Debate Commentary: Van Kleeck’s Rebuttal

We are back in the recording saddle this week. Drs. Van Kleeck were finally able to complete their commentary of the debate between Peter Van Kleeck Jr. and James White. We pick up commentary at the beginning of Van Kleeck’s rebuttal.

The aim of this commentary is to shed some light and add some color to the debate by commenting on the background and motivations of our arguments as well as to add some color and light to why I interacted with JW as I did.

One thought on “Debate Commentary: Van Kleeck’s Rebuttal

  1. A couple of things jumped out while listening to this. I listened to a bit of Dividing Line while searching for something. On this program, James White tried to “re”-explain his comments that we have more manuscripts now than ever before. He tightens this up by saying there has never been a time in history when one person sitting in one place has as access to as much textual data we have access to now – via this internet. Yes, that’s right, I can log on to Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts and see all sorts of stuff that folks in the past (and folks in the present without access to the world wide web). However, this is not the impression he and others give when rambling on about this unchallenged. That impression given rather is that we have more manuscripts now than ever. Of course, that cannot be true. If even one manuscript has ever been lost, we now have one less manuscript than we ever had. Moreover, we know we have less 27 less– the 27 “oldest and best” – the original autographs.

    Next, I am confused by the angst created among critical text advocates when someone mentions Matthew 5:18 in reference to providential preservation. If you don’t think it applies, then make the case. However, don’t show your ignorance or pretense by acting like no one before 20th century “King James Onlyists” has ever made the connection. Reformed guys, especially, ought to be ashamed and blush. Matthew 5:18 is the Westminster Confession proof-text associated with “by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.” That’s not 20th century.

    Lastly, White likes to say his opponents have not _done_ textual criticism. I ask, does he have a degree in textual criticism? Has he ever _actually done_ textual criticism beyond what he studies about it to use in his debates? Has he _done_ text critical work like Aland, Metzger, Ehrman, or even like evangelicals such as Wallace, Gurry, and Hixson? Or does he just talk about it? I do not know the answers to these questions, and did not find them online. Let me be clear. I personally determine a person’s scholarship by evaluating what one says and does, not by what degree they have or where they studied. So, I am unconcerned about where he may have obtained his degree, but what degrees he actually has, i.e. in what field or fields. Why? Because he constantly resorts to saying that others have no training in a certain area (regarding whatever area he is talking about at the time), so we should not pay attention to them. “Listen to me, instead,” White says. Why should we pay attention to him? I notice on the Grace Bible Theological Seminary web site (which gives no curriculum vitae), he is a professor of Apologetics and Church History – not of textual criticism.

    Sorry for running so long. Couldn’t seem to get through complaining. 😉

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: