-papyri and hence, quite honestly, are not relevant to the discussion any longer, anymore than citing the viewpoints of medical doctors who lived in the 1700s would be relevant today.
   Further, many of those listed could in no way be said to be textual scholars, or to have been involved in in-depth textual study, so that they somehow made a knowing "decision" in support of the Comma. Just because someone commented on the text, or even accepted it because it was in the default text they used, is hardly relevant to determining if they made a concerted effort that led them to accept it over against rejecting it.
   But beyond all of this, what disappoints me most is that in reading through these commentaries there is almost zero interaction with the real issue: if you accept the Comma, you have to do so on the basis of abandoning all consistent textual practice. If you argue its textual basis is sufficient for inclusion, then you would have to logically argue for a radically different form of the NT than the TR (and none of these folks will do that). If you refuse to say that all texts with the same almost nonexistent Greek manuscripts support levels should be included, you convict yourself of defending the TR simply out of tradition, not out of a desire to know the original text. In either case, you have abandoned any meaningful position from which you can defend the text of the NT against the likes of Bart Ehrman or his ilk, that is for certain. If these folks are going to actually address these issues, they need to come up with some kind of answer that is not purely circular in nature, or, as one man on the list, purely ad-hominem in nature.

23:30:53 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

Greetings from Auburn

03/09/2006 - James White

   I spoke on the topic of the Resurrection of Christ this afternoon to a group at Auburn University. I played a clip from The God Who Wasn't There where Jesus Seminar fellow Dr. Price throws out this wild, grossly inaccurate list of "savior gods" that Jesus is allegedly "like" (Osiris, Dionysius, etc.) and then demonstrated how completely false such comparisons are. After the presentation I spoke to a wonderful young man who had run into a professor at a community college--one of those Jesus Seminar/John Shelby Spong fans who really enjoys destroying the faith of young Christians. He was so thankful I had spoken on this topic, and when I informed him of the upcoming conference in Orlando he showed great interest in coming. It is a tremendous encouragement to know you have helped establish and confirm someone like that young man. I hope to see him in Orlando in November.
   Tomorrow I speak on The Da Vinci Code. Lots of folks jumping on the band-wagon on that topic these days, and it's about time! Let's take this opportunity to speak the truth!
   This Lord's Day I speak at Grace Heritage Church here in Auburn.
   Oh, I saw that Charles the Brave continues to parrot Bob Ross (no, not the guy who paints happy trees, the much less happy older fellow) who dug through my blog and found out that last year I spoke at a Progressive Primitive Baptist Church. Hey Bob, keep digging: I've spoken at OPC's, PCA's, SBCs, CC's, IFBs, even AoG's and CoG's! Let's see you come up with what all that means!

22:02:39 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Charles the Brave on the DL

03/07/2006 - James White

   Literally in the fifteen minutes or so before the DL began today I was given the URL to an attempt on the part of anonymous anti-Calvinist blogger "Charles" (who has been spamming Reformed blogs for a few weeks now) to interact with my comments in The Potter's Freedom on Matthew 23:37. So, I took the first half hour reviewing the text and Charles' comments. Then Pierre called in and we discussed that text for the next fifteen minutes or so. A fast moving program, hope you enjoy it. Here it is.

12:29:45 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Listening Backwards

03/07/2006 - James White

   This morning I got the following question through our website regarding this week's memory verse and my comments on John 6:44-45:

Why does your exegesis stop at 45b? Isn't there room for a descriptive understanding of 45b that wraps things up in this section by stating that those who chose (implicit but a natural understanding from the previous verses, context, that say the Father is "teaching")to listen to and learn from the Father) are those that are lead to Jesus?

   In a word, "no!" Why would anyone want to read this text backwards? Do we read other texts backwards? Do you read the Sermon on the Mount backwards? Do you read the Carmen Christi of Phil. 2:5-11 backwards? Why turn this text on its head? The Lord is dealing with unbelievers here (6:36), and the same group will be offended throughout the discourse and end up walking away (6:66). He is explaining their unbelief in stark contrast to those who find in Him the words of eternal life (6:68). He puts the difference between the two groups wholly and completely within the sovereign grace of God: the giving of the Father to the Son of the elect (6:37); the Son's perfect obedience to the Father in their salvation (38-39); the result of being given (coming, looking, believing, 37, 40), the Father's drawing of those thusly given to the Son and their being raised up (44) and then the description of the nature of this drawing, that being the teaching of God. Those who listen and learn are identical to those who look and believe in v. 40, and in each (note the use of the term "all" in these descriptions) the result is the same: coming to Christ. The divine is always first, the human response is always second. The divine never fails, so, it cannot be that the human response determines the divine action's success. The text is balanced, consistent, and completely harmonious. The Lord Jesus knew how to craft His words, and thanks be that He has preserved them for us so that we may know His truth this day.
   So I truly have to ask, what is it in the "previous verses, context" that would lead one to turn Jesus' words upside down? How do you go from "no man is able" to an "implicit but natural understanding" that it is, in fact, man's will, man's desires, man's choices, that are determining who is coming to Christ? One is truly left to wonder, though I see this all the time. "Oh, it's just an implicit thing, don't you see it?" Yes, I see it: it is called the nigh unto universal tradition of man's religion called human autonomy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with exegesis or the text at hand, but it has a lot to do with the philosophical assumptions men bring to the text to rob God of His freedom and glory in the gospel. So in response to the above question, "No, there is nothing in the context that would lead one to such a conclusion at all."
   Another "way around" was suggested by another writer yesterday. In this version the entire discourse is sharply divided, and the drawing of John 6:44 is actually only in reference to those who are already saved, and they are being drawn and chosen for discipleship, not for salvation. Someone else even mentioned someone who said this text is "only for Jews." This kind of machete-style "interpretation" is not interpretation at all. It's simple textual abuse. Arbitrary distinctions without textual basis normally appear to defend a pre-existing system or tradition, and such would be the case here. No foundation can be found in the text for making such distinctions, and as such, they must be rejected. Of course, only those who seek to honor the Word by listening to it carefully, and hence understand the need for sound textual basis for their views, will be concerned about foundationaless assertions. Those who are seeking to maintain their traditions find such concerns "narrow" and "unloving." No, I have not found any way to disturb the peace of those who are content with traditional eisegesis: that requires the work of the Spirit in the heart.

09:20:45 - Category: Exegesis - Link to this article -

What's Unclear About These Words?

03/06/2006 - James White

   It's been a few weeks since the last Scripture memorization text, so I thought it would be good to allow Jesus' words, spoken in direct response to those who objected to His teachings regarding faith and disbelief, speak again:

"No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." (John 6:44-45)

   Some texts are unpopular because they go against what is "comfortable." Men's traditions serve as a lens through which people read the words of Jesus, and these often get filtered out in the process. You've heard much about John 6:44; you know it completely undercuts the common views of most man-centered evangelicals and continues the thread begun earlier in the discourse regarding God giving the elect to Christ who then undertakes to be their perfect Savior. You know you have to eisegetically insert a break into the text to make those who are raised up on the last day a different group than those who are drawn. The advantage of memorizing verse 45 with verse 44, however, lies in this: v. 45 not only continues the theme of the preceding passages, in so doing it ties 44 in for us and once again closes the door to the many attempts men concoct to escape the meaning. Jesus has just said He will raise up those drawn to Him by the Father, and he then provides a scriptural basis. "They shall all be taught of God" is a rephrasing of being "drawn by the Father." Drawing involves knowledge, revelation. God is the the only source of this "teaching." Just as only the Father can draw, so only the Father can teach. But just as giving (v. 37) and drawing lead, infallibly, to coming, so to this teaching (since it is just another way of referring to drawing) leads to the same perfect result: the coming of all those who experience it to Christ. True regeneration never takes place in a vacuum; true faith cannot exist without an object. Just as one is drawn to the Son, so one learns from the Father. This learning involves true, saving faith in the only one who can save, Jesus Christ. Word and Spirit, together, inseparable, triune work of salvation! All glory, laud and honor!

00:01:00 - Category: Godly Disciplines - Link to this article -

The Comma Johanneum Again

03/04/2006 - James White

   A few days ago I just happened to see a series of posts on the topic of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7, KJV) in a mail list I scan through (but rarely read). Someone was asking for information on the topic as a lady in a Bible study had "freaked out" to discover the variant. I was once again reminded of just how vital it is for believers to know how to explain and ground new converts in a sound historical view of where the Bible came from. Anyway, as I scrolled down the few replies, I ran into one from the KJV Only perspective, and no rebuttals of it offered. I just sighed. "Another confused person created thanks to the traditions of men."
   The link took me to good ol' Tom Holland and his defense of the Comma Johanneum. Now, let me say up front: while I disagree with Byzantine priority, etc., at least that position can put together some form of defense of its position. But I draw the line with the Comma. Anyone who defends the insertion of the Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful scholarship, unless, I guess, they likewise support the radical reworking of the entire text of the New Testament along consistent lines (and no, I have never, ever met anyone who wanted to do that---every defender of the Comma I have met defends the KJV, hence, their inherent inconsistency is, to me, proof of their holding to tradition over against truth).
   Right off the bat I caught Dr. Holland playing with the facts, as he must, to defend this plainly uninspired insertion. Here's the claim:

The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original.

   The knowledgable reader can see through this argument with a glance: sadly, most lack the background to see how inconsistent and irrelevant the argument actually is. Let's unpack it: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

20:58:04 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

Fan Mail That Speaks for Itself

03/03/2006 - James White

"if any man thirsts let him come unto me and drink." You really expect us to believe that God is talking to regenerate men here because it is only they who can thirst spiritually speaking?.Come now James if this is yor best answer then your pretty desperate. Your pulling the cart before the horse...assuming calvinistic dogma before it has been proven.Pretty basic error.Christ isn't saying if any regenerate man comes...boy your answers would make hunt Gaffaw .

   I assume this correspondent is referring to a portion of the last DL where I pointed out the error of Hunt's assumption that if there is a command in Scripture, this must mean all men are naturally capable of fulfilling it. I pointed out that there are, in fact, many commands in Scripture that fall upon deaf ears amongst those who are unregenerate, but they are there to give guidance to those who receive mercy and grace from God. In any case, I leave it to my readers to ponder what kind of theology this person has who can believe dead men can thirst after Christ--and is it any wonder that when you bring that kind of man-centered belief into the faith you have a hard time explaining what it means to "hunger and thirst after righteousness"?
   Another listener wrote in,

You are going to find yourself in judgement before God with that evil doctrine! I would rather have The schultz mentality than see docrines that are not there! You have forced your pathetic vague doctrine and see pink Elephants, as I said before, that are not there!

   Yeah, I find it ironic that these folks are commenting on a live webcast that features a toll-free phone number, too.

21:29:03 - Category: Mail Bag - Link to this article -

Yesterday on the DL

03/03/2006 - James White

   As promised we went through Dave Hunt doing his best impersonation of Schultz saying, "I see nothing, NOTHING!" from his radio program. Just a sad, sad thing. Then we had lots of callers (four, I think), to fill up the last half hour. Here's the program.

10:49:01 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Dave Hunt: Utterly Without Willingness to Learn

03/01/2006 - James White

   I was just referred to the Berean Call radio program from 2/26 (you can hear it here) where Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon discussed Calvinism again. There's really nothing new here---same stuff Hunt has been saying from the start. And that's the point. There is almost no difference in the falsehoods, errors, straw-men, and simple mind-boggling ignorance that Hunt demonstrated in our very first radio program years ago---before the first of many error-filled versions of What Love is This? cursed the bookshelves of America. He has not heard a word of what I, or anyone else, has said to him. Nothing. Willful, obstinate, documented refusal to speak the truth. It is shameful.
   But the worst thing about listening to this short sound clip is this: one of the very first things I pointed out to Dave Hunt was that he had mis-cited Matthew 23:37 in his newsletter. I have documented this. I have pointed out the exegetical importance of recognizing the context of Matthew 23 and the distinction between "you" and "your children" and the role this has in the Lord's denunciations of the Pharisees. Hunt has had no meaningful response, of course, but despite this, as you listen to him rambling on in this sound clip, prepare yourself for his recitation of Matthew 23:37. Yes, once again, he mis-quotes the text! He can't even learn to accurately represent the words of Scripture! It is simply beyond all comprehension. Just amazing. Yes, I will be playing the clip, Lord willing, on the DL tomorrow.

17:31:03 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives