"I hate to admit this but I think Webster's assertions are wrong. I found a book about Cardinal Ximenes, Pope Leo X and the Complutensian Polygot. It was on Questia com. From what I read there is no preface condemning the Apocrypha books. What Pope Leo does condemn are pseudo-Apocrypha books. But who really knows... perhaps the Vatican isn't telling the truth (maybe they fudged the real documents). After all the Vatican has all of these secret documents (I tried to check some of them out on the Vatican web-site) that the average person isn't permitted to read."

   "The books which are without the Canon, which the Canon receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of ecclesiastical doctrines, are given only, in Greek, but with a double translation."

Subsequent to Jeromes time and down to the period of the reformation a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon (Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180).

   Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage (Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.

“[Seripando was] Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are "libri canonici et authentici"; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”
   Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.

   “For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”
   Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278.

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282.

Likewise, Zwingli's denial of the Biblical character of the Book of Revelation was the result of contemporary controversies growing out of what to his eyes was an eruption of pagan superstitions at Einsiedeln. When he condemned the invocation of angels, he was shown the angel in the Apocalypse causing the prayers of the faithful to ascend to heaven with the smoke of incense (Rev. viii. 3-4). Subsequently at the Berne Disputation (1528), Zwingli declared that the book is not a Biblical book. Thus, as was the case also when Eusebius denigrated the Apocalypse because of the excesses of the early chiliasts who favoured this book, Zwingli allowed a purely ad hoc consideration to sway his judgement concerning the character of a book otherwise widely regarded throughout the West as canonical. (Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, p. 273).

Hello Dr. White, My name is Terry and I think you are taking alot of lost souls to hell with you. This trinity doctrine you preach is from the devil himself. If you want to debate doctrine then you can find me on the trinity board CARM.org since no trinitarian will debate on my board unless you are not scared then I will be glad to host the debate. My board address is http://tonguespeker.proboards81.com/index.cgi? or we can have it at Forums.delphiforums.com/goldblack/messages which my friend Bob Caplinger runs. I do believe that the debate you had with Bernard was unfair because noone would let him speak when he wanted to. And he still beat you hands down. I would love to see you debate Hicks or Bayer or even Hanby and Blume.Anyways my friend Bob Caplinger is dieing to debate you. He will hand you your lunch befor it got started. Well are you going to take the challenge or run with your tail between your legs like all the other Trinitarians do on the internet. Matt Slick has already been defeatedby Bob Caplinger and I. I think Cohen Rehckart has defeated him also, your next. Step up or get out.

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

   Notice folks--all you have to do is quote from the Bible and Jesus' own words and it strikes Satan so hard that he tries to trot out all the big time LIARS with MORE lies and even tries to dress them up as being THEOLOGIANS or EXEGETES or use big words and say that the plain words of Jesus and the Bible mean things OPPOOSITE of what they say.
   Jesus said to EAT his Body and DRINK His Blood or you do not have life in you.
   Jesus doesn't LIE.
   The people who do not obey his command and CHOOSE to not EAT His Body and DRINK his Bood are the real liars.
   I'll tell you this: if you want to eat crackers and drink grape juice with them you can do it in Hell--the Eucharist is never served there!
   Tell me Oh protestant agents of Satan--why does your beloved King James Version of the Bible say in 2 john 7 that Jesus IS COME in the flesh and refer to the Eucharist and NOT change the words and LIE by changing the tense to AS COMING in the flesh to refer to Jesus' incarnation?
   King James agreed with the Douay Rheims--what's the matter--is King James not a BIG enough liar for today's Protestant? I guess not--the NIV crowd changes TRADITION in the Bible where it is referred to as something we should hold fast to to TEACHING. Tradition is only used in that version of Protestant LIES in conjunction to the traditions of the pharisees where it is used in a negative light.
   The Greek word for both is the same--but what do the Protestant LIARS care? They're bound and deternmined to LIE even more than King James.
   They LIE about Mary--she isn't highly favored she is even more than FULL of grace--it's just that that's about as close as you can get to the Greek in English.
   The Protestants who do not know these things are indeed our separated brothers--the people who do know better are agents of Satan and are no better than all the heretics for the last 2,000 years that just fail to OBEY the authority of God!
   Message to all the Protestant LIARS forums out there: be prepared to deal with the Fullness of Truth that resides in the Catholic Church! Many of your Protestant posters will ask you questions in angst once they hear the truth--LIE all you want to--the REAL Bible doesn't LIE but the people who CLAIM to believe in Sola Scriptura are selectivists, rewriters of the bible and most definitely LIARS!
   Jesus never debated the Devil--why should Art debate White?
   There is no debate with liars. White will not listen to the Church--why would he listen to anybody else? He should be treated as a publican and a sinner!

   All Sola Scriptura is is LIES on to of LIES!
   I haven't yet gone into an ENCYCLOPEDIC discussion LINE by LINE and WORD by Word about how such people are liars and how the truth is not in them!
   I will say this: I find it curious that someone like myself is assuredly isn't a great theologian can just speak a few words about the FULLNESS of Catholic truth and receive the response that has been received here.
   Since I've been here we've had the BIGAMIST Lutherans who believe in NAZI biographers--we've had GEOCENTRISTS who deny the whole world's common sense--we've had the Creationists clothed as Catholics when they're REALLY Protestants--and now we get part of James White's cadre of Satanists.

My question is, isn't following Christ following his morality. I have read plenty of your arguments but why don't we ever discuss morality. Who cares about theology if the morality is flawed. God isn't going to test us on our understanding of the 2nd Council of Carthage or Martin Luther. I am not arguing this solely against your website, but against any apologist website that puts emphasis only on words and not on actions. We would all be blessed to put our polemics aside and work to make this planet one that truly reflects God's wishes. Of course, I suppose the argument would lie on what is morality, but that's why we have the Bible...right? Anyways, I don't agree with everything you have on your page but your heart seems to be in the right place. I suppose I would challenge you to defend Christian morality rather than Christian theology. After all, my Lutheran friends are rather offended by your theology. haha Let's find common ground.

Dear Dr. White and Mr. Pierce

I am currently serving in the Army in the Middle East on my third tour (fifth, if you count pre-9/11 deployments). I am in a special ops unit and in my job, I travel extensively around the country and interact closely with the local population. As a result, I am not able to attend church very often while I am deployed. I rely heavily on books and my iPod to provide me with Christian teaching, encouragement and a steady diet of biblical exegesis during these times. It can be very difficult to resist discouragement and bitterness when you are cut off from the public means of grace and Christian fellowship for a long time while simultaneously dealing with friends and acquaintances who are killed or severely wounded in the line of duty. I've seen up close and personal the horrors of what the Islamic religious/political dream of a society really looks like in a real world situation. I'm not talking about the war, I'm talking about the day to day life of rank and file Muslims and the brutality which I believe to inherent in the Islamic worldview. It is truly disheartening to see western, secular liberals falling all over themselves to accomodate and frantically bow and scrape before Muslims in an attempt to appease them. They can never be appeased except through Islamic dominance and dhimmitude of all other peoples. They are engaged in a strenuous effort of delusion and self-destruction of Western civilization.

But that is not why I wrote this email. I wrote to let you know that your work has had an incredible influence on me ever since I became a Christian while in drill sergeant school in the mid-90's. The articles, books, tapes and now, iPod broadcasts have provided me with the tools I need to be confident and encouraged in my Christian walk and have called me back to a life of holiness when tempted to stray over and over again. As a direct result of your ministry, I've had the opportunity to debate Roman Catholic students while in college and grad school, engage in countless street evangelism ministry opportunities, teach Sunday School classes (using videos of your debates as examples of how to engage various viewpoints), and engage in evangelism to Mormonism and Catholics (the communion in which I was raised). I once helped lead a team to Nauvoo, Illinois during the dedication of the temple on the site of the original to hand out tracts and talk to Mormons. Your book "Letters to a Mormon Elder" and "The Potter's Freedom" were required reading for those who wanted to attend during the train-up classes (as well as the Westminster Confession of Faith and, of course, copious Scripture). I don't take pride in any of this because I was merely following what I felt was your example in trying to be consistent with my professed faith in Jesus Christ, which is the example of the Reformers, the early Church Fathers and of course, the apostles. I'm only an unprofitable servant, doing what little I can do. I only tell you this because I want you to know what an impact Alpha and Omega ministries has had on my life.

Your book, "The Potter's Freedom" was instrumental in leading me out of the church I was converted into (Plymouth Brethren) into the PCA. I was licensed to preach in the PCA and am currently serving as an elder in my home church....My wife is Reformed, my Christian friends and family always get your books as gifts, and my children are being catechised daily using the WSC during family worship. I've been strongly convicted by your ministry of the need to present a consistently CHRISTIAN apologetic for the faith when I interact with unbelievers, and I have labored to study men like Bahnsen, Van Til, Reymond and other presuppositional apologists. When dealing with cultists and false religionists, I've been strongly convicted by the demand to be honest and fair in knowing and accurately presenting my opponent's position, which has led me to read and study Mormon Scripure and publications, the Quran, and Catholic Magesterial publications As a lay preacher, I fear the day I will stand before God to give an account for what I have taught others and I know I can always count on my worn out James White books when I cover texts you have exegeted.

Now I don't want you to think that I only rely on you. I read the Puritans, Dabney, Calvin, Luther, Knox and Edwards as well as well as many others. But if I had to point to one ministry that has most affected my very small and feeble efforts to minister to the people of God and labor in the Word, I would without hesitation point to Alpha and Omega ministries. You have been a strong encouragement to me and a strong rebuke when I am tempted to be lazy or lax in my Christian walk. I pray for you and your ministry, your family and your health. I am so glad that you have started engaging Islam and have done so by learning Arabic and studying the original sources. Your recent work has been very helpful in witnessing to Muslims I come into contact with while over here. If you ever wonder who you are reaching or if you have made any real impact, then please rest assured that for me and those around me, your work has been tremendously used by God in changing people's lives and equipping us for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the Body of Christ.

I hope to be back home in North Carolina by the time the "Truth War" conference kicks off in Durham, and I pray that I will be able to attend. I'm sure you will receive tons of emails like mine and will not remember this one. But that's OK. I would like to simply shake your hand and thank you for your labors. God bless you and your elaborate staff (that's a joke, by the way).

--JI

I have been listening to the Dividing Line by James White lately and I have found him to be overly harsh with many who don't line up with him theologically. I really like him and his stand for the truth and in the past have always enjoyed his apologetic approach but he really seems to blast some of the top apologists in Christianity when they don't line up with him exactly. He blasted William L. Craig last week for a comment made in jest about a debate opponent becoming a Christian. He roughed up Michael Licona this week on his new book on the Resurrection about using non cannonical literature. He has really bashed Giesler lately and I agree with him on standing up to him, but he is really taking it to an extreme by using harsh rhetoric. Poking fun at Giesler an Caner won't win too many to the faith or the cause of apologetics.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an apologist and I do like James White but I think he is the one being unbiblical lately in his attack of other Christians. We don't need to bash each other but come in love and edification. I know White has tried to get Giesler to reply and I'm not sure where he is at with that, but when is it right or allowable to get ugly with anyone, especially a believer?

Anyone have an opinion either way on this. Am I wrong or has James gone a little too far?

In a matter of weeks I will be engaging Bart Ehrman on whether textual variation precludes the possibility of inspiration. It will be a vitally important debate, one that I hope will be of tremendous benefit to the entire body of Christ. And though I have no reason to think Dr. Ehrman is spending a lot of time focusing upon my position, I surely am focusing upon his. Hence, I have extensive reading and studying to do over the next number of weeks. I trust our regular blog readers will keep this in mind, and pray for me as I prepare for this vital encounter. [By the way, there is still room for you to join us for the debate, and even the cruise!].

I will continue my response to David Allen on Tuesday of next week. I must admit I am grieved by this whole situation. I know there are some who live for "blog conflict" and the like. I am not one of them. When I engage in controversy I try to do it for the sake of the furtherance of the truth of the gospel and the edification of God's people. I must admit, I am sick and tired of those who seem utterly intent upon promoting a narrow agenda, one-string banjo players who seem to have little else to do in life but to pluck their very limited number of notes.

In any case, this entire "he's an X" "no, you're a Y!" childishness makes me ill. Evidently, for a whole group of folks, the idea is this: hyper-Calvinism is dangerous (it is). Therefore, anyone with a higher Calvinism (one that seeks internal consistency in theology and exegesis, and does not find a lot of comfort in "antinomy" and "mystery") than these folks is to be stigmatized as a "hyper-Calvinist," even if they have shown, demonstrated, and proved their balance as a churchman, evangelist, preacher, theologian, or apologist. In the process, men of old who said and taught great things are harangued and attacked without the slightest effort to distinguish between the good and the bad in their writings and teachings. It is even to the point that if you interpret particular texts in a particular way, you are "hyper," even when those using these terms are utterly incapable of even attempting to prove you have mishandled the texts. It is amazing, and it is sad.

It was mentioned in my chat channel yesterday that, ironically, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) addressed this sixty years ago. Evidently, they did not have to identify those who disagreed with Murray as "hyper-Calvinists" back then. Too bad their maturity is not possessed by all today. (Click here for the article).

I guess the best way to refute the false accusations against me is not by playing the "my expert defines it this way" game. It is by simply living a balanced Christian life, demonstrating that the accusations are vacuous, and those making them little more than troublers of the body of Christ. Let the reader mark them out now and ask a simple question: what will they have accomplished ten years from now? Let time attend to the witness chair.

In any case, I did wish to briefly comment on the abuse of the historical sources that David Allen utilized. He claims to have a huge Puritan library, and I don't doubt that he does. He chided folks for not reading original sources. Yet, it seems to me that his presentation was massively dependent upon...secondary sources, in particular, as he himself stated, Tony Bryne and David Ponter. This comes out especially in his attempt to enlist Jonathan Edwards in the cause of denying particular redemption. It seems highly likely to me that Allen pulled the single citation he read on the topic directly from Tony Bryne's blog, where it appeared back in May of this year. It is a single citation from The Freedom of the Will.

From these things it will inevitably follow, that however Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole world, by his death; yet there must be something particular in the design of his death, with respect to such as he intended should actually be saved thereby. As appears by what has been now shown, God has the actual salvation or redemption of a certain number in his proper absolute design, and of a certain number only; and therefore such a design only can be prosecuted in any thing God does, in order to the salvation of men. God pursues a proper design of the salvation of the elect in giving Christ to die, and prosecutes such a design with respect to no other, most strictly speaking; for it is impossible, that God should prosecute any other design than only such as he has: he certainly does not, in the highest propriety and strictness of speech, pursue a design that he has not. And, indeed, such a particularity and limitation of redemption will as infallibly follow, from the doctrine of God's foreknowledge, as from that of the decree. For it is as impossible, in strictness of speech, that God should prosecute a design, or aim at a thing, which he at the same time most perfectly knows will not be accomplished, as that he should use endeavours for that which is beside his decree.

Please don't ask me how anyone can read this and find universal atonement in it. I truly do not understand it, for it is clearly Edwards' intention to emphasize the specific purpose of God in the salvation of the elect. But this is not the first time I've encountered folks who can read phrases like "a particularity and limitation of redemption" and think it is actually saying the opposite. Traditions die hard. I would direct anyone to read the conclusion of Edwards' treatise (from which the above comes: in the eye-strain edition of Edwards' works, it is page 88 of volume 1) and see if it was his intention to give aid and comfort to the viewpoints of David Allen.

I wrote to a published Edwards scholar and inquired as to his opinion. He responded that it is very obvious that Edwards held to particular redemption, and noted in passing two texts indicating this.

This is certain, that God did not intend to save those by the death of Christ, that he certainly knew from all eternity he should not save by his death. Wherefore, it is certain that if he intended to save any by the death of Christ, he intended to save those whom he certainly knew he should save by his death. This is all that was ever pleaded for. (Works of JE, Vol 13, Yale UP, 1994, 211).

"Now can we suppose that Christ came down from heaven and went through all this upon uncertainties, not knowing what purchase he should get, how great or how small? Did he die only upon probabilities, without absolute certainty who, or how many, or whether any should be redeemed by what he did and suffered?" (ibid, 212).

Now, Dr. Allen seemed to want to fault modern Calvinists for not reading original sources. He also assumed we would all be shocked at what he was saying. I found that more than a little condescending, to be perfectly honest with you. It seemed hard to avoid the conclusion that he was accusing Sproul and Piper and MacArthur and Dever of being either ignorant or dishonest...or both. And though he had the temerity of accusing me of being a hyper-Calvinist, he didn't show the slightest familiarity with The Potter's Freedom, let alone the arguments it presents regarding particular redemption. In any case, it seems to me that Allen pulled his assertion about Edwards (which he presented with great flair and showmanship) directly from Byrne, and that without examining the context. Which seems to be the very thing he was busily faulting the rest of us for doing.

Well, as always, such situations as this one give us an opportunity to grow and learn. As such, we should be thankful for them.

   "According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon.That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p.390).

When I speak of a Baptist tradition, I am speaking broadly of a basic doctrinal paradigm which reduces Christianity to a personal thing - a matter of merely personal salvation which ordinarily happens apart from any material means (i.e. the ministry of the Church in Word and Sacrament); says that one only becomes a member of the church because one has been saved outside of her rather than being saved by God through her (which is the historic Reformed position); therefore reduces the church to a mere collection of like-minded individuals, the sacraments to mere memorials of what is absent and badges of profession rather than sacred signs of what is present and actual means of grace; and thinks it is ok to break away from the rest of Christendom by claiming that they alone possess true Christian Baptism and therefore think it permissible, good, and necessary to re-baptize anyone not baptized in an age of accountability. This is what I mean by the term Baptist.

In the end, despite all of the helpful information and engaging points, the debate proved little beside the limitations of evidentialist apologetics. If manuscript evidence forms the basis of our trust in the veracity of Scripture, then we cannot conclude veracity one way or the other. Without the prior existence of God and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, revelation in any form cannot exist.

The divine truth of the sufficiency of Scripture is based firmly upon the bedrock of the nature of Scripture and God's sovereign rulership over His creation. That is to say that scriptural sufficiency is not a doctrine unto itself that can be separated from the rest of revelation. It is the necessary result of sound beliefs concerning God and His purposes. To believe what the Bible teaches about God, the gospel, the church, and the Scriptures, is to believe in Scriptural sufficiency, the ability of the Bible to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church, its ability to equip the man of God for every good work God by His Spirit would call him to perform. Christ's Church hears in the words of Scripture the voice of her Master (pp. 19-20).

We can consider New Testament textual evidence to be among those "many other incomparable excellencies," but yet must admit that the persuasion of its veracity comes not from that evidence, but from the Holy Spirit. Ehrman, despite whatever errors he may commit, knows at least this much, and Evangelicals should acknowledge it.

It has long been understood by sound Christians that the Scriptures are the Word of God, yet, as Peter expressed it, they were spoken by men. "Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" is Peter's phraseology. Everyone knows that the language Paul uses in Ephesians, for example, differs in tone from Galatians, reflecting the fact that this is a real human being speaking, and he was in a very different state of mind when writing the one than when he wrote the other. Only those who hold to some kind of dictation theory where a mechanical method of inspiration is posited struggle with the reality of the different styles found in Scripture. So the fact that Scripture is a divine revelation that enters into human existence through human agency is the teaching of that divine revelation itself. It is traceable through the "thus says Yahweh" of the Tanakh into its fuller explication in the New Testament.

Next, it is likewise understood by sound students of Scripture and theology that the Bible teaches (note, I did not say tradition teaches) certain truths about the person of Jesus Christ that cannot be compromised. His deity, His eternal pre-existence, His full humanity, His incarnation, etc. These biblical revelations have provided the guide posts, the walls, so to speak, outside of which we dare not wander, in thinking about the Person of Christ. Fully God, and fully man, without sin, the perfect sacrifice.

Recently Frank Beckwith sought to defend Rome's gospel by reference to the above truths. Though he never explains the basis upon which he does so, he makes an argument that just as the Bible can have a divine and a human component, and Jesus likewise is divine and human (though, I would argue, there are differences between those two), salvation must share the same divine/human combination or dichotomy. For the argument to hold, however, it would require us to have some particular reason to parallel the hypostatic union with justification by faith, and Dr. Beckwith does not provide us with any basis. He presents the parallel, based upon Rome's confusion of justification and sanctification, denial of the imputed righteousness of Christ, etc., but he does not tell us why we should think that because Jesus was the God-Man this means the gospel has to be partly God's work and partly man's (a synergistic system). Further, in quoting the Roman Catholic position Beckwith embraces not only the concept of infusion, but that "Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life." Of course, only God's grace makes it possible for this to happen, however, we are still doing the meriting and, of course, there are those who do not "cooperate" and thus lose the grace of justification, becoming enemies of God. And so the real issue of the Reformation remains the same today as it was then: it is not the NECESSITY of grace that is at dispute, it is the SUFFICIENCY of grace that is the focus of the debate. And, of course, so many of those who are non-Roman Catholics today actually agree with Rome against the Reformers on that topic, and are thusly crippled in resisting Rome's teachings. Beckwith makes the assertion:

Protestant apologists focus on the fact that twenty-two books are described as having been canonized; making up, as they would argue, an exhaustive list since Athanasius seems to insist that "in these [books] alone, the Christian doctrine is taught." The great fourth century champion, therefore has been shown to have accepted the Protestant canon, and consigned everything outside that canon to the category of human apocrypha. This argument errs on a number of points.

Most obviously, the books Athansius listed as "canonical" do not correspond to the Protestant canon; he places the book of Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah among the 'canon,' but deliberately omits the book of Esther from the list and places it among those that are read. This canon, in fact, is unique to Athanasius himself; no other writer uses it and all other Christians canons, then and now, differ from it"[Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), pp. 108-109. Emphasis in the original].

It should be noted though, that following the Septuagint, many [Eastern fathers] included Septuagint 1 Esdras with Ezra-Nehemiah, the Epistle of Jeremiah and Baruch with Jeremiah and Bel and the Dragon, The Song of the Three Children and Susanna as additions to the book of Daniel [William Webster, Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume II, (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 2001) p.340].

The other two additions to the Greek text of Daniel besides the Song of the Three Holy Children, namely, Susanna and Bel & the Dragon, are more self-contained and usually carry their own subtitles. They were probably once independent. Indeed, the latter addition, in the original Septuagint, even begins by naming a source, 'From the prophecy of Habakkuk the son of Joshua, of the tribe of Levi' suggesting that it may have originated in an apocryphal work under the name of Habakkuk. Nevertheless, in the Septuagint version the two additions have become a thirteenth and fourteenth chapter of Daniel, while in the other Greek version used in the early church they form a first and last chapter. As the Jewish translator responsible for this latter version, Theodotion, included them in the revision of the Septuagint which is what his translation was, although he apparently omitted the independent apocryphal books, they had probably already been appended to Greek Daniel in the Jewish period. It is therefore not surprising that Irenaeus can quote Susanna with the expression 'Those words which come from Daniel the 'Prophet' (Against Heresies 4.26.3), or that Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 1.21, or 1.123.3f.) and Tertullian (On Idolatry 17-18, On Fasting 7) can pass straight from the events of the earlier part of Daniel to those of Bel and the Dragon, as belonging to the same historical sequence. Hippolytus, likewise, in his Commentary on Daniel, expounds Susanna as the opening part of the book, and at least makes reference to Bel & the Dragon, though without actually expounding it (Commentary 2.26). Even the Syrian expositor Polychronius, who declines to expound the Song of the Three, includes in his Commentary on Daniel an exposition of Bel & the Dragon, as its final item. In the Syriac Bible, known to Polychronius, Susanna often gets separated from Daniel and Bel, but in the Greek and Old Latin Bibles, and among most of the Fathers who use them, both these additions are treated as if they were part of the text of Daniel, without the canonical question being raised. And even when it is first raised, by Julius Africanus in his Letter to Origen, he receives an answer which prevents it being raised again until the end of the fourth century.

(viii) Just as apocryphal items were appended (or prefixed) to LXX Daniel, so the same was done to LXX Jeremiah. Here there was also a canonical appendix, Lamentations, which in the Greek Bible is preceded by Baruch and followed by the Epistle of Jeremy, while in the Latin Bible it is followed by Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy combined in one, in the form in which they stand in the English Apocrypha. There is reason to think that, as in the case of Daniel, the Septuagint appendices had at least begun to be added in the Jewish period; and, as in the case of Daniel once more, this was presumably done for the same purposes of edification as motivated the midrashic expansions included in some books of the Septuagint within their text. We consequently find early Greek Fathers regarding Baruch as part of Jeremiah, and frequently quoting it under Jeremiah?s own name, and early Latin Fathers doing the same. So here again it is less a question of canonicity that confronts us than a question of the text. What has happened is that edifying additions have been made to the translated text of Jeremiah, as to that of Daniel, which do not really pretend to the same authority, but are bound before long to be treated as if they did, by readers unacquainted with the original. [Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), pp. 340-342].

The Psalm 82 paper was also prompted by criticisms posted in 2009 by Alpha and Omega Ministries (AOM). That I really don’t consider these criticisms serious is indicated by the fact that they have existed on the web since 2009 with no online response on my part (though many have emailed me the link and asked me to respond). Rather than engage people on the internet on these matters, my choice was to submit my views to public peer review at an academic evangelical conference (and I’ve actually done that several times now at ETS in a piecemeal sort of way via other papers). Eventually, I will be merging the two papers to submit to a peer-reviewed journal, hopefully sometime in 2011.

The SillyBrit pointed me to another wonderful example of the "yeah, we are biased, we don't care, its the new journalism" mentality of the modern Left. Here is a BBC article making the rounds, written by Roger Bolton. I would like to think Mr. Bolton was not purposefully trying to be a complete snob toward believing Christians, but his writing makes it hard to conclude otherwise. Let's look at some of the more notable comments found in this BBC production.

Under the picture provided above a caption is provided, "What is probably the oldest known bible (bible? How about qur'an?) is being digitised (yes, that proves it is a British production), reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?"

I am truly left wondering if Mr. Bolton himself has ever studied Codex Sinaiticus? I have more resources on the subject than the time to read them, but when I get a few moments I do enjoy reading works like the one pictured here. If I only worked in NT subjects I'd spend a lot more time on the issue, since I have such a passion for textual critical issues. But I was recently reading through portions of this work on a flight to...somewhere (I lose track), and my, I got odd looks from my fellow passengers. Almost as odd as the looks I get when reading books filled with Arabic quotations. In any case, one of the frustrating things about this article is the obvious assumption on Bolton's part that believing Christians are a bunch of bumbling fools without the first interest in the history of their own faith. And given Bolton's main source is...Bart Ehrman (just how important is that debate in January?), I have to note that Ehrman likewise hints broadly that Christians have in essence "hidden" the history of the Bible and, in general, are ignorant thereof. That is partly true, but it is not because those of us who are not ignorant of the truth do not make every attempt to spread that knowledge far and wide. Ehrman even claims to be the first one to write a layman's level book explaining textual critical matters. I guess he skipped The King James Only Controversy, which did just that long before his own book came out (he was referring to MisQuoting Jesus---I would say there is a lot more discussion of textual variation in my work than in his).

Getting back to the article, is א (Aleph, the designation in textual critical works for Codex Sinaiticus) "markedly different" than modern Bibles? Well, aside from its age, its language, its form, to what is Bolton referring? Two things: a warped, "textual scholar spins stuff for the ignorant media" view of how "different" its text is from the modern Greek textual platform (NA/UBS) together with the "if it was bound together as one volume, that must mean the original creator viewed all the books as canonical" claim. That's the extent of it. The well-read Christian already knows this, so evidently we are not the folks Bolton is trying to impress.

The article gives a little background and mentions the fact that א is going "on line" (see it here). Then we get this amazingly condescending paragraph:

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

Oh no! Surely, no one who believes the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered Word of God has ever run into a history of the Bible! None of us have ever poured over Sinaiticus, marveled at such a treasure...oh, wait, even Tischendorf was a Christian who believed the Bible was the Word of God. Well, so sorry, chap (please read that with a British accent). I guess I can't blame Bolton---Ehrman likewise gives the impression that "born agains" are these ignorant, back-woods folks who don't know anything about the Bible. He promotes the viewpoint regularly, whether he knows it or not, so possibly Bolton is just following his sources? In any case, the idea that the publication of א is going to present "questions" that we Bible believers have not fully worked through long, long ago only shows how little Mr. Bolton knows his subject.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

Notice the assumption that "inclusion between leather covers = inclusion in the canon." He clearly has no idea that this is a disputed claim, and is simply following Ehrman, who, sadly, often forgets to provide "the other side" to the ever-hungry media. Yes, א contains non-canonical books, specifically, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas. Both were, at some point in time, viewed as canonical by small groups of believers, often by those from the area where the books were actually produced. But it is a long leap from this historical observation (one known to any first year church history student in Bible college) to the uncritically promoted conclusion that this means the original copyists/producers of א believed these books to be Scripture. It is just as likely, and in fact, more likely, that they did not. Why? Because א was produced around the time of the Council of Nicea, and the fortunes of both of those books had fallen off considerably by that time. They were considered by many to be good books to be read for edification, but not part of canonical Scripture (to borrow the conclusion of Athanasius writing just a few decades later). Having them copied and included no more made them canonical than including John MacArthur's study notes makes them canonical. It was easier to have such a major project as that represented by א done in one fell swoop rather than having lots of smaller projects, and the result was a very, very large book. But one book is easier to transport/carry than multiples, and evidently, that is what happened in this case. But the specifics aside, I can only shake my head at the condescending attitude of the media today that would assume that if you believe in inerrancy you must be an IQ-challenged dolt without the first clue as to the history of your own faith. And I hope the reader finds Bolton's quotation of the words of Barnabas at least somewhat revealing: how dare Barnabas contain such words...except...that they come from the New Testament (Matthew 27:25).

At this point Ehrman comes into view, and of course, what I found interesting was Ehrman's repetition of his "the Bible can't be inspired because it was not copied perfectly in every single instance" argument: the very essence of our debate in January. Listen to this paragraph:

And although many of the other alterations and differences are minor, these may take some explaining for those who believe every word comes from God.

Sadly, the answers given...for centuries...often by leading Christian scholars in the United Kingdom seem to be utter news to this writer. This level of ignorance is truly amazing. Later he opines,

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

Yeah, us fundies have never heard of Sinaiticus alright. Amazing, just amazing. Can Bolton really believe Sinaiticus is news? We move on,

Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.

Someone needs to get this story straight, and I think Dr. Ehrman should be on the front lines correcting all these misapprehensions...unless it is his own story that has caused them. Ehrman has directly, clearly said that it was not the textual issue that caused him to lose his faith, it was theodicy, the problem of evil. Yet, he does not seem overly intent upon correcting this kind of false assertion. Sadly, MisQuoting Jesus sold a lot better than God's Problem did, so, when you are depending upon your role as the "reverse Paul," maybe it is acceptable to allow the readers to think you converted for reasons you say you did not, as long as it "helps the cause."

This may not sound like a heavy-weight argument, but I intend, early on in our debate, to ask a basic question of Dr. Ehrman: "Why?" Yes, "why?" Why do you believe God could not have inspired His Word in writing (outside of chiseling it in a mountain side) until Gutenberg, at the earliest, and probably, not until computerized technology came about? Can you give us something more than "Well, I just don't think He would use imperfect human beings to transmit His Word over time...or, he'd remove their humanity from them long enough to over-ride any possible copyist errors anyway"? I hope my question will be answered in the opening statements, honestly, but if it isn't, I will be asking that one pretty early on.

Four variants are noted in the article. Note that Bolton never gives the references. He leaves it nebulous so that it looks a lot more nefarious than the reality. Regular readers of this blog will have to chuckle just a little bit at this one:

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Who was it who did an entire hour on the textual variant at Luke 23:34 just recently on their webcast? Oh, that was me and Alan K.! Yes indeed. And did we not discuss the two readings of Sinaiticus? In fact, I posted graphics from the manuscript to aid those listening to the webcast (found here). And yet somehow, I still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture! How can this be?

Isn't it odd that we conservative, Bible-believing Christians produce hour long webcasts going in-depth into the text of א but all the BBC can do is give vague references without even providing the citations of the relevant texts? And why even raise well-known textual issues like John 7:53-8:11, unless you are either writing this solely for shock value, or, you really have no idea what you are talking about?

Once again, this is all we can expect out of the leftist media today, almost anywhere. There is no counter-balancing in sources, no checking of facts. Just throw it out there, assume anyone who is not a good secular humanist is an ignorant and gullible person fresh off the farm, and think you have practiced true journalism. My, how far the BBC has fallen!

"But their use of the passage in II Macc. 12[:43], which tells how Judas Maceabeus sent money to Jerusalem for prayers to be offered for those who fell in battle, proves nothing, for that book is not among the books of Holy Scripture, and, as St. Jerome says, it is not found in a Hebrew version, the language in which all the books of the Old Testament are written. In other respects, too, this book deserves little authority, for it contradicts the first Book of Maccabees in its description of King Antiochus, and contains many other fables which destroy its credibility. But even were the book authoritative, it would still be necessary in the case of so important an article that at least one passage out of the chief books [of the Bible] should support it, in order that every word might be established through the mouth of two or three witnesses. It must give rise to suspicion that in order to substantiate this doctrine no more than one passage could be discovered in the entire Bible; moreover this passage is in the least important and most despised book. Especially since so much depends on this doctrine which is so important that, indeed, the papacy and the whole hierarchy are all but built upon it, and derive all their wealth and honor from it. Surely, the majority of the priests would starve to death if there were no purgatory. Well, they should not offer such vague and feeble grounds for our faith!" [LW 32:96]

Preface to the Second Book of Maccabees (1534)
   
This book is called, and is supposed to be, the second book of Maccabees, as the title indicates. Yet this cannot be true, because it reports several incidents that happened before those reported in the first book, and it does not proceed any further than Judas Maccabaeus, that is, chapter 7 of the first book. It would be better to call this the first instead of the second book, unless one were to call it simply a second book and not the second book of Maccabees; another or different, certainly, but not second. But we include it anyway, for the sake of the good story of the seven Maccabean martyrs and their mother, and other things as well. It appears, however, that the book has no single author, but was pieced together out of many books. It also presents a knotty problem in chapter 14[:41–46] where Razis commits suicide, something which also troubles St. Augustine and the ancient fathers. Such an example is good for nothing and should not be praised, even though it may be tolerated and perhaps explained. So also in chapter 1 this book describes the death of Antiochus quite differently than does First Maccabees [6:1–16]. To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures,* so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide.[LW 35:352-353]

   But the writers of the Eastern church were more aware of the shorter scriptural canon drawn up by the Jews. Melito of Sardis (ca. 170) gives us our earliest Christian list of OT booksa list much like the one that eventually became the standard Hebr list (Est is omitted). Origen mentions that the Hebrews have 22 books; Athanasius, who had Jewish teachers, insists that the Christians should have 22 books just as the Hebrews have; and, of course, Jerome did his best to propagate the Hebr canon in the Western church. Some writers who favor the short canon nevertheless cite the deuterocanonical books.A distinction between canonical and ecclesiasticalwas proposed in order to classify the books, with the latter to be understood as works serving the Church for edification. Doubts about the deuterocanonical books keep recurring in the history of the Church among those who are aware of the Jewish canon. Those who prefer the shorter canon or express some doubt about the full canonical status of the deuterocanonicals include Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Rufinus, Gregory the Great, John Damascene, Hugh of St. Victor, Nicholas of Lyra, and Cardinal Cajetan. (See A. C. Sundberg, CBQ 30 [1968] 143-55.) [Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1996, c1968). The Jerome Biblical commentary(2:523). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.]

   Even at Trent, however, the Council Fathers did not specifically attempt to press the detail of Church usage back beyond the period of Jerome, for they used the Vg as the norm for Church usage, condemning anyone who does not accept these books in their entirety, with all their parts, according to the text usually read in the Catholic Church and as they are in the ancient Latin Vulgate (DS 1504). There are many difficulties here that demand investigation. First, in the period before the Vg therewas no consistent Church usage, as we have seen. Ironically, Jerome, the translator of the Vg, was very clear in his preference for the same short canon that Trent rejected in the name of the Vg. The Vg was introduced into the West over many protests (including that of Augustine) asserting that Jeromes translation from the Hebrew was an innovation against the Churchs usage of translating from the LXX. [Ibid., emph. added]

1. They have fabricated books which they call books of tables, in which they shew stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God.
2. But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians , some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtlety of certain men, and should henceforth read other books--those called apocryphal--led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.
3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: Forasmuch as some have taken in hand , to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.
4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.
6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And He reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me .
7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings (των αποκρυφων μνημη). But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

Until very recently, I was unaware of the Christian apologetic James White. Apparently, he has recently debated with Bart Ehrman on whether the Bible "misquote" Jesus or not (alluding to the title of Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus).

On his Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog he commented yesterday (here) on Bart Ehrman's recent announcement that a second edition of The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Questionis (eds. Bart D. Ehrman & Michael W. Holmes) is in the pipeline, in which he found "a very telling statement."

For me, the most exciting thing about being a textual critic over the past 15-20 years has been seeing how textual criticism has moved beyond its myopic concerns of collating manuscripts and trying to determine some kind of "original" text to situating itself in the broader fields of discourse that concern an enormous range of scholars of Christian antiquity. Textual critics are uniquely situated to contribute to these larger concerns, meaning that now, finally, the work textual critics do can be seen as widely important and relevant, not simply of relevance to textual technicians.

It is apparent that White knows very little of what he is talking about. Just because he happens to strongly disagree with Bart Ehrman's views of the transmission of the NT, which I am not trying to defend, he seems biased against everything associated with Bart Ehrman in a very unfortunate way.

Ehrman's monograph from 1993, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture was already out when the volume on the Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research came out in 1995. To a great extent, the latter volume, with contributions from a wide range of twenty-three leading scholars, reflects a consensus on the status questionis in most areas of the discipline, while in some other areas a variety of views are represented. (Admittedly, the "Byzantine priority"-position held by e.g., Maurice Robinson is lacking.) In any case, I am quite confident that the second edition will in no less degree reflect the "width and depth" of scholarship in the field.

A lot has really happened in NT textual criticism in the last fifteen year period, which has very little to do with postmodernism. A lot of significant work has been and is being done in an increasing pace, most notably at the leading centres in Münster and Birmingham. In addition to a steady stream of new MSS (e.g., 26 more papyri and many more uncials, minuscules and lectonaries), we have seen the publication of new major editions, and significant developments in methodology. And, yes, even some new scholars have entered the field ;-). As one of those, who, btw, has not "thrown in the towel on the 'original text'," I very much look forward to contributing to the second edition.

(Besides, White could have mentioned where he got the announcement from in the first place.)

Tommy has suggested that "It is apparent that White knows very little of what he is talking about." And yes, perhaps White is unaware of the more recent film acquisitions and investigative research being undertaken at Muenster and Birmingham, as well as the photographic work being carried out by Dan Wallace. But it is clear in White's comments that this is not what he is addressing; rather, his comments relate to the issue of underlying theory and praxis rather than material matters.

Speaking from a solidly evangelical perspective (and differing strongly with White on text-critical issues), I would say that, from an apologetic standpoint, White has put his finger directly on a real problem, holding up a proper mirror to evangelicals within the discipline.

As White notes on his blog, the "paradigm shift" is in fact a "shift in worldview" (the latter not included in Tommy's quote), and this shift in fact does represent "an abandonment of the paradigm of the preceding generations."

The issue of the Greenlee review and subsequent comments posted here also seem to reflect this very point: the evangelical worldview and text-critical model is simply belittled or ignored due to the paradigm shift.

"If you read the Council of Trent...which, by the way, really shocked me. I expected to read this sort of horrible document, you know, requiring people to stick pins in their eyes, you know, and flagellate themselves, you know, and it turns out that there are things in there that are quite amazing, that the initial grace is given to us by God, in fact, there's a condemnation in there for anyone who says that our works, apart from grace...I mean, I thought to myself, I had not been told...I had been misinformed!"

First, because Ehrman is a false teacher and we are forbidden to give such men a forum to express their views.

Inviting a false teacher to present his errant views in order to persuade students and the public is like allowing a gunman to shoot randomly out into an audience of military personnel because it is assumed the troops have body armor. For one thing, body armor cannot shield against all shots, and for another, there are many people attending who have no armor at all. At last week’s debate, for instance, there were many people from the public who were not even believers. Some young people also attended, and some seminary students who are not yet prepared for the effects of doubt-producing verbiage.

The assumption was that they would see Ehrman lose the debate and the Christian view would triumph. It didn’t happen. Now the work in evangelism by the friends who naively brought them is that much harder.

   "Unless you impute human-like irrationality to God, I will call you names." This seems to be the attitude of many squeamish Calvinists on the net these days. Unless you are willing to drag God down to the level of a flummoxed suitor, who is torn between contradictory desires, you will be called to repent and labeled with terms meant only to damage your ministry, nothing more.

   Those who have not been on the frontlines find it amenable to sit in their comfy computer chairs and opine away at the keyboard. They know they will never be called upon to present a consistent defense of the faith, especially in the face of competing world religions. So they have little concern about the use of words like "tension" and "mystery," which are so often used to do little more than cover over contradiction and irrationality. Some actually think they are giving a meaningful apologetic when they openly confess the contradictions in their proclamation.

   There is everything right in pointing out that God is God and is under no obligation to explain Himself beyond what He feels is appropriate, right, and self-glorifying. Man has no grounds upon which to demand further explanation than God in His sovereign power and grace deigns to give. But it is quite another to take the revelation He hasgiven and turn it on its head, forcing it into self-contradictory and absurd stances. And to what end?

   It seems many modern Calvinists are very squeamish about God being...a big meanie. The post-modern dedication to servile fear of the Horriblus Maximus of the offended man has propelled many into the realm of "God editing" so as to avoid that great cultural heresy. We need a God who is sufficiently like us that He can be as double-minded and bemused as we often are. Never mind His eternal existence outside of time, His imperturbable majesty, His solitary sufficiency. We need to insist that God has freely and inalterably decreed that which completely bums Him out. God has issues. He's conflicted. He has decreed to glorify Himself in the salvation of a peculiar people. He has chosen to glorify Himself in the just punishment of sinners, and He has even chosen to glorify Himself through the patient and gracious withholding of punishment of those sinners, replete with gifts of joy and happiness even in their rebellion, all to demonstrate His justice and mans unyielding rebellion. But since we as creatures cannot even begin to imagine such eternal consistency, such transcendent purpose, we get nervous. Such a God, being so...different, is in danger of offending the creature, man, and that simply is not going to be allowed. If one is going to dare to assert that God possesses a divine and eternal decree, one needs to soften that decree with some conflict, some issues, some doubt on God's part.

"Yes, God has chosen a particular people...."
"What? Thats not fair! What about all the other innocent people!"
"Well, they arent really innocent, but anyway...."
"But, God has to love everyone the same, you see, or I will be offended and will refuse to express warm fuzzies His direction!"
"OK, well, you see, God is actually conflicted about this eternal decree thing. He would like to save everyone, and really, really wants to, and will be eternally bummed that He didn't, and will often regret His actions, but He's in a tough spot. See, there's this idea of the demonstration of cosmic justice and all...."
"Oh! Well, if He is conflicted and is sort of acting against His own desires, much like I often have to do, then thats good. I like a God I can relate to."

   Ah, wonderful! And all is well.

   Now, if you dare to question this perspective, the response will be swift, and predictable. The reply will not be based upon providing sound biblical exegesis that overwhelms you with evidence that God is, in fact, deeply conflicted, and has been, eternally. It is hard to come up with that kind of idea from the descriptions of the Triune Yahweh in the Bible. Oh, sure, there are a few anthropomorphisms that can be shared gleefully with the open theists and the inclusivists and the universalists, etc., but you won't be in any danger of getting hit with a ton of sound exegesis on all the passages that plainly state that God is pursuing an eternal purpose that will result in His own singular glory. No,the retort you will receive will have little to do with exegesis, and everything to do with monikers. Nick-names. Associations.

   Want a modern example? Consider Robert Reymond, a fine theologian, teacher, and godly man. Hyper-Calvinist! is the cry when he dares to point out the absurdity of attributing to God a self-imposed internal conflict that results, inevitably, in His own eternal unhappiness and lack of fulfillment. If you ask, "But, how do you respond to his actual argument?" you get back, "Hyper-Calvinist!" Evidently the very harshness of the phrase (especially its association with various and sundry nutcases on the Internet) is meant to stun your thought processes and cause you to curl up in the theological fetal position. You are to immediately run for cover, or join the growing throng that is gathering wood and fire to rid the earth of such a vile creature. The idea that the phrase has historical meaning is not in the forefront. The fact that it had a meaning in Spurgeon's England that is different in many respects from modern day America is likewise cast to the wind. No, once the Hyper epithet has been used, you might as well try naming your kid Hitler and get away with it. The argument is over.

   What has this mini-Reformed-jihad gotten us? Well, thanks to these folks most are afraid to even admit to owning a single volume of John Gill's works. Heres how the conversation goes.

"Well, I noted that on that particular text relating to the resurrection John Gill said...."
"JOHN GILL!!?? You're a hyper-Calvinist!"
"What? I was talking about his comments on the resurrection."
"But he was a hyper-Calvinist, and every person who has ever read a word he wrote is a hyper-Calvinist, and every person with one of his books in their library is a hyper-Calvinist, and every person who has ever owned a John Gill book believes and lives and thinks exactly like John Gill, and is therefore a hyper-Calvinist. And to agree with anything John Gill ever said is to prove, beyond all dispute and argument, that you are a hyper-Calvinist!"
"But...John Gill masterfully defended such things at the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, the resurrection...."
"I can't believe you are a hyper-Calvinist! I had so much respect for you before!"

   About the only positive thing I can see that has come from the SC movement (Squeamish Calvinists) has been the sale of plain book covers---used to hide The Cause of God and Truth so that you don't offend them when they are scanning your library shelves for evidence of unorthodoxy. But the general fear that exists in those writing for the Reformed community at running afoul of one of these self-appointed label-makers is most lamentable. If you dare disagree with the comments of Spurgeon or Murray (never mind being able to fairly, soundly cite others who have done the same) your reasons for doing so will not matter. Labels defy reason, they defy argument, they defy consistency. Allow me to throw myself upon the sacrificial pyre in hopes of edifying the reader.

I had seen the excitement over White's questionaire [sic] floating around the blogosphere. I really wasn't interested in it enough to visit his site, since I was pretty confident it would be nothing more than one of his typical attacks on Catholicism. I'm glad you posted it on your blog; that's the only way I would have ever read it. Interesting stuff!

Though I am not a Roman Catholic, there is much to embrace and their [sic] is much mis-representation coming from the Protestant side. I did not care for James White's smug questions.
Joseph, Don't bother with his site, I have seen enough of Mr. White to be completely turned off. I have never seen someone so sure he is right in pretty much all theological matters.

8) Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the "unanimous consent" of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims ofthe Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?

I believe I have looked carefully. I do not know what Mr. White means by unanimous consent.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.

...we, therefore, for the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy...

At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction;

If he means that 100% of church fathers have to believe something for the Catholic claims to be valid, that would give, ex post facto, a limitless veto power to any one father (who would not have realized he was wielding this power when he wrote). I do not know if he means Papal Infallibility the way I have read it defended.

I do not know what remains to be explained about the Pornocracy et al.

The Catholics claim that the church is not free from sinful people; they say the Church is semper reformanda.

7) Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome's ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome's answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn't Rome's magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen's Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?

I have applied the same standards to all my analysis, thank you for asking. Regarding circular logic, I believe the Romanist would say that Christ promised us that he would give his Holy Spirit, and the Book of Acts records this very event. This, and Christs commissioning of the Apostles should give us some reason to believe that their claims to authority could be valid, certainly valid enough to identify which texts this same Holy Spirit inspired.

Rome's claims do not nearly produce harmony.

   Many walked away from Christ when he explained that His flesh had to be eaten for salvation.

Rome's criticism (in observing the factionalism of Protestantism) is that our claim that the Bible is a sufficient sole rule of faith has been disproved by reality, as we are in such wide disagreement on its interpretation, even in essential matters.

There may not be harmony, or even obedience in Catholicism about the use of, say, the Pill (an abortifacient), but at least everyone understands that their Church has spoken against it.

Incidentally, and speaking of essentials, I believe Calvin would say that Mr. White's Reformed Baptists are not part of the true church, since they do not properly attend to the Sacraments.

Regarding Indulgences and Paul's doctrine of Grace, this textual criticism does not account for the Catholic defense that Indulgences are able to relieve only temporal punishment. Eternal punishment is cured by Christs grace alone (Cf. Paul's doctrine of grace taught to the Romans).

One aspect of that scriptural heritage that Christianity cannot shake is the identification of several divine beings as gods (Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:43 [LXX, 4QDeut-q]; Ps 29:1; 89:7; Ps 97:7, among dozens of others). There are even divine beings called the sons of God. Other literature is in agreement. In the Dead Sea Scrolls angels are repeatedly called gods (אלים). Even rabbinic and Christian literature recognizes the existence of other gods.
The modern notion of monotheism largely has more to do with philosophy than religion or the Bible, but in religious arenas it rests on the traditional decoupling of divine beings from the “god” taxonomy. Although the Bible makes reference to other gods, the ontological transcendence of God is so absolute that people just find it acceptable to consider him the only God. Mormonism, of course, has much the same approach. God will always be the highest God for humanity, and so Mormons largely consider themselves monotheistic. They worship one God. Ask a traditional Christian about the “sons of God” and the other divine beings in the Bible and they’ll respond, “Oh, they’re just angels,” or “they’re just subordinate/contingent/created beings.” Ask a Mormon about divinized human beings and they’ll point out that they will always have God above them. For Latter-day Saints, there is one God. Don’t Mormons believe that God is not the absolute highest God, though? Don’t they believe he had a God, too? Many of them do, although it’s not a notion to which they are bound. Additionally, according to the Bible—or at least the original version of portions of it—Yahweh was also not the highest God. The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls show in Deut 32:8–9 that Yahweh was considered one of the sons of El, also known as Elyon. It states that Elyon divided the nations according to the number of the “sons of God.” Elyon gave Israel to Yahweh. It wasn’t until around the beginning of the monarchy that Yahweh was conflated with El.