Home » Posts tagged 'history'
Tag Archives: history
Christ’s Genealogies: Eusebius / Africanus on Matthew & Luke
The genealogies in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke both record the family history of the Lord Jesus Christ. Matthew traces the Lord’s genealogy back to Abraham, while Luke traces the geneology back to Adam. Critics have argued that there are insoluble contradictions between the two genealogies. This blog has looked at other alleged contradictions in the Bible in other posts. (Also see here, where a video discussing a different attack on these genealogies is referenced; see also the videos here.) Are they correct?
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke
Matthew wrote:
1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. (Matthew 1:1-17)
Luke wrote:
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:23-38)
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: Joseph’s and Mary’s Line?
There are a variety of options Christian scholars have offered to reconcile these two accounts. Gleason Archer, for example, proposes that Luke records the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew records the genealogy of Joseph. Thus, the Lord Jesus would be part of the line of David through both of His human parents–both His adopted human father, Joseph, and His human mother, Mary, were descendants of king David:
Matthew 1:1–16 gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was himself a descendant of King David. As Joseph’s adopted Son, Jesus became his legal heir, so far as his inheritance was concerned. Notice carefully the wording of v.16: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (NASB). This stands in contrast to the format followed in the preceding verses of the succession of Joseph’s ancestors: “Abraham begat [egennēsen] Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc.” Joseph is not said to have begotten Jesus; rather he is referred to as “the husband of Mary, of whom [feminine genitive] Jesus was born.”
Luke 3:23–38, on the other hand, seems to record the genealogical line of Mary herself, carried all the way back beyond the time of Abraham to Adam and the commencement of the human race. This seems to be implied by the wording of v.23: “Jesus … being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.” This “as was supposed” indicates that Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph, even though this was commonly assumed by the public. It further calls attention to the mother, Mary, who must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Her genealogy is thereupon listed, starting with Heli, who was actually Joseph’s father-in-law, in contradistinction to Joseph’s own father, Jacob (Matt. 1:16). Mary’s line of descent came through Nathan, a son of Bathsheba (or “Bathshua,” according to 1 Chron. 3:5), the wife of David. Therefore, Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon. (Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982], 316).
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: The Legal Line and The Blood Line?
Other scholars have offered other solutions. For example, Smith’s Bible Dictionary argues:
The New Testament gives us the genealogy of but one person, that of our Saviour. This is given because it was important to prove that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies spoken of him. Only as the son and heir of David should he be the Messiah. The following propositions will explain the true construction of these genealogies:—
1. They are both the genealogies of Joseph, i.e. of Jesus Christ as the reputed and legal son of Joseph and Mary.
2. The genealogy of St. Matthew is Joseph’s genealogy as legal successor to the throne of David. St. Luke’s is Joseph’s private Genealogy, exhibiting his real birth as David’s son, and thus showing why he was heir to Solomon’s crown. The simple principle that one evangelist exhibits that genealogy which contained the successive heir to David’s and Solomon’s throne, while the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who was the heir, explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees, their agreements as well as their discrepancies, and the circumstance of there being two at all.
3. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in all probability the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph her husband. Thus: Matthan or Matthat Father of Jacob, Heli Jacob Father of Mary = Jacob’e heir was (Joseph) Heli Father of Joseph JESUS, called Christ. (Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, rendering (Luke 3:23) thus: Jesus “being (as was suppposed) the son of Joseph, (but in reality) the son of Heli.” In this case Mary, as declared in the Targums, was the daughter of Heli, and Heli was the grandfather of Jesus. Mary’s name was omitted because “ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link.” So we often find in the Old Testament the grandson called the son. This view has this greatly in its favor, that it shows that Jesus was not merely the legal but the actual descendant of David; and it would be very strange that in the gospel accounts, where so much is made of Jesus being the son and heir of David and of his kingdom his real descent from David should not be given. (“Genealogy of Jesus Christ,” in William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 1884).
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: An Ancient Explanation by Africanus Recorded in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History
The early church historian Eusebius records a fascinating option for reconciling the genealogies in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Eusebius reproduces information from the Christian writer Africanus, who was born in the second half of the 2nd century A. D. What is this explanation of the two genealogies that derives from the A. D. 100s?
Africanus … [was born] AD 170, or a little earlier, and died AD 240, or a little later. … [He] ranks with Clement and Origen as among the most learned of the ante-Nicene fathers. … His great work, which was intended to give a comparative view of sacred and profane history from the creation of the world, demanded an extensive range of reading; and the fragments that remain contain references to the works of a considerable number of historical writers. … his letter to Aristides, of whom nothing else is known, [comments] on the discrepancy between our Saviour’s genealogies as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke. … Africanus insists on the necessity of maintaining the literal truth of the Gospel narrative, and … proceeds to give his own explanation, founded on the levirate law of the Jews, and professing to be traditionally derived from the Desposyni (or descendants of the kindred of our Lord), who dwelt near the villages of Nazareth and Cochaba. According to this view Matthew gives the natural, Luke the legal, descent of our Lord. Matthan, it is said, of the house of Solomon, and Melchi of the house of Nathan, married the same woman, whose name is given as Estha. Heli the son of Melchi (the names Matthat and Levi found in our present copies of St. Luke are omitted by Africanus), having died childless, his uterine brother Jacob, Matthan’s son, took his wife and raised up seed to him; so that the offspring Joseph was legally Heli’s son as stated by St. Luke, but naturally Jacob’s son as stated by St. Matthew. (George Salmon, “Africanus, Julius,” ed. William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines [London: John Murray, 1877–1887], 54-55)
Eusebus, in his Ecclesiastical History, records the words of Africanus:
1 Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides, where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he gives the account which he had received from tradition in these words:
2 “For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to law,—according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated;—
3 whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both—of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.
4 Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.
5 But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.
6 Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.
7 Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.
8 By Estha then (for this was the woman’s name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her, as before said, and begat a son Eli.
9 Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.
10 Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But Luke, on the other hand, says: ‘Who was the son, as was supposed’ (for this he also adds), ‘of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi’; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression ‘he begat’ he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.
11 For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account: Some Idumean robbers, having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod. And since the priest was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.
12 And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine. But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune, was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs. These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.
13 But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.
14 A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.
15 Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing. better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth.”
16 And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: “Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.”
17 Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, inter-marriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here. (Ecclesiastical History 1.6.1-17, cited in Eusebius of Caesaria, Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series [New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890], 91–94)
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke:
A Proven Contradiction? Which Explanation is Correct?
This post has looked at three explanations for the differences in the genealogies of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew and Luke. Are they sufficient to set aside the claim of contradiction? Certainly the answer is “yes.” The critic alleging contradiction must prove that there is no possible way of reconciling the two genealogies. He must not only prove that the three explanations given above are unsatisfactory, but that there is no other explanation that ever has been, or ever will, be able to reconcile the two accounts in a satisfactory manner. Such genuine contradictions abound in uninspired religious texts that claim to be from God, such as (for example) the Mormon religious books, which unambiguously teach monotheism in the Book of Mormon and just as unambiguously teach polytheism in the Pearl of Great Price, although both texts are allegedly unchanging truth from the Mormon god (or gods). Unlike such texts, no proven contradictions are found in God’s infallible Word, the Bible.
The three explanations above for the genealogies also illustrate another important fact. There may be simple options, such as the one offered by Archer and the second one offered by Smith, while the truth itself may be a more complicated option that we would not easily think of. Until I read Africanus’ explanation I do not believe it ever crossed my mind–yet, as a very old explanation that claims to have been received from the descendants of Mary and Joseph themselves, it deserves to be taken seriously. Thus, even if we cannot think of a good explanation for an alleged contradiction at the moment does not mean that one does not exist.
So which explanation is correct? I am not sure which explanation is correct, but I am sure that there is an explanation, because God does not contradict Himself or lie. I lean towards the explanation of Africanus as recorded in Eusebius because it seems reasonable that the children of Joseph and Mary would know their own family history and it likewise seems probable that Africanus has reliable information. However, the most important point is not which explanation is correct, but that there is an explanation, for God does not lie or contradict Himself.
–TDR
The Bible Makes Us Baptists: Free Christian Book Audio
The Bible Makes Us Baptists, (originally called In Editha’s Days: A Tale of Religious Liberty), is a Christian book for children written in 1894 by Mary E. Bamford. It is a work of historical fiction, narrating the life of an Anabaptist family in England running for their lives because fo their faith in the Bible, during the dark days when Roman Catholicism still controlled the United Kingdom. You can order a physical copy of the book at Amazon (affiliate link), or perhaps get it more inexpensively at a place such as Book Heaven.
However, the main point of this post is to inform you that you can hear the book read aloud for free on my KJB1611 YouTube channel here. The chapters are getting (pretty) consistently posted. So if you, or your children, want to hear an edifying Christian book read aloud, please use the link below to listen to The Bible Makes Us Baptists read aloud for free.
Click here to hear The Bible Makes Us Baptists (In Editha’s Days; A Tale of Religious Liberty) by Mary E. Bamford read aloud for free.
–TDR
Is the King James Version Too Hard to Understand? (White 11)
The James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Version Only debate examined the topic:
“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.”
In our debate, James White claimed that the Authorized, King James Version was too hard to understand. He also made this claim in his book The King James Only Controversy. Dr. James White’s argument has been employed by others as well, such as the Bob Jones University graduate Mark Ward. In my eleventh review video of the James White / Thomas Ross debate, I examine the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” and point out that Dr. White confuses the KJV preface’s claim that their version would be understood by the common man with White’s own claim that the Bible must be in the language of the common man. To my knowledge, James White never acknowledges this important distinction.
The King James Version is Modern English
I also point out that the King James Bible is not in Old English, nor in Middle English, but in Modern English, and that scholars of the English language have dated the rise of modern English from the translation of the KJV:
Old English or Anglo-Saxon -1100
Transition Old English, or “Semi-Saxon” 1100-1200
Early Middle English, or “Early English” 1200-1300
Late Middle English 1300-1400
Early Modern English, “Tudor English” 1485-1611
Modern English 1611-onward
The English Of the King James Version
Is Easier than the Hebrew and Greek of the Inspired Old and New Testament
I then deal with the crucial question-which I have not seen addressed elsewhere by opponents of perfect preservation and the Textus Receptus, and which I wish defenders of preservation would address more frequently and with more completeness–of the objective standard of what “too hard” is for a translation, namely, the level of difficulty of the original Hebrew and Greek texts themselves. Is the King James Version harder English than the Hebrew of the Old Testament or the Greek of the New Testament? This crucial question is answered “no!”
The crucial question: Is the English of the King James Version significantly more complex and harder to understand English than the Greek of the New Testament was to the New Testament people of God or the Hebrew of the Old Testament was to Israel? The answer: No! The New Testament contains challenging Greek (Hebrews, Luke, Acts) as well as simple Greek (John, 1-3 John). Sometimes the New Testament contains really long sentences, such as Ephesians 1:3-14, which is all just one sentence in Greek. The Holy Ghost did not just dictate very short Greek sentences like “Jesus wept” (John 11:35) but also very long sentences, like Ephesians 1:3-14. God did not believe such sentences were too hard to understand, and both God and the Apostle Paul were happy for inspired epistles with such complex syntax to be sent to churches like that at Ephesus–congregations that were filled, not with highbrow urban elites, but with slaves, with poorly educated day laborers, with farmers, and with simple peasants who had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Similarly, parts of the Hebrew prophetic and poetical books are much more challenging Hebrew than are many of the narrative sections of the Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament also contains some very long sentences. The whole chapter, Proverbs 2, is one sentence in Hebrew, for example.
There are also more rare or hard-to-recall words in the original language texts than there are in the English of the KJV.
Thus, evaluated by the objective standard of the literary level of the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture, the King James Version is NOT too hard to understand. If you encounter people who argue that the KJV is too hard to understand, I would encourage you to challenge them to consider whether their claim is true based on the linguistic level of the original language texts of the Old and New Testaments.
Learn more by watching debate review video #11 at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
Please also check out the previous debate review blog posts here at What is Truth?
–TDR
Were the KJV Translators KJV Only? James White KJVO debate 7
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #7 examines whether the KJV translators were KJV Only. (Note that to avoid the historical fallacy discussed in review video #2 obout whether the KJV translators would have been KJV Only today or supported modern versions–as James White claims–I am dealing in review video #7 with actual historical facts, based on actual information, not speculating on what woulda coulda shoulda happened if people who are not alive today were alive in a counterfactual world in my own imagination.) What does the “Translators to the Reader” says about the Authorized Version in comparison to earlier English Bibles?
The KJV translators were thankful for the earlier Textus Receptus-based English Bibles, but, building upon their foundation, they view the KJV as “better.” Variations from the Textus Receptus, even the relatively minor ones in the Latin Vulgate, were viewed as inferior to any Textus Receptus based Bible. How much worse, then, would a modern version that varies far more from the Received Text have been viewed? Find out in the video below!
You can also watch debate review video #7 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Calvinism, Unconditional Election and Baptismal Regeneration
Did you know that there is a connection between the heresy of the baptismal regeneration of infants and unconditional election and reprobation in Calvinism? In the chapter “Calvinism is Augstinianism,” by Kenneth Wilson, in the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen & Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), Wilson notes:
The major influence on Augustine’s AD 412 reversion to his prior deterministic Manichaean interpretations of Scripture was the arrival of Pelagius and Caelestius near his North African home in late AD 411. Augustine previously admitted (AD 405) he did not know why infant baptism was practiced (Quant.80). But the conflict with Caelestius and Pelagius forced him to rethink the church’s infant baptismal tradition and precipitated his reversion to his pagan DUPED [Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies, that is, unconditional election].26 Caelestius had argued that infants did not receive baptism for salvation from sin but only for inheritance of the kingdom. Augustine’s polemical response to Caelestius in AD 412 was logical: (1) Infants are baptized by church tradition; (2) water baptism is for forgiveness of sin and reception of the Holy Spirit; (3) some dying infants are rushed by their Christian parents to the bishop for baptism but die before baptism occurs, while other infants born of prostitutes are found abandoned on the streets by a church virgin who rushes them to the baptismal font where the bishop baptizes them; (4) these infants have no “will” and no control over whether or not they are baptized to receive the Holy Spirit to become Christians. Therefore, God must unilaterally and unconditionally predetermine which infants are saved by baptism and which are eternally damned without baptism (unconditional election).27 God’s election must be unconditional since infants have no personal sin, no merit, no good works, no functioning free will (incognizant due to the inability to understand at their age), and therefore, no choice.
In his next work that same year, Augustine concluded if this is true for infants, then unbaptized adults also have no choice or free will (Sp. et litt.54–56). The Holy Spirit was received in water baptism, transforming the person into a Christian with a free will. Since humans have no free will before baptism, God must unilaterally choose who will be saved and infuse faith into those persons. Augustine taught even when “ministers prepared for giving baptism to the infants, it still is not given, because God does not choose [those infants for salvation]” (persev.31). Infant baptism became the impetus for Augustine’s novel theology when he reinterpreted that church tradition and reached a logical conclusion. By doing this he abandoned over three hundred years of church teaching on free will. According to the famous scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, Augustine departed from traditional Christian theology by incorporating his prior pagan teachings and thereby developed inconsistencies in his new anthropology and theology of grace, especially his “idiosyncratic theory of predestination.”28[1]
So the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation is connected to Augustine’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration of infants and the damnation of all infants who are not regenerated in baptism. Since the infants cannot choose whether or not they will be baptized and receive forgiveness through baptism, their eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s will alone; they have no free will to receive Christ or reject Him, as in the large majority of modern Calvinists who follow Jonathan Edwards in his work against the freedom of the will. The infants that are tormented forever because they never were baptized are unconditionally reprobated, and the infants in paradise because they were baptized are the unconditionally elect. Since this is (allegedly) true for infants, it must be true for everyone else as well—eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s unconditional choice alone—an Augustinian innovation in Christendom which was reproduced by John Calvin and the Reformed tradition. (Of course, John Calvin also believed in baptismal regeneration.)
Let me add that the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke is valuable for mature Christians and church leaders, and it contains many valuable and Biblically sound criticisms of Calvinism. However, there are a diversity of viewpoints represented in the book, including not just non-Calvinist Baptists who still believe in eternal security, for example, but full-blown actual Arminians such as Wesleyans who affirm the terrible false teaching that true believers can be eternally lost. Because some chapters in the book are written by actual Arminians, I would not recommend the book for new Christians who might over-react against Calvinism and adopt Arminian heresies. Pastors or other mature Christians who are simply not going to become Arminian can gain a good deal of profit from the book.
–TDR
26 Wilson, 285. See also Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, 110–11.
27 Augustine, Pecc.mer.1.29–30. In contrast, ca. AD 200, Tertullian had rejected infant baptism, stating one should wait until personal faith was possible (De bapt.18).
28 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 278–327, quotation at 325.
[1] Kenneth Wilson, “Calvinism Is Augustinianism,” in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), 222–223.
Links to Amazon.com are affiliate links.
Almost All Historians Get History Wrong
Habakkuk as a Paradigm
In the first four verses of the book of Habakkuk, the prophet questions God, “Why does He permit evil in Judah?” God answered Habakkuk in verses five through eleven by saying, “I am raising up Babylon to chastise Judah.” Habakkuk wanted Judah punished for her sin. How could God use Babylon, a more wicked nation even than Judah, to punish Judah? Habakkuk further complained (verses 12-17), “If You will chastise Judah, LORD, then why would You not do worse to Babylon?”
The answer from God to Habakkuk is one of the most famous and important verses in all of scripture. In Habakkuk 2:4 the LORD says to Habakkuk:
Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
It is a kind of message in a message from God to Habakkuk. All of history has two essential groups, one that lifts up its soul so it is not upright and the other that is just or righteous by faith. To put it more simply, someone either doesn’ t believe or he does believe. Babylon is the former.
Babylon and Judah
When someone or a nation like Babylon or Judah lifts itself up, which is not believing, it will not be just, neither will it live. Judah had its opportunities and still didn’t believe, so God sent her into captivity. Babylon could have turned to the LORD by faith too. It didn’t, and the Lord destroyed it.
God expects faith especially from Judah and especially Habakkuk. Habakkuk’s response to God is a microcosm of what God expects of every soul. If Judah would believe, definitely Habakkuk should. Upon the hearing of the Word of God, the righteous respond by faith.
In the end, the righteous live. They live by and because of faith. No one lives without it. Faith is a conduit for the saving grace of God.
But how does all this have to do with the title of this piece? God raised up a great world empire like the Babylonian or Chaldean empire. God also destroyed that empire using Cyrus and the Persians. He also used the Chaldeans to chastise or punish the Southern Kingdom of Israel.
Cyrus and the Persians and Reading History
Read history. Which historian says God used Babylon as an instrument in His hand in the 6th century B.C.? Furthermore, name a historian who says that God designed Cyrus to defeat Babylon to fulfill prophecy? God said in Isaiah 45:1-7:
1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
God told the name of Cyrus and predicted what he would do over 150 years beforehand. Every historian should point to this truth.
Caesar Augustus and the Correct Viewpoint of History
Which historian will say that God produced Caesar Augustus to tax the world (Luke 2:1) to fulfill the prophecy in Micah 5:2? God sent Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem when she was nine months pregnant. He used Caesar Augustus to do it. The emperor of Rome was a pawn in God’s hand. That’s a historical truth.
The LORD, who is sovereign over history, talks about the correct viewpoint of history. He wraps it all up in Isaiah 41:22, when He says:
Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.
God connects the former things, history, with what they be, the present, and then the latter end of them, when He declares things to come. Former, present, and future interconnect. God does that.
Considerations
Consider the American Indian. Historians will not consider the paganism of American Indian tribes as a reason for their fall. Historians treat the American Indians as true owners of North America, because they were here first. They do not trace their downfall to idolatry or rebellion against God.
The just shall live by faith. And then there is the alternative — cursing for those lifting themselves up and against the one and true God. Overall, blessing comes by faith. Cursing comes by unbelief. This is our Father’s world. God will sometimes use wicked people to punish other wicked people. No one will get away with wickedness, because God is the Final Judge. Almost all historians get history wrong.
Why I Will Not Vote for Donald Trump in 2024 as a Republican
Let me preface this post by saying that I believe whether or not one agrees with what I am saying should not cause division in a church. Donald Trump divides the country, but he should not divide churches. If you are united to Christ by faith you are my brother in Him, and if you are a faithful member of a true church you are in Christ’s body, and I have Christian love for you, whether or not you agree with what I say about politics below.
I have Always Voted Republican as a Conservative
In 2016, I voted for Donald Trump. In 2020, I voted for Donald Trump. In every presidential election since I have been able to vote, and in every other election, I have consistently voted for Republican candidates. Before the 2020 election, I wrote a blog post about why Christians should vote for Donald Trump because of religious liberty, abortion, and free speech.
In 2016 Donald Trump won 46% of the vote to squeak by in the electoral college a few days after Hillary Clinton was hit with criminal charges. Although I found his personality and character abhorrent, I voted for him in 2016 because of the Supreme Court. In 2020, I also voted for him because of the Supreme Court. I also though that, despite the many self-inflicted wounds he gave himself, with good conservative advisors he did a better job governing than I thought he would do. I was very thankful that, with the help of Mitch McConnell and a Republican-controlled Senate, he appointed three justices to the Supreme Court–appointments that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That was very, very, very good.
Many of the media attacks on Trump were baseless. He never colluded with Russia, for example. Many other attacks were based on taking seriously what he said when, very often, even Trump himself does not pay attention to what he says (not a good idea when you are the most powerful elected figure on earth and the commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military).
My political views are extremely conservative. Based on Scripture, they support a very limited government and are very socially conservative. I believe the US Constitution is a very good document for running a government in this fallen world and wish that it were followed much more closely than it is.
Donald Trump Will Not Peacefully Cede Power
So why am I not going to vote for Donald Trump again-certainly not in the Republican primary, and also not in the general election, if he wins the primary? It is not because of his horrible character. It is not because there are good reasons to wonder if what is good for Trump is more important to him than what is good for the United States. It is not because he constantly attacks everyone and alienates larger and larger and larger groups of people and even people as loyal as his own vice president. It is not because he has now been convicted of battery and sexual crimes. These are very big problems-definitely far more than enough to make me vote for someone else in the Republican primary, but in the general election I am willing to overlook them. It is not because of some secret sympathy for the socialistic, big-government policies of the Democrat party. I am very concerned about the judges Democrats put on the Supreme Court and other courts and I see “vote for Trump because of the judges” as the single strongest argument to vote for him, if he prevails in the Republican primary (which I fervently hope he does not). I am very concerned about the way the Democrat party is willing to persecute churches, Christian business owners, and Christians in general who stand for what Scripture teaches on morality.
So what was the final straw for me? I think there is a strong likelihood that Donald Trump will not cede power peacefully if he loses an election. I believe in the American republic, not in a dictatorship by a Republican.
I did not think that Donald Trump would do what he did after losing the 2020 election. Pursuing all legal avenues to try to get the most votes you can? Fine. But his refusal-for hours-to call off the rioters on January 6 was despicable, even when it was obvious that things had turned violent. It is also perfectly obvious that the Vice President never has had the power to unilaterally overturn election results. If the Vice President of the party in power can unilaterally reject election results, we do not have a republic, but a dictatorship. It does not even need to be stated that the idea that the VP can do this is absolutely indefensible constitutionally.
Let’s say that it is far more likely that the reason Donald Trump was unwilling to admit that he lost the election by over 7,000,000 votes is that Trump can never admit he was wrong than that the theories he was spouting off in public, but which even his own lawyers would not defend in court, were true. That would be a huge problem, but maybe if he had just made stuff up to support his ego and left it at that, perhaps I would still vote for him again.
However, it is now years later, and Trump is still making the same Constitutionally fatal claims. He still claims that Mike Pence could have unilaterally overturned the 2020 election results. That means the end of the republic and the start of a tyranny. What did Trump do in his very first campaign rally? He put up a video and a song made by criminals who were justly put in prison for their crimes on January 6. He showed them violently fighting the police. He tried to put them in a good light as they were breaking and smashing and beating police officers and trying to get in to violently place him in power. He did not put up a video of the (imaginary) people who (in an alternate universe) just happened to wander into the Capitol as tourists or something and then were arrested and imprisoned unjustly. No, his video showed the rioters fighting with the police, and was glorifying the rioters as if they were righteous. Note that the video from the January 6 committee here:
And Trump’s campaign video here, where the singers are imprisoned January 6 criminals:
have some of the same footage of rioters fighting police (see 1:14-1:30 in), although Trump puts the violent criminals up for a shorter period of time. Trump embraces people who wanted Mike Pence executed for treason although he does not (at this point, at least, but you never know what he will do next) himself call for the execution of his own former Vice President for treason.
Trump said that he would accept the 2016 results–if he won. He lost in 2020 and did not accept the results. If he loses in 2024, there could be a lot of bloodshed. If he wins in 2024-something that is very, very unlikely-there is no reason to think that he would voluntarily cede power at the end of his term. He could come up with some reason-any reason-to retain power. The Vice President being able to unilaterally overturn results; the election allegedly having fraud that is worse than any third-world country; Dominion voting machines changing millions of votes; you name it. If Donald Trump can claim (even before results are in!) that the long shot conservative Republican Larry Elder lost in California to the sitting Democrat governer, Gavin Newsom, by fraud, then he can claim any election he wants was lost by fraud.
I have little confidence Trump would voluntarily cede power if he lost an election. Furthermore, anyone that was part of his cabinet in a second Trump term would have to be an almost cultic “yes” man. He would have to be a bobble head agreeing with any Trump claims. Trump claimed (in his January 6 speech) that in 2020 he “won in a landslide” but is not now in office because of “the most corrupt election in … history, maybe of the world,” far worse than “third-world countries,” and “everybody knows it.” The 2020 US election was not worse than elections such as the 1927 Liberian election where the winner gained 243,000 votes from the 15,000 registered voters, the 1964 election in Haiti where the president won 99.9% of the vote, there were no opponents, and all the ballots were pre-marked “yes,” or the elections in Equitorial Guinea between 1990-2020 where the president got 98% of the vote at a minimum, with some areas giving him over 103%. Everyone knows that the 2020 election was worse than such corrupt elections, according to Trump. Instead of having advisors like his courageous and moral Vice President, Mike Pence, Trump would have a cabinet of Kool-Aid drinkers who would actually help him to retain power after an election loss and would parrot whatever nutty claims he made.
I am not going to vote for Trump again because I do not have confidence he would cede power. Do you have confidence he would cede power if he lost?
Why It Does Not Matter That I Will Not Vote For Donald Trump
Despite the great danger that Trump would not cede power peacefully if he were reelected, it does not matter very much that I will not vote for him. Why is that?
1.) I am in California, so my vote does not matter in a presidential election. California is almost certain to give its electoral votes to the Democrat candidate, and if a Republican won the electoral votes of California, he would not need them, for he would already have won other closer states in a landslide. Were I in a swing state, I would have to think harder about not voting for Trump.
2.) However, although it would be a harder call, even if I were in a swing state I would not vote for Trump because of the threat he is to the Constitution. Even in this case, though, my vote would not matter. Why? Because Trump is unelectable. He lost a winnable election in 2020 through self-inflicted wounds, and after January 6 he was no longer a viable candidate for president. He is never going to get the 46% of the vote that he got in 2016 again-much less the higher percentage he would need to win against someone less repulsive than Hillary Clinton a few days after she was indited. Joe Biden, the Democrat Party, and the mainstream media will work very hard to make Trump the Republican candidate in 2024 because they know he is not electable. Donald Trump turned what should have been a red wave in 2022 into a red trickle, even though he was not on the ballot. People do not want someone who supports violent riots, injuries to hundreds of Capitol police officers, and the end of the republic for a dictatorship where the Vice President can unilaterally overturn results. Running on a pro-January 6 riot platform is bonkers. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would wonder if the Democrats were secretly paying off Trump to run on something like that. The electorate does not want a candidate who justifies violent attempts at revolution and whom a jury has found guilty of sexual assault. If Republicans nominate someone creepy enough, they can even lose Senate races in Alabama. (Note that Roy Moore was only credibly accused of sexual crimes–Trump has not only been accused, but been found guilty by a jury of them. Roy Moore lost deep, deep, deep Red Alabama. How badly will Trump lose?) Trump has alienated a large portion of the Republican electorate but he unites the Democrats. He alienates moderates and far, far more than half the voting population. A vote for Donald Trump in the Republican primary is a vote for a united Democrat government that controls the House and Senate–probably with large majorities–and the presidency in 2024. It is a vote for a Democrat president who will do everything he can to get Roe v. Wade back. The question is not whether Trump can get the 46% he got in 2016. The question is whether he would be able to get 40%, or 35%, or a number even lower than that. The question is whether the Democrats would win in a huge landslide that can introduce constitutional amendments or just a big landslide that can abolish the filibuster and appoint radical leftist tyrants to the Supreme Court.
So the fact that I would not vote for Donald Trump in the 2024 general election will not matter–if he is at the top of the Republican ticket, the election will not even be close.
However, in the Republican primary my vote definitely WILL matter. I will be voting to keep Trump away from the Republican nomination, so that limited, Constitutional government, religious liberty, and other incredible blessings here in the United States may continue, by God’s grace. While I think Mike Pence would be even better than Ron DeSantis, I will plan to vote for whoever appears to have the best chance at keeping Donald Trump away from winning the nomination, at least if it is still in play when I have a chance to vote in the primary, Lord willing.
As a postscript, let me say again that I believe whether or not one agrees with what I am saying should not cause division in a church. Donald Trump divides the country, but he should not divide churches. If you are united to Christ by faith you are my brother in Him, and if you are a faithful member of a true church you are in Christ’s body, and I have Christian love for you, whether or not you agree with what I say about politics in this post.
–TDR
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?
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
My Initial Thoughts on The James White Debate (KJV/TR vs. LSB/NA/UBS)
I am thankful for everyone who prayed for me in the debate with James White over the topic:
“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.”
Thank you!
I believe that, for His glory and by His grace, the Lord answered the prayers of His people and the debate went well. God is concerned that His pure Word be in use among His people, and I believe He blessed the debate towards the furtherance of that cause.
Thank you as well to everyone who helped with all kinds of details, small and great, with the debate. Without you it would the case for the truth of the perfect preservation of Scripture would have been much less effectively presented. Thank you very much!
We arrived in Tennessee the day before the debate. Our flights were fine on the way out, and on the way back (although THE PLANE WENT DOWN!!! -but only when it got to the runway at the airport). My wife and I had dinner with James White the night before the debate and had a cordial conversation.
We are thankful for the help of a godly KJVO Baptist in the area who helped us with things from making sure that we would be able to project slides (something was worked out with the pastor at the Reformed Baptist congregation where the debate was being held) to a way to print our notes (the church had no printer available, nor any WiFi there for me to even have my notes on an IPad–that is why it was not livestreamed.) It was recorded by a professional videographer, so it should be high quality once it comes out, Lord willing. Please pray for the production of the video, as there have been some issues there that are quite important and could seriously impact its effectiveness.
The people at Covenant Reformed Baptist Church of Tullahoma, TN were kind to us. The pastor, who makes a living rebinding Bibles, presented us with a beautifully bound KJV Bible (he gave a similarly beautifully bound LSB to James White). So if you need you need a Bible rebound, he may be worth considering for you.
James White was not quite as cordial in the debate as he had been at dinner the night before, in my opinion, but I suppose I will let you decide that when you watch the debate video. I was particularly struck by the fact that, despite pressing him on it, and the obvious fact that Biblical promises of perfect preservation, and the recognition of the canonical words of Scripture by the church were crucial to my case, he still did very little to dispute my case from Scripture, nor to present a Biblical basis for his own position. I am still not sure if he thinks there are any promises from the Bible that indicate that God would preserve every Word He inspired, or if he just thinks that we have them, or almost all of them, somewhere, because of what textual critics like Kurt Aland say, or at least according to him they say, although his view of Kurt Aland may not be Kurt Aland’s view of Kurt Aland.
Overall, I think that the debate went well, and that the case for perfect preservation, and its necessary consequence of the superiority of the TR/KJV to the UBS/LSB, was clear. However, I am also well aware that I am biased in favor of my position, so you will have to watch the debate yourself to see if you agree.
The slides we had prepared–many of which were used in the debate, while others were not–are available at the main debate page here if you want to get a sense of what my argument was or what is going to be on the debate video, Lord willing. I asked Dr. White if he wished to put his slides up there as well so that both of our presentations had an equal representation, but he has not responded to me as of now, whether because he is very busy or for some other reason.
There is much more that can be said about the debate, but that will be enough for now. Thank you again for your prayers, and all the glory to the one God, the Father who gave the canonical words of Scripture to the Son, so that He could give them to the assembly of His saints by His Spirit.
–TDR
Recent Comments