LONDON (AFP) — Government ministers expressed concern Monday that Israel's military campaign in Gaza was radicalising Muslims in Britain.

I know lots of folks would like to make the debate in Florida but just can't get away.

There is one young man who has been a great asset to me in preparation for this debate. He knows the textual critical field very well, and is one of my Team Apologian bloggers. But being your standard seminary student, he is having a hard time making it to the debate. I would love to have him there, not just so he could observe, but I sure wouldn't mind having someone who has studied under Epp to chat with during the break. He could be checking references for me as well. So if you'd like to help Alan Kirschner make it to the debate in less than two weeks, you can do so here. He'd sure appreciate it, and so would I!

Dr. White,
Interestingly as a flaming Pentecostal, I was not hesitant to accept this strange system of doctrine called Reformed Theology when I encountered it on your site. While your debates on Calvinism served to fortify my already strong conviction of Calvinist doctrine (I had been 'converted' before by some other Calvinist teachers). It was your love for Church History that dragged me into loving to listen to your debates and the Dividing Line. It was my dipping into Islam and Romanism at one point to see if they had any valid claims to being the replacement of Christianity or true Christianity, respectively. Now, I'm a recovering Pentecostal who affirms God's absolute sovereignty and literally LOVES Church History. The difference is that through your site, podcasts and debates I can now balance Church History with a proper theology and doctrine of Scripture. God bless you. (And Rich too, I guess ;) )
--JH

I often hear you mention London and US but do you know that even in Asia (in the Philippines) your ministry has been used by God? I am grateful to have bought your book "The Roman Catholic Controversy". Your ministry has been used by God to straighten my views and become a 5 point Calvinist (though I never like this terminology to the biblical view of salvation). It has been 3 years now since I've accidentally accessed your web page. The debates are great! Yet, it also reminds me that debates is not the end all activity but merely the beginning of a life long study for the truth. It is my prayer that more than the information, argumentation and refutation of false doctrines; the Holy Spirit will use such intellectual grounding into a deeper relationship and walk with God among Christians.

You have encouraged me to study the Scripture deeply. More than studying, to walk with the Lord in a committed way. I praise the Lord that He used your ministry to inspire a young corporate auditor to love Greek and Theology. I could not imagine how corporate controls and governance theories blend with soteriology, Trinity and etc. But the Lord works in very mysterious ways! I said to myself, "I would rather be an expert in the things of God and about His love and character than be an expert in the things of the world that tomorrow fades away." May the Lord bless your ministry greatly and may he cause you more to be humble because our God is using you for the edification of His people. When the time comes that God will pass on the torch to the next generation, I pray that people like me who heard the Gospel will walk your walk and face the errors that christians and non-christians hold with boldness in public debates or personal engagements. May we never be ashamed as you provided as an example to not be ashamed of the Gospel.

You will not be alone in your ministry as you stand in the pulpit delivering your opening, rebuttals and closing parts. There are a lot of us who join you in our own pulpits in the corporate world who stand for God and a commitment for truth. As you do your God given task, we will also do our assignment and God will knit together our efforts for His glory. But, Dr. White, we don't have the luxury of time to go in the libraries and read theological books as much as you do. So, at times, God prompt us to read AOMIN for some resources and validate the information through our own research. May the Lord continue to provide you the strength, vission and passion to share your gift to the church even here in Asia. God bless you richly... all of you in AOMIN!
---JHO

Monday morning I posted two items on my ministry resources list at Amazon, both commentaries on John by Origen. By Tuesday evening the books were sitting on my desk, being put to use (thank you CR!). They led me to the needed location in a resource I've had for many years so as to have the exact citations, in Greek, that Bart Ehrman has based an important portion of his external argumentation relating to the textual variant at Hebrews 2:9. Specifically, in his earlier work, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, he speaks of the external sources that support the reading "without God" (χωρις θεου) over against the reading of the vast majority of manuscripts and sources, "by the grace of God" (χάριτι θεοῦ). I will be addressing this variant, along with the one from Mark 1:41, in the opening session of the conference the day of the debate, for those of you who can get there early. It will be recorded, of course, for those who can't. In any case, the reading is found in only two tenth century manuscripts, which would normally be enough to dismiss the reading. However, Ehrman points out that 1) one of those manuscripts is 1739, from Mount Athos, an important minuscule that is an excellent copy of a 4th century exemplar that itself is a copy of a (probably) 2nd century manuscript (1739 and 1881 are important later minuscules). 1739 is pictured to the right. 2) Early writers knew of the reading. And here is what I wanted to check out, for he says the reading "was acknowledged by Origen himself as the reading of the majority of the manuscripts of his own day, manuscripts that consequently must have been produced no later than the end of the second century or the very beginning of the third." He provides at this point a footnote (he repeats the same assertion in Misquoting Jesus, but without the references) that gave me three references in Origen's commentary on John, 1.35, 28.18 and 32.28.

In only one of these is there any reference to other manuscripts, and it simply does not substantiate Ehrman's claim that Origen said "the majority of the manuscripts" of his day read as 1739 reads. The citation is very short, but it reads, "For 'apart from God he tasted death for all.' This appears in some copies of the Epistle to the Hebrews as 'by the grace of God.'" I wanted to see if the underlying text in any way suggested that "some copies" here would be "a few, or a minority," so I found the text in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. The Greek reads, "οπερ εν τισι κειται της προς Εβραιους αντιγραφοις χαριτι θεου." I see nothing in the phrase εν τισι αντιγραφοις that in any way indicates that these are the minority of manuscripts. It seems Ehrman is assuming that if Origen prefers the reading of "apart from God" that this means it is in the majority of the manuscripts available to him. But the reasons why Origen may have preferred one reading over another can be quite complex, to be sure. In any case, all we can glean from the references Ehrman himself provides is that Origen knew of the variant in the third century. The idea that it was a majority reading at that time is not substantiated by the references he offers, and there is good reason to think otherwise, given that the reading simply disappears from the manuscript tradition outside of two 10th century witnesses. It is hard to imagine a scenario, especially in Alexandria, where we have the greatest papyri witness (P⁴⁶ contains this text and reads "by the grace of God"), where a majority reading could simply disappear, only to be found in a 10th century manuscript.

In any case, more on this in a few weeks in Florida! Once again, my thanks to those who have assisted me in my studies through the ministry resource list. I will keep it current for those who like to support the work by providing study and research resources.

Surprise! I'm not talking about my debates. I am talking about a re-ignition of the justification controversy due to the publication of NT Wright's new book, from IVP no less, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, expected in June, 09. One of the "endorsements" should get our attention:

"Tom Wright has out-Reformed America's newest religious zealots--the neo-Reformed--by taking them back to Scripture and to its meaning in its historical context. Wright reveals that the neo-Reformed are more committed to tradition than to the sacred text. This irony is palpable on every page of this judicious, hard-hitting, respectful study."

—Scot McKnight, North Park University

Of course, having Brian McLaren's endorsement makes one wonder a little bit, too ("And it will give Wright's critics a clearer sense than ever of what they are rejecting when they cling to their cherished old wineskins of conventional thought."), along with Rob Bell.

My main concern is simple: due to the continued degradation of evangelicalism's view of Scripture---reflected not only in the hallowed halls of academia, but in the pews of the "mega churches" that have slopped some religion on unrepentant sinners and assured them of heaven, leaving their reprobate worldview unchallenged and intact---this controversy will produce more and more who are called "Christians" who have a severely deformed view of the nature of justification. This controversy is not really exegetical, per se. Though that is the realm in which the proponents of the New Perspectives are placing it, we must keep a few things in mind. This viewpoint did not arise from a sound, believing view of Scripture. It came from liberalism, and at its heart is a severe restriction of the Pauline corpus. I will be very interested to see how Wright handles this, but I would imagine, if you look closely, you will see that he will be functioning with the smallest Pauline corpus, leaving out the Pastorals, Ephesians and Colossians, possibly others. This is common in modern scholarship---so common, in fact, that few who repeat the mantra of "scholars have determined these epistles were written at a later time by a follower of Paul" have ever heard a meaningful defense of Pauline authorship of the entire corpus.

It is vitally important to note that the Reformation doctrine of justification was forged out of the highest view of Scripture, while modern viewpoints come forth from a far more skeptical, man-centered perspective. Let's put it this way: most in academia today find the term "inerrancy" a reason to blush, even if they believe it (sort of like saying, "Yes, I believe God created the heavens and the earth"), and yet none of those who faced the anathemas of Rome for preaching the glory of justification by grace through faith alone would have had the slightest pause in professing such a high view of Scripture (despite the repeated assertions that inerrancy is a modern doctrine, a thought you can only entertain if you drain every bit of common sense from your reading of earlier writers). The view one holds of God's revelation will determine everything else. If you do not believe God has spoken, theology of any sort becomes a game of chance or an exercise in taste. Theology can never possess authority or power when it is based upon human predilection rather than divine revelation. And the last thing people want today is a God who has spoken with clarity.

So get ready for the next round in the battle. But, if you are tempted to feel troubled by this in the sense of experiencing hopelessness, remember: in the final analysis, it is the Spirit of God who convinces us of His truth. Think how many times Romans, as an epistle, has sparked revival when it has been preached clearly and authoritatively. Just because many decide to mute the letter by changing its message (primarily through removing it from the rest of Scripture) does not mean God will be thwarted. He will continue to build His church, continue to draw His elect. He may well do so far more often in other lands, lands where His wrath is not in full display as it is in the West, but His purposes will not be deterred.

I understand we are within $200 of the audio/video machine, for which I am very grateful. I just added two very high priority items to my ministry resource wishlist, comprising Origen's commentaries on John. I need to check some textual references in preparation for the Ehrman debate, but, if I don't have them, I'll survive. Just like to track down references!

"I would like to call upon Steve Ray, Tim Staples, and all other Roman Catholic apologists who have taught, by spoken word or in written form, that there are 33,000 Protestant denominations, to openly and publicly retract their errant assertion, apologize, and explain how it is that they could actually provide a citation to a source that, upon examination, actually refutes their application in its entirety. Did they just not understand what they were reading? Did they actually even look at the source? Were they just offering the citation as taken from someone else? What is the explanation? Inquiring minds want to know" [source].

Dear A&O ministries,

    I have been very fond of this ministry for at least a decade now. I began my "religious" experience back when I became a member of the LDS church in high school. Some friends and myself were attending a general conference when I had ventured to cross the street to get some lunch at the nearby mall. A lady was handing me a tracts near the temple square sidewalks which contrasted Mormon grace and Christian grace. On the way back from our trip, heading to Idaho, I had a chance to ponder what was on that tract. I didn't ever see that tract again, since I think a friend of mine had discarded it. However, it was enough to get me thinking about salvation.

    Sometime after that, after I had determined that the LDS church was false, I had become saved through reading some Josh Mcdowell materials. My thirst for spiritual knowledge was huge, and I tried to get my hands on any books that talked about the cults, and apologetics. I began reading Hunt (on Mormonism), and Geisler (on general apologetics) and continued to grow (in some areas) in my faith. During this time I still had a desire to revisit and study salvation. During this time I had been a member of a Church of God 7th day church. I believe to this day I was saved during that time, but didn't understand some things about salvation. I believed one could lose his salvation and wasn't sure about the nature of the Godhead. The materials on A&O's website, and the book The Forgotten Trinity helped me to firmly understand what was meant by the Trinity, thereby preventing me from accepting the COG 7th-day teaching that God was a two-personal being. Near the end of my time at that church, I had left for reasons of disagreeing over the teaching of eternal security, which I had come to realize was true, through various A&O materials, and bible study. Although I had left, the pastor at that church did confess he was wrong about the Godhead and embraced the Trinity through various dialogues we had. I remember the pastor mentioning after having borrowed my copy of The Forgotten Trinity that it was "real heady"! :)

     As I continued in my Christian growth, I continued in my admiration for Dr. Geisler and Dave Hunt. As I observed over time their various dialogues and debates with James White, I began to wonder about James.   I thought perhaps that James was just real arrogant. I thought that maybe the reason Geisler wouldn't debate him was because James was making a big deal over a minor issue of doctrine as it related to God's sovereignty in Salvation. Admittedly, I was only reading Dave Hunt's sections in Debating Calvinism, and Geisler's Chosen But Free. I did have a copy of James White's The Potter's Freedom but mainly for the purpose of giving the appearance that I was an "open minded" guy. God is faithful however. He continued to press me to the point where I had to fully study out the issue, and not just remain satified with the emotional rhetoric of Hunt, and the Thomistic-esque (if that's a word!) syllogisms of Geisler. I approached TPF thinking that perhaps I could build my own argumentation that would allow for a good response to White. But there was one problem. The Spirit helped me to see that it wasn't White I was battling, but God's word, and God himself. White's work in TPF cut through my empty logic, my pride, and ultimately my arminian system that I wore so proudly. I still pray that Geisler would debate James, and that Hunt would give him a real debate.

    Today, I am currently working toward the goal of becoming a pastor and would like to perhaps plant a church. I have had many dialogues with Mormon missionaries, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and now Arminians. God has used these times to deliver some Mormons, even allowing me to give a presentation of the Trinity to a family of Jehovah's Witnesses and more!

    I am truly so very grateful to God that I have been delivered through so much false teaching, and that A&O ministries has been there beside me through this whole crazy thing! To the staff of A&O ministries. You guys will perhaps never know in this life how many people you have equipped for ministry, and how God has used you all to help those in error to see His truths.

---DE

I began today addressing Hebrews 2:9 and following, demonstrating the a-contextual, eisegetical use of the text by Arminians. I then addressed question #79 on William Lane Craig's website which mentions my comments on Romans 9 and John 6:65. Then we took a number of calls on textual critical issues before returning, briefly, to listening to the Covenanter's Call radio program on KJV Onlyism. Here's the program.

I noticed today that my good friend Tom Ascol wants a motorcycle. But, his dear wife said lightning would have to strike first. Well, that's one obstacle down anyway. I've been riding since I was 19 (do the math: that means I have safely ridden with no accidents or tickets for about 27 years). My last two rides I purchased on-line. Both were incredible deals. My 1986 Virago finally gave up the ghost this past Spring, so I am now riding this gorgeous machine, which again, I got used, but in awesome shape, on Craig's List. It was really nice to get 52 mpg when gas was over $4 a gallon (and sadly, folks, it will be back there, and beyond, before we know it), and Phoenix is a pretty decent place to ride (though riding in the afternoon in July and August can be---messy). So, to show my solidarity with ol' Tom, I will be riding my bike to the office tomorrow! Keep hoping, Tom!

Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. (Revelation 12:1-2)

"Pain in childbirth was one of the maledictions God pronounced in Genesis chapter three, but so is death. Keep in mind, that Jesus himself, who is perfect in every respect- he suffered death. So I don't think we can be quick to say that because Mary was immaculately conceived and sinless that therefore God did not permit her to suffer in the ways that are foretold in Genesis chapter three."

Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary's Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict.
   
Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively (the prophecy that a sword would pierce her heart at the Crucifixion). Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67): For there have risen many who have given to the plain words of Holy Writ some arbitrary interpretation of their own, instead of its true and only sense, and this in defiance of the clear meaning of words. Heresy lies in the sense assigned, not in the word written; the guilt is that of the expositor, not of the text. Is not truth indestructible? (NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book II, §3)