Van Kleeck-White debate results

One month ago, September 24, 2022, Iron Sharpens Iron Radio along with the Historical Bible Society sponsored a debate on the topic “The Textus Receptus is equal to NT Autographs.” The Church of the Living Christ in Loysville, Pennsylvania hosted the debate. Peter Van Kleeck affirmed. James White denied.

In the month since the debate, many have agitated, agreed, analyzed, argued, pontificated, propounded, and sneered concerning it. Traditional text supporters Kent Brandenburg and Jeff Riddle have expressed their thoughts on the contest, as well as the debaters themselves weighing in with their afterthoughts.

The various comments of these and many more got me thinking about the idea of “winning” a debate (i.e., how do we determine a winner). Religious debates were once very popular among our people but were on the wane by the time I was growing up. About the only folks with any “debate” left in them were Baptists and Church of Christ. These debates tended to be about salvation, baptism, and the church. If Baptists debated one another, it was usually dissenting from one another over missionary boards, associations, conventions, and such like. If the debaters were competent and representative men, usually each side went away believing their debater won. (It appears that religious debates are regaining at least some measure of interest.)

I believe there can be at least four perspectives that we can and do use to judge debates. Consider these in regard to the Van Kleeck-White debate.

From a competitive debate perspective. Judges look at such things as content, strategy, presentation, etc. From this perspective Peter Van Kleeck won. Certainly, this was his first debate and he should & will learn to adjust things that he can do better in the future. Additionally, this does not imply that Van Kleeck gets an A+ and White gets an F–. However, in the affirmative, Peter Van Kleeck presented a positive case that, in my opinion, was never really directly addressed (and certainly neither well-addressed nor negated) by James White. It is in that sense that Van Kleeck won.

From a reception of the audience perspective. Regarding the audience at the physical location of the debate, this would be decidedly in White’s favor. They were friends and partisans of White. Overall, I would think that, as alluded to above, supporters of each side (including the vast online audience) thought that their representative made the best case. It has been said, though some people disagree, regarding the Kennedy-Nixon presidential debate in 1960 that folks watching the debate on television thought Kennedy won, while folks listening to the debate on the radio thought Nixon won. This illustrates how various factors from confirmation bias to manner of listening can affect the perspective of the audience. It is a real and decided reaction, but hardly a good way to adjudicate the truth.

From a results perspective. I remember reading about a debate in the 1800s (most of the details now forgotten) in which a Baptist preacher debated an infidel. The Baptist so thoroughly routed him that the infidel skipped out of the debate before it was over. Quite a few people were converted. Clearly the results of that debate told who “won.” I am not aware that the presentations of either debater in the Van Kleeck-White debate persuaded listeners toward any major changes in their views about the TR.

From a truth perspective. It is always a success (a “win”) to present the truth of the word of God. This is not done in vain (regardless of the results; 1 Cor. 15:58; Phil. 2:16) and the word will not return void but rather “it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isaiah 55:10-11). In this sense, Peter Van Kleeck won the debate – since he was on the side of truth. (I realize some readers may think White was on the side of truth, but I can only speak what I believe.)

I suspect numbers 2 and 3 perspectives are a “wash,” i.e. not so much of a “win” for either side. Generally, TR supporters think Van Kleeck won and CT supporters think White won. (That conclusion is probably found at about 98%, in the responses I have read.) There are many more CT supporters in the world than TR supporters. So, a majority online posting statements of support for and agreement with James White might make it look like he won, from an audience and/or results perspective.. However, if he did not change the minds of TR supporters, he did not really make any headway. I am not aware of earth-shattering shifts of opinion resulting from this debate (neither did I expect such results, at least in any immediate sense).

Regarding both numbers 1 and 4, I believe Peter Van Kleeck comes out ahead. (1). Van Kleeck presented his affirmative case (whether or not you agree with it) and James White even admitted on Dividing Line that he did not try to answer it.[i] (4). Van Kleeck holds that God has providentially preserved his word, and that word is accessible and knowable to the people of God today. This agrees with the Bible’s teaching about itself.

---

[i] In speaking of not answering Van Kleeck’s three arguments, White laughs, “The arguments were absurd, that’s why.” His negative stance in the debate, however, depends on answering rather than avoiding the arguments. If the arguments were absurd, then demonstrate during the date they are absurd – rather than laugh it off later. The lead up to this statement starts about 44:00 in Road Trip DL from Virginia. Note: I personally think it is inadvisable to declare oneself the winner of a debate in the debate – leave it to the listeners to do that. Interestingly though, James White complains that Peter Van Kleeck declared himself the winner in his closing argument, but White himself declares himself the winner over and over on the Dividing Line, without doing it in those exact words. Kind of a spinoff of the “we are the nice guys” argument. Obviously White is the “nice guy” because he will not say, “I won the debate,” but instead just talks on and on indicating that he won the debate.