Isaiah 42:10-12 10 Sing to the LORD a new song, Sing His praise from the end of the earth! You who go down to the sea, and all that is in it. You islands, and those who dwell on them. 11 Let the wilderness and its cities lift up their voices, The settlements where Kedar inhabits. Let the inhabitants of Sela sing aloud, Let them shout for joy from the tops of the mountains. 12 Let them give glory to the LORD And declare His praise in the coastlands.

"Jesus Christ was a historical figure of staggering influence, perhaps the most enigmatic and inspirational leader the world has ever seen. As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus toppled kings, inspired millions, and founded new philosophies. As a descendant of the lines of King Solomon and King David, Jesus possessed a rightful claim to the throne of the King of the Jews. Understandably, His life was recorded by thousands of followers across the land….More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them.
“Who chose which gospels to include?” Sophie asked.
“Aha!” Teabing burst in with enthusiasm. “The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great.” (231)

And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. (Luke 24:25-27)

Sophie sensed a rising air of academic anticipation now in both of her male companions.
"To fully understand the Grail," Teabing continued, "we must first understand the Bible. How well do you know the New Testament?" (230)

"And everything you need to know about the Bible can be summed up by the great canon doctor Martyn Percy." Teabing cleared his throat and declared, "The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven."
"I beg your pardon?"
"The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book. (231)

Someone at Alpha and Omega ministries might like to encourage James White to point out at the beginning of his blog that The Da Vinci Code is marketed as a fictional story. Fiction defined as: a making up of imaginary happenings. He should point out that there is no need for any defense except to point out the fact that the author himself has marketed the work as not true. There is no need to argue with an author who never claimed to be telling the truth in the first place. It is a movie made for entertainment value and nothing more. Such a story is meant to be enjoyed, not critiqued. The arguments made in this book should not be addressed unless they are common arguments found in more serious venues. Because of this there is no need to badmouth the book itself, but it may be helpful to address its fictional claims if it serves to educate others.

John 10:27-30 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 "I and the Father are one."

It must not be supposed from these examples that Codex Sinaiticus invariably supports an 'unorthodox' view of Jesus. On the contrary, in the genealogy of Jesus given by St Matthew, for instance, Codex Sinaiticus is (unlike some other manuscripts) one that carefully supports the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus, ending the list of his ancestors with the words, 'Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ'.

   Often, too, the additions to the text which are found in later documents but not in Sinaiticus are merely harmless, and indeed sometimes positively useful additions. Two such examples may be cited from St John's Gospel. In chapter 4 a woman of Samaria is asked by Jesus for a drink. She answers 'How do you, a Jew, ask a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?' Later scribes add an explanation to the original authentic text: 'for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans'.
   Similarly in chapter 5 of John's Gospel, Jesus comes across a great many sick persons lying by a pool. A later scribe has added an explanation not found in Codex Sinaiticus: 'for an angel went down at a certain season into the pool and troubled the water whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatever disease he had'. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Today on the Dividing Line

10/06/2005 - James White

   Today was pretty much an Open Phones program, and despite it being an hour early, we had plenty of callers to get through the entire hour. We tackled everything from the emergent church movement to Crossan to Dave Hunt to...to...yes, amazingly enough...eschatology! [gasps, shock] Here's the program.

16:44:33 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Two Quick Notes

10/06/2005 - James White

   First, many thanks to the more than a dozen folks who have sent me the link to the new book from the English Roman Catholic Church, The Gift of Scripture. I honestly don't know if I have ever received as many duplicate copies of the same URL in my life. Yes, I know about it, and am seeking to obtain it.
   Secondly, www.straitgate.com is down. We do not know why. We have no control over it whatsoever, so please, do not e-mail bomb poor Rich about it: he's about to pull his hair out. We cannot tell you if and when it will return, etc.
   We now return you to your regularly scheduled...stuff.

14:19:46 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Time Change on the DL Today

10/06/2005 - James White

   Just a quick note. Today is somebody's birthday (whose name will remain a secret), so we will be moving the DL up an hour so that somebody's wife can take him to dinner this evening (and no, it is not my birthday). So, instead of 7pm EDT, we will begin at 6pm EDT, 3pm PDT.

06:45:46 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Calvin vs. (Paul) Owen

10/05/2005 - James White

   While working on the next (and I think, for the moment, final) segment of my response to Paul Owen's stealth anti-Calvinism, I noted his referring his readers to Calvin's discussion of election in the Institutes. What I found ironic was that barely a few pages after the section he cited, we read these words, which are not only relevant to the previous portion (i.e., note that this Baptist sees Judas as Calvin did, while Owen the "real" Calvinist disagrees with Calvin) but to the final portion (on John 10) as well:

CHRIST’S WITNESS CONCERNING ELECTION
   Now let the sovereign Judge and Master give utterance on the whole question. Detecting such great hardness in his listeners that he would be almost wasting words before the crowd, in order to overcome this hindrance he cries out: “All that the Father gives me will come to me” [John 6:37]. “For this is the will of the Father,... that whatever he has given me, I should lose nothing of it.” [<430639>John 6:39.] Note that the Father’s gift is the beginning of our reception into the surety and protection of Christ. Perhaps someone will here turn the argument around and object that only those who in faith have voluntarily yielded are considered to be the Father’s own. Yet Christ insists upon this point alone: even though the desertions of vast multitudes shake the whole world, God’s firm plan that election may never be shaken will be more stable than the very heavens. The elect are said to have been the Father’s before he gave them his only-begotten Son. They ask whether by nature. No, those who were strangers he makes his own by drawing them to him. Christ’s words are too clear to be covered up with any clouds of evasion. “No one,” he says, “can come to me unless the Father... draws him... Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.” [John 6:44-45.] If all men in general bowed the knee before Christ, election would be general; now in the fewness of believers a manifest diversity appears. Therefore, after Christ declared that the disciples who were given him were the special possession of God the Father [John 17:6], a little later he adds: “I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine” [John 17:9 p.; see also John 15:19]. Whence it comes about that the whole world does not belong to its Creator except that grace rescues from God’s curse and wrath and eternal death a limited number who would otherwise perish. But the world itself is left to its own destruction, to which it has been destined. Meanwhile, although Christ interposes himself as mediator, he claims for himself, in common with the Father, the right to choose. “I am not speaking,” he says, “of all; I know whom I have chosen.” [John 13:18.] If anyone ask whence he has chosen them, he replies in another passage: “From the world” [John 15:19], which he excludes from his prayers when he commends his disciples to the Father [John 17:9]. This we must believe: when he declares that he knows whom he has chosen, he denotes in the human genus a particular species, distinguished not by the quality of its virtues but by heavenly decree.
   From this we may infer that none excel by their own effort or diligence, seeing that Christ makes himself the Author of election. He elsewhere numbers Judas among the elect, although he “is a devil” [John 6:70]. This refers only to the office of apostle, which, even though it is a clear mirror of God’s favor, as Paul often acknowledges in his own person [e.g., Galatians 1:16; Ephesians 3:7], still does not contain in itself the hope of eternal salvation. Judas, then, could be worse than a devil, since he faithlessly discharged the office of apostle, but Christ does not allow any of those whom he has once for all engrafted into his body to perish [John 10:28]; for in preserving their salvation he will perform what he has promised—namely, he will show forth God’s power, which “is greater than all” [John 10:29]. For what he says elsewhere, “Father,... of those... whom thou hast given me none... is lost but the son of perdition” [John 17:11-12], even though the expression is misused, involves no ambiguity. To sum up: by free adoption God makes those whom he wills to be his sons; the intrinsic cause of this is in himself, for he is content with his own secret good pleasure. [3:22.7]

13:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

More on Anti-Calvinism from Paul Owen (V)

10/05/2005 - James White

   I continue with what I hope is a helpful series exposing the anti-Reformed polemics of pseudo-Calvinist Paul Owen of Montreat College. We have seen how Owen has manhandled the text of John 6, ignoring its own context and flow, inserting a-contextual concepts here and there and coming up with his eisegetical conclusions. We move on to his next section on that favorite section of those who seek to insist that one can truly be in Christ, a disciple, joined to Him, truly "of" Him, and yet be lost and thrown away, John 15, and the parable of the vine. It surely should strike the careful reader as odd that clear didactic passages like John 6 can be so completely mishandled, as Owen has been shown to have done, while such "clarity" is derived from a parable. Let us hear what Dr. Owen has to say:

2. It may be helpful to make a few more comments about John 15:1-6. When Jesus identifies himself as the “true vine” in 15:1-2, he is identifying himself as the true Israel (Psalm 80; Isa. 5:1-7). When believers are incorporated into him they can said to be “in the vine” and so members of the new Israel. But there are different kinds of branches in the vine. There are fruitful branches, and branches without fruit. Any branch which lacks fruit is cut off and thrown into the fire (15:6). Now it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the failure to bear fruit proves that you were never actually “in” the vine. Any person who has seen a vine knows that it can have both kinds of branches. Not bearing fruit does not prove that you are not a branch, it proves that you are a branch in the vine which has died (and so does not bear fruit). This is the whole basis of Jesus’ warning–make sure that you do not become a dead branch which fails to produce fruit. If you do, you will be destroyed. Those who fail to “abide” in the vine will not produce fruit (15:4), and will be burned in the fire. Failing to abide in the vine leads to loss of life, which leads to failure to produce fruit, which leads to eternal destruction.

   Do not miss the agenda here: you can have life, and lose it. You must abide. I.e., the non-elect can have life and lose that life. Of course, one could ask, "Could a non-elect person abide?" And while a discussion of Augustine's views on this topic might be interesting, it has little to do with the reality of the the teaching of John 15.
   I have provided my viewpoint on this text elsewhere. In commenting on Owen, we note the tendency to once again ignore the immediate context in favor of verbal allusions and the like (very popular in the academy). Jesus' point is not that He is the "true Israel" but that He is the source of all spiritual life and that apart from Him we can do absolutely nothing. Jesus' own application is lost in Owen's search for parabolic means of making the New Covenant a mixed covenant and God's salvation a mixed work (it is hard to avoid seeing strong elements of synergism in Owen's comments). Note the statement, "when believers are incorporated into him." Is it not odd that when Jesus specifically speaks of how the elect were given to Him in eternity past and He will lose none of those thusly given in direct teaching in John 6:39, this promise is dismissed as wishful thinking; but when a parabolic example is used (vine/branches), Owen can find sufficient clarity to know that the illustration is telling us about the "incorporation" of "believers" who, evidently, are not disciples (i.e., only disciples produce fruit). Remember that Owen would likewise say this incorporation is done, normally, by infant baptism. Further, all of these branches are "members of the new Israel" and hence members of the covenant in the blood of Christ. So though there is no fruit, no discipleship, no flow of life from the vine to the branches that are cut off, yet we are told that these are true members of the New Covenant. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

On Defending the NWT (III)

10/04/2005 - James White

   I have been responding to various comments made in defense of the New World Translation by a defender of the Watchtower Society. One of the passages referenced is Colossians 1:15-17. Our JW defender once again shows no familiarity at all with the discussion of this text and its meaning despite his comments on the "weakness" of my apologetic regarding the Watchtower in general. He cites a single pro-JW source, but provides no response to the comments I included in these words in The Forgotten Trinity:

   Before we leave this passage, however, we need to listen to the objections that are raised by many today. Indeed, this passage is translated in such a way as to attempt to hide the truths we have just seen by the New World Translation published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Rather than repeating the phrase “all things” over and over again, as Paul did, the Watchtower translation inserts another word, “other,” into the phrase, making it read, “all [other] things.” [fn: When the NWT first came out, the word “other” wasn’t in brackets. However, such a hue and cry was raised, later editions included the brackets. However, the Society gladly drops the brackets when paraphrasing the passage (as in the 1991 publication, The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived, prologue, and the 1995 publication, Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life, p. 39).] The reason for the translation is transparent: since Watchtower theology insists Jesus is a creation, this passage must be rendered this way. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

13:00:00 - Category: Jehovahs Witnesses - Link to this article -

Today on the DL

10/04/2005 - James White

   Today on the Dividing Line we concluded the three-part series in response to Jack Graham's anti-Calvinism sermon, and then took calls. Here's the program.

12:06:46 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Dave Hunt Says Calvinism a False Gospel

10/04/2005 - James White

   It is dangerous to let folks guest blog for you. They get bit by the bug and go and start their own blog and well, then you are left with nobody to guest blog for you anymore! That's what happened with Alan Kurschner, who has begun a most entertaining blog, www.calvinistgadfly.com. I appreciated his kind words concerning my debate with Dr. Crossan (Alan went on our cruise and seemed to enjoy himself).
   You may recall I mentioned Hunt's outrageous newsletter Q&A portion in which he made this outlandish statement:

Could someone who believes this false gospel of Calvinism be truly saved? Fortunately, many Calvinists (you among them) were saved before becoming Calvinists. They now malign God by saying that He is pleased to damn multitudes though He could save all and that He predestines multitudes to the Lake of Fire before they are even born. But having believed the gospel before becoming Calvinists, they "shall not come into condemnation, but [have] passed from death unto life" (Jn 5:24). Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved, while those who are saved and ought to know better but teach these heresies will be judged for doing so.

   You would really think that if Hunt had the courage of his convictions he would stand up and defend this kind of statement in debate: he will not. He has been challenged to do so over and over and over again, but he simply will not do it, no matter who is offering the invitation (i.e., his own allies have tried to get him to do the debate, but he will not do so). In any case, don't miss what he is saying: Calvinism is a false gospel. It does not save. The only saved Calvinists are those who believed a different message when they were "saved" (remember, Hunt holds to an antinomian view that precludes the existence of false faith). Isn't it odd that if a Catholic author challenged Hunt to debate (like Karl Keating), he would do so: but he will not dare do so against me, since he knows this kind of statement would evaporate under cross-examination and any knowledgeable Reformed theologian and exegete would simply run Hunt out of the debate in a hurry.
   Anyway, the Calvinist Gadfly has commented on this section here, and will be doing more commenting in the future. I really do wish to comment more on Hunt's lengthy response in the September newsletter, but there are only so many hours in the day. We will see what develops.

01:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

More on Anti-Calvinism from Paul Owen (IV)

10/03/2005 - James White

   I continue reviewing the anti-Reformed interpretation of John 6 and John 10 offered by our pseudo-Calvinist scholar, Paul Owen. Before moving on to his next statement, I would like to briefly note the amusing attempt Owen has posted to provide for himself some cover regarding my previous comments on Romans 11. Though no serious minded individual could possibly be impacted by Owen's response, it remains educational to note not only the errors men like Owen propound with a serious look of scholarship on their face, but how they then attempt to get around refutations of their position. Rather than dealing with the substance of the response, Owen chose to use misdirection, focusing upon the fact that when Paul presents his imaginary arrogant Gentile who boasts of his position, he uses a singular rather than a plural. This, somehow, is supposed to be some major fact that I "missed" in my comments. Of course, I never mentioned the number of the pronoun since, as anyone can see, it is utterly irrelevant. When you present an imaginary speaker, are you going to use a singular pronoun (as in, "You will say, then, 'They were broken off so that I may be grafted in...'" etc.) or a plural pronoun? The singular, of course. This is somehow supposed to be relevant to the fact that we are still addressing Gentiles in general? Is Owen seriously suggesting that the use of the singular means Paul is speaking specifically of a particular member of the New Covenant? The singular proves a New Covenant member, rather than a single member of a group as a whole (Gentiles), is in view? Really? Yet again, amazing argumentation to say the least. This is the best Dr. Owen can come up with in the face of the refutation of his position?
   Then, in another attempt to blow smoke across the discussion, Owen tries to argue for the Jeremiah identification of the OT citation in 6:45 despite the clear verbal superiority of the Isaiah reading, all the while completely ignoring the refutation of his position provided in the ensuing discussion. Likewise, another rC writer chimes in who seemingly is unaware of the difference between citation and allusion. Almost any verbal parallel, no matter how weak or a-contextual, can be listed as an allusion. [Steve Hays provides a fuller discussion, including a useful list of citations, here]. We are truly seeing a classic example of failed exegesis flailing about helplessly, with nothing more at its disposal than obfuscation. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

A Wonderfully Balanced View of Assurance

10/02/2005 - James White

   I have often said while traveling that one of the greatest blessings I have experienced in my ministry is the stability and focus of my fellow elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, Don Fry. After more than thirty years of ministry in the same church Pastor Fry remains focused upon the sound and consistent proclamation of God's Word.
   In the morning services we have been working our way through 1 John, and are closing in on the end of the book. Today Pastor Fry came to 1 John 5:13:

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

   Now, aside from the textual variant here regarding the Textus Receptus, this passage is the "classicus locus" of the discussion of assurance. I truly appreciated the balance, and yet the passion, with which this subject was addressed this morning, and I look forward to the continuation of the study next Lord's Day morning. If you would like to listen in, here is this morning's sermon.

22:59:58 - Category: Reformed Baptist Issues - Link to this article -

On Defending the NWT (II)

10/01/2005 - James White

   Another text our JW correspondent mentioned was John 8:58. Once again the commentary shows no sign of any serious interaction with the chapter I offered in The Forgotten Trinity nor any of the various scholarly articles on the use of evgw. eivmi at 8:58, 8:24, 13:19, 18:5-6, etc. Of course, it is hard to be overly critical (outside of his comments against me specifically) in that the vast majority of evangelicals, even those who have been privileged to grow up in sound churches, have no idea how rich and full and glorious John's testimony to the deity of Christ truly is. A few vague references to John 10:30 or John 1:1 is about as far as most can go on a topic that in reality not only defines our faith (how important is the deity of Christ to Christian exclusivism, for example---and could our ignorance of this great topic be part of the reason why inclusivism is making such inroads?). Just a thought in passing.
   The incessant usage of single-author, off-beat, "never heard of that one" translations is a hallmark of JW internet e-pologists. Obviously, just because someone publishes something, it does not follow that there is anything overly meaningful in its content. Indeed, just some of the versions cited give you a good idea of the level of this kind of apologetic: The Simple English Bible; the Living Bible; The Four Gospels & Revelation by Richmond Lattimore. Why not cite the Oxford Inclusive Version and the Reader's Digest Version for all it means to serious exegesis? The writer then kicks open a somewhat humorous "back door" by saying that even if it is rendered "I am," all Jesus is saying is that He pre-existed. That has "nothing to do" with Exodus 3:14. Of course, as I pointed out in my work on the subject:
   When dealing with theological issues, we often condense things and make connections that, in reality, take a little more proof than we have offered. This is nowhere better illustrated than in the connection that is alleged to exist between Jesus’ words in John 8:58 and the words of Yahweh in Exodus 3:14, “I am that I am.” You will find references to Exodus 3:14 in most commentaries on John 8:58, yet, those who deny the deity of Christ cry “foul!” and argue that such an immediate connection can’t be made. The strongest argument they can present is that the ego eimi portion of Exodus 3:14 isn’t really the assertion of divinity: the ho ohn portion is (ho ohn being translated as “the Being” or “the One Existing.”). ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Jehovahs Witnesses - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives