Here’s a follow up to WM 254 covering the JW vs. PVK debate
in which James White mocked prayer and the inward work of the Holy Spirit in
recognizing and obeying the authentic text of Scripture. In so doing, he was actually debating classic Protestant Bibliology.
James White said the following (listen here):
You say that this [the Textus Receptus] is what we must
follow, and we are asking where does this come from?
And your answer is, We pray about it. Is that how you
[answer]? Have you prayed about every variant in the NT?...
So when a Mormon missionary says, I prayed about the Book of
Mormon, and the Holy Spirit testified to me that the Book of Mormon is the Word
of God, how would you respond, because you just told us that the way we know
the Bible is the Word of God is by praying about it….
Are you seriously suggesting that John Calvin taught us to
pray over differences in manuscripts? Can you give me a single place in the voluminous
writings of the Reformer of Geneva where he taught us to pray to determine when
the Greek manuscripts differed from the Latin Vulgate….
In answer to his challenge, see the following:
John Calvin, Institutes (1.7.5) (emphasis
added):
Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the
Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture
is indeed self-authenticated [autopiston]; hence it is not right to subject it
to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by
the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty,
it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the
Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by
anyone else’s judgement that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we
affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God
himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of
men. We seek no proofs, no mark of genuineness upon which our judgment may
lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as a thing far beyond any
guesswork! This we do, not as persons accustomed to seize upon some unknown
thing, which, under closer scrutiny displeases them, but fully conscious that
we hold the infallible truth! Nor do we do this as those miserable men who
habitually bind over their minds to the thralldom of superstition: but we feel
that the undoubted power of his divine majesty lives and breathes there. By
this power we are drawn and inflamed, knowingly and wittingly, to obey him, yet
also more vitally and more effectively than mere human knowing!
See also Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:5 (emphasis
added):
5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony
of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;a and the heavenliness of the matter, the
efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the
parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full
discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other
incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments
whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet,
notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and
divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing
witness by and with the Word in our hearts.b
a.
1 Tim
3:15. • b. Isa 59:21; John 16:13-14; 1 Cor 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27.
See also John Owen, The Reason of
Faith (Works, Vol. 4:57) (emphasis added):
The work of the Holy Ghost unto this
purpose consists in the saving illumination of the mind; and the effect of it
is a supernatural light, whereby the mind is renewed; see Rom. xii.2; Eph.
i.18, 19, iii.16-19. It is called a “heart to understand, eyes to see, ears to
hear,” Deut. xxix.4; the “opening of the eyes of our understanding,” Eph. 1.18;
the “giving of an understanding,” 1 John v.20. Hereby we are enabled to discern
the evidences of the divine original and authority of the Scripture that are in
itself, as well as assent unto the truth contained in it; and without it we
cannot do so, for “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they
are spiritually discerned,” 1 Cor. ii.14….. That there is a divine and heavenly
excellency in the Scripture cannot be denied by any who, on any grounds or
motive whatever, do own its divine original…. But these we cannot discern, be
they in themselves never so illustrious, without the effectual communication of
the light mentioned unto our minds,—that is, without divine, supernatural
illumination.
And John Owen, The Reason of Faith
(Works, Vol. 4:59) (emphasis added):
But as a pretense herof hath been abused, as we shall see afterward, so the pleading of it is liable to be mistaken; for some are ready to apprehend that this is a retreat unto a Spirit of revelation is but a pretense to discard all rational arguments, and to introduce enthusiasm into their room. Now, although the charge be grievous, yet, because it is groundless, we must not forego what the Scripture plainly affirms and instructs us in, thereby to avoid it. Scripture testimonies may be expounded according to the analogy of faith; but denied or despised, see they never so contrary unto our apprehension of things, they must not be. Some, I confess, seem to disregard both the objective work of the Holy Spirit in this matter (whereof we shall treat afterward) and his subjective work also in our minds, that all things may be reduced unto sense and reason. But we must grant that a “Spirit of wisdom and revelation” to open the eyes of our understanding is needful to enable us to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God in due manner, or forego the gospel; and our duty it is to pray continually for that Spirit, if we intend to be established in the faith thereof.
Conclusion:
James White’s naturalistic approach to
Scripture is contrary to the classic Protestant emphasis upon the necessity of
the inward work of the Holy Spirit, as emphasized in Calvin, the WCF, and Owen.
JTR
Here are seven observations on the James White vs. Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. Debate on the TR, held on September 24, 2022 (Watch it here).
First, I felt there were many aspects of the debate that were
not handled in a fair or evenhanded manner.
Second, PVK began his opening statement with a very generous
and charitable overture toward JW and those who hold to the modern text.
Third, simply on technical, forensic grounds, PVK clearly won
this debate, as he rightly pointed out in his closing statement.
Fourth, even though PVK was not attempting to make an empirical
defense of the TR but a more philosophical and theological defense of it, he
did offer some meaningful rejoinders to JW’s evidential-based arguments.
Fifth, one of the highlights of the debate was in PVK’s
cross-examination of JW, where he effectively showed (again) that, in the end,
JW cannot point to a single verse in the Bible that might not be subject to
change based on new manuscripts discoveries or the development of new manuscript
discoveries.
Sixth, it was striking how JW in his cross-examination of PVK
mocked the distinct spiritual aspects of the Protestant approach to Scripture
(even comparing it to Mormonism).
Correction: The quotation from John Calvin's Institutes is from 1.7.5 (not 1.6.5, as mistakenly written on the PPT shared in the video).
Seventh, finally, PVK took his own unique approach to this debate and chose to argue on more philosophical grounds than evidential grounds. I think he could have pushed back with some evidential arguments at points.
All in all, again, PVK did prevail. It
is a shame that JW did not respond, especially to the first two arguments. We
are waiting for modern evangelicals to provide a Biblical based justification
for their Bibliology. We are also waiting for those who are confessionally Reformed
to respond to our suggestion that confessional Bibliology is a retrieval of the
Reformed and Protestant Orthodox method.
We did not get these responses in this
debate.
JTR
I
received this note today from my friend Felix Doulos, a sometimes contributor
to the blog, and thought I would pass it on to my readers:
This
day in Church History: Thirteen years ago today, January 21, 2009, popular internet
apologist James White participated in a joint appearance ("debate") with UNC
professor and NT textual criticism expert Bart Ehrman in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
The topic of discussion: “Does the Bible Misquote Jesus?”
Since
taking place, it has become one of the most talked about events in the subculture of evangelical internet apologetics, discussed frequently on internet
programs (like the Dividing Line) and often put forward (by James White) as
a hallmark example of how to do apologetics in the “real world.” Financial terms
of the joint appearance, including how much Ehrman was paid to take part, have
never been publicly disclosed. Whatever the price, it was well worth it.
Though
White has continued to talk often, if not incessantly, of the joint appearance over
the past thirteen years, Ehrman has been more reticent. When he posted videos
of the debate to his
blog in 2014 he wrote: “I
wasn’t sure whether I should post this debate or not. Frankly, it was not a
good experience. I normally do not have an aversion to the people I debate. But
James White is that kind of fundamentalist who gets under my skin.”
There are many ways in which “White-Ehrman Day”
may be commemorated. One might watch the event again on video and ponder the vast
agreement between the two panelists on textual variants in the NT, or one might
look for those lighthearted moments, as when Ehrman playfully corrected White’s pronunciation
of renowned German textual critic “Kurt Aland.”
As we have recently been reminded with respect
to the commemoration of events like January 6, 2021, these kinds
of significant moments deserve to be remembered (and mentioned again, and again).
Felix Doulos
What were the two most shocking things said by James White
during our two debates last weekend?
Both of the things I found most shocking came out during the
cross-examination periods:
First shocking statement:
During the cross-examination of the first debate on Mark
16:9-20 (the Traditional Ending of Mark or TE) (begin listening at c. the 1:25:25 mark), I
asked my opponent if he believed the author of the TE was orthodox in his
theology. To my surprise JW said that he did not believe the author of the TE was
orthodox in theology. I then asked if he believed the TE, if spurious and not
original, could be rightly described as a “corruption.” I asked this knowing
that this was the way White had described the TE in writing [see his KJVO
Controversy, Revised Edition, 2009: “some parallel corruption took place, drawing
from oral stories and the other gospels to create the longer ending” (320)]. I
had expected JW might say the author of the TE was orthodox but that the TE was
still a corruption, thus conforming to Bart Ehrman’s theories of the NT being
rife with “orthodox corruptions.” JW’s answer, however, went even further than
Ehrman suggesting that the TE of Mark is an “unorthodox corruption”!
I tried then to point out that this would mean
that most Christians, throughout the longest period of church history, up to the
present day, have had a Bible that is filled with an “unorthodox corruption.”
This text has appeared in all our Protestant Bible translations since the
Reformation. It has been preached from countless pulpits. It was used as a
prooftext for our Protestant confessions (see, e.g, WCF 28:4 which cites Mark
16:15-16 as a proof, as well as Acts 8:37-38!).
Such a view destroys not only any understanding of
the integrity of Mark’s Gospel but the entire doctrine of providential preservation!
We might have expected such a statement from a unbelieving liberal, but from an
evangelical apologist?
Second shocking statement:
In the cross-examination during the second debate (begin listening at c. the 1:05:00 mark),
I asked JW something like the following: “Yesterday you noted that if there were papyri discovered
which contained the TE of Mark, then you would embrace it. I assume that the
same would apply with Ephesians 3:9. Does this mean that you are ultimately not
completely sure about whether or not it is right to reject the authenticity of
the TR of this passage?” He agreed he would be willing to shift his view on
these texts given proper evidence.
I then asked him, “Does this also mean that every verse in
the Bible is up for grabs, at least theoretically? Is there any text in the NT
about which you have 100% certainty?” After a good bit of tap-dancing around
the question, JW was never able to name any specific passage about which he might
have confident certainty. Not John 3:16, not Paul’s summary of the gospel as preached
at Corinth (1 Corinthians 15:3-5), not the Gospel passion narratives, not even “Jesus
wept” (John 11:35).
This was stunning! During and after the debate White accused
those of us who hold to the TR of exhibiting “extreme skepticism” with regard
to our pessimism as to the prospect that the modern critical method will ever
be able to reconstruct the text. Does he realize, however, that his method has left him
with a Bible about which he has absolutely no confidence or certainty? Now that is extreme skepticism.
JTR
Another follow-up to my debate with James White on Mark 16:9-20:
Evangelicals who reject the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 are
left with a dilemma.
One option is to argue that the original ending was lost or
that the Gospel was unfinished for some unknown reason. This view would not only
challenge the integrity of Mark but also deny the doctrine of preservation.
Another option would be to argue that Mark was originally
meant to end at Mark 16:8. James White embraces this view, following the
reasoning of Dan Wallace [see Dan Wallace, “Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the
Second Gospel” in David Alan Black, Ed., Perspectives on the Ending of Mark:
Four Views (B&H Academic, 2008): 1-39].
One of the major problems with the idea that Mark might have ended
at Mark 16:8 is what might be called the “grammatical objection.”
Namely, this would mean that the entire Gospel would end with
the post-positive particle gar
[γάρ]. This would be the
equivalent of ending a Gospel with “for….” Or “therefore….”
N. Clayton Croy’s The Mutilation of Mark’s
Gospel (Abingdon, 2003) provides what I believe is a devastating critique
of the idea that Mark might have originally ended at Mark 16:8 (though Croy
does not affirm the authenticity of the TE).
In the debate I shared several quotes gleaned
from Croy on the grammatical problem inherent in the idea that Mark might have ended
at Mark 16:8, including Norman Perrin’s assessment that such an ending would be
“grammatically barbarous” (see Croy, 31, n. 18).
Another quote I did not get the chance to work in
is this one from J. K. Elliott, another notorious TR advocate (smiles): “I
conclude that no author would have chosen to end a piece of writing, sentence,
paragraph and even less a book, with a postpositional particle….” (Perspectives,
89).
How did James White respond to this argument? He ignored
it altogether and never responded to it.
This, however, is a foundational objection to the
idea that Mark might have been meant to end at Mark 16:8. Anyone who takes this
view must respond to this objection. Surely, James White gave this serious
consideration and study before embracing his position, right?
Maybe James White will take a future DL and
respond to this challenge in detail…..
JTR
