So I had the delight of hearing our work mentioned again on James White’s Dividing Line yesterday. I have to thank him for continuing in doing so. The fact is, JW is good for StandardSacredText.com. Again, thank you to James White for furthering our cause.

As JW recounts it, he yet again “stumbled” upon our work now for the second time in the span of a week. It appears to me that JW is still sore about me calling him out on his tired old naturalistic argument because he keeps bringing it up. Perhaps we touched a nerve.

Particularly, JW took issue with the fact that I chose an argument [my probability argument from Bayes] that I had never before presented in public. As JW is apt to do, he compared me to an atheist that he debated one time simply because I presented a new argument. At this point I would be disappointed if JW didn’t compare me to a Muslim or an atheist. JW just wouldn’t be JW without such glittering jewels of colossal ignorance.

He then went on to complain that I didn’t present the arguments from our books only to turn around and admit that the substance of the Spirit/word/faith paradigm was indeed in my arguments even though my arguments at the debate were not carbon copies of those in our books.

Unfortunately for JW it seems that he is so stuck with his narrow and effete argument that he can’t even fathom making a different argument and as such he finds it wholly strange that someone would argue a dozen or so different arguments all aimed at the same conclusion. It seems to me that JW should have at least three robust arguments in defense of Scripture: 1.) his historical/manuscript argument, 2.) an exegetical argument, and 3.) a theological argument.

But if you watch all of his debates about the text and translation he really only has one argument, argument #1. In fact if you watch this series held in a church for church people you’ll find it’s four hundred minutes long in which he quotes Scripture a handful of times and each time it is to demonstrate why the Bible should be doubted in places. And this is because no one who holds JW’s position has a robust exegetical and theological position to defend statements like, “The Bible is sufficiently reliable” and ” The Bible is 99% God’s word” and “The original text of the NT is in the body of the Nestle/Aland 28 or it is in the textual apparatus.”

I explained in the debate that JW’s #1 argument is merely a birdy argument. Someone else has chewed up and partially digested the data and then JW gladly took those chewed up and partially digested remains and graciously offers them to the rest of us and if we politely decline then JW has to “debate” us so that he can explain to you and to the audience that birdy arguments are the best tasting arguments around.

This is not to say that all of us don’t need help from teachers and books. Indeed, the Scriptures teach us that at one point we have all been newborn babes desiring the sincere milk of the word. But there has to come a time when we grow up and recognize that there are a host of substantive, beautiful, and persuasive ways of defending the Bible and most of them can be done without appeal to modern text-critical methodology.

There are arguments to be made from archeology, philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, mathematics, theology, exegesis, history, church history, and on and on. We cripple ourselves in defending the Christian faith by limiting our arguments to textual criticism and its modern methodology – the one trick pony of JW.

But when we do present new arguments JW complains, cries foul, and then fails to rebut those arguments. He then retreats to the DL, to his rabbit hole, and tries to find grace and help in his time of need but in the end a retreat to the rabbit hole only weakens his ability to contend and overcome when outside that rabbit hole. And that is what we saw during our debate. JW was not ready because JW has spent too much time in his safe space greedily clutching his old moldy argument. So now, eleven days later instead of actually grappling with my argument he simply cries, “Bad Form!” Thanks, Captain Hook.

Maybe JW’s argument worked in his generation but it doesn’t and won’t in mine and certainly not for my children’s generation. If you are happy with old unsubstantiated stories about Erasmus and truncated historical arguments, by all means, stick with JW. But if you are tired of JW’s Hobbit Hole argument, then perhaps it is time to go on an adventure and embrace the depth and breadth that the wide world of right thinking Christian theology and exegesis offers you.

In this episode Drs. Van Kleeck begin their commentary on Dr. James White’s opening statement.

On October 3rd James White [JW] gave us more air time on the Dividing Line, again. Around the 42 minute mark JW begins his commentary on some of our recently published blog posts. After listening to his commentary I struck with a kind of thankfulness. So I thought I would take today’s post and thank JW.

1.) I want to thank JW for taking the debate in the first place. In the broader evangelical world he’s a big fish and I’m a small fish.

2.) I wanted to thank JW for the increase of traffic here to the blog and to our YouTube channel. The argument for a standard sacred text is spreading and in large part because of JW.

3.) I want to thank JW for the increase in opportunity to both answer questions and explain our position. I have lost count how many folks have reached out to me via email, FB private messenger, and here on the blog asking for clarifications, book recommendations, and answers to potential objections. This would not be possible without JW.

4.) I want to thank JW for the opportunity to debate. It has been very instructive in what debates look like among Christians, what Christians care about in debates, and what I can do to meet them where they are.

5.) Concerning the October 3rd DL, I want to thank JW for once again demonstrating that my arguments remain undefeated. I mean he complains about the faces I made and the fact that he had never heard these arguments before, but even 10 days later he has offered no substantive response.

6.) Concerning the same DL, I want to thank JW for doing exactly what I said he would do in this post and this post. JW is going to JW.

7.) I want to thank JW for bringing up the same failing stale arguments he always does. They made my work a lot easier and they also leave room for significant improvement for anyone interested.

8.) I want to thank JW for allowing me to live rent free in his head especially considering he regards our position as a minority position and idiosyncratic. Nevermind that in the history of the Church it is his position which is the minority and is idiosyncratic; the fact that JW persists in addressing us tells me that we are definitely onto something. Thank you for that affirmation JW.

I am reminded of the Archbishop who sought to buy all of Tyndale’s New Testaments only to burn them. Augustine Packington, who was in league with Tyndale, replied that he could get most of Tyndale’s New Testaments, at least those that were not yet sold. The Archbishop agreed and Packington sent the New Testaments which the former promptly burned. The comedy of it all was that the Archbishop had unwittingly funded through Packington the production of Tyndale’s second edition of the New Testament. In like manner, JW has been more help to our cause here than he knows and for that we are thankful. By all means, keep up the good work.

In this episode Drs. Van Kleeck conclude their commentary on Van Kleeck’s opening statement.

Here is the beginning of our debate commentary. Lord willing I will be able to do some quick edits and then have a video up each day this week. Given the length of the debate and subsequent commentary, this series should last through next week. We’ll have to see how it goes.

Thus far, having read critiques of my debate performance, two complaints have arisen: 1.) I offered arguments that were unfamiliar and therefore difficult to understand. 2.) I was rude, angry, condescending, and/or had a chip on my shoulder.

I already addressed #1 in this blog post so let’s turn to the second complaint. As the debate day grew closer I began to ask those around me, those I trusted, whether I should enter the debate “knives out”. That is, whether I should meet JW where he is and play the game the way he plays it. I explained to them that after watching so much of JW on the topic of Text and Translation that it seemed to me that he was often less than professional with his Christian interlocutors. What is more the moderator rarely if ever restrained either debater’s rhetoric so no one was going to stop JW if he started down that road. To illustrate JW’s lack of professionalism and restraint, consider the following debate which was part of my own debate preparation.

This debate was between James White and Pastor Jack Moorman. Beginning at around the [54:48] mark you will find the following (Click the time stamp if you’d like to watch it yourself):

[54:48] – JW is seen visibly shaking his head while his interlocutor is speaking.
[56:38] – JW is shaking his head and speaking over his interlocutor with the words “Not true.”
[01:01:58] – JW interrupts his interlocutor and then takes over the conversation.
[01:03:43] – A listener asks a question and JW laughs at the question with incredulity.
[01:03:50] – After being told earlier by the moderator not to comment JW comments anyway.
[01:09:30] – JW audibly scoffs and shakes his head.
[01:13:20] – JW shakes his head and speaking over his interlocutor with the words “Not true.”
[01:14:20] – JW laughs and then interrupts his interlocutor.
[01:19:02] – JW smiles then scoffs then interrupts.
[01:23:52] – JW smiles then scoffs at a listener’s question. The moderator then calls for summary statements. JW asserts that he will first offer a response to the listener’s question. After which JW offers his summary statement.

And all of this in under 30 minutes. At no point did the moderator step in and tell JW that such behavior was rude and unprofessional. By the time of the above debate JW had been on the debate scene for over 21 years and had already debated Bart Ehrman. Still, JW had not yet worked out of his system the laughing, interrupting, head-shaking, scoffing etc. and the above is only what was caught on camera.

And before we think that this kind of rhetoric is out of JW’s rhetorical system let’s not forget this chippy response from JW when debating Dr. Riddle.

Then of course after our debate JW posts the following meme on his wall which shows a thoroughly non-chippy, non-rude completely professional JW during our debate.

The point is that JW has set the tone of this debate years ago and it continues up until today and that tone includes making faces, shaking your head, speaking over your interlocutor, scoffing, and all the rest.

This is part of JW ‘s legacy. JW engenders heated, rude, and chippy debate because that is the way he debates, especially with Christians.

So as I saw it I could either wait for JW to do the same to me or, seeing that I spoke first, do it to him right off the bat. I chose the latter.

Now, was my rhetoric chippy, heated, and even rude? Indeed, it was. Is that a professional way to debate? No, it is not. I have no problem admitting this. Unfortunately, no one in JW’s camp, no close friend, has helped JW admit as much as I just did in the first couple sentences of this paragraph let alone have that admission lead to real change in JW’s rhetoric. So I tried a different tactic, the tactic of “How about a little of your own medicine.”

And it worked! JW fans were coming out of the woodwork declaring me to be heated, condescending, and having a chip on my shoulder. Right! That was the point. Now take that same critique and help JW see the same light. So every time JW gets short with his interlocutor or interrupts or scoffs or emotes remember that JW is cementing his legacy in this kind of rhetoric and don’t be surprised if a younger man comes behind him with the willingness to play the same kind of game.

To those on my side of the isle, I know many of you disapprove of my tactic here and I can see why. I apologize for throwing you for a loop without warning. But in the end it proved an excellent point. For JW and those who follow him, chippy rhetoric is a “definitely for me but not for thee” kind of relationship when JW debates with Christians.

So it has been one week since the debate with Dr. White. As it currently stands there are almost 22,000 views of the debate so far. Several people have contacted me to say that they watch the debate live and then went back to watch it again and in so doing gleaned further insights into our defense of the Textus Receptus.

This is in part because the defense of the TR is quite broad in explanatory scope and force and a 2.5 hour debate cannot do justice to the material. Those who defend the TR do so with history, manuscript evidence, believing text-critical work, Christian theology, historical theology, philosophical theology, philosophy, epistemology as well as other tools of reason and inference. What is more, we believe it and are passionate about it. And because we are passionate about it we enjoy talking about it to anyone who will listen in nearly any environment from coffee shops to college classrooms.

As such I would like to officially announce that we are available for discussion and debate on the topic of the TR and the KJV. We will accept all invitations with certain caveats.

1.) We are willing to debate anyone so long as they have a terminating post-graduate degree [e.g., a D.Min., Ph.D., Th.M., or equivalent]
2.) If #1 is not fulfilled we would still be willing to have a vigorous, cordial, and moderated discussion of these topics.

We take the difference between a debate and discussion to be in format and aim. The format of a debate is limited in structure according to time parameters and centered on the debate question while a discussion is much freer with the time and can move around as the flow of the discussion dictates. Furthermore, a debate is a kind of competition with the goal of winning via the expression of persuasive truth. A discussion on the other hand is a time of learning and exploration – boldly going where perhaps the audience has never gone before.

Additionally, we are not the only ones willing to engage in debate and discussion. Over the past week several TR/KJV defenders have expressed the desire to debate and discuss topics in defense of the TR and KJV. These people are:

1.) Kent Brandenburg – His work can be found at https://kentbrandenburg.com/. Incidentally, Kent Brandenburg was the “Kent” Chris Arnzen first sought out for last week’s debate, not Kent Hovind. Kent Brandenburg has already had several moderated debates.
2.) Thomas Ross – His work can be found at https://faithsaves.net/thomas-ross/ Thomas has had many moderated debates on topics across the spectrum of Christian theology and apologetics.
3.) Nick Sayers – His work can be found at http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Main_Page Nick has engaged in many online debates with interlocutors of varying academic acumen on various historical and text-critical issues.

Each has their wheelhouse and will defend the TR and KJV from different perspectives with their methodology but they are certainly faithful and available to make their case as they do.

Additionally, the 2022 Kept Pure in All Ages lectures with Dr. Jeff Riddle have recently been uploaded to YouTube. In the first lecture Dr. Riddle deals with certain apologetic considerations revolving around the work of Bart Ehrman. Then in his second lecture Riddle deals with the claims of Christians who are sympathetic to Ehrman’s position though they do not receive it en tota. Persons like Mark Ward fall into this category. Finally, Riddle addresses the Church, the believing community, and certain canned lines used by evangelicals to cast dispersions on the TR. Dr. Riddle’s lectures can be found here:
1.) Reasoning with the Wise and the Scribe
2.) Reasoning with the Disputer of this World
3.) Reasoning with Them That Believe

Blessings.

Two days ago I began laying out the proclivities of James White while in a debate setting with fellow Christians. In that post I offered 15 and in this post I will offer an additional 15. Again, the purpose of sharing this list of JW proclivities is to help prepare any other Christian who would seek to debate JW on this topic. Of course it is possible that he would change his tactics so late in the rhetorical game, but that probability seems low to me.

But before addressing that list I wanted to say a word about my chosen debate method. Having read many of the responses to the debate I found that both sides of the debate really really wanted me to address certain of the data behind JW’s Erasmus claims as to get into the nitty-gritty evidence for this or that reading. Let me give a little insight into my approach.

First, in the 5th century BC Chinese military tactician, Sun Tzu, wrote down his tactics in a book we now call The Art of War. In this book he declares that when you go to battle you must dwell in impenetrable darkness. That is, it is of utmost importance that your opponent not know where you or when you will attack. As a result I purposefully employed arguments that I had not yet written or expressed so as to dwell in impenetrable darkness. This is also why the vast majority of posts on this blog during that time was not my own material. I wanted to give no hint of my approach.

Second, Sun Tzu further says that if you desire to prevail in every conflict you must know yourself and your enemy. I offered new arguments in an attempt to show that JW did not know his enemy. If JW knew my arguments well enough he should have been able to address my arguments on debate night. He was not able, and therefore did not know my argument well enough and the first step was achieved. As a result, he did not prevail.

Third, Sun Tzu goes on to say that when you strike you must do so with speed and ferocity of a thunderbolt. In order to do this, it was necessary that I never let off the gas – always be on the offensive. To paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson, “If you must strike a king, be sure it is a death blow.” I considered JW a king and that the debate was in the midst of the king’s court. As one FB comment put it, “The gloves were off.” And I believe appropriately so.

Fourth, in a successful attack one must choose the ground, the place upon which his attack should be launched. As a result I clearly and distinctly told the crowd and JW that the debate was not about subjective interpretations of evidence and that JW’s robust but narrow historical argument would not do. I reframed the discussion in theological and philosophical terms on purpose. I was choosing the place where the fight was going to take place and I had the right to do so seeing that it was my responsibility to offer the positive argument.

As a result, we did not get to JW’s foibles regarding Erasmus or the evidence regarding Revelation 16:5. That would have been predictable thus negating points 1 and 3 above. It would have also meant that JW got to pick the place upon which the fight was going to take place and thus negated point 4. To borrow a phrase, “Everyone has a plan until the rhetoric starts flying.” In my case I believe I was able to stick to my time, place, and angle of attack even when the rhetoric started flying.

I hope this helps people understand why I chose the topic and method in the way I did.

Now to the proclivities of JW. Let me first point out that in knowing his proclivities I knew my “enemy” and that in knowing my “enemy” it was going to be very difficult for JW to dwell in impenetrable darkness and therefore very difficult to attack with the speed and ferocity of a thunderbolt. This is why I declared his arguments to be tire, old, and dead because he ignores these basic features of rhetorical conflict. Second, seeing that I ended at 15 proclivities in my last post I am going to pick up with 16 today.

16.) JW regularly attempts to establish ethos [i.e., credibility] by appealing to his debates with Ehrman and at a South African mosque. Ethos is difficult to attack without attacking the person [ad hominem]. Still the fact is that if there is a mosque in your town you could call them up today, tell them you are a Christian, and ask to meet with the Imam and they would meet with you. This has been my experience wherever I have lived. In the end, debating Muslims and Atheists on their turf is eminently available to all of us, it’s just that JW has done it.

17.) JW regularly attempts to establish ethos by appealing to the number of moderated debates he has had. Though he has had many moderated battles, his establishment of ethos doesn’t seem to indicate how many times he was mortally wounded or died in those battles. As such, this play to ethos falls flat. In short, JW never admits to losing.

18.) JW derides our textual positions because we don’t see textual tinkering as progress. When asked why his tinkering matters, he attempted to redefine “tinkering”. earlier, when speaking to a crowd of lay-people he made no attempt at such a redefinition. JW tinkers out of both sides of his mouth. Out of one side he wants us to believe the text is settled and all we are doing is tinkering and out of the other side of his mouth he wants us to believe that tinkering is meaningful enough to continue modern textual reconstruction.

19.) Our position doesn’t doubt our Bible enough. If I doubted a small part of my TR then Dr. White would not have as much of a problem with my position. If I claimed that the TR AND the NA 28 (including the apparatus) were equally God’s word we probably wouldn’t have debated. In short, JW is only fine with my position if I include a measure of doubt which he deems appropriate. If too much doubt, he calls me Bart Ehrman. If too little doubt he calls me KJVO. In short, JW main and bare thesis is “Pete, you don’t accurately doubt your Bible like I do.”

20.) Certain manuscript evidence is an undefeated defeater for JW. Apparently it must be for us too otherwise we are to feel the wrath of JW.

21.) JW regularly declares the Bible to be merely reliable/adequate and yet offers no exegesis. He calls himself a Biblicist when talking about the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas but when talking about manuscript evidence he has no exegesis to defend the Bible as merely adequate.

22.) JW regularly presents a merely historical argument with a little bit of providential preservation garnish on the side. Here I charged JW with naturalism because the vast majority of his argument could be argued by a godless, Christless atheist. There is nothing distinctly Christian about his argument even after he calls himself a Presuppositionalist.

23.) JW regularly quotes Scripture in order to make his audience doubt it. Every Scripture he brought up he did so in order to show that it was worthy of doubt to some measure. Matthew 5:18 doesn’t mean jot and tittle. Revelation 16:5 which reading is it? “In” the temple or “out” of the temple. JW rarely if ever employs Scripture to defend Scripture.

24.) JW only emphasizes the res [meaning] and ignores the verbum [the actual inspired words] of the Scriptural words. Furthermore, he does so based on no other authority than his own doubt concerning certain text of Scripture. We must doubt like JW doubts or else.

25.) JW seems wholly unaware of the meta-didactics of Scripture. The Scripture teaches by simply existing because it is the sui generis sacred words of the living God in time and space. Scripture equals God’s word and God’s word equals a product of divine special revelation. If a product of divine special revelation is mixed with the product of fallen human ingenuity then Scripture by simply existing teaches us that God’s word as a product of divine special revelation is mixed with the product of fallen human ingenuity. This is an indefensible theological position if one desires to remain orthodox.

26.) I have heard JW on several occasions accuse brothers of putting to much stock in the Reformation like they were Reformation worshippers. The irony though is that he makes this claim while claiming to be a Reformed Baptist. He has taken the name of the thing he think people put too much stock in. It’s like a woman who takes the name of her husband only to then turn around and tell others that her husband isn’t as great as you think he is. The irony is so obvious JW’s accusation of “Reformation worshiper” is ridiculous – a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

27.) JW has said on many occasions, even in our debate, something to the effect, “I want to know the words of the Apostles.” This is an affective plea or an emotional plea and he states it in such a way as to make it seem his opponent doesn’t want the same thing. We all want to know the words of the Apostles as well as the words of Luke who was not an Apostle. The question is, How do we get there?

28.) In the sphere of philosophy I have observed that JW learns his opponent’s position while in the midst of the debate. I observed this when JW discussed Molinism with William Lane Craig as well as in JW’s treatments of Aquinas and Reformed Epistemology. This is yet another reason why I leaned toward some semblance of a probability argument. I had a strong hunch that JW simply would not understand and that he would be learning right there in the moment and therefore not be able to properly respond to my arguments. My hunch paid off.

29.) JW has no paradigm for the preservation of God’s words among the manuscript tradition AND what the Bible calls us to believe, that God has preserved His words between two covers. He only ascribes to the former. This is an enormous hole in his Bibliology which he does not seek to mend. He merely puts the “reliable” or “adequate” Band-Aid over the wound and hopes things don’t get worse.

30.) Finally, JW seems incapable of offering a robust defense for showing one’s arguments AND knowing one’s arguments. JW does not seem to realize that people can know the truth but are unable to show/explain that truth in a way that is convincing. As a result, he treats those people as wrong when in fact those people very well may be right; they just don’t know how to explain it. Of course this is not always the case, but JW doesn’t seem to even have a category for such a thing.

To be honest, I was so sure of JW’s proclivities that I began to construct a Bingo card that had 25 of these 30 proclivities represented on it. Then as he continued in his rhetorical rut I was going to declare “BINGO!” each time I got 5 in a row. Of course I didn’t but I could have been a winner in more than one way had I done so.