Brief Thoughts on the Ehrman/Williams Dialogue and the Licona/Howe Dialogue, Then Open Phones

And greetings welcome to the dividing line. It is a Friday. It is a Friday that should be

Like right after Thanksgiving, but Thanksgiving's really late this year. I think it's as late as it can get

I think I'm not sure Looking at the calendar. I'm not sure exactly how they figured these things out, but it's really really late

That means I will be in st. Charles for my 19th year A little bit late farther into December than normal and But we're still doing that and we will be addressing the social justice

Movement, so we'll be looking at all sorts of issues related to that I think it's first time.

I've done a a conference specifically in that area. I'm Not a thousand percent looking forward to that to be honest with you.

This particular movement is Extremely Energy is sapping shall we say but that's what we'll be doing.

So I am bringing all my brightest Coogee's because One of the elders there at the church has twice now in my presence

Not only mispronounced but miswrote Coogee as G -o -g -g -i gaji, whatever that is and so as as an act of Requiring some level of contrition and and punishment

Really for this act of disrespect I'm bringing all my brightest wildly brightest

Coogee's And Will I might even I might even bring a couple to switch out during the day on Saturday because Saturday is really long day

They just kill me on Saturdays, you know, you morning afternoon when no one's awake

It's a it. Yeah, it's it's really rough. So I might I might just switch a few out just just for the

Just for the fun of it at that particular point in time Rich is right now very thankful that he does not travel with me and certainly does not go to st.

Charles So there there you go And I I will probably even make sure to bring a

Coogee tie to wear on Sunday When I don't wear the sweaters, but I do have ties so we will be doing that the first full weekend of December there in in St.

Charles and so if you're interested, it's always good to get to meet folks there and it'll be the first time

We've done this subject We've almost every subject that we do there I've already done in preceding years because we've done it for 19 years isn't

I only know so much so So I we've done one this one this stuff and the

Trinity and the doctrines of grace and church history and Islam and New Testament reliability.

We've done everything over 19 years and I I keep telling them if they'd like to get some better speakers in that I would fully and completely understand if they wanted to do that and they just Yeah, it's it's easier to book me because we know exactly how it works

You know what? You're gonna get don't always know what you're gonna get when you when you when you have other folks anyways

So we're gonna open up the phones here in a few minutes, but I wanted to comment on a couple of items that I've said

I would get to eventually and I think it's time to eventually get to them a little bit behind the times.

Sorry about that But we've been doing some traveling and so on and so forth

So about what about two months ago now Peter Williams Bart Ehrman unbelievable with Justin Briarley the big conversation and On You know the story of Jesus are the

Gospels historically reliable now if much of our audience is relatively new

I do run into the folks who are longtime dividing -line listeners and watchers and and things like that, but Really a lot of times it's people just over the past couple of years have found out about the program

And so not everybody goes back into the archives and catches stuff some people do and there's a lot to be a

Lot a lot of material to be mined Out of what what can be found in there to be sure to be certain

But a lot of people don't do that and so you may not be aware of the fact that over the years we have Especially, you know, six seven eight to twelve thirteen fourteen years ago

One of the things we would regularly do would be to play you're the audio or the video normally audio of Bart Ehrman debates

William Lane Craig debates Mike Lycona versus Bart Ehrman debates, you know, for example

Lycona did a debate with Bart Ehrman I think was their second debate where Lycona had laryngitis. It was just Painful to listen to it was rough, but we would review these debates and we would go in -depth into critiquing

Ehrman's naturalistic historical Type of argumentation where His Absolute insistence that to do history you have to history by definition must be

Naturalistic it has to be materialistic. There can be there is no possible. You cannot do history if You allow that God had any plan to accomplish in history from Ehrman's perspective

Which is weird because he also has this very strange view that if God were to inspire scripture

That he would not allow any textual variation in the transmission of manuscripts so if if scribes are

Copying the manuscripts then somehow God is going to interfere in history

So he so he has a perspective that says God can't interfere in history because that's not really history but If God were to inspire scripture, then he would have to interfere in history to keep it without error

Yeah, so We've listened to a lot of people struggle to provide a meaningful response to what

Ehrman says anyway In the conversation with Peter Williams and Bart Ehrman what was really interesting to me is

Look in the Academy There is, you know right now

ETS SBL is going on over in San Diego and I haven't gone to ETS since I think 98

I've told the story before I found

And maybe it was just that year. Okay, so maybe I should go back but I Just found the attitude

Really Difficult to deal with There was you know, the poor benighted church and the great

Academy giving it guidance and and stuff like and and stuff's happened since then about open theism and things like that They've just made me go and whatever a lot of people go.

I've got a lot of friends there right now But I think everybody at ETS would agree that the one word

That well N .T. Wright has called that silly American doctrine The one word that in churches and in certain denominations

Has to be dealt with and may you may even have to sign a document saying you believe it but in the

Academy is so completely problematic is

Not the term inspiration because inspiration can Inspiration is not even a good

Translation of the Greek terms the outer staffs in the New Testament when when Paul says all scripture is inspired or God breathed

Inspired the Latin translation that is some that's liable to all sorts of rather wishy -washy interpretations

You can talk about an inspiring performance or calling a book inspired that was an inspired effort on his part

I mean you can use it in a lot of different ways It's not tech technical enough to really nail down what it is that you're specifically saying

God breathes is much better along those lines But I am referring of course to the other

I word not even infallibility, but inerrancy and Some people use that term

Without ever defining it some people use that term As a baseball bat without much thinking

So we've certainly seen it misused there's no question about that but When it comes to the

Academy There is a tremendous pressure upon believing

Academicians Scholars to run from that term because of What it

Necessitates it necessitates a supernatural worldview it necessitates a concept of scripture

That simply isn't allowed within the Academy itself

Because the only way really, you know, I think the Chicago Statement is as close as we're gonna get there there

It's not perfect, but it Recognizes The The real challenge that we do face and that I think every

Christian needs to think through Yeah, I'm that guy that thinks that every Christian should think through things like this or some people say no no, no

No, that's just that's only for no. I if if the Christian faith is constantly going back to scripture if Semper Reformanda means anything then our doctrine of scripture should have a real

Central place and so I have encouraged all Christians no matter what they're calling in life what they're calling by God to really think about what inerrancy means what inspiration means what the authority of scripture is and To recognize that the high view of scripture that we must hold to believe in Christian theology views scripture as having

Not only meaning in the individual text the individual chapter the individual book so an epistle of Paul or The book of Hebrews or the the book of Revelation or the gospel of John But that there is something about scripture that transcends

Just the individual authors and their works So that you have

In the text of scripture exactly what God wants us to have That God didn't want us to have the gospel of Thomas that God did not want us to have the gospel of Peter Or any of the intertents testamental literature

That was so popular amongst the Jews that was not something that God intended us to have in the canon of scripture and hence that scripture is actually intended to communicate a clear body of truth the faith

When you use the faith as a substantive and an articular substantive the faith there are times and that refers to to the content of of the whole

Christian faith and that we are able to properly and not in an artificial fashion

Look at what scripture says as a whole Not just within one writer

But see the threads that flow from the Old Testament as a whole into the

New Testament as a whole If you have if you don't have a supernatural view of scripture, you can't do any of that.

There are no There are no threads like that. It's it's a in in most

I would probably say most Christian education Across the world today

You don't have a high enough view of scripture to be able to actually do those things so Without that you're not going to have the doctrines of Trinity you're not going to have the hypostatic

Union You're not going to have systematic theology. You're not going to have any of these things and when your view of scripture

Degrades to the point where you can't do it anymore Then you start looking for something like tradition you start looking for church authority to fill in where scriptural authority doesn't doesn't fit anymore and In the

Academy today, there are a lot of sound people who live in a world where They are

Constantly under pressure from two different directions Confessionally within the church

They're saying one thing in regards to a very high view of scripture You go into their field or into the rest of the

Scholars and professors in their university and to even entertain the idea that there's such a thing as a supernaturally inspired revelation from God is

Career suicide career suicide and so there's a lot of Christian scholars to just dismiss the idea

They're not in a situation where they're a part of a church that would require them to believe something like this or in fact would

Even accept them if they did But then there are these others and it is

Just a part of where we are today in Western society That this is a an issue that Christian scholars have to face.

Well, there were a lot of really interesting things There's no advertising in the

That I was just getting dry I just realized it's a it's a Cain's. It's I was

I went by Cain's today. That's not necessarily a statement about Chick -fil -a Though I've always said that Cain's chicken is better than Chick -fil -a's chicken

And I did not I said that even before Chick -fil -a threw us under the bus

There's no there's no product placement at all And by the way folks

I Did not want to believe When I first started seeing the Chick -fil -a stuff when

I was over in in I think I was in in Scotland Maybe it was London anyways

My gut feeling was no and I found some articles that's all see, you know

It's not as bad and then I started seeing articles about what this covenant house is and stuff has been going on And it is we we got thrown under the bus.

There's that I didn't want to believe it. I Tried to believe the best but we got thrown under the bus

So but I people will testify I have said for years that Cain's chicken fingers

It's just better chicken. It just it always has been then then Chick -fil -a anyway, but I went by Cain's today

So there you go. I know you You eat burgers.

Well, my dad had KFC today actually for his 88th. It's his 88th birthday So he had

KFC instead of a birthday cake and I'm like, that's yeah, but nothing's as good as your fried chicken

He hasn't made his fried chicken for a number of years. So there you go last time. I made his fried chicken I did a pretty good job, but I'll be honest with you

Those deep fryer things man, they take forever to clean up. I mean just for ever

It's like yeah, it tastes good. But do you really do they want to go there or when you can just go to Cain's let them clean it up Anyway, how did how did we get out of that we squirrel?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, there you go Jet lag is I said today would be the rough day on on the on the jet lag

Not the first day back for the second anyway back to This situation.

I let me just play for you. There's a lot of things that we could look at in the conversation

And I may have already Did I play that Maybe I just made reference to it.

It was really interesting to me that During this conversation Bart Ehrman actually said he said

I don't have any problem with the idea that Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem I'm not sure if I played that I might have just mentioned that to Jeff Because we're in Matthew 24 at Apologia We will get out of Matthew 24.

Jeff says by the end of the year I Yeah, we'll see we'll see

Jeff we'll see but Maybe I just mentioned it to them or something

I don't know. I thought I had mentioned on the program that it was really interesting to hear Ehrman say yeah,

I don't have any problem with the idea that Jesus prophesied the coming destruction of Jerusalem obviously not to the

Point of accuracy that the New Testament writers represent it, but he's like Yeah, I think a lot of folks who probably saw something's gonna happen eventually type of a type of a situations.

That was interesting But at one point This conversation took place and Please understand

I extremely thankful for the next generation and the generation after that of Brilliant Christian scholars who are coming up and and and doing wonderful things and the

Lord's using them and we pray for them But you can tell that Peter Williams is

Struggling because the the big conversations set that Justin Brierley has

Ehrman is is four feet in front of him. I Mean, this is an intimate conversation.

This is breath mint range Okay, this is almost a little bit too close for me as a Scotsman. I want to back up a little bit

And I Think rich remembers when we were on the phone with Bart Ehrman in 2009

Before the debate and the Laughter the condescending laughter

That Bart Ehrman had toward me as a As an individual he never read any of my books didn't care to didn't think it was relevant

Bart has that reputation within the Academy and He's had a reputation for years at especially at SBL meetings and stuff like that of just Ripping people to shreds and sometimes in a way that isn't it's not even necessary to do it in that way

So, you know, he calls himself a happy agnostic. I've just never found to be all that happy But he's right there and I think

Peter Williams is struggling to find a way to express himself so as to avoid

Because because listen listen to how Bart sets it up he sets up inerrancy as a fundamentalist

Doctrine and who wants to be a fundamentalist because we can all just go subscribe to the

IFB preacher feed on Twitter and Go.

Ah, I want to stay away from these folks. But anyway here's let's just listen to it and then

I'll comment on it and So here here we go Does it matter?

I'm not arguing that the Gospels are completely unreliable. I'm not saying We've lost rich Okay, I'm we're trying to play something here it's a video

It's a video so we'll go back here and Yeah, I'm just seeing the the screen is just me and it's like Rich was busy talking to someone on the phone.

So Well, I said we would open the phones later on stop calling. And so I say the phones are open

Okay, just rich can't do that and this at the same time. He's not a multitasker on that level. Are you ready?

Okay, here we go guys We know he died. We know that he betrayed Jesus. Does it matter?

I'm not arguing I'm not arguing that the Gospels are completely unreliable. I'm not saying I'm not saying that the

Gospels have historical information in them Can you trust that what they say about what happened in the life of Jesus actually happened or not?

I'm saying in many cases No You cannot trust that if Peter wants to say that in every case they're trustworthy that would be worth talking about Like do you think that there are any mistakes?

I don't but you don't think can you explain how your view would be different from a fundamentalist view

Well, I think that's not a very helpful analytical term. No, I just want to know where you stand I mean, do you think it's completely inerrant?

What I think that the traditional Christian view is that's all scripture is true

That does not mean that the copy that someone has in front of them You know, yeah now see see at that point he's not talking about copies and Yeah, there is a proper

Distinction to be made in regards to inerrancy as far as manuscripts concern, but but ermine's not talking about that That's pretty clear.

Ermine is talking about initial writing and That's where the focus of inerrancy is obviously is

Men spoke from God as they're carried along by the Holy Spirit And just look at the look on the face,

I mean Almost anybody sitting across from Bart Ehrman with television cameras trained on them

There's a tremendous amount of pressure that's going to be put on you here And what is interesting to me and I'm gonna keep playing it but what is interesting to me is most of this conversation was and Was going to continue from here to be turned into Peter Williams Looking at Harmonizing alleged contradictions things that we've done

For years and years and years and Yet we were I've been told for years you got to get away from that.

You can't a friend that times It's it's just dead -end. You did it the dad did that and yet that ended up being what was what was going on here?

Which I found really really interesting valid, but do I? follow the

Belief that when God speaks words of Scripture, they are they bear his own

Character of truthfulness. Yes, so you think everything in the Bible is true. There are no mistakes of any kind The word

Bible has multiple values a physical value and if I prefer the word Scripture, do I believe all

Scripture is true? Yes with no mistakes of any kind anywhere. Do I yeah, I believe that God didn't make any mistakes of any kind I don't think

God makes mistakes either, but I'm not talking about God I mean,

I do I do need to be able to you know, express what I do believe and not have words put in my mouth well,

I believe that all Scripture is True. Yes, I mean and and from that point of view you're willing to look for ways in which there can be a reconciling of What bar obviously believes are irreconcilable story.

Yes, not that I'm necessarily that interested in following what because again, there are multiple alternatives

I mean you can look at this the word he hanged himself, you know in in Matthew is just one word in Greek So you ask yourself?

So the context here was eventually end up being a lengthy conversation about Judas's death and Bart Ehrman's assertion assertion that there are certain

Irreconcilable statements now what's interesting to me is especially the the Judas death issue, which

I know we've talked about in the past but It's interesting to me that when you ask

Bart for his best examples, I don't find his examples overly compelling He completely misses the day of the crucifixion on the part of John There is a very

Consistent, it's not a reach. It's not a The Super surface level harmonization type stuff that you'll find in some works 80

Robertson had had laid it out in his harmony of the Gospels years ago I did a whole presentation on this at the

Jeremiah cry thing. I think 2010 something like that. I forget when it was in New York I've done it.

I've done it in st. Charles to have dealt with but Bart Ehrman stuff with that But then here you have the

Judas thing and we have very little information we have two accounts and Both of them clearly assume action for people reading the story locally

That we don't have it's sort of like when we read Paul writing the Thessalonians and saying now

Remember what I told you and I was with you So I don't have to I don't tell you about this and we're all like yes you do.

We weren't there and But but that's what their big discussion was about but for Ehrman It is simply

Presuppositionally not possible that there is a book that has both human elements and yet remains a revelation from God It's just it's just impossible and you could tell that Williams was

Struggling to know how to Express what's clearly a high view of Scripture within that context?

and That's something that is like I said Christian scholarship has to deal with Absolutely all the time and what was interesting is it really paralleled

The other Conversation that took place on inerrancy around the same time.

I think it was a little bit afterwards I forget what the date was is all this been within the past two three months and that was at SES the debate dialogue between Michael Icona and Richard Howe On What is inerrancy and I Listened to the entirety of of that.

I didn't watch it. I listened to well, I listened to the Ehrman Williams on too and It was a little frustrating it did get bogged down Going back over stuff where it just seemed the two sides weren't communicating really really well

But I was Taken aback by some of the things were said I found myself in between the two

I Agreed with Lycona on certain things in regards to How you understand the genre of Some of the stories some of the parables

He doesn't use the terminology I use of necessary telescoping but Talked about many of the same incidences in the synoptic

Gospels, especially in Matthew and Mark Where Mark gives he calls it the gals version?

Versus Matthew's guys version. So, you know Lycona likes to do the I don't know what you'd describe it, but the populist type thing and So he

Basically says if the person's giving all the details That's the gal version

Versus the telescoped version is the guy version. Well, I Don't know what that necessarily follows but be that as it may

So there were times I'm I'm tracking with Lycona going yes the reason there are differences in the stories

Dating the fig tree incident things along these lines are issues related to telescoping

Alleged contradictions then are based upon providing assumptions that you're reading into the text in light of the fact that the

Writer who doesn't give as much detail You're assuming is saying this this and this though, they don't say it

So you're assuming that Matthew is putting a certain time period on The fig tree incident, even though he doesn't say it that kind of thing

But then on the other hand what surprised me was there are things Lycona have said we we covered

What was it two years ago three years ago? We covered when his book came out on differences in the

Gospels Maybe only a year and a half ago. His assertion that Mark had simply made a mistake as To the locations remember it was

Tiberius and it was it was around the Sea of Galilee geographical issue and we had we went through that in the program

I Expected that to be one of the central issues I expected

Lycona's identification of the dead rising in Matthew at the resurrection of Jesus which was the focus of Geisler's Attack on Lycona when his book on the resurrection came out and his

Assertion Lycona does not cannot possibly believe in Resurrection up to frustration duh cannot possibly even inerrancy

If he is saying that there were no dead that rose and appeared to people in the city

And I've always found Lycona's explanation of what he thinks hat is happening there to be exceptionally ad hoc liable to Easy refutation to be honest with you

Anyway, I expected that that would be where the focus was the mark thing specific places where Lycona has said

There's an error But it wasn't ended up being The things that how is identifying as a specific error seemed to just be

Differences in how the writers were expressing the same event one with more detail and the other with less detail and Then whether you would read into the less detailed account

Certain assumptions that then make it contradictory to the more fully detailed account But especially at the beginning of the and of course, this is always when

I've said this many many times The cross -examination is where a debate takes place. That's where a debate takes place

So I want to listen to the beginning of the the dialogue and then we'll make some comments and we'll open up But well as I start this

Let's go ahead and open up the phones because I only intend to spend a couple minutes Watching it and then briefly commenting on it

So 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 let's listen to What is said here you gave that syllogism?

The Bible is the Word of God God cannot err therefore the Bible cannot err, you know

I got problems with that syllogism. I think the logic is sound but the first premise

I have problems with that When you say the Bible is the Word of God now, I do believe the Bible is the

Word of God But in the sense that it's always used in that syllogism it to say the

Bible is the Word of God it carries a lot of freight that goes unstated and and Usually undefended for what it's meant to to say now you did defend it by saying, you know the word

The scripture is God breathed theonoustos in Greek. So You know, tell me

I'd be interested to know Tell me more You said you don't know the mechanism of divine inspiration.

It's irrelevant How do you imagine the process of theonoustos

God breathed? Yeah, I wouldn't say that I don't know the mechanism at least in some instances.

We do know the mechanism for example God at one place actually writes with his own finger the the decalogue.

So there there's a mechanism right there Sometimes the if this can be classified as a mechanism

Sometimes the scriptures talk about I will put my words in their mouth or I move them these kinds of things so Much more beyond those kind of phrases.

I'm at a loss to know what even a mechanism is trying to discover and As I suggested it's sort of irrelevant that it doesn't matter what the mechanism is

Since what these scriptures testify about itself is The is this is the resultant of whatever that mechanism in other words, even if it was a voice that hold on Okay, even if it was that or it was just an impression or or no matter

No matter what what the resultant the preaching of Paul the writing of the epistles the writings of the prophets these kind of things

Is the Word of God? So, how does how does your view of God breathe?

Differ from divine dictation now, this is this is this is where I want to focus in How does your view differ from divine?

Dictation is very very important Because a lot of people assume that if you believe in plenary verbal Inspiration which means that the inspiration the supernatural action of God Extends to the actual words that are recorded rather than a denial of plenary verbal would mean that Only concepts come from God, but they can be errantly expressed in human language

But the dictation idea Is is almost it's an automatic writing idea.

It's it's it's like A person is is just all of a sudden overcome and they just you know

Just start writing stuff and they they don't even know where it's coming from the It's like they are taken over by a spirit or or some force and The result is then scripture a lot of people have that idea and And I guess

I can understand where it comes from I've always said that that that's not a meaningful category

You you certainly do have You know God saying thus saith the Lord if when you have a prophet who inquires of the

Lord in regards to something in Israel And and they say thus saith the Lord, okay That is that is direct revelation

In regards to a specific question a specific situation Certain kingdoms attacking

Israel, whatever else it might be But that doesn't fit Especially in the

New Testament. It does not fit with Paul's writings. It does not fit with the nature of the Gospels It does not fit with apocalyptic really it doesn't it doesn't it was a lot of a lot of things and I've used the illustration many many times of the fact that when you read the

New Testament as a whole You encounter many different styles in the original languages so when you first start translating you start with the easy stuff like first second and third

John You read some mark gospel of John then you can move into Paul and All that's preparing you to eventually run into the the difficulties of Luke acts and Hebrews which are written at the highest level as far as vocabulary and syntax and grammar and All that kind of stuff very classical in in their form

If that's dictation that that doesn't make any sense Because there are multiple levels and there are multiple styles and not only that you have personal expression

I mean you look at the Psalms and you look at the the range of emotions that the salt psalmist is experiencing and the

Psalter gives us the whole range of human experience and apocalyptic and and Paul saying to Timothy bring the cloaks and the and the and the books and especially the parchments and and and things like this and What that means is the idea of just a dictation theory

My concern here is I'm not sure if we're gonna have time to get to it, but at one point

Lycona basically states to how that as far as he can see he does not understand how you can have a certain view of inerrancy without dictation theory and that concerns me because as far as I Can read the

Chicago statement on inerrancy? I don't think that R .C.

Sproul and other people had a dictation theory at all and yet they had the highest view of inerrancy and inspiration the the

God Okay, I'll just say this I think Reformed people have a little leg up here because the

God who is Working all things according the counsel of his will who who predestines all things

Ephesians 1 11 Does so in such a fashion that he's big enough to Put The writers of Scripture into the context where they're going to write the things that he wants us to have

He doesn't have to destroy the human beings he sovereignly chooses the human beings put some of that situation and produces

Scripture so that it Functions the way he desires it to function

Without having to destroy the human personalities who are in fact the ones through whom it comes

The Reformed God can do that and I only simply say that because of the strong emphasis in other

Perspectives on the absolute autonomy of the human will and I don't know how those

Who emphasize the absolute autonomy human will can even begin to explain the origination of Scripture?

I? Just don't I think there's there's an inconsistency there, but anyway, so I Certainly do not believe in a dictation theory and yet.

I believe that God is big enough To have as Peter said men spoke

So Paul uses his vocabulary John uses his vocabulary Peter uses his Vocabulary his immanuensis uses his vocabulary which is why there's difference between first second

Peter And all the all the issues about You know is it possible that for example

Peter? Dictated a letter in Aramaic and allowed his immanuensis to translate into Greek That would explain a lot of stuff

Well, what's quote -unquote inspired there What's is it the end result or the initial impetus to write

What what is it all sorts of questions to deal with there? But God is big enough to give us his word and not be limited by us and by our choices and Knowledge and so on and so forth

So I don't believe in a dictation theory But I believe that what God wants us to have is exactly what he has provided to us.

So with that differ from divine dictation It doesn't differ necessarily.

So so yeah, I mean it could very well be dictation for all I know Okay, so it's seen that I would never answer that way

I would ask because there is an already established category and understanding of what divine dictation would be

And and it seems fairly obvious to me that that's what Lycona is asking about And It ties back to I have a feeling that's probably where Ehrman is too

That there are times, you know, you know so often Ehrman is so well read and then other times he just makes statements especially in the field of theology that demonstrate a huge massive black hole in His understanding of Christian theology.

It's just a just a huge one And it would not surprise me at all, especially given the odd strange view

He is repeated doesn't back off of That if God inspired the scriptures that there could not be any textual variance

Yeah, okay doesn't doesn't I mean I'm not saying that it is dictation But if there is dictation that wouldn't be in that would be what

God breathed is and in some places It might very well you could construe perhaps some of the verses to be a form of dictation

Where he tells David to write these things in a book Well, what does he know to write beyond what it is that presumably

God is telling him to write? Hey Mike, can I ask you you said something you said that that first premise is freighted with things that are unstated

What do you think those things are that are unstated? Well, yeah I think it's it's when you say the

Bible is the Word of God and it's used in the context of the syllogism The Bible is the Word of God.

It's kind of it's God's speech in written form You know what? The Bible says God says it implies divine dictation and we can see

Richard does kind of lean toward divine No, no, no, I didn't say that you asked me. What's the difference between that in divine in divine dictation?

I said there may not be a difference But I but that wasn't that was already after I said we don't know the big mechanism beyond what the scriptures have already said

So it just be speculation if somebody said well, what if it's XYZ? Well, maybe it is XYZ I don't know that it is.

I don't know that it isn't the way I see that it is used in the syllogism Though it almost requires divine dictation of some sort and when you talk to an earnest and tell me why that is

Well, because if it's not divine dictation How are they getting it down word for word every single word as God wants it there?

There's we did get to it. Yeah That really surprised me

Because for for Lycona He's operating under the the idea that if it is exactly what

God intends it to be Then it must have been dictated and That really surprised me and and I think it's one of the reasons that the rest of this conversation just sort of went in circles and Never really got where it needed to go and it didn't really clarify a whole lot

Because The what I would consider to be the most advanced highest most consistent understandings of revelation

That have been expressed Call it my bias if you want come from Reformed men and reformed men don't have a dictation theory but they do have a concept of inerrancy

God is able to Sovereignly use men in the context in which he places them

So that what they express what Paul writes to the church at Galatia despite his

Self -evident Emotional involvement in What's going on there in Galatia and that the threat against the gospel that's exactly what

God wants to have He's not having to destroy

Paul's Personality to bring that about And I think it's very important and so it seemed to me that this sort of went around around in circles for a long time and Didn't really get where it where it need to go.

So anyways, alright, let's try to let's try to get a few of these in and We'll do our best let's

Go to Joseph in Virginia. Hi Joseph Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my call.

Dr. White. Uh -huh. Um, I Was recently reading over Galatians and It just seems to me that Scholars seem to accept that Ephesians the letter was written to the church, but also the surrounding churches around it yet For Galatia, they really seem to have a struggle with the issue that you know

Why does it have to be north or south? Galatia why not all six churches for all six cities?

Is there a question there? Yeah Do you subscribe to the idea that the letter to Galatia Was written to the just the north one or the ones or the southern ones or all of them we haven't absolutely no earthly idea

How do we ever know something like that? The book that does not in any way give us any indication

It's to the churches in Galatia but as to What churches those were we have absolutely no earthly idea.

So it's not really not really an issue I mean the church the letter to the Ephesians Has all the marks of a circular letter.

There's no personal greetings So that's and and it's probably what's being referred to in Colossians 416 is letter coming from Laodicea.

Yes, that makes sense But you have a region in Galatia. No one knows how many churches there were whether they're two four six ten

But nope, nobody knows So, how would anyone ever answer that question? It'd be pure speculation well

There's a lot of the result there were a lot of Jews up there In the area and so I didn't know if there was you know some measure of you know, this was no

Predominantly Hellenistic or predominantly Jewish in in nature Yeah, I I don't think we have we do not have census numbers to be able to that's that's 1 ,000 % speculation

There's okay. I don't see any any value to it. Can I ask a better question? quickly sure

John the Baptist sends his disciples to go ask Jesus. Are you the one there should be asking that is look for another and he really doesn't say, you know, he just says no some other and You know, it's clear that Jesus is doing all these miracles and Jesus Doesn't really answer the question in any way other than to he goes and he does some miracles and then he turns to John's disciples

And says go do these things or go go tell John that I did these things rather forgive me

Now the nature of John's question is kind of open -ended because the at the time

They're still looking for a Maccabean King and a Maccabean revolt, which will usher in this conquering thing

And so Jesus comes along and he sets up and preaches this kingdom and he's got you know

Sanhedrin and everybody's on edge about this because you know, let's face it, you know Sanhedrin are you know, they're under pressure from everybody around them to Keep the peace and it's a pretty volatile situation with the

Roman Herod Herod has We're not keeping this short at all.

We're going very very very long So I'll just simply I'll just simply say that John's The Jesus's response to John was to direct him to fulfilled scripture as to the nature of the

Messiah that may have run up against traditions concerning what the nature of Messiah was I or were they looking for a king an earthly king at that point.

There was Well, we we don't know what

John the Baptist knowledge was of exactly how he viewed the

The expectations there were people expecting all sorts of things. The intertestamental period is filled with different views but Jesus's response was to direct him to Fulfilled scripture in regards to what the

Messiah was doing to to answer his question and that would have been sufficient for John I'm sure I'm sure that was thank you for your phone call today

Joseph. Let's talk to David hi, David. All right.

Thank you for taking my call. Dr. White. Yes, sir Question And The topic of Comes up quite a bit.

Mm -hmm, and I feel like the term itself is pretty clear that it's

You know just a greeting to Mary. Yeah, but apologists continue to make a lot of them think that it's not or that it might be like something to do with full of grace because of the

Car a part in the middle of the car. It's a many Are there any other? Thoughts in the

Bible that use that term or any other? extra biblical writings that use it like from Josephus or Ignatius or Irenaeus or anyone?

Well, I I addressed this in my book The Roman Catholic Controversy Specifically in the chapter on on Mary.

I pointed out that in Ephesians 1 6 Christians themselves the praise was glory of his grace, which he has graced.

It's the same Kara Tao route that is found there. He which was he has graced us in the beloved ones

So if the giving of grace is somehow a theologically

Significant issue that somehow is supposed to tell us something about Mary then you've got to deal with why that is likewise

Utilized with Christians then you can go to the the the perfect participial form

You can find terms used of Christians along those lines as well that information You'll find either if you have the

Roman Catholic Controversy or in the debates that we've done on Mary specifically

Who was that who did I do the the Marian debate with? May have been may have been

Madrid may have been I know I did with matics as well a couple of times and so all that information will be found in those in those debates, but the reality is that The Roman Catholic system has only a few verses in all of Scripture upon which to build the massive effort edifice of its hyper -developed mariolatry and Therefore every verse that could even in by the wildest imagination

Be made into something about Mary about Mary status Will be pressed into service and will be freighted in in such a fashion that demonstrates once again that that Rome's ultimate authority is not the exegesis of Scripture or the inspiration of Scripture it is her own teachings and The the

Marian dogmas really demonstrate that to the to the nth degree they really really do Okay, do you know of any other writings that use that term or no

Off top my head. No, but like I said, I presented that did present others in the

Roman Catholic Controversy and in the debates Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you All right, let's talk to Devonta in Texas Good afternoon.

How are you? I'm good. How are you brother? Good? Okay, dr.

White. I have a question about CRT, which I know you have been discussing a lot What is the way to graciously

Discuss this topic with people you Genuinely love that are close to you when you wholeheartedly disagree.

Here's what I mean by that. I used to wholeheartedly agree with things like white privilege and Until I started to see that the foundations are based upon not only non -christian but anti -christian ideas

And I genuinely believe that theories like that put a yoke around our white brethren that cannot be removed by repentance but by just a bunch of other actions that Christ didn't intend for them to do and I have people

I genuinely love that don't Agree with me. I used to agree with them, but I just don't now and What is the way to I mean because that's like a that's a topic that's like packed with so much

Oh Understandably, you know baggage. So like I know how do you how do you how do you lovingly discuss that when you disagree over something?

So serious Well, the problem is most people would say that I'm the last person you should even bother to ask because I'm just such terrible horrible nasty person and that's the problem is that When you when you look at some of my black brothers who would say the exact same words as me they get the exact same response as far as being marginalized and and and criticized and and attacked so the problem is that once you accept the premise of Critical theory and you can put anything in between So let's let's let's take it out of CRT for a second and look at CGT Critical gender theory because that this one at least at least most

Christians not all I mean, we're seeing just just yesterday We the Southern Baptist Convention talking about You know gendered pronouns of you know that people want you to use and Changing fast there.

There isn't Is anything that starts with critical and ends with theory

Does not provide any option for dialogue or discussion or disagreement and So as soon as you know in your experience you started to see hey, wait a minute

This is creating a situation that clearly is not reflected in scripture

It's not reflected in in how the early church experienced fellowship It's it's it's creating divisions based upon something that scripture just doesn't even recognize as being a valid area of division you saw that and were able to make a move from that and to rethink it and That was the work of the

Spirit in your life and honestly, that's always what we have to depend upon So the the real question is when you're talking with Brothers and sisters who have accepted those presuppositions

Generally when you challenge them and I don't mean challenge in the sense of you need to turn and repent

I mean Just to the just on the level of have you thought? About what this would have meant in the early church.

Have you thought about? Just how many different? Nationalities and ethnicities and and Genocides had been taking place amongst

Peoples in the Roman Empire and yet they all gathered around one table what allowed the early church

To have the level of unity that it had even asking that kind of question within critical race theory just as it is within critical gender theory is considered to be a racist act or a homophobic act or a transphobic act if you're talking about gender theory, there isn't any

Ability for there to be a middle ground that is not meant to be taken as offense

In critical theory, that's a part of the very nature of it and that's what makes it so dangerous when it starts coming into the church is that it cannot but create a fundamental division that is the very division that Paul warned about when he wrote to the

Galatians and to the Colossians and the Ephesians and so on and so forth, so You can overcome it you did and I don't know if the

Lord used someone in your experience To get you to start thinking about those things or if you just hadn't been

Thoroughly indoctrinated with the full range of critical thinking. I don't know but The best that we can do is to with with gentleness and yet likewise with a firmness of biblical commitment raise those issues and then

Trust the Lord of the rest, but also be aware that as you know You're you're standing you're walking through a minefield and the mines are very very very well hidden.

They really are That helps a lot To answer your question.

What really helped me was sermons by brother Bodie Baucham. Yeah Specifically where he says

You know, it becomes a thing where people think you're denying injustice. It's not are you with me about injustice?

I just told you and in my conversations with friends. I'm like, hey, I'm not denying any injustice but you there's a step from saying something historically happened to Therefore all power white people have is because they're white, right?

Where's God providence is that like that that's going from fact to theory and it's been so hard to communicate that without it

Seeming like I'm denying injustice. Yeah, I'm not I'm black and I get it

Brother you got you got to realize The price that Bodie has paid for saying those things.

I Can start I can start telling you right now The price I've paid for saying what

Bodie has said just over the past couple of weeks Ministry opportunities that will not happen

Because of the the slanderous attacks against me based upon this type of stuff that's the situation we face today and You can as much as it depends upon you

You'd be as gracious as you can but the reality is that there is You know

I don't know if you watched the the Q &A that we did before the g3 conference last year vote He was a part of the of the panel where we were addressing critical theory he spoke on on on critical race theory and stuff like that if you haven't it's on YouTube, but One of the things we pointed out is that there there is no forgiveness in this system

You you can't that there's no middle ground you can go to and say hey Let's put these things aside and let's let's just maybe go to scripture or something like that critical theory by definition doesn't allow that So the the

Spirit of God has got to be the one that gets you over that particular aspect of critical theory and the stronger someone's commitment is

The the tougher it is to to overcome that but the Spirit of God can do anything

So you don't give up you you be as gracious as you can without compromising

Real quick Well the the fact that any of the what would be considered nonsense

Readings in the manuscript we just shifted gears everybody and get those in the listening audience are going what? What are you talking about?

I thought I was tracking and now I'm lost When we talk about the tenacity of text we're talking about the fact that the

Readings in the text continue within the text so that we can have confidence that the original readings are still there

This this is based on a couple of things the the the multi vocality of text that is the multiple lines of transmission

As well as the fact that we continue to have readings in the manuscript tradition that are self -evidently erroneous but those manuscripts weren't burned or otherwise destroyed or something like that and since they still exist then that definitely increases our

Confidence that the others are at the moment I could I could pull up some examples I've I think it was manuscript 105 if I recall off the top of my head

Is the one is example I've used a number of times where some poor scribe did not get a Starbucks and he's copying from a

Manuscript that has multiple Columns, but he doesn't realize they're columns and he copies straight across Resulting in just just just um, it's in the genealogies of Jesus and it's just it's just a mess, but we still have the manuscript.

So That's an example that I've used a number of times But like I said,

I'd want to I'd want to give you the exact numbers that was just off the top of my head That I that I mentioned that one, but I got one more call

I got to get to thank you very very much for your phone call today and God bless voting and pray for him as well Thanks for your call

Alright, God bless my man. All right real quick Johnny hi, Johnny Doing good

Good my questions about Bart Ehrman He he's basically made the claim that at the time of Paul before 70 ad but that the

Gnosticism that Paul is rebuking in the little Colossians That that that wasn't a thing.

And so I guess he's he's argument is that it's an anachronism. So my question for you is Do we have any extra biblical evidence?

I mean, obviously we have a biblical worldview But do we have extra biblical evidence that at the time prior to the 70 ad but the

Gnosticism the Paul? And John are responding to those are actually there. Well, I've often and and commentators like Lightfoot and others who identify

Paul's Apologetic and Colossians John's and first John Will use the term proto

Gnosticism they will not they will not refer to a full -blown Gnosticism because for example in Colossi there is a

Mixture because there is some type of not only is there some type of Jewish element mixed in But there's some type of worship of angels

There is the early utilization of the key phrases such as the ions

The the terminology like that that that eventually becomes a part of fully developed

Strains of Gnosticism that flourish especially in the 2nd century, but you would not expect

You know, we have full Gnostic texts that date to 125 130 well, you don't get full

Gnostic texts that just all of a sudden pop up out of nowhere and all that stuff has to have some type of Development over time and it seems that the

Foundational Gnostic concepts came in from the East and hence The the area that would preserve

Manuscripts and writings best would be once something comes into Egypt And so how long did that take to get there?

Well, well, we don't know but The point is that that Ehrman Treats church history if you haven't seen the book

The heresy of orthodoxy, I highly recommend it to you. It's a full -on refutation of the

Bauer hypothesis that that Ehrman is completely wedded to and Ehrman basically is functioning upon the idea that he can create a

Pretty much unquestionable understanding of what the early church looked like and therefore anything in the

New Testament that doesn't match his Reconstruction is a later development or is not therefore primitive and There's just a lot of problems with that and this would be one of those problems

The the core elements of what would become full -blown Gnosticism you can see them

Not in full development, but they're there When when when Paul uses play

Roma when he uses ion, these are terms that would end up in The Gnostic writings that are preserved for us, but remember

Gnosticism was not like Judaism or Islam or even even some other

Eastern religions it was so malleable and so allergic to any kind of systematic theology that the idea that there would be a

Gnostic systematic theology to somehow be written and and we can find them find evidence that it

Existed in 60 BC or something like that would be totally against it was a very experiential thing and it was very willing to suck in the elements of any religion that Iran into to make itself more acceptable and so What evidence would we have of it?

Especially when it takes that kind of a a form in fact, it's interesting that the

Gnostic gospels that we get it's almost It's it's only when it ran into Christianity that it felt like it needed to start developing some kind of literary element to it and Again, that's in the second century.

It's very early on. So that means it had to have been developing earlier than that And so there's there's really no reason to question

That that these were issues in Colossae or that John especially probably writing toward the end of the century

Make it real quick Okay, Bart Ehrman. It seems like his favorite argument tends to be argumentum ad populum

It is is he ever on the fringe of mainstream scholarship?

No well Generally, no, but I would say the level of his skepticism

Especially as it was expressed in a statement He made in a debate that he later withdrew, but I think the statement actually represents his true position

I think he realized he did get a little bit too far out and he wants to stay right in the center for Various reasons, but when he said in that one debate with with Dan Wallace in answer to an audience question, you know

What would it take for you to believe that the Gospel of Mark was written in ad -45 and he basically said I would need to have ten

Copies within two weeks of the original and they'd need to be notarized And of course anybody who knows about history knows that that that's just absurd, you know

That's like saying I'd need to have a photocopy and an mp3 recording of the author saying that this is my work

From 2 ,000 years ago. I mean, it's absurd to require that But I think that's really where he's he's going with that I he realizes that that level of skepticism is way outside the mainstream

So that would be one area that I would say he's outside the me the mainstream But in anything else

I can't think of anything where he really is he's just What makes

Bart Ehrman Bart Ehrman is he's an apostate and He has he has played that fiddle.

He can't complain when someone points that out That's how he made his name is

I was Bruce Metzger's final PhD student and I was a Christian at Moody Bible Institute and I was a

Christian At Wheaton College and I was a Christian when I went to Princeton and then I ceased being a

Christian He's the one that tells that story and that makes you an apostate and so That's just something to keep in mind there too

But no, he pretty much tries to stay stay in the mainstream. Okay, Johnny Thanks, thanks the phone call appreciate my back.

Yeah, I wanted to get done by the top of the hour and failed completely totally 1 ,000 %

Don't know we're gonna do next week in light of Thanksgiving on Thursday, I forgot what we did last week

But we'll figure something out. We'll figure something out And maybe we'll see

I think it's what we've done in the past, but we'll we'll figure figure things out supposed to have a lot of weather actually starting

Wednesday of next week That's not the point so Anyways, appreciate your being with us today and Lord willing.