Saturday, May 10, 2008

At long last we now know


Well, if you have seen James White's latest outbreak of "Rossititis" on his May 9 blog, you now know why James did not take note of and refute Gail Riplinger's denial of the Eternal Sonship of Christ in her 1993 New Age Bible Versions.

In the case of John MacArthur in the early 1990s, when JMac was teaching the "incarnational sonship" theory of Sonship, James has since explained that MacArthur's ministry was characterized by "solid teaching" and he was not going to make an issue of a "non-essential."

Of course, we all now know that MacAthur later recanted of this "non-essential" of his "solid teaching," and adopted the Creedal view of Christ's Eternal Sonship. Whereupon, James then let it be known that he had always believed Eternal Sonship and "disagreed with MacArthur" on his teaching on the subject.

Now, at long last, James has decided to inform us why he "did not harp on Riplinger's error on the matter" of her heterodoxy on the Sonship of Christ. The "reason" is typical "White Lightnin'." It is another illustration why we refer to James as an "Appallingist" rather than "apologist." James says:

"And why did I not harp on Riplinger's error on the matter? Because Gail Riplinger doesn't even understand what the issues are. . . . She is not a theologian, and her grasp of the most fundamental doctrines of the faith is highly questionable. So why on earth would I when her problems are significantly more basic?"

So, after about 15 years of silence about why he has never refuted Gail Riplinger's heterodoxy on Sonship, James at last "let' the cat out of the bag," explaining that Gail did not "understand" the issues and "is not a theologian."

It is rather paradoxical how James goes about his professed "apologetics." In Dave Hunt's case, for example, James continually upbraided Dave Hunt for his lack of "understanding." Also, Dave was -- like Riplinger -- not considered by James to be a theologian. He was even a "misreader," according to James.

But Dave's handicaps did not seem to hinder James one bit from trying to refute Dave Hunt's views. Dave did not get the same "consideration" for his defects as James has allowed Gail Riplinger for 15 years.

Also, it seems that James does not make allowances for many others who are allegedly short in the "understanding" of things. That doesn't seem to bother him with Mormons, JWs, KJVOs, Muslims, and others who are deficient in "understanding."

It makes one wonder just who is the one deficient in "understanding," doesn't it?

James did not "understand" that MacArthur's error on "incarnational sonship" should be refuted by Bob Ross, although MacArthur himself came to "understand" that he should recant that view, and did so.

James himself did understand, however, that something Riplinger called "acrostic algebra" was very serious in James' apologetics world, and so James devoted a lot of effort to exposing it. James seemed to understand that Riplinger's "acrostic algebra" malarkey was more significant to have his attention than a "non-essential" such as the Creedal view of the Sonship of Christ!

Do you understand why we think James is an "appallingist" rather than an apologist?

[More Later]



Post a Comment

<< Home