Saturday, May 10, 2008

Rebuked for "childish attacks"


James White continues to go deeper into "denial" in regard to his past objections to my objections to John MacArthur's "incarnational sonship" view which MacArthur himself later objected to and recanted.

James' attempts to both (1) justify his past mistake and to (2) denigrate my personal character are just further reasons why James will never make it as respected debater: he violates the rules of honorable controversy, and tries to accredit his views by discrediting his opponent's character. That method has never gained the approval and respect of those who know anything about polemics.

James' latest refuge is to say that my doctrinal critiques of the "incarnational sonship" view, which for a long time was advocated by John MacArthur, were "childish attacks" -- and that, despite the fact that in the late 1990s MacArthur recanted his view and adopted the Creedal view of Eternal Sonship for which I had contended.

Yet during all the years before MacArthur's recantation -- a period of years in which James says JMac's teaching was "solid teaching" -- James now (after JMac's recantation) says he actually "disagreed with MacArthur" on "incarnational sonship," and even claims he has "always" believed the Eternal Sonship view.

So far as I can find, until we critiqued JMac's former view -- which was also the view of Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman -- James had never said a word against the "incarnational sonship" theory. I can only suppose it would have been a "childish" thing for him to object to "incarnational sonship."

James refers to unspecified "documentation" which supposedly would prove he disagreed with MacArthur's "incarnational sonship" view years ago, but I know of no one who has seen such "documentation" to which he refers. Have any of my readers seen such "documentation"?



Post a Comment

<< Home