Dr. Daniel Wallace: Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then?

Dr. Dan Wallace influences students across the world through his textbook on intermediate Greek grammar. It is used in more than two-thirds of the USA’s schools that teach that subject.

He is the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible and coeditor of the NET-Nestle Greek-English diglot. Recently his scholarship has shifted from syntactical and text-critical issues to more specific work in John, and has founded The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, an institute with an initial purpose to preserve Scripture by taking digital photographs of all known Greek New Testament manuscripts.

His postdoctoral work includes work on Greek grammar at Tyndale House in Cambridge and textual criticism studies at the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster, Germany.

Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then? – Part 1 – Biola Chapel, September 21, 2011

Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then? – Part 2 – Biola Chapel, September 23, 2011

Now if you have watched both these short lectures above and seek a very fast paced summary of just over 10 minutes, here is Dr. Wallace being interviewed back in 2009 on the John Ankerberg program.

Who Wrote the Gospels?

Countering Bart Ehrman’s claims to the contrary, there is extremely good historical evidence to show that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of the four New Testament Gospels. Dr. Michael Kruger, Associate Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary explains:

HT: TC

Roger Olson’s book “Against Calvinism” – A Review by Dr. James White

Parts 1 and 2
Roger Olson doesn’t like to debate, and he doesn’t like to defend his assertions, either, but that did not stop Dr. James White from reviewing his book “Against Calvinism.” A very troubling aspect of Olson’s book is that he admits that even if God revealed Himself to be and to act, as Calvinists say He does, Olson would refuse to worship Him. That’s an amazing thing for a professed Christian to say.

Here is the first half of Dr. White’s review:

Here is the second half:

Interview with an Ex-Mormon

David Murray conducted a very useful and informative interview with ex-Mormon and now Christian author Latayne Scott. She answers questions like these:

How did you become a Mormon?
How were you converted to Christ?
Is Mormonism a cult?
Should a Christian vote for Mitt Romney?
What are the changes in and challenges to Mormonism?
How should we evangelize Mormons? Should we invite them into our homes?

You will find the interview here.

Augustine on Effectual Grace

Five quotes:

(1) Some might interpret ‘It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God Who shows mercy’ (Rom.9:16), in this sense — that salvation comes from both, that is, both from the human will and from the mercy of God. In that case, we must understand the saying, ‘It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God Who shows mercy,’ as if it meant that the human will alone is not sufficient, unless the mercy of God goes with it. But then it would follow that the mercy of God alone is not sufficient, unless the human will goes with it! Therefore, if we may rightly say, ‘it is not of man who wills, but of God Who shows mercy,’ because the human will by itself is not enough, why may we not also rightly put it the other way round: ‘It is not of God Who shows mercy, but of man who wills,’ because the mercy of God by itself is not sufficient? Surely, no Christian will dare to say this, ‘It is not of God Who shows mercy, but of man who wills,’ in case he openly contradicts the apostle!

So it follows that the true interpretation of the saying, ‘It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God Who shows mercy,’ is that the entire work belongs to God, Who both makes the human will righteous, and prepares it in this way for His assistance, and then assists it when it is prepared. For human righteousness of will precedes many of God’s gifts, but not all of them; and it must itself be included among those gifts which it does not precede. We read in Holy Scripture, both that God’s mercy ‘shall meet me’ (Ps.59:10), and that His mercy ‘shall follow me’ (Ps.23:6). Mercy goes before the unwilling person to make him willing; it follows the willing person to make his will effective. Why are we taught to pray for our enemies, who are plainly unwilling to lead a holy life, unless that God may produce willingness in them? And why are we ourselves taught to ask in order that may receive, unless that He who has created in us the wish, may Himself satisfy the wish? We pray, then, for our enemies, that the mercy of God may go before them, as it has gone before us; and we pray for ourselves that His mercy may follow us.

Enchiridion, 32

(2) The kind of teaching we are talking about is spoken of by the Lord when He says: ‘Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me’ (Jn.6:45). So if someone does not come to Christ, we cannot correctly say of him, ‘he has heard and learned that he ought to come to Christ, but he is not willing to do what he has learned.’ It is indeed absolutely improper to apply such a statement to God’s method of teaching people by grace. For if, as the Truth says, ‘Everyone who has learned comes,’ it follows, of course, that whoever does not come has not learned. But who can fail to see that a person’s coming or not coming is by the choice of his will? If a person does not come to Christ, he has simply made his choice not to come. But if he does come, it cannot be without assistance — such assistance that he not only knows what it is he ought to do, but actually does what he knows.

And so, when God teaches, it is not by the letter of the law, but by the grace of the Spirit. Moreover, He teaches so that whatever a person learns, he not only sees it with his perception, but also desires it with his choice, and accomplishes it in action. By this method of divine instruction, our very choosing itself, and our very performance itself, are assisted, and not merely our natural ‘capacity’ of willing and performing. For if nothing but this ‘capacity’ of ours were assisted by this grace, the Lord would have said, ‘Everyone that has heard and learned from the Father may possibly come to Me.’ This, however, is not what He said. His words are these: ‘Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.’

Now Pelagius says that the possibility of coming lies in our nature. Or as we even found him attempting to say some time ago, it lies in grace (whatever that may mean according to him), as when he says, ‘grace assists our capacity of coming to Christ.’ But he holds that our actual coming to Christ lies in our own will and act. Now just because a person may come to Christ, it does not follow that he actually comes, unless he has also willed and acted to come. But everyone who has learned from the Father not only has the possibility of coming, but actually comes! And in this result are already included the use of the capacity, the affection of the will, and the effect of the action.

On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin, 1:27
Continue reading

Universalism Exposed

Dr. James White deals with the subject of Universalism, an ancient heresy that is making in-roads into the professing evangelical Church in our day. Even if you are sure it is wrong, are you able to show this from the Bible? Its very important, in light of the current widespread falsehoods being expressed by Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” book (and others out there), to be able to articulate what it is we believe and why we believe it. You will find the audio of Dr. White’s message here.

Fun Stuff

(1) A man died and went to The Judgment, they told him , “Before you meet with God, I should tell you — we’ve looked over your life, and to be honest you really didn’t do anything particularly good or bad. We’re not really sure what to do with you. Can you tell us anything you did that can help us make a decision?”

The newly arrived soul thought for a moment and replied, “Yeah, once I was driving along and came upon a person who was being harassed by a group of thugs. So I pulled over, got out a bat, and went up to the leader of the thugs. He was a big, muscular guy with a ring pierced through his lip. Well, I tore the ring out of his lip, and told him he and his gang had better stop bothering this guy or they would have to deal with me!”

“Wow that’s impressive, “When did this happen?”

“About three minutes ago,” came the reply.

(2) An Illinois man left the snow-filled streets of Chicago for a vacation in Florida. His wife was on a business trip and was planning to meet him there the next day. When he reached his hotel he decided to send his wife a quick email. Unfortunately, when typing her address, he missed one letter, and his note was directed instead to an elderly preacher’s wife whose husband had passed away only the day before. When the grieving widow checked her email, she took one look at the monitor, let out a piercing scream, and fell to the floor in a dead faint. At the sound, her family rushed into the room and saw this note on the screen:

Dearest Wife,
Just got checked in. Everything prepared for your arrival tomorrow. P.S. Sure is hot down here.

(3) Three men, a Frenchman, an Italian, and a Jew, were condemned to be executed. Their captors told them that they had the right to have a final meal before the execution.

They asked the Frenchman what he wanted.
“Give me some good French wine and French bread,” he requested. So they gave it to him, he ate it, and then they executed him.

Next it was the Italian’s turn. “Give me a big plate of pasta,” said the Italian. So they brought it to him, he ate it, and then they executed him.

Now it was the Jew’s turn.
“I want a big bowl of strawberries, ” he said.
“Strawberries!!! They aren’t even in season!”
“So, I’ll wait…”

Tweaking the Tulip

This short article by Justin Taylor made me laugh. It contains some helpful and useful material, but I just saw the funny side of the historic TULIP acrostic suffering a massive regressive evolution of sorts and becoming WUPSI:

Despite the number in common, the “five points of Calvinism” (TULIP) don’t come from the Decision of the Synod of Dordt on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands (more popularly known as simply the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619).

The first documented use of the TULIP acronym for the doctrines of grace can be found here. Writing in 1913, the author recalls a popular lecture from Dr. Cleland B. McAfee in 1905. Dr. McAfee was the pastor of Lafayette Avenue Church in Brooklyn at the time. (In 1913 he joined the faculty at Mc­Cor­mick The­o­log­ic­al Sem­in­ary in Chi­ca­go.)

Dr. McAfee essentially gave the acronym as we know it today, except that “U” stood for “universal sovereignty” in his talk, whereas it’s known today as “unconditional election.”

Total depravity
Universal sovereignty
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints

It has become popular of later to retain the content of the “five points” but to tweak the terminology and even rearrange them for better communication. One of the more creative ones is found in Timothy George’s Amazing Grace: God’s Pursuit, Our Response:

Radical depravity
Overcoming grace
Sovereign election
Eternal life
Singular redemption

And it’s also hard not to admire the gospel- and grace-based approach of Roger Nicole:

Grace
Obligatory grace
Sovereign grace
Provision-making grace
Effectual grace
Lasting grace

I believe that the five points—rightly understood—are gloriously true and can be clearly demonstrated exegetically—but I still had to smile at this comment in Greg Forster’s forthcoming book The Joy of Calvinism: Knowing God’s Personal, Unconditional, Irresistible, Unbreakable Love (Crossway, coming in February 2012):

It sometimes feels like Calvinists first invoke the five points, then apologize for invoking the five points, then explain how the five points don’t really mean what they seem to mean and aren’t really saying what they seem to be saying. This can’t possibly be the best way to introduce people to what we believe.

Forster’s own alternative brings out the trinitarian nature and redemptive progression of this teaching:

State of man before salvation: wholly defiled
Work of the Father in salvation: unconditional choice
Work of the Son in salvation: personal salvation
Work of the Spirit in salvation: supernatural transformation
State of man after salvation: in faith, perseverance

Tongue in cheek, Forster writes:

This gives us the handy mnemonic WUPSI, pronounced “whoopsie”—as in, “whoopsie, we just realized that TULIP is giving everyone heinously false ideas of what Calvinism is all about.” Perhaps it’s not as memorable as TULIP, but it has other virtues to make up for that.

For more on these issues, see Kenneth Stewart’s third chapter in Ten Myths about Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed Tradition.