Andreas Köstenberger attended last night’s debate between Daniel Wallace and Barth Ehrman at the University of North Carolina. Köstenberger writes an overview of how it went down, and he says that the audience feedback indicated that the debate had no clear winner. Köstenberger says that the technical stuff flew over everyone’s head. He also offers how he would have closed the debate had he been a participant. He writes:

Friends, I think I’ve shown that for every skeptical argument Bart Ehrman advances, there is a reasonable response that shows the Bible to be more reliable than he makes it out to be. But in the end, how many of us believe in the Bible because of text criticism, or the number of manuscripts, or differences in the variants? The bigger questions, I submit to you, are these: Is Christianity true? Is Jesus divine? Did Jesus die on the cross for our sins? Did he rise from the dead? Is Jesus the only way? What is the gospel? Will you and I believe? There are many believers in this audience who have become convinced that the Bible is true and that Jesus is real. We’ll continue to advance arguments and counter-arguments on the minutiae of textual matters, and those matter, but let’s not forget the bigger picture. The Bible is trustworthy, and Christianity is true. Hopefully, we can all agree on that. Thank you very much.

Debates like this one are fascinating, and they serve a definite apologetic purpose. But Köstenberger is correct. No erudite argument defending the integrity of the New Testament text will by itself bring someone to faith. Arguments about textual criticism can remove some barriers, but not all barriers to faith. There is a “bigger picture,” as Köstenberger has it. There may be evidence that demands a verdict, but fallen sinners universally make the wrong judgment apart from grace—no matter how much evidence is adduced. Read the rest here.

Dan Wallace is doing great and valuable work at The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. You can check out their work here.

Now Justin Taylor has added his commentary, and he gives a history of the Elephant Room debacle from September 2011 to now. This is wise and helpful. I won’t attempt to excerpt it. You should read the whole thing anyway.

I agree with everything Kevin DeYoung writes in his thoughtful reflections about The Elephant Room. On the central question of the Trinity, Kevin writes,

I’m not at all convinced Jakes understands or affirms orthodox Trinitarianism. But even if he meant to do so at the Elephant Room, the issue was not pressed far enough. Saying yes to the right formulations is one thing, but on something as fundamental as the Trinity, we ought to be concerned that a pastor celebrates and promotes the doctrine with passion and joy. We want to know that these core doctrines animate, infuse, and inform our pastoral ministry. We want to see that brothers understand the negation of what they affirm and are willing to guard the flock against these errors. And if someone is espousing a new position or a fuller understanding of the truth, it’s fair to know how they intend to correct previous mistakes and how their ministry will change as a result. These aren’t egghead, nitpicking questions. They get to the heart of the Christian faith and the essence of pastoral ministry. Continue Reading →

Carl Trueman has a post defending the centrality of Nicene Trinitarianism. Apparently, he is responding to the video James MacDonald released yesterday defending The Elephant Room 2, which seemed to suggest that defending orthodoxy is a “white” thing. Trueman writes: Continue Reading →