I’m happy to say that the biblical and historical position on the preservation of scripture is making headway across the world.  Today people refer to this viewpoint or doctrine by different names, including providential preservation view, standard sacred text view, confessional bibliology view, verbal plenary preservation view, and the perfection preservation of scripture view.  I think some even use a different label than those.   Over twenty years ago now, our church published Thou Shalt Keep Them:  A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture to provide an exposition of this position from scripture.

About a month or so ago, Chris Arnzen of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio contacted me to debate James White in Pennsylvania.  I was glad he asked.  This debate, I told him, I wanted to do, would probably do it, but I wasn’t sure if his date would work out for me.  I asked him a follow-up about the costs of lodging and travel  The next day he told me he needed to know right away so he asked Peter Van Kleeck, who agreed to the debate.  I believe it was God’s will.  I still want to debate White and wish I could have then, but I was happy that Van Kleeck would be the man to do it.

Along with his dad, Peter Van Kleeck Sr. (Brother Van Kleeck is Jr.), he helps the cause of this doctrine online and many various ways.  Several men right now are writing excellent material to read along with what Thomas Ross and I write here and then in our book on preservation.  I believe Van Kleeck easily won the debate against James White.  I watched it all and have not been able to make the time to critique what occurred, but I don’t want to keep waiting to post the debate, which is right below here.

Every one of the primary defenders of this doctrine, who have contributed much to the defense of the biblical and historical doctrine, would probably do a little bit different in his approach, strategy, or tactics. James White did not answer Van Kleeck’s arguments. His arguments stood and since he took the affirmative, he won. I’m not going to say anymore except that I wish to include below this paragraph the takeaway of Jeff Riddle over the debate. What he said was so close to what I would have said or written about the debate that it could be identical. I don’t think I need to write more than what he said. I might say or write more in the future, but this is good for now.

After having completed this post, I began to listen to the Van Kleecks, dad and son, analyze the debate, starting and stopping and commenting.  It is a very helpful exercise, so I’m going to include their videos so far here.  They so far have spent two parts on Dr. Van Kleeck’s opening statement and then two parts on White’s opening.  Here they are in order.