This is the Dividing Line. The Word of God is living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword. It penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart. This program is designed to equip the body of Christ with biblical answers to the complex questions that we face in our day and to serve as a witness of the gospel of the grace of God to the unbelieving world around us. The Dividing Line is a presentation of Alpha and Omega Ministries. Our host is Dr. James White. This is a live program and we invite your participation. In the Metro Phoenix area you can call now at 602-274-1360 and toll free across the United States, it's 1-888-550-1360. And now, with today's topic, here is James White. And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line this afternoon. We continue our response to recent radio programs in the Southwest Radio Church. And today I'm going to take a little bit of a, well I took a detour the last time we talked about this too, didn't I? Take a little bit of a detour because the more I have gotten into listening to and responding to the first two programs, the more information has come to light that I find to be extremely interesting and also, I think, extremely important. And specifically, if you have been with us before, you know that I have begun responding to the two programs that first aired that featured Dr. Larry Spargiomino interviewing Dr. Theodore P. Ledis. Now, Dr. Ledis has written a couple of books. They are not books that are generally out there, but one of the things that has truly concerned me is that they are being distributed especially amongst what I might call my own people, and that is in the Reformed community. And without a background as to what Dr. Ledis is really saying, I am concerned that there are those in the Reformed community who might not know really what is being promoted by Dr. Ledis. Another reason that I want to spend a little time today and go back a little bit and give you some more background information, is that the primary assertion that is made by Dr. Ledis in criticizing me, other than the fundamental assertion that has been his from the first time we encountered one another in 1995, and that is, you have to read everything Theodore Ledis says to be considered a scholar at all, in the area of textual critical studies that he, in essence, defines that realm, is that, well, you know, James White refers to this idea that the theology of the New Testament is not based upon textual variations. And of course, actually, he misrepresents my position, as does Larry Spargiomino, D.A. Waite, and pretty much everybody else that I know. But that issue of textual variation in the New Testament and its relationship with theology is extremely important. And what I'd like to do for you is play for you a couple of the cuts from the Southwest Radio Church program, so that you can hear what it was that Dr. Ledis said, and you can hear some of the context in the background of what the reason I want to sort of take a bit of a detour, step back and explain to the audience what it is that Dr. Ledis is saying, and respond to a book that Dr. Ledis says I am utterly ignorant of, by Bart Ehrman entitled, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The subtitle is, The Effect of Early Christological Controversies. On the text, the New Testament, Dr. Ledis very strongly says that Dr. Ehrman is the leading scholar in this area, that this is the most significant study there is, and I think that once we start looking into some of the background of Dr. Ledis' use of sources, the people that he's promoting, the position that is his, you'll see why this is very important, and why all of this is very closely related to what we do in dealing with most of the groups that we deal with. It is very common, for example, for Mormons to attack the text of scripture, things like that, say we don't know what the original testament actually said, and basically that is the viewpoint of Dr. Ehrman, that we cannot reconstruct. what the text of the original New Testament was. And so we want to respond to each of these things, but we have to sort of go back and give a little information. But first, let me play for you... The first cut I want to play for you from the Southwest Radio Church, cut number seven in our super advanced, highly technologically advanced control room there, under the direction, the watchful eye of Richard Pierce, whose sonorous tones you heard in our new opening. I'm not sure who dropped the Prozac in his coffee this morning, but you know, i'm walking home and then we just took my truck what are you talking about walking home and walking home you may be walking home but i'm not going to anyways uh... and ably assisted today ably assisted by doctor warren smith uh... that's an honorary doctorate but hey it's as good as they come what can you say Anyways, let's play. The first cut is Dr. Spargemino setting the stage for Dr. Letis on this final area of discussion they're going to have, and that is how ignorant I am of this particular subject. So let's listen to Spargemino. As we continue, we've just got a few more minutes. I did want to get into something that's very important. James White and many other evangelicals say it really doesn't matter which translation you use. They would say something like, well, not a single doctrine is lost by using some other translation. Well, Ted, is it true that it really doesn't... that it really doesn't matter. Okay, when I cut that CD, I told it to only put one second between the cuts, and for some reason that CD player does not like that, and I do not know why, but that is it, mate. There is, and if you've listened to the whole response we've done so far this summer, you know that this came up with Dr. Waite. In fact, I think Dr. Spargimino used almost the exact same words. and I want to briefly rebut this right now and then we're gonna spend more time on it as the Lord gives us the time. I did not say in the book that there are no textual variations in doctrinally relevant passages. And that is what, that is the whole thing that Waite, Ledis, Spargiomino, they all attempt, it's sort of a shell game, they attempt to make it sound like what I'm saying is that there are no passages that are doctrinally relevant that contain textual variations. And that is ridiculous! There's an entire chapter in the book, and as you may have noticed if you have listened, actually dealing with what I said in the book is not exactly the strong suit of any of these folks, but there's an entire chapter in the book, chapter 8, that deals with passages relevant to the deity of Christ. And it specifically deals with the textual variations in those specific passages. So it's obvious that I am fully aware of the fact that there are doctrinally relevant passages that have textual variations. What I said in the book, and what I stand by, is that there is no doctrine of the Christian faith no doctrine of the Christian faith that must be believed for salvation that defines the Christian faith that is based upon textual variations. I also expressed it in this words, if you use the same exegetical methodology, On the Textus Receptus that would be promoted by Sparge Amino, I assume would be promoted by Theodore Letus, that is definitely promoted by D.A. Waite, if you use the same exegetical methodology on the TR, on the Nessiolan 27th edition, or on the Westcott and Hort edition, you will not come to a different theological conclusion. Now I stand by both of those. None of these individuals, given all of their tremendous scholarship, even have tried to actually interact with what I said. And we of course wonder why that is. If I am such a complete idiot in this area, why not dive in and demonstrate from the text of the book where I have missed it on these issues? They don't do that. Instead, what we get, and this is one of the more important sections, this is a minute and 17 section clip, which for us will be a minute and 15 seconds, where Dr. Ledis launches into the same criticism that he offered in Appendix B in his book, The Ecclesiastical Text. This begins on page 222 of his book. and uh... the specific uh... accusation the specific uh... section you will find uh... begins on the page two twenty four uh... and he quotes airmen on two twenty five so here's what he has to say well here's another point at which james white falls down very very seriously because he makes no reference in his book at all to the most important book that has ever been published on the subject that you just raised. And that is a book titled, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. What I'd like to do is lift a quote from White's book, where he makes this affirmation that you just referred to, that no doctrine is ever at stake, no matter what translation you use. and then go to an actual authority on that subject and read to you what he says about that. Here's what James White says in his book, The King James Only Controversy, quote, The simple fact of the matter is that no textual variance in either the Old or New Testament in any way, shape or form, materially disrupt or destroy any essential doctrine of the Christian faith. There's exactly what you just said, Larry. And of course, if somebody were to believe that, they would put their guard down and possibly consider a modern translation without ever having any fear of any doctrine being called into question. He says this is a fact that any semi-impartial review will substantiate. Well, he's absolutely wrong. What's wrong about that is supposed to be what the final thing says. Let's go ahead with the next one. It's a little bit longer. Here is where he actually quotes from Bart Ehrman. I'm going to give you some more information on Ehrman as time allows us today. So you have some more idea of really where Ehrman's coming from. What his his assertions are in regards to the actual text of the New Testament? I think there's some some very important material that will be found as we look at that, but I want you to hear Specifically how lead us presents this let's go ahead and listen to it rather than talk about semi impartial Let's talk about somebody who is an absolute authority in the field Bart Ehrman who teaches at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and He is one of the world's leading authorities on textual criticism and on the issue of whether or not doctrine is ever affected by the many textual variants in the manuscripts. Here is what he says in his book, and I quote, "...the textual problems we have examined affect the interpretation of many of the familiar and historically significant passages of the New Testament." And then he lists some of the examples. And Larry, you tell me if these aren't important doctrines, all right? The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, dealing with the virgin birth of Christ. The prologue of the fourth gospel, where we have an affirmation of the deity of Christ. The baptismal accounts of the synoptics. The passion narrative. He goes on and on, and then he says, naturally, the same data relate to the basic doctrinal concerns of early Christians. Theologians and presumably laypersons alike. And here are the questions, he says, these textual variants raise. Was Jesus the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament? Was Joseph his father? Was Jesus born as a human? Was he tempted? Was he able to sin? Was he adopted to be the Son of God at his baptism, at his resurrection? Or was he himself God? Was Jesus one person or two persons? Did he have a physical body after his resurrection? And many others And he concludes by saying, the way scribes answered these questions, that is people who altered the manuscripts sometimes, the way scribes answered these questions affected the way they transcribed their text. And the way they transcribed their text has affected, to some degree, the way modern exegetes and theologians have answered these questions. Now, what Bart Ehrman has said is diametrically opposed to what James White says. I'm glad I know these quotes. We'll do it better next time, I'm sorry. Now, if you were to simply take that at face value, then it sounds like I certainly have no idea what in the world I'm talking about. And if you're just tuning in, you haven't heard the previous programs, and you're going, well, why don't you put Dr. Letus on the air? Oh, believe me. We have tried to contact Dr. Ledis. Dr. Ledis has responded by blocking each of my email addresses. And the last time that he did respond to an email from me, let me just remind the audience, the entire email said, Mr. White, you're an idiot. T. Ledis." That was the entirety of the email. So, we have attempted, and it would be very useful as we get into some of the subjects we're covering today, it'd be very useful to have an opportunity to interact with Dr. Ledis, but he's not interested in that. And we've, of course, invited D.A. Waite, Larry Spargiamino on the program. It's just, these folks want a monologue, not a dialogue. and we will allow you to determine what that means. Let me give you some quotes from Bart Ehrman, who Dr. Ledis promotes in his writings without a word of warning concerning the actual worldview that prompts his comments. For example, from the book the orthodox corruption of scripture which by the way is an oxford university press release uh... my copy is uh... nineteen ninety three uh. .. copyright and it says specifically during its first two-and-a-half centuries Christianity comprised a number of competing theologies, or better, a number of competing Christian groups advocating a variety of theologies. There was as yet no established orthodoxy, that is, no basic theological system acknowledged by the majority of church leaders and laity." That's from page four. Page 8 says what later came to be known as orthodoxy was simply one among a number of competing interpretations of Christianity in the early period. It was neither a self-evident interpretation nor an original apostolic view. End quote. On page 12, by their very nature, the historical disciplines do not allow for judgments in any ultimate sense concerning who was right and who was wrong. It is not the historian's task to privilege the claims of one group over another, which may be true in some contexts. But please realize that this entire perspective is coming from the idea that there really is no way of establishing the original text and there is really no single orthodox teaching that one can arrive at anyway. Now what's going to be fascinating is here on the Southwest Radio Church you have Theodore Ledis faulting me for disagreeing with Bart Ehrman and yet when we get into looking at Bart Ehrman, I'm not sure we have time today because there's some other things we need to get into, but when we get into looking at what Ehrman says, keep this one thing in mind. From Ehrman's perspective, many of the most significant Textus Receptus readings that D.A. Waite and Larry Spargiomino would defend to the end, including specifically the one we will look at, Luke 2.33. Ehrman identifies as corruptions from the original. Let me repeat that. from Bart Ehrman's perspective, from this one being presented as the greatest expert on this subject by Theodore Ledis, and whose position is espoused in Ledis's writings, in the very books sold by the Southwest Radio Church, along with Gail Riplinger's books, Dr. Ehrman says, for example, in Luke 2.33, one of the major textual variants that TR folks defend, where you have the use of the word father in regards to Joseph, the later TR reading that is found in the Textus Receptus, defended by TR advocates such as D.A. Waite, is identified by Ehrman as a corruption. In fact, I would argue that the majority of places where the TR differs from the modern text Bart Ehrman would describe as a corruption of text away from the original. And so here you have the Southwest Radio Church, and I don't get the feeling they realize this, selling a book that in essence completely and totally contradicts the second guest they have on with DA Waite. It is truly a fascinating thing. Now, the problem is that not only does Dr. Ledis utilize Bart Ehrman's materials, but he also, for example, promotes Brevard Child's And Brevard Childs promotes the idea of what's called the canonical text. The idea that the authority of scripture comes from its status as canon within the church. It is not that it's historically accurate. It's not that we can even recreate the original text at all. The actual reason that the text is authoritative is only due to the church, and we find in Leta's statements that seem to indicate that he most definitely embraces that. We'll look at some of them, and it would be wonderful, truly wonderful, if we could get uh. .. doctor lead us to really interact with some of these things but as i said he will not do so in some of the things we've discovered that i've discovered and i a m thankful to uh... michael porter for uh... sending me this information by received an article from that is it was written by david cloud now david cloud has written a lot of against me all right and david cloud and i would be on completely different sides of the planet in regards to textual issues he is king james only he's actually written some sort of a of a book in response to mine and uh... i i have written to him and i have uh... uh... pointed out where he's gotten personal and ad hominem against me and so on so forth but he writes an entire article uh... on his web page which by the way if you're interested is w w w dot would be dot net that's w h i d b e y dot net slash till that d cloud slash f b n s slash theodore leaders dot h t m if you're listening on tape, you can listen to that more than once to get it all down. But he's written an article entitled, Theodore Letus, a friend of Fundamental Baptists, and some of the things that I read in here truly amazed me. Of course, Cloud points out, as what I've already pointed out in previous programs, that Dr. Letus attacks Fundamentalists and Fundamentalist Baptists in a number of ways. One of the quotes that I did I'm not sure if I read it to you before, but let me just read to you that he does give from Letus, which is, I think, very important, is this, quote, and with the emergence of the 20th century chapter on the controversy of Bible translation, we finally return to the theme of this essay. The problem now was, how was one to choose between so many options, proliferating at a dizzy rate, with no authoritative ecclesiastical guidance? End quote. Well, this ecclesiastical text position of Ledus' was not what I was writing my book about, and 90% of his criticism is that I didn't interact with him as if I wasn't writing a book about him. But this idea of an ecclesiastical authority, what ecclesia, what church is that we should be looking for? I'm not really sure, but one of the things that I found fascinating was this information offered by uh... david cloud who by the way i have mentioned him before he's one of the few king james only advocates who has had the guts to criticize gail riplinger and as a result gail riplinger went after him as she does everybody who criticizes her But at least he had the integrity to say, you know, this lady says some weird things. And I do, by the way, want to mention, just in passing, the fact that Theodore Letus, in his book, The Ecclesiastical Text, says the following about Gail Riplinger's book, and you'll love this. Now remember, tia theater elitist guest on southwest radio church same same group that promotes gail rippling ur sells her book has had her on the program uh... helped publish one of her books here's a theater and theater elitist never mentions her name when he's on the air but here's been what he says about her book this kind of book is one long sermon to the already converted and a very bad sermon at that Only those who already hold the AV would take the time to read this nonsense. Others will find it as ludicrous as I do. The modern translations tend to be a problem not because all the translators are part of a New Age conspiracy, how surprised most of them would be to learn this, but because they are based on questionable translation philosophy and are founded on highly confusing and dubious textual theories. If we are ever to make a dent on the academic world, it can be done if we do our homework and really make valid arguments such as Bergen did in his day and Hills did in our own, we simply must give up the amateur mystery novel approach so loved by the marginalized conspiracy obsessed." End quote. page 230 of the Ecclesiastical text where he goes after Gail Ripplinger. Now one of the greatest things in his response to me in his book is that he identifies my book as a full-length response to Gail Ripplinger. That is absurd. That is completely, totally, and utterly absurd. I don't know how anyone who so often proclaims himself a scholar could so badly blow uh... such a response i mean anyone who's read my book and read her book knows that either he didn't read it Or, we keep one thing in mind, and that is that he wrote his review of my book after our 1995 encounter, which is posted on our website, where he did not do very well at all. But going back to, again, trying to give you some information about Theodore Elitis, I quoted for you some of the things he said about the Dean-Burgon Society. and if you didn't hear those programs they're archived at straightgate dot com and he really really really goes after uh... the uh... the the dean berg on society he mocks the dean berg on society and d a weight is the president of the dean berg on society and according to david cloud was actually one of the founding individuals along with david otis fuller he identifies the dean berg on society as extremist very irresponsible so on so forth in his writings for one of the things that i found very very interesting is this section from david clouds article about theodore lead us and i would love to again get lead us is response this but Maybe some of you listening, maybe you can drop him a line. His website, by the way, can be found linked off of www.kuypr.org. K-U-Y-P-R dot O-R-G. Kuypr.org is where you can find it. Now this is fascinating. Listen, this is David Cloud speaking, writing, Letus's vicious attack upon the Dean Burgan Society is strange in light of the kind help he received from one of the founders of that organization, Dr. David Otis Fuller, and from the Witch Bible Society, an organization closely aligned with the Dean Burgan Society. The gracious Dr. Fuller financed a large part of the advanced education of Theodore Letus through the Witch Bible Society. The money for Letus' education came from the sale of Dr. Fuller's books, which present exactly the same position on Bible texts and versions that is defended today by the Dean-Bergen Society and from the gifts of Dr. Fuller's friends who held a Dean-Bergen Society type position. Dr. Fuller believed that Letus was a sincere defender of the King James Bible. That has turned out not to be the case. Letus now viciously attacks those who hold the same view that Dr. Fuller held. By the way, the Witch Bible Society no longer supports Dr. Theodore Letus. Now, I found that very interesting, especially in the light of something else that was mentioned at the beginning of this article by David Cloud. But, as the clock on the wall indicates that we've been moving through time much faster than I expected we would, I will have to take the opportunity to take a break, take your phone calls after the call, after the break as well, and continue on with our discussion of Theodore Ledis and his writings in regards to the subject of the text of scripture. We'll be right back here on The Dividing Line. And to the strains of Phil Keggy! You know, there's a real big Phil Keggy fan in our chatroom. I'm not sure if he's there right now because I didn't bring my laptop with me, but there's a big Phil Keggy fan in the chatroom. He's really going to like that. What was I referring to when I said there was something that was really, really interesting in David Cloud's article? Well, here's what he says. Here's the paragraph. Dr. Leatus is an extremely unsettled man doctrinally and is moving farther and farther away from the Apostolic Church and the New Testament faith. When I first communicated with him in the mid-1980s during our missionary years in Nepal, he told me that he was a Presbyterian. When Letus was rejected from the executive committee of the Dean-Bergen Society in 1979, he was attending a Methodist church with ties to the National Council of Churches. He was not allowed to be on the executive committee of the DBS because of this ecumenical connection, and he became very irate at the time and wrote a very angry letter to one of the DBS founders rebuking the DBS for this matter. Ledis also attended Evangel College, which is affiliated with the Assemblies of God. In the late 1970s, objected to the Dean Bergen Society for their stand against tongues speaking. Today, Dr. Ledis is a Lutheran. Now, what is very interesting there, again, is, first of all, there was a time when it seems, from this article, where Dr. Ledis attempted to be a part of the Dean-Bergen Society, and yet today it is also the object of his execration in a number of his books, and it seems in the ecclesiastical text he just basically repeats what he had said in previous publications, but there's also been a movement from Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, Methodism, movement all over the place in regards to the theological perspective of the churches with which he has been associated, which I find to be very, very interesting. 602-274-1360, 1-888-550-1360. In case, in case any of the emails that I sent to Dr. Letus managed to make it through the electronic guard dogs that were set up to attempt to bounce everything back, because I have numerous email addresses. And just in case Dr. Letus is listening today, Dr. Letus, that's a toll-free number. And if you would like to explain some of these things to us, if you'd like to tell us whether Brevard Childs' perspective is true when he says in his book Old Testament Theology, page 13, a pre-critical method which could feel free simply to translate every statement of the Bible into a principle of right doctrine is no longer possible. Or when he says in the same book, page 21, there is little basis in the Bible for considering it to be a blank concept for man's source of the knowledge of God. To use the term revelation as a major concept is to run the danger of returning to a pre-critical understanding of the Bible. The term has its origin in a dogmatic stance which conceived the Bible as a collection of timeless propositional truths about God. Historical critics now see the full time-conditioned quality of the Bible as it has been filtered through a long development and reflects both truth and error." End quote. If you'd like to explain, is that really the position that you hold, that the Bible's authority comes from the church? Would you agree with Turretin, Owen, and others who held to Sola Scriptura in the Reformed sense? Where really are you coming from? It is difficult for us to know. It's 1-888-550-1360. And maybe, if you're listening, you can also explain to us some of the things that appear in the Appendix B of the Ecclesiastical Text And that is an assessment of James R. White's, The King James Only Controversy, Can You Trust the Modern Translations? 1995. Here's the first paragraph, first two paragraphs of this particular item. Dr. Ledis writes, James White and Gail Ripplinger are both cut from the same bolt of cloth. Hence the old saying holds true, it takes one to know one. They are in fact kissing cousins in terms of religious genus. Now, right now, I stop for a moment. Any of you who have read my books and read Gail Ripplinger's books are amazed at the statement. Absolutely, positively amazed that Dr. Ledis could say that. You know how vastly different, how vastly different I am from Gail Ripplinger. I am from any of that kind of ilk of material that Gail Ripplinger puts out. You heard it last week, and yes, you hear Dr. Lita saying that we're kissing cousins in terms of religious genus. Well, I continue, quote, the very fact that White felt that Ripplinger's book New Age Bible versions, which will be addressed below, and I quoted from that earlier, merited an entire book-length reply indicates that he must have felt that her propositions were compelling enough to deserve such treatment. In other words, her superficial treatment of the subject was nevertheless disturbing enough for him to treat it seriously. It speaks as much about his grasp of the subject, or lack of, as it does about Ripplinger's effort. I dealt with her work in three or four double-spaced pages and said all that could responsibly be said without granting her more validation than her book demands. Some arguments having no merit can be enlivened and given artificial significance simply by treating them as though they did. I suspect that were it not for Ripplinger offering White a soft target, he would still be laboring away in near obscurity. Her book, in effect, made his high-profile publishing career possible." End quote. Well, the first thing that anyone must say is there's only one of two possibilities in regards to such a tremendous scholar, as Dr. Ledis refers to himself, such a tremendous scholar who could make such a gross error as to say that my book is a book-length response to New Age Bible versions. There's only two possibilities. Either A, he did not read my book, which is absolutely, for a true, tremendous scholar as he professes himself to be, is absolutely unforgivable. How can you go into print pretending to respond to someone when you haven't even read their book? Well, certainly he must have read the book, and so how could he so grossly misrepresent it as if it is a book-length response to Gail Riplinger when it is not? When it transcends Riplinger's book by a long shot, it deals with so much more information, and is so much wider in its application, I mean, how can this be? The only other possibility that I would suggest to you is that this book came out after the debate which is posted on our website, www.aomin.org, and I just simply remind you that in that debate, by the end of it, Dr. Ledis was asked to leave the forum by his own supporters. because the fact that he was acting in an insufferably arrogant fashion. Read it for yourself. He was asked to leave by his own supporters. And this alleged review of my book comes out after that particular encounter, which then means that these misrepresentations are personal and purposeful. And I guess it is the hope that someone will not actually read my book to discover how very, very different it is. Then he addresses my alleged lack of ability to do critical studies. He says, nor does he have a PhD in this or even a related field. In short, he has a little more than a ministerial level of education. I would like to know, Dr. Ledis, my understanding is his degrees are in historical theology, but evidently that does apply and makes him worthy of dealing with these areas, even though, again, even in this appendix, no specifics are offered in regards to any errors that I made outside of this assertion of the Bart Ehrman thing. But notice this. Granted, some have gone on to do substantial text-critical work with such a background by pure industry and ability, but this always manifests itself in the literature where pure assessment in the discipline ratifies one's work in the field. I see no such body of published literature from the pen of James White in the areas of text criticism, translation, philology, or philology. In short, he has no qualifications for writing on these subjects other than the basic ability to read secondary sources and so critique a woman even less qualified than himself. Prior to the publishing of this book, he was a self-styled crusader against the cults, little more than a generalist at best. Well, yes. But it is interesting that for some reason in this review, Dr. Letus forgets to deal with the endorsements on the King James Only controversy. And I know he researched Bruce Metzger, and Dr. Metzger said the King James Only controversy is scholarly and accurate, and its evaluation of opposing viewpoints fair. Anyone troubled by criticisms of English translations will find White trustworthy. I hope his book will be widely circulated. It'll do much good. Hmm. D.A. Carson said this book should be read by all who are embroiled in the controversy. I wonder why it is that Dr. Letis doesn't deal with those. Could it be that his own books don't have any of those endorsements on them? Could it be that throughout this particular review, it is Dr. Elitist's point to say, well, he didn't write a book in response to me, and so he's bad. that seems to be the rather petulant attitude that is found throughout this particular review. Now, then we have the section on Ehrman, and through this, before he even gets to quoting Ehrman, all he does is say, well, he had no knowledge of an essay I wrote on this, nor no knowledge of my Ph.D. dissertation research on this, as if that was the greatest level of knowledge one could have in those particular areas. But then after all of this particular stuff about Ehrman and things like that, he does go on to say a few things about Hills. I'm going to skip that particular at the moment because I could go into it, but it just sounds like I'm picking upon this particular individual and his bad review. He does say later on, hence on this basis he lumps the Harvard PhD with the lady home economics teacher. And again, I would just refer anyone to Chapter 5 of my book See if I did not make a very clear distinction between Edward F. Hills and Gail Ripplinger. I did. And see if the connection that I made, and that is this drive for absolute certainty in textual issues based upon whatever criteria, is not a valid connection that is made. Then he Then he says, he quotes from my book where I said, "...Protestants should be quick to question any such notion of absolute religious certainty. The concept of the individual's responsibility before God is deeply ingrained in Protestant theology. We cannot hand off our responsibility in religious matters to someone else." And here's his response. Well put again, and yet White advocates that Christians surrender to the small committees which worked on the UBS 4th and Essayol on 27th and the consensus represented by the committee which gave the world the new international version which would be better termed the Rupert Murdoch New International Diversified Media Conglomerate Corporate Boardroom Bible for Maximum Profits." End quote. Again, I was unaware that great scholars engage in this kind of childish misrepresentation. And that's what it is. And Dr. Ledis, the number is 1-888-550-1360. childish misrepresentation because I said over and over again that an individual holding the Nestle-Alan 27th edition has right on the page the textual variants listed. You can examine what those variants are, you can come to the decisions for yourself, and I even in the book went against the decisions of the UBS-4 and Nestle-Alan 27th in certain passages. but that would require that he actually read the book and honestly interacted with what it said and this is how he said this uh... right afterwards he says quote these amount to when he says whites textual critical case studies i gave some uh... passages in uh... the in the book where i explained On the layman's level, various and sundry are the most important textual variations. Now again, I didn't write this book for Theodore Letus, and I didn't write it for textual scholars. I wrote it for people in the pew, because I believe that Christian scholarship exists to edify Christians, not to put quote-unquote Christian scholars on a pedestal and give them a job. Okay? And that's really what I've taken most of the heat for, is daring to demythologize scholarship and demonstrate that once you get past the technical terminology, scholars are people too. And that there's no, you know, putting on some white lab coat or something doesn't all of a sudden make your IQ triple. Here's what is said under White's text, Critical Case Studies, quote, These amount to childish displays of pedantry, with little critical value whatsoever. His evaluations appear as just so many borrowings from the UBS textual commentary. He treats each variant in a deplorably superficial way, devoting a paragraph or two to variants that could well require an entire PhD dissertation to crack. Or at least a full journal essay, but he is content to come off as an authority to an audience that cannot discriminate. Excuse me, but my arrogance meter just exploded. It just exploded. In other words, don't you dare explain anything that is allegedly in the purview of scholarship so that people can understand it. I'm sorry, but that attitude should never appear in quote-unquote Christian scholarship. Should never appear in quote-unquote Christian scholarship. At all. And I really do not believe that many of those fine, reformed people that are embracing Ledis' work really understand that that is the attitude that underlies it. and I offer this information as a warning to those who are embracing these things. Find out what's really behind all of it, because what it looks like and what the reality is are two very different things. Takes a breath. Takes a sip of water. 602-274-1360. 1-888-550-1360. Let's talk with Michael. Hi, Michael. How are you today? I'm doing very well. I'm calming down. That's a good thing. Good, yes, well. I have come to embrace the doctrines of grace and much of the Reformed perspective, and the result is that I have criticized the method and message of a very popular crusade evangelist. What is my responsibility in confronting him and I would say every other person that claims to be a Christian leader that is teaching error. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by confronting him. Do you work for his organization? Is he part of your church? No, no, not at all. Well, I don't believe that every person has a responsibility to track down individuals where we believe that they have a deficient view of issues regarding the doctrines of grace. Personally, I have found that I have a responsibility to boldly proclaim them when I am given the opportunity to do so. within the fellowship of the church with which I fellowship, that I'm a member of, where I have responsibilities, then there needs to be a consistency in proclaiming the gospel for what the gospel really says. But I don't believe that it's my job to go to the many Arminian churches uh... here in phoenix and uh... knock on the door and say the pastor and hey uh... i think you need to repent uh... because uh... you're teaching x y and z on this subject when i have an opportunity as on this radio program as i have done you know last summer i did a nine-part series responding to norman geisler uh... that has uh... that has cost us uh... i can think of a uh... one particular radio program uh... that is is nationwide that's uh... i can't even I can't even get a response to emails from that particular radio program, and I know that that's probably due to the fact that I wrote The Potter's Freedom. So I've had to pay for that act in some ways, but I do that by positive presentation. In that situation, I was responding to a nationally written book that misrepresented the Reformed perspective. But I don't feel that we have a responsibility necessarily to, unless you find yourself in a church, you've come to a knowledge of these things, before you leave any church, you want to sit down with the elders, you want to sit down with the pastor, and you want to, in the most biblically right way, discuss these issues and find out why there seems to be inconsistencies and things like that. But if you're already in a fellowship where these things are consistently taught, then I don't necessarily think that there's some responsibility to go down the road to another fellowship and say, hey, I want to tell you about X, Y, or Z. Because I can tell you one thing, when folks come into our church, and evidence, an attitude that says, well, you know, y'all are doing okay, but I'd like to sit down with the elders and help you to understand a better way. We don't tend to automatically jump up and go, oh, goody, that's great, tell us all about it. That doesn't seem to be the best methodology. If you're talking about a crusade speaker or something like that, I've voted with my feet. I don't support those particular situations where I know there's going to be a less-than-biblical gospel presented. I won't be a part of that, and when people ask me, then I'll tell them. But I don't necessarily think that we have some responsibility to go to them and say, well, here are these things. Because I can pretty much assure you that most folks have heard of the issues before and have made their decisions normally based upon tradition, is my experience, not upon a real in-depth study of the issues, but they've made a decision and I find that I have far more to do just within my own local fellowship just teaching and teaching the truth than to worry about the folks that are that are down the road or Across the valley or in another state or whatever else it might be Okay, because it is causing well at least in my fellowship anyway. It is causing. I would say controversy and And the challenge to me was, well, have you talked to him? Ah. Well, you know, when people say, well, have you talked to, and then they mention someone who is not a part of your fellowship or is not someone who is even semi-nearby, you know, my response normally is, well, have you? The issue, are you being asked in your fellowship to support, is the fellowship being asked to support this outreach? Is that the point? No, but it's the philosophy. It's the, I guess, the Arminian perspective that people aren't aware of. Well, if someone were to ask me, well, have you talked to him, I would say, well, I can't talk to every person who falls into this trap. I don't think that's really the... I don't need to talk to every person that accepts a traditional perspective and doesn't really interact with anything outside of that traditional perspective. But if the opportunity were to arise, you find yourself sitting next to a person in row B and he's in row A on the airplane, fine. I would certainly take that opportunity with lots of folks. I don't think it's a real argument for someone to say to you, well, you can't really criticize someone's methodologies until you talk with that person. I really don't believe that the Apostle Paul had quote-unquote talked with a number of people that he criticized in regards to things they were saying or teaching or things like that. And unless they're saying it's a Matthew 18 issue, which I think is within the context of the local church, not some pan-church type situation where if you dare say, you know, the idea I guess would be that before I wrote The Power is Freedom, I should have somehow gone to Norm Geisler's elders or something like that. I don't think that's the case at all, any more than I would say that it would have been necessary for Norman Geisler to go to the elders of R.C. Sproul's church before he wrote Chosen but Free. uh... that there's there's clearly different context at that point and we're dealing with theological issues here and uh... generally people just don't want to deal with this particular theological issue and on this particular theological issue what they want to say is look it's pragmatically successful Here is the pragmatic success chart that we can provide for you for this particular methodology. Therefore, who are you to criticize it? And you got to remember that in most churches today, and sadly, even in most seminaries today, the idea is, here's the growth chart. And if you're not meeting that, you are a failure. And if you are meeting that, that means you're successful. The content of the message and whether there is growth and godliness or anything else, that's irrelevant. in the vast majority of what calls itself evangelicalism today, and it's sad. But I talk with people every day that are involved in the rat race out there. They are involved with the quote-unquote institutional church, and in many, many, many situations, their ministry is judged not by their fidelity to the Word of God, not by growth in grace and holiness in the people in the church, but solely on the basis of external factors that the Word of God never ever provides. And that becomes so pervasive that your willingness to even criticize, to even say, we need to think about this, is looked upon as being downright heretical, not against scripture, but against the tradition that informs most of modern evangelicalism. Well, there's my free sermon on that one. All right, Michael. Okay, thanks for calling. God bless. Well, you know, I realize that the subject of the King James Only controversy and texts and things like that, I realize that it's not the easiest topic. I do realize that. And I know that there's a lot of folks who want to call in and talk about reformed issues and the potter's freedom and stuff like that. But we're going to continue on. We're going to finish this up. I'd like to try to finish it up next week if I can, in responding to Bart Ehrman and to Lydus' use of that, and then we'll be done with that. And then we will put them together as a series on the website, just like you can go and listen to the Geisler series. We'll do the same thing, and you can go someplace, you can listen to it, and hope it's useful to you, because I tell you, folks, if you're involved in the middle of it, and you've seen a church split over it, you know why this stuff's important. So we want to address the issues that are tough to address, the topics that are difficult to address. Thanks for being with us today, and we'll be back again next week. Lord willing here on The Dividing Line. The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries. If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602-973-0318 or write us at P.O. Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona 85069. You can also find us on the World Wide Web at aomin.org. That's A-O-M-I-N.O-R-G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks. Join us again next Saturday afternoon at 2 p.m. for The Dividing Line.