Hickory, Dickory, Dockery: Ecumenism in the SBC

By KEN FRYER

On December 9, 2013, David Dockery, President of Union University in Jackson, Tennessee announced his intention to step down from the presidency and assume the role of chancellor (in an honorary role) no later than July 2014.  In his farewell address, Dockery said that he intends to participate more in the Manhattan Declaration project which purports to be a movement of Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians for life, marriage, and religious liberty.  Upon the issuance of the Manhattan Declaration, many religious leaders, including many high-profile Southern Baptists, were asked to sign the document.  Besides Dockery, other notable Southern Baptist signatories include the ultra-ecumenical Timothy George, Dean of the Beeson School of Divinity and, of course, the Pope-praising Russell Moore, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Click to read more ...

A Response to Turretinfan

By NOTR

A commentary surfaced on the Alpha & Omega website written by someone calling himself “Turretinfan.”  It is a short review of the debate between Chris Pinto and James White on December 11, 2013.  The reviewer obviously favors White and desired to defend his side of the argument. 

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2013/12/17/chris-pinto-debate-summary-turretinfan/

Before we answer his commentary, we should mention that the writer in question has chosen his code name from Francis Turretin, a well known seventeenth century, Swiss Reformed theologian.  Turretin is perhaps best known for his teaching that the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist prophesied in Scripture.  His Seventh Disputation was titled, Whether it can be Proven the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist.  In short, he definitely thought it could be proven.   Within this context, the original Turretin wrote:

“… the Pope reigns in the Church in order to destroy and attack the Church itself.”

Click to read more ...

What do the Multiple Version Men leave us With?

By Kent Brandenburg

If I were to rank the recent stir-ups that related to the Bible, as to national interest, they would be the following:  (1)  Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson's homosexuality comments, (2)  John MacArthur's Strange Fire Conference, (3)  NCFIC Holy Hip-Hop panel discussion, and (4)  Mark Driscoll charged with plagiarism for several of his books.  If I were to rank a number five, it is the hub-bub over the documentary by Chris Pinto that questioned the veracity of Tischendorf's Sinaiticus Greek New Testament manuscript.  This included comments from Dan Wallace, a debate between Pinto and James White, several blog posts attacking Pinto from various sources, and a lot of mileage in discussion forum debate.  Why did this number five create such a furor?

Click to read more ...

Collation, Confusion & Erasmus

By Christian J. Pinto

“I have escaped at last from the prisonhouse of Basel, in which I have done six years’ work in eight months.” 

-- Desiderius Erasmus in a letter to Rimaclus, 1516

We have seen several comments from a few who listened to the debate last week, and were understandably confused by one of the points argued by James White.  The polemic he latched on to at one point was the insistence that Constantine Simonides and his uncle would not have had time to “collate” the various manuscripts necessary to have produced the Codex Sinaiticus in 1840.  Hearing that, some people assumed that Dr. White must know what he’s talking about.  But did he?

 On our Adullam Films facebook page, one listener wrote: “... White won the debate at the word ‘collate.’”

Upon questioning this person further, it became clear that he didn’t really understand what the collation process is, and how the variables involved make it impossible to draw a finite conclusion.   When pressed further, he said of Dr. White: “… he’s the expert in those matters, so I trust his authority in that regard.”

We wrote him back and told him:

“... White did, in fact, end the debate with the word ‘collate’ as you said – because at that point, he revealed that he had no legitimate arguments against the story of Simonides.”

Click to read more ...

Hiram's Review of the White vs. Pinto Debate

DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE WHITE VS. PINTO DEBATE

By Hiram Diaz

Although I enjoy listening to debates, I’m not a big fan of them. This may sound contradictory, so let me explain. On the one hand, debates are a great way to become familiar with different points of view, be they non-Christian or Christian. In this respect, I appreciate the knowledge that can be gained from assessing each point and counterpoint making up the debate.

However, on the other hand, personality can often take the place of sound reasoning. The more aggressively one pursues his debate opponent, for instance, the stronger he appears to the audience, as one who is in the right. Why? Because his personality trumps the weakness of his argumentation. Thus, debates can swing in the favor of men who present well, as opposed to presenting their case well.

The debate over whether or not Codex Sinaiticus is a modern forgery, a debate between James White and Chris Pinto was, unfortunately, one that made me dislike debates even more.

Before I listened to the background information that Pinto presented in his documentary and on his podcast/radio show, I was pretty sure James White’s statements about Pinto’s ideas being far-fetched and based on loose threads woven together by conspiracy were right.

But when the debate took place a couple nights ago, I saw that Dr. White was wrong. Pinto presented documented history that challenged the official story regarding Simonides (i.e. the man who claimed to have penned Codex Sinaiticus); Dr. White, however, did not refute Pinto’s challenge.

Click to read more ...