James White / Thomas Ross Debate Transcript: Can You Help?
Can you help with a debate transcript? Some of my previous debates, such as my first one with Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, have been transcrbed so people can read them or reference certain arguments in them. Having this material available was very helpful to me in my making of a review of the Barker Ross debates.
I would like to make available a transcript of my recent debate with James White on the preserved Word in the Textus Receptus and KJV versus the lost and supposedly partially restored Word in the Nestle-Aland Greek text and modern versions such as the Legacy Standard Bible (which, sadly, is neither a legacy, nor standard, nor 100% a Bible). If someone is able to help me with this I would greatly appreciate it. I have been able to get a computer-generated audio text of the debate. All one would need to do is listen to the debate, compare it to the audio generated by the computer, and make sure that the two are the same (and correct the computer-generated audio when it is incorrect) as well as doing some other rather simple improvements. Then the debate will be available in a written format that can help readers and advance the cause of Biblical, faith-based, perfect preservation. It also would be helpful to me as I seek to produce some review videos on the debate. I am thankful for the written review of the debate here on What is Truth? as well.
I do not believe this would be an overly difficult project. If you are able to help with this project and so contribute to God’s kingdom and glory by helping spread the truth of perfect preservation, please either contact me via my website or by my church. Thank you.
–TDR
James White and His Troublesome Deterministic View of God
One of the features of the White and Ross debate was an attack afterwards on Thomas Ross by White followers, because he would not “answer” questions of White. I disagree. Ross answered all of White’s questions. He just didn’t like Ross’s answers. When I watched the White and Van Kleeck debate, White wouldn’t answer Van Kleeck’s questions, really not answer them.
A recent episode of Soteriology 101 with Leighton Flowers popped up on my phone. I’m not a subscriber. The title was “Popular Calvinist Makes a Stunning Admission,” and I could see the Calvinist was James White on the cover. So, as click bait, that worked for me. I had to see what the “stunning admission” from White was.
The Determination by God of All Moral Evil?
The main theme of Flowers’s podcast was the determination by God of all moral evil. Flowers doesn’t believe it, but he quoted Calvin as believing it. He explained the effect of this belief. If this is God, people reject Him because they don’t think He’s good. The Calvinist answers that God is right, these things are just beyond our full comprehension. Here’s the quote by Calvin that says this exact thing:
But how it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being the author and approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.
Flowers says that Calvin is saying, “I don’t know how God is good with my view of determinism, just that I know that He is.” Something like that. He’s accepting God decrees moral evil, yet He’s still good, because God is good.
People like myself say, “God does not decree or determine moral evil.” If someone says that God does that, we say, “No, He doesn’t.” We might quote James 1:13:
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
Guillaume Bignon
White has endorsed the book by French Calvinist, Guillaume Bignon, Excusing Sinners and Blaming God: A Calvinist Assessment of Determinism, Moral Responsibility, and Divine Involvement in Evil. In a recent interview, Bignon says:
Determinism is not the thesis that some things are determined. It’s the view that all things are determined.
Bignon is asked, Did God determine then for other theologians, like Muller, to disagree with you? He answers, “Yes,” because God determined everything. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3), Calvin said:
Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he knowingly and willingly decreed.
Did God Decree a Rape?
Calvin taught that God destined the will of every man to do whatever man did and does. In his debate with George Bryson, Bryson asks White this:
When a child is raped, is God responsible? Did he decree that rape?
Based on the understanding White and his fans hold for answering a question, White would not answer Bryson’s question. He did answer it, but he would not say, yes or no, until pinned down by the moderator. When White asks a “yes or no” question, he and his followers expect a yes or a no. They don’t hold that standard for White, as seen in the Van Kleeck debate, but also in his answer to Bryson. White answered:
If he didn’t, then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.
Hank Hanegraaff is the moderator and he asks White, “So what is your answer then?” In other words, White wouldn’t answer the question. No problem for White fans. This is James White. Whatever he says will count as an answer.
White then says to Hanegraaff, “I’m trying to go to scripture,” to which Hanegraaff replies, “What is the answer to the question that he just asked?” And so finally White does answer the question. To the question of, “When a child is raped, is God responsible? Did he decree that rape?” James White answers:
Yes, because, if not, then it is meaningless and purposeless. And though God knew it was going to happen, he created without a purpose. That means God brought the evil into existence, knowing it was going to exist, but for no purpose, no redemption, nothing positive, nothing good.
God Does Not Decree or Determine Moral Evil or the Rape of a Child
White, Hanegraaff, and Bryson say much more in this debate (which was in 2003), but White point blank says that God determined evil, even the determination of a rape of a child. This was the stunning admission by the Calvinist, James White.
Is this true about God? No. It perverts a scriptural view of the sovereignty of God. God is sovereign, but sovereignty means He is also sovereign over His sovereignty. The word sovereignty isn’t in the Bible, but the doctrine is there. However, we should allow God to define what His sovereignty is. God allows or causes everything that happens. I don’t agree with Calvin’s, Bignon’s, or White’s view of God’s sovereignty. It doesn’t match up with what God says about Himself in scripture.
Someone asked Flowers, if God determines all moral evil, can God still be a good God? I don’t want to answer that question. I think, it isn’t God though. This is just a hypothetical that could quote me as saying that God isn’t a good God. God is a good God though. If that was God, which it isn’t, then He would not be good. I don’t see a God, who would determine or decree moral evil, as being good. God allows evil. He doesn’t determine or decree it.
If you say, like White, that God determines or decrees everything, then you also, like White does, must say that God determines or decrees evil, including the rape of a child. Scripture does not teach this kind of determinism. God determines things, it’s true, but not moral evil.
Do We Need Evidence Outside of the Bible or Do Biblical Presuppositions Count as Evidence?
This post relates to the Ross-White Debate and the Related Subject of Landmarkism
In numerous ways God established the truth and authority of His Word. Believers rely on scripture for their faith and practice. They trust the Word of God as evidence. God said it, so it is true.
Scripture talks about Noah, so there is a Noah, Abraham, so there is an Abraham, and Moses, so there is a Moses. You don’t have to find something outside of the Bible about these figures to believe what God says about them in the Bible. It is self-evident. Whatever scripture says is true.
The Bible teaches justification by faith. Does evidence show that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us, forgives all our sins, or justifies us by faith? I can’t point to the truth of this outside of the Bible. I believe it because God’s Word says it.
Was there a tree of life? Yes. Did the sun stand still in Joshua? Yes. Was there a Samson? Yes. How can we answer “yes” to any of these questions without something outside of the Bible?
Authentication of Scripture
Authentication of scripture exists outside the Bible. Men investigate the people and events recorded in it, outside of it. Nothing men find contradicts what it says. They can’t confirm everything, but for what they can find confirmation of the Bible outside of the Bible, it confirms it.
The Bible makes thousands of predictions. These are most often layered predictions with many different details to the prophecies. For the prophecies to come true, much happens that involves many different people and places. Fulfillment of every prophecy occurred.
Extra-scriptural written materials validate people and events in scripture. Archaeology confirms people and events in the Bible. When comparing one part of the Bible with another, one part or more confirms another part. Different sections confirm each other with their agreement. Fulfilled prophecies authenticate the truth and authority of what scripture says.
Copying Scripture
Scripture so impressed its readers and adherents that they copied it more than any other document. More hand copies exist than any other document in all of history, and by far. Hand copies of the Bible far exceed any other book. Many, many throughout history accepted it as true.
We can look at this world and know that it didn’t occur by accident. What we witness in nature requires more than naturalistic explanation. The supernatural explanation of the Bible matches what we see in the world. The comparison of passages within the Bible attest to their explanation of the origins of the world, people, nations, nature, civilization, events, and language. It provides a cohesive view of the world in which we live.
The Bible is its own evidence. By itself, it is a standard. The writings themselves ring with authority and truth. No one could just make them up.
Scripture Is Evidence
With everything that I have written so far, a reader of the Bible can depend on its contents to believe its doctrine. Where there is no sure evidence outside of scripture, scripture is the evidence. If God says holy men of God wrote the words of God under verbal, plenary inspiration, we believe that. If He says He will preserve all of those same words and how He will do that, we believe that. Whatever might contradict what scripture says, we hold to scripture and reject what contradicts it.
Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church, so they didn’t. Jesus said His Words would not pass away, so they didn’t. Believers deny whatever contradicts what God said. They deny modern textual critics who deny the perfect preservation of scripture. Believers deny the disappearance of true churches outside of the state church. They deny alterations of the creation story in Genesis 1 through 3. True Christians accept the table of nations in Genesis 10. Everything God says is true and every man a liar.
Scripture is the test of truth. Jesus said, God’s Word is truth. As an example, today so-called experts talk about climate change and the end of life on earth. We reject those claims. Even the evidence outside the Bible challenges their assertions, but the Bible presents a different view.
The Bible Guides the Right Interpretation of History
The Bible provides the authoritative basis for the right interpretation of history. If a view of history contradicts the Bible, believers accept the Bible over the view. Isaiah 40 to 48 talks about the interpretation of history. Isaiah calls these “the former matters.” Isaiah, because of God, could relate former matters with present and future ones. God sees it all at all times. He knows it all.
Since the Bible is true, it is also evidence. This is a matter of faith. We believe it, based on that evidence. It guides our interpretation. When we look back at what happened, we start with presuppositions based upon the Bible. Our interpretation of history must conform to the Bible.
In the recent debate with James White, Thomas Ross started with scriptural presuppositions. They are true. God said what He would do with scripture. We might not prove the fulfillment of these presuppositions outside of scripture. They’re still true.
If God said He would preserve every word, God would make all of them available to every generation of believers, and He would use the church to do it, that’s what we believe. What God said provides the authoritative basis for the right interpretation of history. I believe what God said He would do, because what He said is true.
What Pleases God
When people come up with other points of view on preservation that reject or deny what God said, I reject those. They may say they have evidence. I will look at it, and I have. Their so-called evidence is an interpretation of history. That’s all it is. They say this and that about Erasmus or Beza or Athanasius that all conforms to their naturalistic point of view. I listen to it, see how it fits into a biblical view of history, and if it doesn’t, I don’t believe it. That is what pleases God.
How I look at the history of the preservation of scripture is also how I look at the history of the preservation of the church. It is how I look at the history of Christian doctrine. Because I don’t believe in an apostasy of orthodox doctrine and practice, I reject that it happened. History seems to say it did in certain instances, but how trustworthy is history before the printing press?
Example
James White uses the example of Athanasius as proof that the Comma Johanneum (important part of 1 John 5:7) did not exist at that time. Athanasius didn’t quote it apparently. First, we have to depend on Athanasius. Then we have to rely on the report of Athanasius. Did someone report him accurately? And then we have to trust the preservation of the report of Athanasius. Why was this report preserved and other reports not? To the victors go the spoils.
On some doctrinal content, not necessarily this one, did the Roman Catholics control the flow of information and destroy what did not confirm its doctrine? Someone can say it’s true, because they read something. James White did that. It works today for his point of view. Did what he say fit with scriptural presuppositions? He says it fit with Athanasius, and what scripture says, be gone. I reject his interpretation of it because it contradicts scriptural presuppositions. That is how believers should interpret history.
Greeks Seek After Wisdom
Paul said the Jews seek after signs. They validated with signs. He said, Greeks seek after wisdom. They validated with wisdom. For something to be true, was it accompanied by signs? For something to be true, does wisdom confirm it? Believers say, the foolishness of preaching, which is the substance of preaching from scripture. That glorifies God.
When James White and others present their wisdom, who is glorified? They are. When we speak, they say it sounds like foolishness. Does this sound familiar when you think about what the Apostle Paul said?
God’s Purpose to Redeem Men from All Nations
Jehovah, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, had a purpose to redeem sinners from all nations from eternity past, in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament. I have had the privilege of preaching the Missions Conference at West Coast Baptist Church in Oceanside, California this week. They are a church that seeks to glorify God and follow His Word, and I thank the Lord for their faithfulness to Him and their hospitality to us.
We (often, and properly) emphasize that the Great Commission teaches that the churches must go into all the world and make disciples of men from all nations. However, God has had a purpose to reach all peoples on the earth in every dispensation, both in those in the past and those that are upcoming. In the conference we looked at God’s purpose to reach all nations in those other dispensations that, at times, we do not think about as much, before we began to analyze the Great Commission for this period of time. So if you have never thought much about Jehovah’s heart to save sinners from all nations in all periods of time, and how that works out, perhaps the messages below from their missions conference may be a blessing. In their weekday services there are two preachers; the other preacher’s message from the Monday, Pastor David Sutton, certainly preached a great message well worth listening to, but it does not as directly relate to the theme of this blog post. After listening to these messages, be encouraged to participate in a greater way in the Great Commission yourself, and start doing more to contribute to God’s eternal purpose that “every creature” hear the gospel and that people from “all nations” give Him eternal praise.
Message #1: God’s Purpose to Redeem Sinners From All Nations–from Creation and into Israel’s History
Message #2: God’s Purpose to Redeem Sinners From All Nations–from Israel’s History through the New Testament Dispensation into the Future Tribulation, Millennium, and Eternal State:
Message #3: God’s Purpose to Redeem Sinners From All Nations Settled in Eternity Past:
–TDR
Revivalism or Fake Revival, Jesus Revolution, and Asbury, pt. 3
Religious or Spiritual Ecstasy, Soft Continuationism
Again and again through the years, I wrote on religious ecstasy, a perversion of true spirituality experienced in Corinth (1 Corinthians 12:1-3) [see here, here, here, here, here, and here]. In 1 Corinthians 1, when Paul said that the Jews seek after signs (1 Cor 1:22), they were seeking for some experiential means of authenticating their spirituality. God settled the faith once and for all (Jude 1:3) with the completion of scripture. God chooses to use the oracles of God and that glorifies Him (1 Peter 4:11).
With true signs not available, except for something demonically manufactured to impersonate them, men use cheap, superficial counterfeits. Usually these are a form of what some termed, “soft continuationism.” What Paul confronted in Corinth was ecstatic experience. Ecstasy means: “an emotional or religious frenzy or trance-like state, originally one involving an experience of mystic self-transcendence” More than any other way, to give this mystical feeling that the Holy Spirit is working, what is religious ecstasy, comes through music.
Asbury “Revival”
A Description
Someone seeking to justify the recent Asbury, Kentucky experience as revival, challenged what I wrote in part one in the comment section, to which I wrote on March 2:
I watched the earliest posted meeting at Asbury and zoomed through a very long period of Charismatic style emotionalism, repetitious, rock rhythmed, sentimental, superficial, doctrinally ambiguous, led by women, ecstatic music before getting to the “sermon,” which was nothing like Edwards or Whitefield. Maybe the aesthetic and spirit of the so-called worship means nothing to you, but it clashed with the biblical nature of God. It more reminded me of a Corinthian style revival.
If Charles Finney were alive, he would likely be proud of it. Everyone appeared in the egalitarian, postmodern casual, sloppy, and disordered dress (ripped blue jeans, etc.), giving no indication of anyone in authority. The man I heard used a few verses from a modern version, but at best you would be unsure what salvation was. It sounded more like Jesus as therapist. His list of sins that you put into your makeshift cup to give to Jesus included racism and terrorism. No one would even know who Jesus was, why or what it meant to believe in Him.
In Contrast
I continued.
I heard no biblical exposition. This is an updated kind of revival for today’s generation, like one of those Bibles with a hippie cover, to show how relevant the Bible could become. All of what I saw and heard conformed to the spirit of the age, would not dare distinguish itself, probably could not do that and be acceptable to that crowd.
It seemed that people in the audience were stirred to a certain degree. They were affected. I saw some emotion. Is that indications of the Holy Spirit? I have seen the same spirit, aroused by music in Charismatic settings, giving the impression that something spiritual is going on, but it choreographed by the feelings led by the music.
Similar Comments at the Shepherd’s Conference on March 8-10
After I wrote that on March 2, in the Q and A at his Shepherd’s Conference (the conference was March 8-10), someone asked John MacArthur about the Asbury so-called “revival.” The host referenced Jonathan Edwards and his historic and biblical teaching on the marks of revival. If it is revival, Edwards would say it must bear certain marks, or else it is fraudulent, a kind of impersonation like I said above. He said one assesses a true work of God based upon the Word of God and not emotion or feelings.
John MacArthur and Scott Aniol
MacArthur commented then on the Asbury Revival:
For most of those kids, it was not about Christ, but about the chords. It was about singing the same words for twenty minutes in a row in some kind of mesmerizing pseudo-spiritual experience that had no relationship to sound doctrine, to the depth of the gospel. I would like to know if that same revival would have occurred without the music. Shut the music down and find out what God is really doing.
I’m glad to hear MacArthur say essentially the same thing I said. Scott Aniol also picked up on this with an excellent article, you all should read, written on March 13, entitled, “Christ or Chords? The Manipulated Emotionalism of Hillsong, Asbury, and Pentecostalized Evangelical Worship.” He picked up on the comment by MacArthur, “not about Christ, but about the chords.” This is such an important theme for today.
Strange Fire?
MacArthur in the past gave a pass to contemporary style worship, using it in his own conference again and again. If anyone, like myself, criticized it, the MacArthur allies came out of the woodwork to attack me vehemently. In his now renowned Strange Fire Conference, MacArthur said the following, actually in contradiction of much of his own historic practice:
The contemporary evangelical church has very little interest in theology and doctrine, so you’re going to have a tough sell. It’s about style. And style is the Trojan Horse that lets Charismatics in the church. Because once you let the music in, the movement follows. It all of a sudden becomes common.
We sound like the Charismatics, sing like they do, have the same emotional feelings that they have. It’s a small step from doing the same music to buying into the movement. So the tough thing is you’re going back to a church that is thinking like that. It’s hard to make sound doctrine the issue when style is much more the interest of the leaders of the church.
Later he said:
I don’t think it has to do with what the teachers are saying. I think it’s the music. It’s like getting drunk so you don’t have to think about the issues of life. If you shut down the music, turn on the lights, and have someone get up there and try to sell that with just words, it’s not going to work. You’ve got to have some way to manipulate their minds.
Consistency and Discernment
The people MacArthur used in the Shepherd’s Conference in the past use a Charismatic style of worship, led by women very often, and giving the same kind of trance-like ecstatic experience. I believe he’s changing on this, and Scott Aniol latches on to that in his article.
Independent and even unaffiliated Baptists regularly produce their ecstasy in a kind of soft continuationism. It is a huge lack of discernment and it is very often ignored completely as a matter of fellowship. In other words, they encourage false worship through these forms of strange fire. Let this be a serious warning to us all and for the glory of God.
The White-Ross Debate: Who Won?
Watch the Debate
White and Ross Arguments
White’s Presentation
In mid-February, James White debated Thomas Ross about which was better, the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) or the King James Version (KJV). White argues with an entirely naturalistic presupposition, saying that only manuscript evidence shows the underlying text of the KJV, the Textus Receptus (TR), is worse than that of the LSB, the Nestles Aland critical text (NA). Furthermore, he says the KJV uses archaic words and has less information for an accurate translation of certain technical words. He also tries to demonstrate some translation errors in the KJV, not in the LSB.
Ross’s Scriptural Presuppositions
Ross argues with a scriptural presupposition. The TR is superior to the NA based on the doctrine of preservation. The TR meets God’s promises of preservation in His Word. Ross asserts and then proves that scripture teaches verbal plenary original language preservation by means of true churches for every generation of believers. He also shows this identical teaching is the historical position clearly believed by the church, relying on the same passages. The NA is absent from its confessions or published materials. The TR only fits a scriptural and historical presupposition.
On the other hand, Ross shows that we know that the NA text was not in use for at least 1000 years. That isn’t preservation. Founders and proponents of the critical text, such as Wescott and Hort, deny the scriptural and historical doctrine of preservation. Like White, they take an only naturalistic presupposition and method. This alone is enough to say the TR/KJV is superior to the NA/LSB, because the latter does not proceed from biblical presuppositions or methods.
Naturalistic, Manuscript Evidence
Conjectural Emendations
In addition, even using naturalistic means, the sole criteria of White, Ross shows the NA is inferior to the TR. Ross gives evidence that the editors of the NA 27th edition, the underlying text for the LSB, used over 100 “explicit conjectural emendations.” He provides two examples of this in Acts 16:12 and 2 Peter 3:10. This debunks the one apparent example of conjectural emendation in the TR in Revelation 16:5.
Over 100 conjectural emendations is worse than the one example of White. Reader, do you understand the truth here? It’s a hypocritical argument that doesn’t work. Please do not give a blind eye to this out of sheer loyalty to White and his winning a debate. This is the truth. It shouldn’t matter how fast Thomas Ross said it. Speaking fast is a red herring as an argument.
No Manuscript Evidence
White asserts no manuscript evidence for one NT reading, the one in Revelation 16:5. He says there is light evidence for one word in Ephesians 3:9 and the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7. Ross shows there is no manuscript evidence for at least 41 separate lines of text in the NA, evidenced by Swanson in his New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus. None of this occurs in the TR. Based on the ratio of Matthew and Mark text to the rest of the New Testament, that would result in 191 total for the NT.
How could textual critics publish a text like described? Even as a so-called science, textual critics don’t see their work as a science at all. Ross quotes this from Metzger and Ehrman in their foremost book on textual criticism. They don’t see anyone able to refer to the text as an original text. This strongly contradicts the position of the church based on biblical presuppositions. Ross quotes White himself in his debate with Douglas Wilson, that we will never have a certain text.
On the issue of the text alone, Ross blows away White. The TR is by far a superior text. When White mentions the papyri, Ross shows him the earliest, P52, a piece of the gospel of John that is identical to the TR. After praising the papyri, White changes tunes and says that it was a very small fragment, attempting to have it both ways. Relying on Pickering and Hoskier, Ross shows how that there are long sections of identical readings of the TR in the manuscripts. He includes photos of these.
White Attacks on Ross
White tries to attack the KJV by bringing up one possible conjectural emendation, one for which apparently Beza says he had a manuscript. One word in Ephesians 3:9 has limited manuscript support. He attacks the TR reading in 1 John 5:7. White doesn’t rely on scriptural presuppositions. Counting manuscripts and their age, that’s what he’s got. This is not how believers approached this issue. White himself says that the NA wasn’t available for hundreds of years. He speaks like this is a good thing. It is an obvious admittance, that Ross pointed out, that God did not preserve his text.
To be honest, White should accede to the Ross argument about no manuscript evidence for NA readings in 41 places in Matthew and Mark. Instead, he starts talking like they don’t matter for the translation. This shows a double standard. He attacks the TR in Revelation 16:5, one place, and excuses 41 places. He even apologizes for the NA27, the basis of the LSB, what he’s trying to defend in the debate. White says he doesn’t trust the editors, but he does his own textual criticism.
The Translation Issue
White spends some time on the translation issue. Ross answered him. The Granville Sharp rule doesn’t hurt the translation of the KJV in Titus 2:13. The LSB is fine there. Ross makes the point that Jude 1:4 fits the Granville Sharp in the KJV, while in the LSB, it does not. That point received crickets from White. Relating to the lexical issue of technical terms, Ross says that they’re still difficult to understand for identifying what those animals and minerals were. The lexical aids can help in understanding, but they do not resolve this issue in either the KJV and LSB.
Ross and White spent time discussing the translation of the Hebrew of Yawheh or Jehovah (or LORD) in the Old Testament. Ross referred to the pronunciation of the vowel points, a fine argument. Ross also gave a good answer on “servant” or “slave.” The Hebrew word is not always our modern understanding of “slave.”
Other Problems for White
White said he believed we have all the words in all of the manuscript evidence, and yet he contradicts himself in 1 Samuel 13:1, pointed out by Ross. White doesn’t believe there is a manuscript with the wording of that verse. I guess people don’t care about that contradiction. He doesn’t believe in preservation, we know that from his Douglas Wilson answer, exposed by Ross in the debate.
As well, White referred to a Hebrews reference to the prophet Jeremiah. He said the author quoted the Greek Septuagint, essentially arguing that the author of Hebrews and then Jesus in the Gospels used a corrupt text. Modern critical text advocates use this Septuagint argument as a kind of scriptural presupposition.
Ross gave White a good answer on the Septuagint question, referring to the theology of John Owen. Owen answered this point in his writings. He also quoted the introduction of a standard academic text on the Septuagint by Jobes and Silva, taking the same position as Owen espoused. This debunks the false view that Jesus and other NT authors would have quoted a terribly corrupted text and translation of the Old Testament.
Style Points?
In the end, White had to attack Thomas Ross for his style, reading too fast and having too many slides. Come on. Keep it to the subject at hand. Easily, someone could attack White for style. White broad brushes TR and King James supporters with inflammatory language all the time. When Ross shook his hand at the end and gave him a book, White sat there looking disdainful. White attacked his character after the debate, saying he was showing off. He almost always name-drops and mentions his debate of Bart Ehrman and his 180 debates as automatic winning credentials.
In the comment section of the videos, people attack Ross for mentioning winning the debate. They are debating. If White won, his followers would say this again and again. It’s a picky criticism. There is criteria for a debate. Ross negates the affirmative of White and puts him on the defensive. That’s the definition of winning a debate.
Answering Questions
Some people have said that Ross didn’t answer White’s questions. I ask them, which did he not answer? They are silent. White, attacking Ross for perfect preservation, something the debate wasn’t about, tries to catch Ross in a gotcha moment by asking about Revelation 16:5. Ross says that he sympathizes with Beza’s having a manuscript with the word there. That is an answer.
White asks Ross if the King James translators could have done a better job in Acts 5:30. Ross said they were both fine, but KJV wasn’t wrong. That is an answer too. Like Ross, I believe the KJV is an accurate translation. That doesn’t mean I or he wouldn’t translate it differently.
On sheer content alone, Ross crushed White in this debate. He wins because of his scriptural presuppositions. The Bible is the truth. Where the Bible speaks, that is reality. Anything that contradicts it is false. Even on the evidence, Ross won, because based on White criteria, he showed the NA had weak to no manuscript evidence. White tried to avoid this, just by saying that Ross misrepresented the evidence. Ross didn’t. White was not prepared for this argument. It’s not going to change either, because that evidence is still true.
James White / Thomas Ross Bible Version Debate (KJV vs LSB) is Now Live!
I am happy to report that you can now watch the James White / Thomas Ross debate on Bible versions (the King James Version Only debate)! The topic was:
“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
James White was in the affirmative.
Thomas Ross was in the negative.
The debate can now be viewed on the following sites (click for your choice): FaithSaves Rumble YouTube
It can also be watched using the embedded video below:
Please “like” the video on YouTube and Rumble and share comments about it on those websites as well as on the blog here.
I am thankful for the work put in by the follower of James White who edited the video. I would like to have a somewhat improved version where one can see both the debaters and the slides at the same time, instead of only one or the other, and if that project gets completed, we will definitely plan to inform the blog readership about it.
May the truth of the perfect preservation of His infallible Word be more widely received as a result of this debate. Soli Deo Gloria!
Please also read the James White / Thomas Ross Bible Version debate review, part 1, here (with more to come) or watch the video on FaithSaves, Rumble or YouTube. Lord willing, there are more parts to come reviewing the debate and its arguments.
–TDR
Done. Yes, But….
REVIEW OF BOOK BY CARY SCHMIDT
Many times through my life, someone said, “Christianity is a ‘done’ religion, not a ‘do’ one.” Or something very close to that. I gravitate toward that message; done, not do. Sounds right. It is, insofar you treat “done” right.
Many who write “done” don’t give it the right definition. Let me explain.
Cary Schmidt and Done.
Cary Schmidt came from Hyles-Anderson in the Hyles days. He went to Lancaster Baptist Church, which is also West Coast Baptist College. Then he left there to Newington, Connecticut, where he still is. He wrote the booklet, “Done,” which many churches hand to the lost in evangelistic packets and to new converts. Many, many. Hundreds of churches hand out thousands of this book. It’s a tiny little book. It’s short, small, and easy to read.
I have never joined the West Coast and Lancaster, spiritual leadership and striving together, orbit. I’ve explained why here in the past. It relates to doctrine, the gospel, and ministry philosophy. I would not send anyone else into that sphere of influence either. If someone was in it, I would encourage him to get out. This does relate to the book, “done,” among many other things.
Before I talk about the problems of a false view of “done,” what is right about it?
What Is Right about Done.
Nothing is wrong with the general idea or concept of Done. It’s good. Jesus said on the cross, “It is finished” (tetelestai, perfect passive). Jesus did everything on the cross for any person’s salvation. He completed the work of salvation. It’s results are ongoing (perfect tense).
Hebrews 10:12 says about the Lord Jesus Christ: “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Four times the book of Hebrews records that Jesus sat down (Hebrews 1:3, 13; 10:2; 12:2). He sat down because His work on the cross paid the penalty for sin. He sat down too because of His burial, bodily resurrection, and ascension, all included and necessary for “done.” The gospel includes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-3).
No doubt, Jesus did everything. We needed what He finished. Religions and people in those religions, which teach and preach salvation by works, need to hear this “done” message. They say “do” instead of “done.”
So, what’s wrong? What’s wrong with “Done”? Nothing is wrong with the word “done.” We like it. Does Schmidt represent it properly though? He does not.
What Is Wrong
A False Presentation
One, what does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ? Jesus did everything, but how do we access what He did? Schmidt in his little booklet says you’ve got to take the gift Jesus gave like opening a gift on Christmas morning. He makes the reception of the gift then, a two step process (p. 83): (1) Believe the gift is free, that it doesn’t cost you anything. (2) Receive the gift.
The way Schmidt describes it, the gift is under the tree, there wrapped and ready to take. People do not get the gift because they won’t believe that gift is free and then because they think they might have to pay, they don’t take it. Children know their gifts are free under the tree. People in evangelism, however, according to Schmidt can’t or don’t believe salvation is free.
The way you get the gift, Schmidt says, is ask for the gift. You believe that the gift is free. That is believing. Jesus paid for the gift, you don’t have to do that. It is done. Then you’ve got to receive the gift. Schmidt makes those the two steps for receiving the free gift of salvation. That is false. This is the major way that “done” fails. It is a big falsehood. There really is very little different between what he says and 1-2-3, pray with me. It’s a lengthier presentation of 1-2-3, pray-with-me.
Misuse or Perverting of Scripture
To make his completely false assertion about the gospel and salvation, Schmidt misuses verses of scripture: Romans 10:9, 13, Acts 16:31, and John 3:16. He leaves out important exposition of those verses. He makes them mean something other than what they mean. As a result, he twists all of the gospels and their presentation of Jesus Christ. I would call it a very carefully crafted falsehood.
The deceit of the “done” message comes from getting one portion of the message of salvation right and twisting another vital part of it. Many false religions do that, present some truth with error. People understandably love the “done” part of the gospel.
If you ask almost anyone in the United States, “Did Jesus die for you?” He will answer, “Yes.” In all my years of evangelism, almost everyone believes Jesus died for them. Schmidt leaves out the part of the plan of salvation that is the biggest stumblingblock to the lost, the most offensive part. He eliminates the hard part, maybe on purpose or maybe because people deceived him in the past (perhaps Hyles and Lancaster?).
Head Knowledge/Heart Knowledge?
Schmidt (pp. 86-87) says the problem for people is that they get the ticket of salvation (head knowledge) but they won’t get on the plane (heart knowledge). This is a false dichotomy about head knowledge and heart knowledge. It’s useful to make it sound right, even though it isn’t.
Schmidt is right that some people think they need to earn their salvation. They add works to grace. That is not the difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge though. They will not acknowledge ( in their heads) that Jesus paid it all, because their religion says they must contribute to what Jesus did. However, that is not the biggest stumbling block today for English speaking people.
At the end of his book, Schmidt challenges the reader to become “done” instead of “do” by praying a prayer, which he records at the end to pray. He might argue, “I argue that someone who prays that prayer, the way he receives the gift, he will become a new creature.” When you read that short chapter, you find out that you become a new creature in that God takes your sins away as you pray that prayer. You are new now. You are forgiven, because you have prayed that prayer. The change is a removal of sin. Then you will grow as a Christian, whatever that means.
No Repentance or Lordship
“Done” says absolutely nothing about repentance. Schmidt excludes repentance from the presentation. When he quotes Romans 10:9, which says, “confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,” he says nothing about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Christ will do everything for you. You just need to pray that prayer. That is the way you receive the free gift after believing it is free. Heaven is free for you, just pray the prayer.
Both Jesus and John the Baptist preached, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” To receive the kingdom of heaven, someone needed to receive Jesus Christ as King, which is to receive Jesus Christ. They needed to relinquish their own kingdom for His. This is not like asking for and receiving a gift. The kingdom of heaven is a gift, but it requires repentance. Where is that in this presentation? It isn’t there.
What About Believing in and Receiving Jesus Christ?
“Done” leaves out receiving Jesus Christ for who He is. “Done” leaves out a presentation of the Person of Jesus Christ. Nothing then is done, because someone does not know who Jesus is or receive Him.
Schmidt makes “done” about receiving the gift. No. Absolutely not. “Done” is about receiving Jesus Christ. John 1:12 says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” John 3:16 and Acts 16:31 both say, “believe in Jesus Christ.” Schmidt leaves that out. He quotes the two verses and says they mean, “Pray a prayer.”
Like John says at the end of his gospel, ‘believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ To get into the kingdom, you must receive the King. You are not in charge anymore, Jesus is. Schmidt leaves all that out, which is the biggest difficulty that people have with the gospel.
By doing what he did, Schmidt deceives his reader on the gospel. Most people reading what he wrote will not know what salvation is. He perverts the gospel of Christ by leaving out what scripture says about believing in and receiving Jesus Christ.
More to Come (I will deal with problem number two of “Done”)
Revivalism or Fake Revival, Jesus Revolution, and Asbury, pt. 2
When someone speaks of revival, built into the terminology is a return to something right, that was wrong. A change takes place. True revival is not the invention of something new, not seen before in the history of true, biblical Christianity.
Hippie Movement from Haight Ashbury, San Francisco
In the 1960s, especially centered in Woodstock, New York and the Haight Ashbury District, San Francisco, a hippie movement began. Called the flower children, they distributed flowers or floral decorations to symbolize their peace, love, universal belonging and protest the Vietnam War. They formed their own counter culture.
Men of the culture at large still wore short hair, which conforms to biblical teaching (cf. 1 Cor 11:14). God willed men to keep this gender distinction. Male hippies rebelled against God’s design by growing long hair — not just long, but not combed or neat either. Today some might call what hippies wore, “casual dress.” They spurred this informal appearance, a kind of egalitarianism communicating that no one was above anyone else. More than that, they appeared slovenly, unkept, disordered, and ragged, some now might call “authenticity.”
Being hippy also meant sex, drugs, and rock n roll for adherents of the hippie lifestyle. Christians at no point in history would permit those as “Christian liberty,” a manifestation of God’s grace. Hippies practiced free sex, ignoring the conventional and biblical requirement of marriage. They took drugs like LSD and marijuana apparently to enhance their experience. While others sat on chairs, they went so far even to forego those for the floor or ground. Many wouldn’t wear shoes, embracing their noble savage, uncorrupted by civilization.
Jesus Freaks
Northern California Move to Southern
With the growth of hippiedom, some went into the Haight Ashbury district of San Francisco to bring the Bible to the hippies. I’ve met some from that time period and they believed that their drugs took them out of their bodies into a greater God consciousness, an ecstatic experience that transcended themselves. Then they tried to take this novel Christianity into some Northern California churches. When no churches accepted, this branch of religious hippies, known as Jesus Freaks, moved to Southern California.
Lonnie Frisbee
The Jesus Freak hippies, who migrated South, were under the influence of a leader named Lonnie Frisbee. Randall Roberts, reporter for the Los Angeles Times, wrote about Frisbee in an article titled, “Jesus, drugs and rock ’n’ roll: How an O.C. hippie church birthed contemporary Christian music”:
The birth of contemporary Christian rock and pop music in America can in part be traced to a vision received by a 17-year-old runaway from Costa Mesa named Lonnie Frisbee.
After stripping naked and taking LSD in 1967 near Tahquitz Falls outside of Palm Springs, the young man called to God.
As water from the falls crashed, Frisbee, who wore his hair and beard like the archetypal Jesus Christ, saw himself standing beside the Pacific Ocean, Bible in hand, staring out at the horizon. But instead of water, the sea was filled with lost souls crying out for salvation.
“God, if you’re really real, reveal yourself to me,” Frisbee, who died of AIDS in 1993, later recalled pleading. “And one afternoon, the whole atmosphere of this canyon I was in started to tingle and get light and it started to change — and I’m just going, ‘Uh oh!’”
Frisbee dressed like the popular, secular notion or stereotype of Jesus with flowing robe and long hair, using soft-spoken tones also ala the flower children. It played well with the rebellion of the hippy subculture. At first the hippies met on the beach and baptized in the ocean. They used 1-2-3 pray-with-me evangelism, where someone prayed the prayer and was dunked under the waves shortly thereafter. Their view of grace brought forgiveness and eternal life, while still being and living like a hippie.
Rejecting the Historical Church, Its Doctrine, Practice, and Worship
Chuck Smith
The Jesus Freaks found a welcoming host in a buttoned down traditional four-square Pentecostal church with Chuck Smith as its pastor. He had 25 in his congregation in 1965. His church sang hymns. He wore a dark suit and tie. That changed.
Smith’s encounter with Lonnie Frisbee offered the opportunity to take these hippies into his customary church. Smith did not come from a historical line of Christian churches. His trajectory came from the early 20th century heritage of the modern Charismatic or Pentecostal movement, founded on the continuation of sign gifts for today. Smith could embrace further deviation from orthodox, historic doctrine, practice, and worship. In 2018, John MacArthur described Smith’s predicament:
What’s he going to do? What’s the church going to do? So they had a meeting and they decided that, “We’ll lose them [speaking of his whole congregation] and they’ll [the hippies or Jesus Freaks] leave if we don’t accommodate them.” They didn’t like the music; they didn’t like the dress code; they didn’t like anything. For the first time in church history that I can find, an aberrant, small, deviant, subculture redefined the character of a church.
Acquiescing to a Youth Culture
On another occasion and I agree with him, MacArthur said, characterizing this Jesus Revolution:
That was already being discussed a lot of places, because the hippie movement caught fire across America – the movement of rebellion against authority, responsibility, duty, expectation; rebellion against right, honor; it caught fire. So the church feared, “We’re going to lose these people if we don’t acquiesce.” So for the first time when the Jesus people came to church, first time I can find in church history, the church began to redefine its own identity and worship based upon the wishes of a rebellious subculture. That definition started then and spread; started in California, spread clear across the country.
Prior to the ‘60s, nobody expected a church service to be rock concert. Nobody expected a church service to be entertainment, . . . worship to be physical stimulation, emotional feelings without engaging your mind, . . . church to be a manipulation of people’s desires to fulfill their own self-styled identity. A church was a church, and it was a place where there was thoughtful, prayerful, biblical, sober-minded hearing from the Word of God, leading to conviction and edification and elevation. It was a heavenly encounter.
Modern Generation
MacArthur continued:
But to this modern generation of young people – serious, sober, thoughtful, scriptural preaching about God, and confrontation of sin, and a call to holiness, and a call to separate from the world and from iniquity is far too absolute and far too offensive. People who want to feel good about themselves the way they are don’t want that, so the . . . church caved in and gave them what they want. And now pastors continue to accommodate those same people – irresponsible, lazy, undisciplined rebels who want what they want – and the church, instead of confronting it, conforms to it. No preaching on sanctification, no preaching on holiness can be done in those environments; they’d empty the place.
Broken People?
Professing Christian leaders now justify the Jesus revolution as ‘God using broken people.” He used Samson and David, is the explanation. God used Peter, but Peter was a believer, filled with the Holy Spirit, obedient to Jesus Christ, when he preached on the Day of Pentecost. He does not use unbelievers, these “broken people,” for a flurry of conversions.
God does not use believers, who are living in sin. They are vessels unto dishonor, who are not meet for the Master’s use. The Jesus revolution was not a blessing to Christianity, to the church, or to the world. This revolution started something new and wrong. It was a bad revolution, like many other revolutions in the history of the world.
David Wilkerson and Historic Confrontation of Jesus Freaks
David Wilkerson was a mainstream evangelical in the late 1950s and through the 1970s. He is known for the popular Christian book, The Cross and the Switchblade. Youtube above showed a historic confrontation he had in the 1960s with the Jesus Freaks that indicates how much they clashed then with even evangelicalism. These men present a deviant view of biblical sanctification, however, a false view that has become much more mainstream today in evangelicalism.
The Jesus Freak argument with Wilkerson represents a neo-libertine view of sanctification. It combines with a portion of early woke or social justice warrior. For instance, in the video above these men contradict Wilkerson by judging him by the standard Jesus imposed on the rich young ruler. Sell all that you have and give it to the poor. They see righteousness in their disheveled look, which someone could pose just as easily as any external or formal appearance. Conveniently, they evince faith parallel with the lifestyle preferred by hippies.
More to Come
James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review Video #1
After my debate with James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, James posted his post-debate thoughts. (I have also written a few thoughts.) I was quite surprised to hear him make affirmations about my character such as that he “knew” I was “not intending to” bring the audience along with me, that I had a “really, really deep disrespect for the audience,” that “Ross didn’t care. He wasn’t debating for us,” that I did not understand what a text type was, or even “anything like that at all,” and so on, rather than expositing Scripture on its own preservation or demonstrating that even one quotation in my presentation, or one fact I pointed out, was inaccurate. I believe that the fact that he spent his post-debate analysis attacking me instead of dealing with my arguments may tell you something about how the debate went–I was very thankful for the blessing of the Lord in the debate itself for the cause of God’s truth. (Let me just add that not one of the thoughts James claims that he “knew” about my motives and so on, to my recollection, even entered my mind one time before I heard him make them in his post-debate analysis.)
The debate video itself, Lord willing, will be live soon; it takes a lot more work to get a video like that done than it does to create a video where I am just ruminating about the debate. Feel free to subscribe to my Rumble and YouTube channels to get notified as soon as the video becomes available.
You can watch my initial post-debate response, giving my thoughts on how it went, as well as responding to James White’s allegations, with the embedded video below, at faithsaves.net, on Rumble, or on YouTube.
My sincere thanks again to those who prayed for me and for those who helped in many other ways.
–TDR
Recent Comments