I’m happy to say that the biblical and historical position on the preservation of scripture is making headway across the world. Today people refer to this viewpoint or doctrine by different names, including providential preservation view, standard sacred text view, confessional bibliology view, verbal plenary preservation view, and the perfection preservation of scripture view. I think some even use a different label than those. Over twenty years ago now, our church published Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture to provide an exposition of this position from scripture.
About a month or so ago, Chris Arnzen of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio contacted me to debate James White in Pennsylvania. I was glad he asked. This debate, I told him, I wanted to do, would probably do it, but I wasn’t sure if his date would work out for me. I asked him a follow-up about the costs of lodging and travel The next day he told me he needed to know right away so he asked Peter Van Kleeck, who agreed to the debate. I believe it was God’s will. I still want to debate White and wish I could have then, but I was happy that Van Kleeck would be the man to do it.
Along with his dad, Peter Van Kleeck Sr. (Brother Van Kleeck is Jr.), he helps the cause of this doctrine online and many various ways. Several men right now are writing excellent material to read along with what Thomas Ross and I write here and then in our book on preservation. I believe Van Kleeck easily won the debate against James White. I watched it all and have not been able to make the time to critique what occurred, but I don’t want to keep waiting to post the debate, which is right below here.
Every one of the primary defenders of this doctrine, who have contributed much to the defense of the biblical and historical doctrine, would probably do a little bit different in his approach, strategy, or tactics. James White did not answer Van Kleeck’s arguments. His arguments stood and since he took the affirmative, he won. I’m not going to say anymore except that I wish to include below this paragraph the takeaway of Jeff Riddle over the debate. What he said was so close to what I would have said or written about the debate that it could be identical. I don’t think I need to write more than what he said. I might say or write more in the future, but this is good for now.
After having completed this post, I began to listen to the Van Kleecks, dad and son, analyze the debate, starting and stopping and commenting. It is a very helpful exercise, so I’m going to include their videos so far here. They so far have spent two parts on Dr. Van Kleeck’s opening statement and then two parts on White’s opening. Here they are in order.
I thought the debate was informative, and appreciate Dr. VanKleek taking the time to debate White.
I thought Dr. Riddle’s commentary on the debate was interesting:
https://standardsacredtext.com/2022/10/08/dr-jeff-riddles-commentary-on-the-van-kleeck-vs-white-debate/comment-page-1/
I think it is very possible that, from a technical debating perspective, that VanKleek did win the debate. However, with White as a very experienced debater and VanKleek having this one as his first debate, I suspect that for many in the audience who do not evaluate debates the way a debate coach would it would seem like White came off the better.
You could very well be right that White lost because he failed to answer VanKleek’s three arguments.
On the other hand, I wish that VanKleek’s arguments had been easier to follow–I think he lost a lot of people in his initial speech (which, to be fair, I probably did as well in my first speech in my first public debate). I wish he had pushed back more on White’s points, even though VanKleek was in the affirmative and White should have dealt more with what he said. I wish VanKleek had responded with more Scripture and more historical evidence to rebut White. I think that when VanKleek, for example, surrendered some of his time, failed to push back on statements by White that were not accurate, and failed to push him on Scripture, it helped White’s (unscriptural) cause.
Dr. VanKleek is a deep writer and thinker, and when he is in his first debate with a very experienced opponent it is not surprising that these sorts of “tactical” mistakes would take place. I think it is very possible that to those who know the rules of debate and are evaluating on that level, that VanKleek won the debate. I am afraid that many people that do not think that way will conclude that White’s position is clearly correct, even though his position is unscriptural and does not reflect the reality of the manuscript situation in God’s world.
Thank you for posting VanKleek’s review of the debate. I am interested in checking those videos out.
I have to say that I never expected to see Bayes Theorem pop up in a debate on the preservation of scripture. 🙂 I’ve only watched VanKleek’s opening statement so far. As you know, I disagree with all three of his main arguments, but this last one seems bewildering to me. If the Bible teaches that the TR is the preserved word of God (i.e., preserved within the TR set of manuscripts), then the probability is 1. By giving the probability as only .9, then he seems to be admitting that his previous arguments might not be correct. Of course he just pulled that .9 number out of thin air. I don’t see how that probability argument helps at all.
Hi Andy,
I never heard that argument before applied to this issue, but I have heard it applied in apologetic debate. The first two arguments back at 100 percent the TR argument. I think you are misstating or misunderstanding his argument #3. This isn’t that the the TR should be trusted as identical to the autographs at 90 percent. In argument in debate, the one affirming argues for the most probable explanation of what occurred. Someone may say Christ didn’t raise from the dead, someone else says he did. All things considered, what is the most likely to have occurred based upon statistical inference? If you argue against it, you need to show that your position is more probable based upon the degree of belief expressed as a probability. I’ve read this same used in a hypothesis of God as designer or creator versus naturalistic causes and other apologetic issues. It is a viable third argument. I wouldn’t have used it, but it shows that someone is intellectually honest or not.
Brother Brandenburg,
Good to have a little more information about Chris Arnzen asking you to debate James White. I saw Peter Van Kleeck mention that awhile back on his blog. My hope and prayer is that such a debate between you and White will come to fruition.
Blessings,
RLV
Thank you Bro Robert
Thank you for posting those videos–very interesting. Please feel free to post the rest if there are any more. Thank you.
I have been thinking about the idea of “winning” a debate. Religious debates were once popular among our people but were on the wane by the time I was growing up. About the only folks with any “debate” left in them were Baptists and Campellites/Church Christ. These debates tended to be about salvation, baptism, and the church. If Baptists debated one another, it was usually over missionary boards, associations, conventions, etc. If the debaters were competent, usually each side went away believing their representative won.
From a competitive debate perspective. Judges look at such things as content, strategy, presentation, etc. I think from this perspective Peter Van Kleeck won. Certainly, this was his first debate and he will and should learn to adjust things that he can do better in the future. However, in the affirmative, he presented a positive case that, in my opinion, was never really directly addressed (and certainly not negated) by James White. In that sense, it is my opinion that Van Kleeck won.
From a reception of the audience perspective. This would be, regarding the audience at the live location of the debate, decidedly in White’s favor. They were friends and partisans of White. Overall, I would think that, like I alluded to above, supporters of each side (including the vast online audience) thought their own representative made the best case.
From a results perspective. I remember reading about a debate in the 1800s (most of the details now forgotten) in which a Baptist preacher debated an infidel. He so thoroughly routed him that the infidel skipped out early, and the Baptist concluded the rest of the debate schedule preaching to the crowd, and quite a few were converted. Clearly the results of that debate told who won. I am not aware of whether either debater in the Van Kleeck-White debate listeners to change their view about the TR.
From a truth perspective. Finally, it is always a success (a win) to present the truth of the word of God. This is not done in vain (regardless of the results) and the word will not return void. In this sense I also believe Peter Van Kleeck won the debate since he was on the side of truth.
I suspect numbers 2 and 3 are a “wash.” Generally, TR supporters think Van Kleeck won and CT supporters think White won (obviously, with some exceptions). There are many more CT supporters in the world, so that the majority being on his side will make it look like White won. However, it he did not change the minds of TR supporters, he did not really make any headway.
I think, regarding both numbers 1 and 4, Peter Van Kleeck comes out ahead.
Thanks for putting up the analysis by Dr. Riddle; very helpful.
Finally finished watching the debate.
James White makes a pretty good argument that there is no evidence of anyone in the church using the unique Scrivener TR reading in history (i.e., prior to Scrivener). To me, this cuts against your persevered for every generation argument, because no generation had those readings collected for them until the time of Scrivener. VanKleeck’s response is that just because there is no evidence, doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. To me that is pretty weak, but what it really means is that none of the textual evidence really matters, nor do any of the writings of the post-reformation church theologians. All that matters is, does the Bible teach that it will be persevered within the TR manuscripts. Even if the verses you use for perfect preservation are about the physical preservation of God’s word, there is no reason to believe they were persevered only in those TR manuscripts and not the entire manuscript evidence. Any argument you might use, is evidence based, right? And could be refuted using the argumentation that VanKleeck uses. Using his argument, who is to say the church didn’t use NA27 throughout the history of the church. The only argument against that is evidentiary.
Hi Andy,
Thanks for coming by and interacting. I see you as being very selective in your evaluation of James White. He used a kind of faux sacerdotal authority to not answer Van Kleeck’s questions, which exposed his naturalism. Having scriptural teaching as the presupposition, all God’s Words and every of God’s Words would be available to every generation of true believers. A settled text, one that could be added to or taken away from. We presuppose, White does not, that this exists, because God says. We start with that, not starting with naturalism in the form of extant manuscripts and extrapolating backwards as to what men possessed. White believes that any and every verse could still change based on further finds of evidence, which is why he would not answer the questions. He also contradicted himself. He said that all of God’s Words are in the NA28 main body and apparatus and then moments later said that the CBGM was even better and fuller. How could something be fuller or better than everything? That’s something he gets away with, because the scriptural presuppositions don’t matter, so whatever he says, crickets, with the incoherence and contradictions, much like the mainstream media does for something like feminism versus transgenderism conflict.
When you say unique Scrivener TR reading, I believe you are distinguishing from mere TR reading. The two are almost, yet not identical. This is where, it seems, White and others like to have this argument. Revelation 16:5/Ephesians 3:9, etc. They know our position expects perfection, so he argues on a very few words, the apparent Beza textual emendation. This is naturalism. It can’t undo the presupposition. My answer is that God said it would occur, the church received, and I’m not going to deny God would do what he said He would do. The methodology is supernatural. The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, like that of canonicity, for which I have full confidence. I’m not giving that up for Revelation 16:5 and White’s never ending doubt and dependence on human ingenuity. The approach I’m describing buttresses almost every Christian doctrine and the application of the Bible to cultural issues that are going down the toilet today.
It’s not a matter of the perseverance of TR manuscripts. It’s what the church received, what was available. The TR fulfills the scriptural template or paradigm.
Hi, I read your comment and believe I understand what you’re saying, Andy. But correct me if I’m wrong. I think if you start with the first principles of Biblical preservation, you will see that the evidence (as it truly is) lines up quite nicely with that worldview. But if you start with the assumption that the Bible is not preserved, you will have a very hard time getting the evidence to tell any kind of coherent story. In this way, the evidence cooperates the most with the truth when honestly presented.
This next part is my personal opinion… Instead of trying to present a coherent or internally consistent explanation of the world within the basis of their assumptions, the second worldview and those who hold it are forced to rely on methods of critical theory and to rely on the covert proposition which they appeal indirectly to and attempt to argue, which is that all viewpoints are equal, meaning theirs can’t be argued against. And in fact the key problem they really seem to have with people who believe in preservation of Scripture isn’t the fact that they use the KJV for instance, or whatever TR translation it is – it is just the fact that they say that this word of God is objectively true, and therefore hold that other worldviews are necessarily false. Usually they won’t directly come out and say this, because radical skepticism, presented openly, isn’t very convincing.
But nonetheless, I think modern society and the current “zeitgeist” views all this as intolerant, because if you want to be a friend of the world you have to tolerate all viewpoints, and all Bible versions, etc. You have to treat conflicting truths as equal in validity in order to be a friend of the world. And I think that’s what the second viewpoint wants. One big problem that they face is the fact the evidence doesn’t give them much room to present a coherent explanation of the world. Really, none at all, so they then turn to skepticism and the methods of the skeptics. Hopefully that makes sense and thanks for your insights. I think this is generally how the evidence factors into things.
Hello Andy!
If Dr. VanKleek, in his first debate with a limited time clock, could have done a better job with a master debater, Dr. White, in answering his evidence argument, that does not prove that nobody was using TR readings or they were not available. Kurt Aland calls the TR the “text of the church” from the “4th … century.” (See quote and its source in the essay on Baptist Confessions and preservation at https://faithsaves.net/Bibliology/). What it proves is that Dr. VanKleek was giving a more philosophical argument that, whatever its merits, probably went over the heads of most of the audience as he rapidly spoke and referred to a philosophical theorem that 95% of the audience probably had never heard of, yet he never defined, while Dr. White, although he failed to answer Dr. VanKleek’s three arguments and so lost the debate, did a better job connecting with the audience, something that could be expected in light of his vast debate experience.
The church received the text behind the vulgate. It then received the text behind the KJV. Now it has received the text behind the ESV. God said it would occur and how can I deny what God said he would do? The church received what was available. Just like you said.
The problem that I noticed with Van Kleeck during the debate is just asserting that the church received the TR and in particular the Scrivener TR. The fact of the matter is that the church has never settled on a particular text, because the church as always had slightly different texts based on the availability of extant manuscripts. That’s not naturalism, that is just recognizing how God has providentially preserved his Word for believers through the history on earth. If I can find it, I’ll share it here, but I read a paper (or something) by Van Keeck where he basically admitted that the “canon” of received words had changed over the years. I don’t think you would actually say that, but it seems like that is where this position leads.
Here is what I was referring to from Van Kleeck:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1w5ilpx8g0swd9z/VanKleeckPeterResponseToMarkWard.pdf?dl=0
“At the time of Beza that iteration of the TR was the word of God. At the time of Stephanus that iteration of the TR was the word of God. And now in the 21st century, the Scrivener iteration is the TR. Each of these TR’s constituted a product. Was the believing community at the time of Beza theologically wrong for holding to the TR of that time? No, and the same goes for the saints at the time of Stephanus.”
To me, this is stunning! According to Van Kleeck there is a TR for a time and a place that changes. I don’t know if this is your position or not, but a perfect preservation that changes over time doesn’t seem logical or what the Bible demands.
I wouldn’t explain it the way Van Kleeck does, and I’m sure his explanations will improve with the refinement of challenge. However, I believe you are misrepresenting what he’s saying. He considers himself to be explaining the history of theology among believing people, what was written by Muller in his second volume of Post Reformation Dogmatics. They viewed each of these iterations of the TR, which were very, very close, as you know, yet not identical, as equal to the autographs. That doesn’t mean that Van Kleek believes that two things that are very slightly different are actually the same. No, their position was based upon their theology, their presuppositions. That is his methodology, a biblical one. This was still the TR, the text received by the churches. I have explained it as akin to canonicity with the printed editions. A phase of canonicity lasted a little more than 100 years and then it was settled. They settled on the TR and then finally one edition. This is different than ongoing, never ending textual criticism not based on the same presuppositions, even as seen in what James White says.
I have some criticisms of Dr. White in this particular debate.
Dr. James White at 1 hour, 10 minutes, makes the following statement: “And to this day, all those readings [from Erasmus] are right here and in the King James Version of the Bible.”
The problem with that statment is that it is false, because the King James Version isn’t based on Erasmus’ TR. It is based on Stephanus and Beza’s editions, and they actually corrected the places where Erasmus differed from the Greek. However, this fact is completely left out of Dr. White’s argument. And he makes it look as if everything is coming from Erasmus only. Yes, Dr. White briefly mentions Stephanus and Beza in the opening of his argument and maybe one other time. So yes, he does mention them. But Dr. White frames his subsequent arguments as though everything was coming only from Erasmus, like to suggest (to the audience) that everything depended on him. Actually, Stephanus and Beza implemented corrections to Erasmus’ Greek text where it was inaccurate, and they did it based on more representative sets of received manuscripts. They had manuscripts that covered every part of Revelation. What about those inaccurate readings in Erasmus’ copy of Revelation? No one can point to a single concrete example of those within the King James Bible. Revelation 21:24 and Revelation 22:19, as they are found in the King James Bible, for instance, are from the manuscripts that Stephanus and Beza had. They didn’t rely on Erasmus. They are not based on Erasmus’ work at all. If Erasmus differed from the Greek manuscripts of Revelation, they both corrected them. Dr. White however leaves this fact completely out of his argument. And I feel this is where it becomes a pure misrepresentation. It becomes, I have to say, factually untrue and false. The King James Version conforms to the Stephanus and Beza editions of the Greek New Testament, who both provide much more accurate copies than Erasmus did in any of his editions. So, to say (or strongly imply and base all arguments on) that the King James Version is based on what Erasmus did, is a complete misrepresentation and it substantially downplays the fact that other TR editors had access to more complete sources for the book of Revelation than Erasmus did and that these were the sources that were used to put together high quality TR translations, such as the 1611 English King James Bible. And in fact no significant objection was raised to the editions of these TR editors either – namely, the source of the King James Bible – until the time of Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort, and even this was only because they wanted to present a completely different text which they had come forward with, not because of a perceived flaw in the original. That’s the reason why they criticized it. The so-called “flaws” they had to contrive post facto. That’s why no two people can seem to come up with the same so-called “flaws” in the received text. They all have different ones, kind of like the false accusers against Christ who could not agree about what He had done wrong. You do have the work of Griesbach, and a few others before those three, but it was fringe.
Dr. White also had a chance (3:24:38) to address this potential confusion that listeners would have about this fact, namely: that the KJV is not based on Erasmus’ text of Revelation but rather Beza and Stephanus’ texts. Instead though, Dr. White at this point obfuscated again by saying “the King James translated what was in here” and gesturing to a copy of Erasmus’ text. Dr. White probably hoped no one would ask him to clarify in words if he meant the Erasmus TR or the Beza 1598 TR, as the King James Bible is in fact more in line with the Beza 1598 TR, and not the Erasmus TR or its issues at all. He seems happy to leave people with that impression however mistaken it may be.
Now I raise one technical point, just so everyone knows and is aware of this. At timestamp 2:50:30, Dr. White also says that the variant at James 2:18 exists between the “Stephanus” and “Scrivener” text. While true, Dr. White fails or neglects to point out that in Beza 1598 TR text agrees with the KJV in this place, as well!! So we don’t even need to go to Scrivener for it. I hope you caught that.
This same thing happens soon after with his Revelation 11:2 example. Not only does Beza, and later TR editors, include the normal reading of this verse (“outside” or “without”) but the 1520 Complutensian Polyglot also has the word “outside” in this place as well. It’s ridiculous to insist that this was added by Scrivener or the King James translators when neither of them wrote the 1520 Complutensian Polyglot.
Also at 1 hour and 13 minutes, Dr. White also says that some Hebrew manuscripts differ in what they say in Psalm 22:16. However, this isn’t the case. The Hebrew manuscripts agree. But some groups such as the publishers of the JPS Tanakh 1917 disagree on the translation of that Hebrew phrase into English! The Hebrew manuscripts don’t differ here; rather, the difference is just in how this verse is supposed to be translated. I hope you caught that.
At 1:31:58, Dr. White begins to make the statement that the twelve verses taken out of John and the last twelve verses of Mark have “almost no theological impact whatsoever.” How can he possibly say this?
Lastly, at 1 hour and 28.5 minutes, Dr. White says, “Erasmus would have loved to have had what we have today, and if he had it the TR would have looked completely different than the TR we have right here.” First of all, assuming that much is true, then Stephanus and Beza would have still given us more accurate TR anyway. Because they weren’t dependent on Erasmus at all and often times corrected his work. So what does this have to do with Erasmus? I cannot possibly emphasize enough how much of a misconception it is to claim the entire Greek text comes to us from Erasmus only! That’s not true, yet Dr. White appeals to it repeatedly, again and again. Secondly, we know that the King James translators, for one, did have access to such manuscripts as the Vaticanus, which was listed in the register supposedly as early as 1475. And yet they rejected it and its readings. And this is despite having access to it. So then, it’s not obvious that these historical individuals, or even Erasmus, would have agreed with Dr. White. He’s going way out of line and trying to speak for and in place of others. I have seen him do similar with John Calvin and Martin Luther as well. White says that they would completely agree with him. What if he’s wrong? Where is the proof?
What’s really happening with the good Bible translations and translators was that they were all trying their best to conform with the received text. This is because God’s word was perceived to be the truth to these people. You can’t have multiple conflicting statements be true at the same time, that’s just basic fact. Our witnesses of God’s word were all very close in what they were saying because they knew it mattered. Even if the individual people who edited these editions were fallible… God’s word is not. Paul affirmed the same thing when he distanced the church from those who “corrupt the word of God” in 2 Corinthians 2:17. He also acknowledged the fact that people like Origen, Westcott and Hort were out there.
If we had all day, if there was enough time, I could probably spend all day talking about the doctrinal problems of the critical text. Easily. We could talk about all of the examples where I’ve seen it makes a difference. There are an average of 15.4 Greek words missing from every page of that “critical text” as it currently exists. This amounts to 5% of the words in the New Testament which are removed, and another 2% of the New Testament words which are substantially changed in the critical text. Compared to the received text, 9970 individual Greek words are either removed, modified or added. That’s just in the Westcott and Hort edition. The Westcott and Hort text is 1952 words shorter than the received text. Meanwhile, the Nestle-Aland edition is even shorter, as it is 2886 words shorter than the received text. And it’s bound to get even worse with future editions, because of the fact they keep drastically changing it. But Christ said, in Matthew 4:4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
So what does that tell you about the importance of words to doctrine? If even one word or one part of one word is enough to merit a person’s part to be removed from the book of life, what does that say about the importance of these words? Should these changes matter to you? I think so.
My friends, I think the big issue with the Alexandrian or “critical texts” is ultimately the fact that, like Dr. White himself emphasized, the church historically did not have access to it. Nobody had it as it wasn’t around. It wasn’t until Tischendorf that anyone bothered to publish it. That means that God did not preserve it to all generations. He did with the received text.
If one is to believe that the critical is better than the received text, then that means God had the church stumbling in the dark without the light of the truth for thousands of years, and could still have them in such a place, now. That clearly goes against the promises of God in Scripture, which is that “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35) And, “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” (Isaiah 40:8). Amen.
A particular valid criticism that Van Kleeck made of Dr. White’s arguments, that deserves to be focused on, is the reason that a person can believe the Bible is the word of God, and the reason that a person is a Christian to begin with. I think that point was worth focusing on. It isn’t because some council decided what canon is, and it isn’t based on finding a majority of manuscripts. How did people believe on Jesus back then? It wasn’t those things. It’s based on conviction from God that His words are true. It is like what the Lord said to the Pharisees, “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” (John 8:47). Christ also said, “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” (John 18:37). That’s how a saved person can know. They need not that any man teach them (1 John 2:27). They do need God though. The fact that the manuscript evidence then aligns with this reality then is only natural, simply because that’s what happened. But that can’t be our foundation, you see, because all the manuscript evidence that you find just isn’t going to make someone a Bible-believer, or a saved person, without God. Nor is it going to convince anyone, without God. The foundation has to be in God, in the Holy Spirit giving conviction like Christ tells us in John 16:13-14, and in 1 Corinthians 2:9-13 according to the apostle Paul.
So, you can’t just take that purely naturalistic approach, because it doesn’t make sense as to why you are a Bible-believer in the first place. If you believe that God preserved His words, that’s something a believer knows as inspired truth. Proverbs 3:5-6. It doesn’t matter that the world won’t accept that argument. All of the manuscript evidence in its favor only goes to show or demonstrate how blind the world has made itself.
Preservation is a matter of belief in God, that is if you truly believe Proverbs 30:5-6 and 2 Peter 1:19-21. You believe that He will never allow one word to drop from its place, now or ever. So it makes no sense to argue against it from a Bible-believing perspective. And I would add that, if we are being intellectually honest, then the evidence is also in our favor for this matter as well. Examine the TR editions, the manuscripts, the patristics, all other evidence. It does point to the fact that the New Testament has made it to us today in a pure state, just as God intended and as the Bible itself says. It was preserved, equally as surely as it was originally inspired by the Lord. The Scripture cannot be broken, and God used many different people and witnesses to make this happen, even though each of them was individually fallible. And this is true for all times, and there is more than enough evidence to back that up. That evidence is reasonably convincing to anyone who, at least, doesn’t make themselves into a radical skeptic, which is what the critics prove themselves to be.
Thanks!