Road Trip Dividing Line: Eric Holmberg's Conversion Syndrome, Joel Beeke on the KJV

Well, greetings and welcome to the Divine Line. My name is James White, and we are coming to you as live as we can be coming to you.

We are live. We are live. I'm doing all this myself again, which means I'll probably make a mistake somewhere along the line, but that's how it goes.

We are here in Missouri. By the way, I came this close to looking up the

Missouri Department of Transportation. It's not the first time I've been in a situation where they divide the highway, and you can choose which direction you're going to go.

And I don't think it was the same spot before, but I went left, and there's no exits there and stuff like that.

And a thought crossed my mind, if you have a flat or something like that. So I went right. Oh my goodness, was that a mistake?

It was about eight miles, and the first six and a half were okay, and then all of a sudden they shifted you right.

It is not a passable road. I was down to 15 to 20 miles per hour just to keep from disconnecting the

RV from my truck. It was that rough. I've never been. Louisiana is infamous for its horrible roads.

Missouri took the lead with that one. I'm going to tell you, if you're with the

Missouri Department of Transportation, that's not even a passable road, and you all should know that.

Oh my goodness. Anyway, I feel better now. It was bad.

I probably do have video of it. I've got that video thing. I don't know if it's already recorded over that or not, but not good stuff.

Anyways, so we are here for our 23rd year at Covenant of Grace Church in St.

Charles on Mwigi Road, and I've been told that there's lots of new stuff to see.

There's two new upstairs bathrooms, new signs because there's a massive amount of road construction outside the church, and so that's almost as exciting as when they got rid of the overhead projector there, which is in a museum now somewhere.

But yes, we'll be with Pastor Van Lees and the folks once again.

Coming up on a quarter -century, I sort of figure we really can't go past a quarter -century.

I figure I want to do 25. At that point, just on the level of being merciful, we need to find these folks a much better speaker, someone of a much higher caliber that can talk about a wider range of topics than I can.

25 years should be enough, I think, probably. So anyways, we're here, and then this is what's unusual.

This is what we haven't done before, but that's what having the RV is about. I'm going to be going to Sedalia, Missouri for Wednesday and Thursday evenings, and then in Kansas City Friday, Saturday, Sunday before I head home.

Long legs on the way home because I need to get home in time. I'm taking my granddaughter, along with my wife, to the

Messiah performance of the Phoenix Symphony Orchestra and Choir, and really excited about that, but I've got to get back.

So long, long legs ahead as far as that journey is concerned.

And by the way, just if you're into praying for the trip and helping to support it and stuff like that,

I've got a few issues we're dealing with. We're gonna have a repairman out tomorrow morning. I've got a little bit of a leak near the hot water heater.

It's been cold. I actually have the door open right now. This is the warmest I have experienced since I left

Phoenix. I've had wind chill of 14, and you go from 70 degrees to 14 degrees, and it can do stuff to connections, hoses, stuff like that.

So we've got a repairman coming out tomorrow morning to work on that, and I also have one of the circuits in the unit that controls a number of the plugs, receptacles, that is popping.

It's kicking off, and we've replaced the GFI unit, and it's something more than that.

So I'm not sure if the guy who's repairing that can take a look at that.

We'll see, but right now I'm having to run an extension cord to make toast and stuff like that, so you don't need any extra stuff to be doing when you're on the road.

So we press on. That's just the way this works, and you know, there are people that fly that have to stand for hours and get reaccommodated and stay overnight in a waiting area and end up at hotels and have hot water.

If you travel, things happen. Actually, if you're at home, things happen. Come to think of it, you know, water heater goes out, whatever.

It's just sort of how life is. So what are we going to talk about today? Well, there are a bunch of bunches of things that I know

I haven't finished up. We've got the Muhammad Hijab's, and by the way,

I wrote to Muhammad Hijab, and he hasn't responded to me yet. I hope he's not offended or something, but I'd like to hear from him because I'd like to find out if he's coming to the

United States, arrange something as far as debates go, and things like that. We need to continue with that, and that fits well with my preparation.

I need, it's not easy to do, but I need to really be disciplined in trying to focus upon what's going to be relevant for February.

February is only a matter of weeks away, and five debates, three of those debates with some of the top people in their field.

So yeah, and I'm not feeling overly prepared at this point in time, and it's just because I've got so many other things going on, and things at Apologia, and you know, just ministry is ministry.

There's things you've got to do. So I do need to start focusing more upon the things that would be relevant at that point.

At the same time, there's just so much stuff going on. I owe Jared Longshore a further response, and I was actually looking at his response article to me, and there's some important stuff to talk about.

You know, all the Moscow mood stuff going on right now. I'm sorry, I'm not overly into all that stuff.

The Kevin DeYoung article and stuff. I will say this, I do need to say this, and I think it is important, because people just assume, well, you've spoken at Christchurch, and you've done all this stuff with them.

You're just a Muscovite yourself. Well, obviously, I'm not. Doug Wilson has not debated anyone more often than me.

So we don't hide our differences. And we have these sort of dialogues, we talk about stuff.

But there's something that, and I'm going to have to say some pretty strong stuff in response to Jared.

I think there's some really concerning things that are being said. And in fact, there was a,

I hate when this happens. Twitter is great in allowing you to communicate quickly to a large number of people, but trying to go back and find stuff?

Next to impossible. I saw a quotation, it was credited to Jared Longshore.

I didn't save it. At least I don't think I saved it. Now that I think about that, I guess I should go back and look at my screenshots.

But I don't think I saved it. There's something along the lines of when a Christian, when a married

Christian couple have a child, the church grows. And that's where the issue is.

The idea that the promise to your children, and to all who are far off, the

Gentiles, Jews and Gentiles, but the promises to the children drawn primarily from the old covenant, sort of mean almost a procreational regeneration promise.

And I need to find that because, like I said, there were some things in the article that I need to respond to.

And yeah, so that's not really part of what's coming up in February.

It's a bit of a distraction, but I started the response. I need to get back to that as well.

So lots of things to be doing and getting back to. But one of the things that I did promise to do, and I want to get to today, there's two things.

First of all, and by the way, this is going to be another distraction that I can't really avoid being involved with, but I'm going to have to be somewhat hesitant to be fully committed to it.

But I believe December 17th, the Sunday, so it can't be a

Sunday. So it would have to be December 18th, I think, is the projected date for the release of Jeffrey Johnson's new book, which contrasts philosophical classical theism with biblical classical theism.

And this is, the majority response is going to be mockery, as certain kinds of people tend to do all the time.

But this is the distinction that I have been making for quite some time. It speaks the exact same thing.

What is the origin of your theological formulation? When people talk about philosophy as a handmade to theology, does the handmade determine what the

Queen can say? Is the fundamental concern protecting the philosophical system?

Or is it something more than that? Where's the origination of your theology?

And Jeffrey Johnson has written an excellent book. I reread it on the way out here. Listened to it on the way out here. There's going to be sections that are going to be hard for people because he gives a lot of background information, really important stuff like pseudo -Dionysius, that the impact that pseudo -Dionysius had on the development of medieval theology, and hence, a lot of philosophical classical theism, cannot be underestimated.

The impact of Neoplatonism, pseudo -Dionysius, mysticism, and all these things have to be brought under the scrutiny of the

Word of God. Of course, there are some of these folks who would say, you can't. You start with philosophy, and that's your foundation, and stuff like that.

So anyways, that's gonna be coming out, and I highly, highly recommend that people obtain it, and read it, and I think it'll be useful to folks.

Anyway, the two things I want to try to get to today, and I've got to hurry up here. A lot of folks are not aware,

I've been aware since it happened, that Eric Holmberg, who was the help to write and produce, and he was the host of Amazing Grace, the

History and Theology of Calvinism, came out a number of years ago now, but was a very popular

DVD back in the day, swam the

Tiber River. He swam the eastern portion of the Tiber River, I guess he would say. People joined the eastern rites that are still under the authority of Rome, like to emphasize that.

I remember Stravinskas did in our debate, but became Roman Catholic, and we're seeing lots of folks,

I see lots of folks on Twitter. Isn't it interesting, I've noticed this for many, many years, when

Roman Catholics leave Roman Catholicism, they talk about their conversion to Christ and the gospel.

Over and over again, I hear people say, I grew up as Roman Catholic, I never heard the gospel.

It was never explained to me in any way that would require me to repent, and believe, and to actually come to Christ.

It was always the church, the church, the church, church, church. When Protestants become

Roman Catholics, what do they talk about? Their conversion to the church, the church, the church, the church. When Roman Catholics become

Protestants, conversion to Christ. It's regular, I mean, I see it all the time, and if you just watch it and sit back and listen, you know, listen to the

Coming Home Network, and read all the Surprised by Truth volumes, it's almost the same thing.

It's not a conversion to the gospel, it's a conversion to a church. And so Eric Holmberg has swum the tiber, and he is answering a question, this was from November 19th, so really?

That's his last edited, I think it was before then. I don't see the date here, but it was a little before this, it's been at least a month.

And he's answering the question, doesn't Rome call Christians a curse to believe they are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone?

And of course, what that's referring to is the anathemas of the Council of Trent, which was a counter -reformation council, which led to the burnings of many

Protestants for refusing to embrace the Roman Catholic doctrine of the

Eucharist, transubstantiation for affirming justification by faith alone through grace alone, grace alone through faith alone, that kind of stuff.

And he provides a response, I just want to just run through it real quick, and responding to people who've left, who claim they once knew, especially individuals like this.

Every time I talk to a former Calvinist who's become a

Roman Catholic, I just look them straight in the eye and go, I want to know what would cause someone, because you must understand,

Rome does not believe that your relationship with God is based upon the imputed righteousness of Christ.

And normally what happens is it's immediate shutdown. I believe what the successors of Peter teach, and it's immediately to authority, and they don't even want to talk about it, they do not want to go there.

Because to exchange the righteousness of Christ for the righteousness that Rome offers, which is unquestionably made up of the righteousness of Christ, Mary, the saints, and the righteousness as a result of your own penances and priestly absolutions and everything that goes along with that, then you get into indulgences, and you get into purgatory, and thesaurus meritorum, and it's extremely complicated.

And the reality is, when you stand before a holy God in the final analysis within Roman Catholicism, you stand in a multi -patchwork quilt of righteousness.

It's not just the righteousness of Christ. There's much more that's involved, including the satispassio and things like that.

So they don't want to get into that. They don't want to talk about that, and I understand why. I understand why, because that is the essence of what you've denied, of what you have said is untrue.

And normally they've come to that conclusion through the acceptance of authority arguments, and so they'd much rather be talking about that, even though we live in the day of Francis, and I just don't know why any

Roman Catholic, I don't know why anybody converts today. What you gotta do is look at Francis and ask yourself a simple question.

Does this man teach and believe what every Pope a hundred years ago and earlier taught and believed?

And the answer is, no, he does not. Nope, no, nope, nope, no, nope, nope, nope.

And he is making fundamental changes in the system. Now I'm hearing he's not well. You know,

I've always speculated that he might go ahead and resign at some point, but if he just up and croaks, he has already made the preparations for changing how his successor is chosen, and packing the

College of Cardinals, and locking the Roman Church into a direction that it's going to continue to go to affirm his perspective on things.

And that's a big thing. That's huge, it really is. So anyway, back to Eric Holmberg here.

He says, first, while Rome is technically right because it's where the seat of Peter resides, tell

Cyprian that. I know you and most Protestants, particularly reformed variety, use it, in other words, like papist, as a pejorative.

No, it's just identification of the Roman Catholic system. Certainly reject its claims, but.

So, said Rome, let's just say, according to the apostolic faith as expressed by Rome, Peter, Antioch, Peter again,

Alexandria, Mark, Jerusalem, James, Constantinople, Andrew, and 99 % of the Catholic Orthodox world.

Okay, that's an argument of authority, and it's historically laughable. It truly is.

I mean, this is assuming so many things that you cannot even begin to prove.

I mean, it's picking and choosing. Well, I'm going to take what this person said, and that person said, and put it all together here and have this wonderful foundation of authority.

It doesn't work. There are so many contradictions in trying to put these things together between Constantinople, Andrew, Constantinople.

You can prove this? Well, this person said this, and that person. If you just, you know, maybe read a lot of New World Church Fathers, you'll keep running across all sorts of stuff that you go, really interesting.

Where'd that come from? Anyways, but you'll perhaps be surprised to know that they would have no problem with your formula as long as it was properly exegeted and understood.

In other words, as long as it's properly redefined. As long as it's not in the context of the

Reformation and what sola gratia meant, over against the saints, over against the mass, over against Mary, and as long as it's not dealing with what sola fide means in the sense of the nature of faith, deadness of man and sin, the sacramental system of Rome, you know, if we can put all that stuff aside, then yeah, we can say that.

So he says, for sure, it's all sola gratia. Again, it's frustrating.

Someone who ostensibly knew about the Reformation wouldn't recognize that the central issue of the

Reformation was not the necessity of grace.

It was the sufficiency of grace. And I remember banging that drum in 1999 in response to Norman Geisler, who while on the

Bible Answer Man program was talking about, well, Rome believes with us necessity of grace. Not even an issue.

That wasn't the issue then. It's not the issue now. It is the sufficiency of grace, not the necessity of grace.

And by the way, even though you didn't mention it, it's also sola deo gloria all the way, baby. I'm sorry, you don't believe that,

Eric. Every time you light a candle to Mary, you don't believe that. You are giving clear evidence.

Have you read The Glorious of Mary? Do you agree with it? You cannot say sola deo gloria and believe that book.

Do not be self -deceived. You can't do it. It's impossible.

You should know that. God is beyond being and glorification as he is the essence fountain of being and glory along with wisdom, perfection, love, righteousness, etc.

in, of, and through himself. For a creature to magnify or glorify God is as ridiculous as me standing on the rim of a supernova, holding up a penlight and saying, here, let me shine some light onto the situation, which is absurd because what does heavenly worship do?

I was just preaching on Thanksgiving in Amarillo and in Apologia a few weeks before that, and going through the phrases that are used by the elders and the living creatures and the worship of God in heaven.

And that's exactly what they're doing. Glory and honor and power and might and thanksgiving. And they're not, they're not staying there with a penlight.

It's, it's not ridiculous. It's biblical. Irenaeus' solution to the conundrum of how to glorify being itself, who is already glory itself, has found his famous aphorism, the glory of God is man fully alive.

What if God's being glorified by creatures that aren't men? As in heaven, as scripture says, that's the difference between defying these things by scripture and defying these things by Irenaeus.

You can substitute fully divinized for fully alive. So there, we're going to get a little theosis thrown in there.

And you can add to that, Athanasius' on the incarnation observation for the sons of God became man so that we might become

God. More theosis. Not God ontologically. That would be absurd. To create a creature distinction is eternal and mutable.

We would ever remain creatures. We exist through the word of his power. But God created man to be his perfect icon.

More eastern stuff. And then become one of us to redeem and make whole the shattered icon. And that restored icon would gradually be divinized to the point where some of us, those who pass all the trials and tests of life, oh not those who are imputed with the righteousness of Christ, can be exalted to a position of ruling and reigning with him in the eschaton, judging even the angels.

Even though that's actually said of everyone who is in Christ. As for solus Christus, that's fine too.

As long as one understands that Christ alone is established and alone with the Holy Spirit and power is a salvific matrix in which redeemed humans in a reciprocal process of divinization play a very real part.

In other words, the sacraments. So in other words, no we don't believe in solus Christus. We believe that Christ's salvific power is mediated through the sacraments of the church.

And of course there's going to be this eastern spin to stuff which again might leave a lot of people going, what's he talking about?

But it's it's just an emphasis. It's just it's a mindset that a lot of western

Roman Catholics don't have. But it's there. Even as a

Protestant you should be able to grasp this, although I know it's very hard because it sounds so gulp freaking Catholic. That sounds primarily orthodox at this point.

Otherwise, if it's just the God -man, Jesus, all by his lonesome that saves people, why bother preaching the gospel, evangelizing, or praying for people?

Again, this is where you go, you produced an entire documentary that you've already forgotten what it said?

What is it about conversion that makes converts completely incapable of any longer properly enunciating what they say they once believed?

It is an amazing consistency. It's just wowsers.

And then what's going on with having a Ministry of Reconciliation, 2 Corinthians 5 18, or filling up what is lacking the sufferings of Christ?

Context, Gospels 24. See also Daniel 12, knowing especially those who receive a special award, shining like the stars forever, for turning many to righteousness.

Oh, so God ordains the ends as well as the means. Chalking, chalking, chalking, chalking.

Lastly, there's Sola Fide. That can be okay as well, as long as the

Fide isn't neutered by Gnostic leaven. I believe that Jesus died for my sins, was raised from the dead, and is

Lord, and this special knowledge, gnosis, thereby saves me. Again, listening to converts is just amazing.

You're just like, where did, where are you getting this stuff? And then they always say, well,

I wasn't necessarily talking about your particular, well, you were allegedly a part of this group, and you know what we believe about saving faith.

It's not Gnostic. The Gospel Coalition got three of the four parts of Salvis Fide right.

The facts, notitia, comprehension of the facts, assensus, and the trust in the facts, fiducia.

What they completely left out is the fourth and last part, clearly and dogmatically expressed by the brother, either stepbrother or cousin of the

Lord Jesus, for as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith that works is dead also, James 2 26. Oh, we're going to go to James 2.

Stunning. Maybe I'll, I'm not sure

I'll have time to link to one of the many, many, many places we've dealt with James chapter 2.

The guy who justifies, I think the chapter is 32, 34 pages long, something like that. And no, he,

Eric never contacted me with any questions about his conversion. That doesn't happen very often, other than the guy who ended up running the

Drunken Ex -Pastors podcast. You might know Luther understood the implications of this verse, which is why he called

James an epistle of straw, and for a time wanted it stricken from the canon, but then he did what Protestants always do when the plain reading of a verse contradicts their interpretive grid.

He tilted his head sideways, dimmed the light, squinted, and found a way for two plus two to equal five. Well, Eric, I would challenge you to actually respond to my chapter on James chapter 2.

It's, I'm not saying anything. It hasn't been said by many of the Westminster divines, everything else, but it's exegetically argued, and I have had nobody offer any consistent response to it that did not involve a fundamental rejection of Sola Scriptura.

In other words, well, okay, yeah, you, you look, you were just looking at scripture. You need to have this other stuff to throw in there.

If you, if you actually believe this, and if you think that that's what we're doing, then I would challenge you to read the chapter and respond to it.

I think that would be a good idea. My favorite example of this, one of the many verses that ultimately pulled the plug on the lifeboat

I helped to inflate with the documentary, Amazing Grace History and Theology of Calvin, the lifeboat that you helped to inflate, you did, you did a documentary and you think you're responsible for Reformed Theology?

Sir, the arrogance is astonishing. It's astonishing. I can't count the number of people

I've introduced to Reformed Theology with my books, but I would never in a million years think that somehow my introducing people to something was creating a lifeboat or something.

What are you? First Timothy 2, 1 through 4, the

Calvinist, whatever God desires he accomplishes, but clearly not all people, including kings and all those who are in high positions get saved.

Shoot, of those in latter category, most blow hell wide open. So heads tilt, light dims,

I squint. Clearly God just means he just wants to save some of the people in each and every category, nation, tribe, and tongue,

Revelation 7, 9. Uh -huh, right. Hey, at least he is aware that there is a

Reformed response. He cannot honestly refute it, and so he has to misrepresent it. Shame on you, sir.

Shame on you. Why is, why is, why does conversion create such dishonesty?

I mean, I know the text well. I've debated it more than, more than once, and it's interesting you didn't include all of it that needs to be included.

Is Jesus interceding? See, you don't, you don't have Jesus interceding anymore because you don't have a finished work.

You can't even deal with these texts anymore. How dare you even try to mock these things when you've embraced a system that doesn't even have a finished work upon which to even have a meaningful conversation.

Jesus is pictured as interceding in this text. Who's he interceding for, and on what grounds?

An imperfect, incompleted, oft -repeated representation of a sacrifice that perfects nobody?

You've answered all these things? Hmm, wondered. So yes, salvus fide is fine as long as notitia sensus fiducia and opera caritatis, works of charity, which are the necessary grace -empowered fruit of saving faith, are in place and fully operational, which is just another way of saying not what

Reformed people are saying, but of saying the sacraments are the necessary means of salvation.

Hallelujah! Can you see how close we are to attaining the oneness that Jesus prayed for in John 17, 21 -23?

No sir, we cannot because we are honestly representing the positions and you are not.

Shameful, absolutely shameful. Then it goes on to talk about Council Trent a little bit.

But wait, there is one other matter that comes into play here. While you didn't say it, I know you and your worldview enough, in part because I once shared it and, if I recall, helped form it in your life.

Well, that is, that is gonna be a weight you're gonna have to carry, because if you cannot accurately represent it while you're now denying it, wow, that's amazing.

To know what was implicit in your formula. Salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone also means that once salvation has taken place, that person possesses the righteousness of Christ and can never lose it.

Come hell or high water, they are heaven -bound. You were once Reformed, and yet now when you talk about the perseverance of the saints, you don't talk about Christologically, you don't talk about as their union with Christ, you don't talk about on the basis of imputed righteousness of Christ, you talk about it as the

IFB, one saved, always saved. I'm sorry, I either laugh or get mad, because it's just disgusting.

It is simply disgusting. Why can't you be honest? I'm just,

I, wow, yikes, yikes, yikes. And there, along with Sola Scriptura, the ancient apostolic faith and the protest revolt definitely part company.

Always, you know, I think they, I think they get little ancient apostolic faith pillows they cuddle up with at night, so they don't actually have to read the early church fathers and realize how much disagreement there was.

Especially, especially the fact that so much of what they believe is dogma wasn't even conceived of by the early church, but it was the ancient apostolic faith.

So yes, the Council of Trent did call out the idea that salvation could be obtained outside the formula I just described above.

And further, once true salvation was experienced, it could not be lost due to the apostasy of the believer as grave errors that could potentially damn souls.

I think it, I think it could be. I mean, Rome, Rome clearly believes that you can lose the state of grace.

But you're wrong to say that Trent cursed or damned to hell anybody that has a common Protestant misconception. While in the main, they circulate among themselves,

I'm guilty as charged, and used to bludgeon Catholics, as well as to help encourage themselves they are right, and those poor

Catholics and Orthodox are wrong. That's a story for another day. So you don't believe that the anathemas of Trent resulted in, in anyone maybe like being burned to the stake in the years after Trent?

Anywhere? I don't know what church history you're reading, but it, it's not, it's not good stuff.

So it's sad, honestly, to see these folks saying these things because it's just, they're indefensible.

They're indefensible. Okay, 25 minutes. One of the things I said that was a good deal with, shifting gears here, one of the things

I said was a good deal with was an article, it's a brief article, that I made reference to a while ago by Joel Beakey, and it's

Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV. Okay, so I just want to go through these, and I want to provide practical responses to the things that are said here.

Joel Beakey's a wonderful man who's done great things to the church. I just think on this issue, there is another side.

Man, those things are fizzy. Fizzy, that's the sparkling ice stuff, orange mango.

It's really good, but it's fizzy fizzy, fizzy fizzy. Okay, here are 12 practical reasons for retaining the

King James Version of the Bible. Number one, the standard text of the English Bible, it is wiser to choose the known over against the unknown.

Would that have been the case with the King James and the Geneva Bible, maybe? The weaknesses and disadvantages of a particular version of the

Bible cannot really be assessed apart from a thorough trial of daily usage over several years. Many who welcome the

NIV with great enthusiasm when it first appeared in 73 are now prepared to admit serious weaknesses as a translation.

Well, that's true. The KJV is well -established in the marketplace and in the literature of Christian scholarship.

It will continue in production for years to come. Helps and reference works are commonly available. It is not likely the

KJV will fade from view and disappear, as have many versions that were expected to supplant it. Likewise, the KJV is widely studied and commented on in the literature of biblical scholarship, but not so much today.

It will always be a standard of reference in comparison for Bible commentators. All other versions are compared to it, contrasted with it, tested by it.

Campaign seller versions must attack it, or else claim that a particular new version is just like it. The same cannot be said of any other

Bible version. Well, there's lots of stuff out there in the King James, mainly because it's free. That is not a reason that the

King James translators would ever have given. Ever have given. In fact, I think that goes against the spirit of the introduction of the preface to the readers from the

King James. I don't think that that would ever have crossed their mind as being a valid reason to keep in use a translation that is over 400 years old.

I don't think they would view it that way. Number two, based on the full text of the Hebrew and Greek originals, based on the

Masoretic text, Hebrew Old Testament, well, the 1525 Blomberg, not the current Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, and the

Textus Receptus, based on a dozen manuscripts, two dozen manuscripts, the

KJV gives the most authentic and fullest available text of the scriptures. Not sure how you even substantiate that.

With none of the many omissions and textual rewrites of modern translations such as the RSV and the

NIV. That's not the issue, and I'm sure

Dr. Behe knows that. The issue is the underlying text, and the issue is we have so much more information about, especially the

New Testament, than they had, that to ignore that is to, again, go against the spirit of the

King James translators themselves. The reader may suppose that such is not the case with the

ESV. However, the publisher is plain to say that the ESV is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the

Bible. Again, every version needs to be examined on its own basis and the faithfulness that it shows to its underlying texts.

But it says, those who remember the RSV can attest that few other versions made greater use of the methods and findings of higher criticism.

A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Now, that's just not fair. This is where I'm really, really surprised because Dr.

Behe wouldn't do this in dealing with the Puritans and things like that.

When it comes to Bible translations, all said, oh, higher criticism. Show where they use it.

Show where their translation is impacted by an inappropriate acceptance of unbelieving higher criticism.

Form criticism, source criticism, be specific. This is the vague thing that unfortunately marks most

King James -only -ism and things like that. Oh, higher criticism. I reject higher criticism too, but I know why

I reject higher criticism. And so, you know, a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

So that means that conservative modern translations that are more conservative than even the

King James translators might have been. I mean, they were Anglicans after all. That would make it better than the

King James? Doesn't sound like that would follow. Then under two, you have

A, oldest does not mean best. The Westcott and Hort arguments that the oldest manuscripts are most reliable and age carries more weight than volume are not necessarily true.

It could well be that the two oldest complete manuscripts were found to be in such unusually excellent condition because they were already recognized as faulty manuscripts in their time and therefore were placed aside and not recopied until worn out as were the reliable manuscripts.

This is further supported by numerous existing differences between the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. This is argumentation that is 100 years out of date.

I am stunned that anyone repeats a day. I really, really am. I just got to be really honest with you.

I am stunned that anyone does this. We are not following Westcott and Hort today. We are not following Vatican Vaticanus and Sinaiticus slavishly like they did.

The papyri have been discovered since then. Hello! Revolutionizes everything.

This is straight out of the debates in the 1880s.

It has no place in 2023. None. I don't understand why anybody would date their arguments and make them so weak like this as to ignore everything that's happened over the time period since then.

I really, really don't. To B, the

King James Version New Testament is based upon the traditional text sometimes called the ecclesiastical or majority text. The vast majority of the more than 5 ,000 known partially complete

Greek manuscripts follow this textual reading. It's just not true. It's just not true, Dr. Beagy. This is not the translation majority text.

The TR represents a late stream in the Byzantine manuscripts.

It has numerous unique readings that are clearly not representational of the general

Byzantine family. It's not based upon the traditional text.

It's based upon a text that Erasmus whipped together as quickly as he could, which included back translating from his own

Latin translation into Greek at the end of the Book of Revelation. The vast majority of the more than 5 ,000 known partial and complete

Greek manuscripts follow this textual reading. I'm assuming that this must mean that Dr.

Beagy would agree that the King James is in need of fundamental editing in the

Book of Revelation, Revelation 16 .5, the end of Revelation, and Ephesians 3 .9.

All these texts where there's clear problems with the textus receptus. So we would agree that those need to be changed, right?

I don't see anything. To C, the received text has been used by the

Christian church throughout history. The church all used Bibles based on the traditional text. For example, the

Dutch Statenvertaling produced by the Synod of Dort is based upon the ecclesiastical text.

No, it's based upon what was available at the time. This is again very frustrating.

I would think that the people in Dr. Beagy's position would do some reading and recognize that.

Just quickly as an example, I was talking to the student about this while driving yesterday, the situation with Revelation in Erasmus.

By the way, I was told about a month and a half ago that some people were having a wonderful time mocking my stupidity because instead of saying the

Aldine edition, I said the Aline edition. I was running with no notes off the top of my head and not a single one of you people who think you are so smart would be able to tell me anything about the

Sa 'ana manuscripts of the Quran. You wouldn't be able to tell me anything about documented history of the church, the

Mormon church. You've not read almost anything in Jehovah's Witnesses. You've got your one little area and I misremember

Aldine as Aline. Oh, we're right. See? Pathetic.

Pathetic. But point is, I've always wondered, and I've talked about this before, why didn't

Erasmus fix Revelation? Because we know he only had one manuscript. It wasn't even a manuscript. It's commentary in Latin.

He had to extract the Greek from the Latin and it didn't have the last pages and it was all sorts of mistakes were made in the process.

He had many years before 1535 to fix Revelation. A, he didn't care.

He did not respect the book of Revelation. He did not respect it at all. Do with that as you will, but he did not respect the book of Revelation.

Secondly, before his second edition, he told the printer, go get the Aldine edition, which had just come out, which he was aware of.

Go get that. Use their text of Revelation. Replace mine.

Just get rid of mine. Use theirs. We'll go from there. And that was it. He figured that's taken care of.

And literally for 300 years, most people didn't know what had happened. What happened was the

Aldine edition had used Erasmus's edition of the book of Revelation. And hence, his back translation is part of the

TR. There's history to all of these things. And they did not have the information we have today.

They did not have any way of identifying manuscripts and making sure they weren't talking about the same manuscript. They were talking about different manuscripts.

That's why Beza had the confusion with Stephanos' Beta manuscript.

That was actually Codex D, Codex Bezae Canterburgensis.

He didn't know that. That influences Beza. There's all sorts of stuff that is available historically that just gets, you know, the

Church of the Reformation all used Bibles based on the traditional text. They all used Bibles based upon the few manuscripts that had been put together and printed by Erasmus and Stephanos and Beza.

That was not a Church -wide effort to analyze, to study.

There was nothing like that. There were too many wars going on for things like that to happen. So it is pretense.

It really is pretense to say, well, there's a traditional text and it was determined by the

Church. It's just not true. It's just not true. You can't prove it. You can't back it up. Number three, a more faithful method of translation, the

King James Translators employed the method of verbal equivalence, word for word, rather than a method of paraphrased dynamic equivalence used in the

NIV. The result is KJV presents what biblical authors wrote, not what a translator committee thinks they meant.

Well, again, that's really nice if you're just picking on non -formal dynamic equivalency translations like the

NIV. But the fact of the matter is, I can point you, and did in my book written in 1994, to numerous places where the

King James does not use a formal translation where modern translations do.

Every translation is a mixture. And so I like formal equivalency. That's why

I like the LSB. But comparing it to the

NIV is, well, we'll just compare it to one of the most dynamic translations. Let's compare apples to apples.

Number four, a more honest translation. The text of KJV uses italics to identify every word or phrase interpolated, supplied by the translator, and not given in the original.

Such a practice could not be followed in the NIV because of its meaning for meaning approach. Well, again, what's this with the NIV? You can argue that using old

English pronouns because they represent singulars and plurals makes it superior. You know, it is nice to be able to know.

But it also makes it impossible to read in many public situations. So what? This is all based on going after the

NIV, which I think is somewhat misleading. A more precise idiom often attacked at this very point.

The KJV actually is a more accurate and helpful translation precisely because of the archaic pronouns. There it is. Thou the both

Hebrew and Greek distinguish clear between the second person. Okay, so that's exactly what we're just talking about. So uses archaic words that we can tell.

Well, if you study enough, you can tell that they are plurals or singulars. A lot of people don't even know that.

I mean, no, that's where aware of that. But that just means that it's no longer written in the language that we speak, which again,

King James translators would not have. I don't think they would have agreed with that. Number six, the best liturgical version.

The KJV excels as a version for public worship. That is why it's been used so widely in the churches. Requirements of the sanctuary are not those of the classroom.

Students might read several versions, ancient and modern, but none surpasses the KJV as a liturgical version that has adapted the needs and circumstances of public worship.

What does that exactly mean? Public worship for who? This is very American.

Public worship for who? Not somebody for whose English is a second language. Not outside of English speaking areas.

And I'm not talking about just, well, of course, I'm not talking about using it. Actually, most King James preferred folks do think that translations done overseas should be based on the

TR. I don't know what Mickey's position on that is, but I bet you dollars and donuts that he would say that it does.

But adapted to the needs and circumstances of public worship. That is so vague.

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. I find the LSB and the

ESV to be perfectly adapted to public worship because that's what people are carrying.

That's what they're reading. And as long as it communicates clearly. The best format for preaching. The KJV traditionally has been laid out verse by verse on the page rather than in paragraphs.

Though for most of the text, paragraphs are indicated by the pilcrel or paragraph mark. The Hebrew and Greek texts, of course, have no paragraphing at all.

The verse by verse format serves best, best serves the purpose of verse by verse consecutive expository sermonizing and Bible study.

Really? You can get, you can get the LSB or the ESV in all those forms, either paragraph or non -paragraph, verse by verse.

I, I'm sorry. I just find that to be really picky.

The most beautiful translation. Okay, I'm not even going to read it.

The most beautiful. If you're raised in the LSB, you won't think it's the most beautiful. If you're raised in the

NIV, you won't think it's the most beautiful. Purely subjective. Purely subjective.

An ecumenical text for Reformed Christians. No other version has been used so widely among English -speaking

Christians. The KJV is used by preference in many conservative Reformed congregations. KJV is also used in the

Christian schools these churches sponsor. Using the KJV is one way to underscore our unity and identity with other conservative evangelical and Reformed Christians.

How about we just all use the ESV? Would that also not show the same thing? I would prefer the

LSB. Would that not also show the same thing? Well, it's what we've used before.

That's not a sign of unity. The Mormons use it.

Is that a sign of unity? A version that sounds like the

Bible. More than any other version, the KJV sounds like the Word of God, even to unbelievers.

So what sounded like the Word of God prior to the KJV? Was it the Geneva Bible then? Did the

Vulgate sound like the Word of God? For 1100 years it did, didn't it?

What does that even mean? It is so subjective. Number 11, the character, the translators.

Okay, they were the 50 -minute point to translate the KJV were not only well -known scholars but also sound in the

Christian faith. No matter what differences there were among them, they all regard everywhere the Bible is inspired by God. They all affirm the central doctrines, truth, and scripture.

Some modern versions are produced by translators whose qualifications are merely academic and in some cases their identity is withheld from the reading public.

Well, it's not the case with the LSB or ESV. Are you accusing them of being closeted heretics?

You know, they were high churchmen. Okay, great.

But they never made that argument for themselves, did they? That's not how they defended the

King James in their day. In fact, they said a lot of things that I think very plainly and fairly people could read them and go, yeah, they really would not have supported this kind of use of their translation this far down the road.

A Bible for those who walk in the old paths. Jeremiah 6 .16,

Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask of the old paths, where is the good way?

And walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. Of course, that has to do with God's truths.

It has nothing to do with Bible translations and English. I just did that. I was just very disappointed.

Look, if a church wants to use the King James, that's up to the church to decide.

But let's at least be honest about what the reasons are. And the reasons here were not solid at all.

And here's what I would say in response. Read the preface to the

King James Version that the King James translators wrote, and then apply their words. They said it should be in the language of the people.

They said it should be like the fresh bread straight from the oven.

The King James is not fresh bread straight from the oven. And in our modern context, our young people are going to be going out, and they're going to be going into the world.

They're going to be running into the disciples of Barterman. And they are going to be getting hit with all sorts of things about the

Kamiohanium, the Percupaea Adulterae, the Longer Ending of Mark.

And they need to know that the real foundation we have for being able to trust the

Scriptures is the Word of God. And the King James is just simply horrifically out of date in being able to give a defense of its particular and peculiar readings.

And so I just put all the subjectivity and the feelings aside.

What translation is going to allow your people to bring the

Word of God to bear on all the issues of today? Homosexuality.

The King James translation is so old that the language that it uses for all sorts of ethical and moral issues is no longer used in our society at all, and in fact is subject to misinterpretation and confusion.

So why saddle someone with that? At the very least, you could use the new

King James. Again, I don't know why anyone would purposefully choose to use a translation that does not reflect the best that God has provided to us in regards to historical evidence, manuscripts, and provide the greatest defensibility.

I don't understand it. I don't get it. But there you go.

That's what's happening. And it's amongst Reformed folks, and it shouldn't be. We shouldn't have this issue.

We shouldn't have this traditionalism. And one thing I've noticed is this topic is very often connected to other traditionalistic beliefs that Reformed people tend to glom onto, but that are not...

They're not exegetically derived using the same methodologies we use to defend

Trinity, Deity of Christ, resurrection, justification by faith, things like that. But, you know, it just seems to me

Reformed folks do have a tendency to grab hold of stuff.

And because it makes them look different or more truly

Reformed, they grab hold of it and they hold on to it. And it's not necessarily useful or helpful, to be perfectly honest with you.

I think we should stay focused upon the stuff that will allow us to be salt and light in a rapidly darkening culture.

So anyway, with that, I want to thank you for listening. I don't know exactly how we're going to get another program in.

We're going to do our best to do so. But again, we're having to work around repair guys coming to work on stuff.

And please pray for the conference starting Friday night, especially Saturday, the afternoon session on Saturdays for 23 years has been a killer.

It's tough. It's hard on them and on me, but we will do it again. And then for a lot of stuff going on next week in Sedalia and Kansas City, before I get home and get to see my kitties who knocked over the

Christmas tree, I'm blaming Dini. Cute little booger.

He's not yet six months old. I just don't think Sophie... I don't see Sophie doing that.

She's two and a half, and I think he was framing her. I really do. So anyway, before I get to get home and go to the

Messiah with my granddaughters and all the rest of that neat fun stuff. So pray for us as we travel.

Appreciate you being with us today on the program, and we will see you next time on The Dividing Line, as long as I make sure to press all the right buttons.