"Avoid the man," James exhorts
"REBUKE, MARK, AND AVOID" ROSS,JAMES WHITE WARNS "THE BRETHREN"
There are a number of the self-proclaimed "apologists," "cult researchers," and "theologians" who always seem to be good for a laugh. You can put James White in with that number, along with Morey, Hanegraaff, Marrs, Horton, Jeffreys, and others who "make a living" supposedly "equipping the saints" -- those saints who are naive enough to buy their merchandise.
James' latest laughable remark is where he says, "Bob Ross: Slanderer of the Brethren . . . is a troubler of the brethren, one to be rebuked, marked, and avoided. . . . Mark the man, avoid the man."
When we were on our way to California a few years ago for the Christian Booksellers Convention, our route took us thru Phoenix. I suggested to my son, Michael, that we give James White a call and go by to visit him. So we found a phone and gave James a call.
We told him we would like to come by and visit a little while, but he would have none of it. We had come all the way from Houston, and wanted to visit with James for a few minutes, but we got the "cold shoulder." In retrospect, I suppose James must have been "practicing what he preaches" -- avoid Ross.
James' attitude is downright "funny." He seems to have a very severe case of "Rossititis." It's as if I have "bad breath," or the "measles."
At any rate, James, thanks for laughs. Next time I'm in Phoenix, I won't call . . . I will just come by and surprise you! Have your antiseptic gloves and gauze mask handy! Keep a can of pepper spray nearby!
Labels: James White
posted by Bob L. Ross @ 4:48 PM
6 Comments:
Brother Bob, Hello!
Of course, James could always come on The Flyswatter and defend his views and provide some documentation of what he has written and when. That would seem easy enough. He has posted here once or twice before. If he posted here, however, he would need to provide some evidence, wouldn't he? And if he didn't have any evidence, I suppose it would be much easier to just say that Bob Ross is "dividing the brethern" or whatever and try to blacklist you.
No wonder James doesn't allow comments on his blog. It's easy to rail on someone when you only spew one side of the story.
James White: Color him ... yellow!
Charles
If James does decide to post again on The Flyswatter maybe he'll tell us how he got that "Dr." degree of his. Personally, I'd like to ask him a few questions about it.
One brother, VOL007FAN, said that "i did ask ascol about dr. whites degree....he would not even post my comment at the founders blog."
Poor James, he so desperately wants to be taken seriously as a theologian and then he goes and buys a "Dr." degree from one of those correspondence schools. But what do you expect from a guy who thinks the eternal Sonship of Christ is no big deal!
Charles
"DOCUMENTATION"?
Charles said...
Of course, James could always come on The Flyswatter and defend his views and provide some documentation of what he has written and when. That would seem easy enough.
Believe me, Charles, if James had had any "documentation" he would have coughed it up long ago.
Even now, James is running old videos of the KJV-Only program which John Ankerberg did on TV in 2002, trying to prove something to somebody.
That show, incidently, was practically useless inasmuch as no one on the show dealt with the view held by the "king" of KJVOism, Peter Ruckman (who was not on the program).
The ones who were there supposedly representing the "King James Only" side did not and could not speak for Ruckman, and none of the opposing side bothered to deal with Ruckman's view -- probably because, like James, they did not know what it is. When you don't know what Ruckman's doctrine is, how can you deal with it?
Bob wrote:
"There are a number of the self-proclaimed "apologists," "cult researchers," and "theologians" who always seem to be good for a laugh. You can put James White in with that number, along with Morey, Hanegrraff, Marrs, Horton, Jeffreys, and others who "make a living" supposedly "equipping the saints" -- those saints who are naive enough to buy their merchandise."
Those words are uncalled for. White does a fine job defending the faith. Your words are so full of venom, they lack credibility. He is an elder in a church that does not baptize infants, so one would think you would call him a hero. But no, you find some minor point of contention, and use that as a launching pad to reduce him to a "laughable apologist." What!!!!? Come on, you are both elders, so please Bob, try to sound like a leader in church. I can't help but think you thrive on these type of quarrels. What does that say about you if that is true?
BOB TO HUGH
Hugh Donohoe said...
Those words are uncalled for. White does a fine job defending the faith.
If you, Hugh, had been informed about my "history" in relation to James White, you would realize that James "fired the first shot" when he launched an attack on me over my critique of John MacArthur on his Sonship teaching.
In 1993, I sent my critiques to MacArthur, before I published my book on Eternal Sonship in which I expressed my differences on this matter for his evaluation. http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/5176book.htm
MacArthur approved of my comments as being an accurate representation of his position.
Nevertheless, James White, attacked me.
Later, MacArthur recanted his view, and adopted the same creedal view I hold. It was obviously embarrassing to James White, and he has ever since tried to save face.
James White has attempted to justify his uncalled for attacks upon me, and I have simply responded to James' vain attempts.
I have also exposed his misrepresentations of Ruckman's view on the KJV, as well as his Hybrid Calvinism in the Hunt debate.
You are welcome to your view about James as a "defender of the faith," but I disagree with your assessment.
"A FINE JOB" BY
JAMES WHITE?
Hugh Donohoe said...
White does a fine job defending the faith.
Surely, Hugh, you would not say it was a "fine job" which James White did in his "King James Only" book, would you?
We have been refuting Peter Ruckman, both in writing and in person at his Bible Institute, long before James ever attempted to do so. When James later came out with his book, we presumptuosly and prematurely recommended it.
Then, much to our chagrin, after discovering that James had completely misrepesented Ruckman, we had no choice but to make it known publicly that we do not approve of James' misrepresentation of Ruckman's view.
It was simply a matter of preserving our own integrity, for Ruckman is very keen about taking advantage of blunders. If we had let our recommendation of James' book to stand, Ruckman would have been wonderfully delighted!
Ruckman has literally plundered James White, and we refuse to go down with his ship. We DO NOT endorse White's book where he misrepresents Ruckman, for James obviously does not understand what Ruckman teaches.
Anyone who says James did a "fine job" in that book just simply does not know what he is talking about. How is it a "fine job" to falsify Ruckman's teaching? Do you justify using falsehood to refute Ruckman?
And what you call "some minor point of contention" implies that you do not consider those items on which we have objected to James are of great importance. In addition to the foregoing, this would also include:
(1) MacArthur's non-creedal view on
"incarnational sonship" as opposed to the creedal view of Eternal Sonship.
(2) Gail Riplinger's denial of Eternal Sonship, which James has admitted to by-passing.
(3) James' Hybrid Calvinism of "born again before faith," which he advocated in the Dave Hunt debate and in some of his other writings.
You may regard these as "minor," if you chooose. We do not.
Post a Comment
<< Home