White-Out On The Trinity
Let's hear Brother "
Dr." James White on why he didn't correct Gail Riplinger on the doctrine of the eternal sonship of Christ:
Why did I not harp on Riplinger's error on the matter? Because Gail Riplinger doesn't even understand what the issues are. Anyone who listened to my radio debate with her knows she could not even follow a discussion of Edwin Palmer's words relating to the inner relations of the Trinity in contrast with the incarnation. She is not a theologian, and her grasp of the most
fundamental doctrines of the faith is highly questionable.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2665
So according to James, the doctrine of the Trinity which includes the eternal sonship of Christ is one "of the most fundamental doctrines of the faith."
A fundamental doctrine of the faith? Amen, James!
So back when John MacArthur also denied the eternal sonship doctrine, why did you attack Brother Bob Ross when Brother Bob merely pointed out JohnnyMac's deficient view on the matter, a view which MacArthur later recanted.
James White: Color him White-Out on a "fundamental doctrine of the faith."
Labels: James White
"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
Rebuked for "childish attacks"
JAMES SAYS CRITIQUES OF "SONSHIP"VIEW OF J-MAC WERE "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"?
Labels: James White
At long last we now know
WHY JAMES WHITE DID NOT HARP ONRIPLINGER'S HERESY ON THE "SON"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]
Labels: James White
Why was White mum on Riplinger?
JAMES WHITE, GAIL RIPLINGER,
& ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST
A few weeks ago, I noticed that James White was commenting on his past dealings with
Gail Riplinger of the
"King James Only" camp. At the time, I did not say anything about it; but now that the
"Sonship" matter has surfaced once again in recent days, I thought readers of the
Flyswatter who were not acquainted with the "goings on" in the early nineties might be interested in the following information.
So far as I know, we were the very first to call attention to what is probably Gail Riplinger's
most significant heresy in her writings, including the first book,
New Age Bible Versions, and her later two books,
Which Bible Is God's Word, and
Blind Guides.
As soon as we examined her first book, we noticed that Riplinger
denied the Eternal Sonship of Christ (
NABV, chapter 23, page 337).
We inquired of her about this via mail, and even phoned and talked with her pastor about it. But she would not discuss the matter by mail, and also the pastor did not indicate that he had any interest in the subject. Riplinger even chose to "refuse" any more correspondence from us.
Awhile after we had failed to get Riplinger to discuss the matter, we decided to publish an article in our
Baptist Biblical Heritage magazine (April 1994), entitled
"New Age Bible Versions" Authoress Denies "Begotten Son" Teaches Deity.The article revealed that Riplinger believed the "incarnational sonship" theory and that
"begotten" in John 1:14 was referring to the
"flesh" of Christ rather than to His Deity as the
Son of God. She was in agreement with her friend, Peter Ruckman, and possibly could have even imbibed her views from Ruckman's anti-Eternal Sonship writings.
In one of her subsequent books,
Blind Guides (page 38), Riiplinger completely misappropriated material from Dr. Buchsel of
Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, as if he agreed with her in her denial of the Eternal Sonship of Christ.
The very opposite is the case (see Kittel's, page 741).
Buchsel affirms the very truth which is denied by Riplinger!
Buchsel says, "One should not refer the
monogenes to the virgin birth of Jesus," for "In John the Lord is
always the Son. Because He alone was
God's Son before the foundation of the world . . . He is the
only-begotten Son of God."
James White, to my knowledge, has never confronted and refuted Riplinger on her denial of Eternal Sonship, despite the fact he was dealing with her back in the 1990s after her book came out. But this was actually at the same time James regarded John MacArthur's teaching as
"solid teaching," and of course at that time JMac held to the "incarnational sonship" view, as did Riplinger.
White's failure in regard to exposing Riplinger's view on Sonship is just another item which serves to cast suspicion upon White's later claim that he believed Eternal Sonship
before MacArthur's later recantation in the late 1990s.
But if White had held to Eternal Sonship in 1993,
why didn't he expose Riplinger's heterodoxy? Why has he never -- to our knowledge, at least -- exposed her heterodoxy?
Even after we published our exposure of Riplinger, James White still remained mum about her non-creedal view of the Son. Was it because he regarded this doctrine as a "non-essential" in Christianity?
Labels: James White
White's "dandy" declaration
ON JMAC'S STUDY BIBLE, JAMESCALLED IT A "DANDY ONE"Another matter in regard to James White and his dubious "belief" as to the Eternal Sonship of Christ back in the 1990s, has to do with the
John MacArthur Study Bible. We have taken notice of this before
here, but it bears repeating again since James White has never, to my knowledge, repudiated his endorsement of the
MacArthur Study Bible.
James said he had this Bible, adding
"and a dandy one it is, too" (Email, Nov. 12, 1997).The fact is,
both editions of MacArthur's Bible are theologically lacking as to the historic
creedal view of the Eternal Sonship of Christ.
Both of them reduce the
Sonship of Christ to an
"office" which had a
"beginning," and refer to Christ in eternity past by the non-creedal and non-scriptural term,
"Second Person" (MSB, pages 1897, 1908, on Heb. 1:5, 7:16).
If JMac intended to revise his notes, it is obvious he has "a ways to go" in his revision work. There is still need for revision.
The 2006 edition of this Study Bible is just as poor on the Sonship of Christ as the original. The original MSB used the New American Standard Bible and the revised MSB uses the NKJV, and both versions have good textual renderings of Hebrews 7:3, upholding the Eternal Sonship of Christ; however, in both editions of the MSB, in his notes MacArthur opts for the Syriac Pershitta as a better translation.
The revised MSB, though using the New King James Version, sets aside the NKJV rendering of Hebrews 7:3 -- one of the strongest verses in the Bible presenting the Eternal Sonship of Christ -- and alleges that the Nestorian "ancient Syriac Pershitta" is a "better translation." This ancient version completely negates Hebrews 7:3 as affirming the Eternal Sonship of Christ.
Even though the JMac Bible was supposedly "revised" after MacArthur recanted the "incarnational sonship" idea, the same ideas on "sonship" remain in the "revised" Bible, and MacArthur's name is therefore still associated with non-creedal views on Sonship by means of the notes in this Bible.
James White thought the first edition of MacArthur's Bible was a "dandy," and we have not heard or seen where he has changed his mind about first edition, nor what he thinks about the second edition.
Labels: James White
What's eating James White?
WHAT'S BEHIND JAMES WHITE'S ATTITUDE TOWARD BOB ROSS?For several years, back in the 1990s,
James White seemed to be on good terms with us. [No, not the
James White who was co-founder with Ellen G. White of the Seventh-Day Adventists; and no, not the
James White who creates some spectacular photos; not even the
James White, the basketball player; but the other
James White, the one who represents himself to be an "apologist," "exegetist," and "debater"].
For example, at that time we were publishing a small magazine entitled
The Baptist Biblical Heritage, and we promoted James in that publication.
In 1995, when he published his book,
The King James Only Controversy, even before we had carefully examined his book, we published pictures of both the book and of James on page 4 of the Volume VI, Number 1 of the
Baptist Biblical Heritage, and we encouraged readers to order copies of James' book from us. We also carried the book in our book store in Pasadena, Texas.
James' book itself even revealed that he was evidently on good terms with us, for James refers to the
"fine efforts" of "men such as Bob Ross, Doug Kutilek, and Gary Hudson" in regard to our work in refuting "King James Onlyism" (pages 91, 121).
Later, after a careful examination of the book, we regretably had to withdraw our endorsement of the book. We found that James misrepresented Peter Ruckman's view about the KJV, and since James had favorably used our name in the book, I felt it necessary to disassociate our name from James' misinformation about Ruckman's position.
The issue was
INTEGRITY. Since we have long been one of Ruckman's primary critics as to "King James Onlyism," we certainly did not want to allow Ruckman the privilege of accusing us of endorsing James' misrepresentation.
So the "issue" involved was one of
integrity: one cannot substantiate his position on an issue by misrepresenting the view of the opposing party. Therefore, we had to disclose the fact that James had not properly represented Ruckman whose position we had so opposed.
MacArthur and Eternal SonshipOn another issue, James alleged that he found fault with us, and this was in regard to John MacArthur's view on the "Sonship" of Christ.
For quite some time, I had objected to two of John MacArthur's
then-held views (both which he later recanted) on --
(1) Justification on the grounds of "infused righteousness," which was defended in his book,
The Gospel According to Jesus, and in his commentary on Romans; and --
(2) MacArhtur's view on the Son of God, on which he took the
"incarnational sonship" view as opposed to the
Eternal Sonship view which is the creedal view.
All of a sudden,
"out of the clear blue" via email, James dropped a bomb on us, objecting to our criticism of John MacArthur's views, alleging that what we had written was
"not up to snuff," was "baloney," "silly thinking," and that MacArthur was characterized by
"solid teaching over a long period of ministry."In an email on November 14, 1997, James seemed to categorize the
Sonship issue as a
"non-essential," despite the fact it is prominent in the Creeds of Christianity, dating back to the likes of Athanasius' defense against Arians.
He wrote,
"I'm going to spend a few moments thanking the Lord that I'm not right about everything, and feel no need to skewer those who disagree with me on non-essentials."He also said
"I fully support TGATJ" (The Gospel According to Jesus), and that was said despite the fact that MacArthur held the view that
"infused righteousness" is the ground of justification when he wrote the book and defended that view in the book.
I don't know whether or not there was any relationship between James' lambasting us and James' speaking at John MacArthur's school, but it did occur to me that perhaps James was trying to "feather his nest" with MacArthur.
At any rate, we tried as best we could by email to reason with James about these issues, but he steadfastly refused any of our attempts. In fact, he asked me to stop sending him emails.
Later on, John MacArthur, who had earlier recanted his "infused righteousness" view, announced that he had
"re-examined" the Sonship of Christ and was also recanting the "incarnational sonship" view.
I wondered if James would write to me and perhaps at least acknowledge that my critique of John MacArthur's view was "up to snuff." But instead of acknowledging his presumptuous mistake, James eventually came out with the "defense mechanism" that he had
NEVER agreed with MacArthur, but he had simply objected to the manner in which we had criticized MacArthur!
Even though he had put us down for taking issue with MacArthur's view on "incarnational sonship," and even though he indicated that the Sonship issue involved a
"non-essential," and even though he had proclaimed MacArthur's teaching to be
"solid teaching," in later years he said on his
web site --
"I have always held to Christ's eternal sonship and have defended this viewpoint. That means for quite some time I disagreed with MacArthur and others on the topic."
I am inclined to think that this is basically the thing which has been and still is
"eating James White." His Christian conscience tells him that he wrongly criticized his Christian brother, but his pride prevents him from facing the mistake with Christian integrity.
Thus, from time to time, when this old sore somehow festers, James has to attempt to "drain the puss" by such items as he recently placed on his blog.
And I suspect that will go on so long as James resorts to
denial in regard to his criticisms he made against us in the 1990s.
Note: You can read more
here about
What Does James White Believe About the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ? Labels: James White
James needs your help
CAN ANY ONE COME TO THEAID OF JAMES WHITE?Can any one reading the
Flyswatter come to the aid of a frustrated
James the Exegeeter?
Rather than demonstrate that he knew anything about Peter Ruckman's "King James Onlyism," James White has evidently been forced to resort to the defense mechanism of
"chewing me up and spitting me out" due to his resentment of my revealing his misrepresentation about Ruckman's views.
It occurred to me that perhaps
someone in the
Flyswatter's audience might venture to help James . . . and
at my expense. Here's my offer:
$100 reward to any one who can give a single line from Peter Ruckman's writings where he ever taught what James White alleges in his book,
"The King James Only Controversy," page 4, 6 -- specifically, where Ruckman ever taught that God either
"'inspired the King James Bible'" or that
"God 're-inspired' the Bible in 1611."I must admit that when James first published this book in 1995 before I ever met James, we assumed from the recommendations that he must have the facts for what he was writing. But when we did a more careful examination of the book, we found it sorely lacking, and we were
embarrassed for having promoted it in our magazine before we had thoroughly scrutinized the contents. Of course, we had to "swallow our pride" and admit our mistake. But James has not been inclined to go and do likewise. His best and only defense has been to "bad mouth" old man Bob Ross.
I suppose that it has likewise been embarrassing to others whose names James uses as "endorsements" on the cover of his book, such as
John MacArthur, J. I. Packer, Bruce Metzger, D. A. Carson, and
Hank Hanegraaff. They probably also merely assumed that James had the documented materials necessary to validate his charges against Ruckman.
Since we have called attention to this misrepresentation of Ruckman by James
more than once, and he has yet to come forth with anything which supports his allegations, we have long ago concluded that based on our research of Ruckman's writings, James
has no such evidence.
I am not an "apologist" for Ruckman or
"KJVOism" by any stretch of the imagination, but if one is going to represent himself to be an
"apologist" and a
"debater," it is incumbent upon him to know and properly represent that which he is critiquing. The worst "crime" one can commit in polemics is to misrepresent an adversary's views.
Can anyone rescue James from the snare of his own lips (Proverbs 18:7)? Can his "debate partner,"
Tom Ascol of the Flounders, help him? Can MacArthur, Packer, Carson, or Hanegraaff?
Can any one?Hair will most likely sooner grow on James' head than either he or any one else will be able to validate his charges.
Labels: James White
White light on Marrs
JAMES WHITE RE-LIVES
HIS VISIT TO MARRS
For some inexplicable reason, appallingist
James White is re-living his visit to Marrs -- Texe Marrs, that is.
Our friend James the Exegete, has currently been offering videos on his web site, expounding on his controversy of the 1990s involving the super-duper conspiracy buff,
Big Texe Marrs, and others of the "King James Only" camp. For whatever reason or excuse James has for this, it only served to jog my memory once again about James' inadequate attempt at dealing with "King James Onlyism" in his book,
The King James Only Controversy.
James' primary error in his book is his complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of
Peter Ruckman, one of the leading proponents of "King James Onlyism." He misunderstands and misrepresents Ruckman on two basic matters:
(1) James erroneously alleges that Ruckman's
"system of belief" asserts that
"God 're-inspired' the Bible in 1611." (
The King James Only Controversy, pages 4, 6). Nothing could be further from the truth, for Ruckman neither believes that
any translation, including the KJV, is "inspired," nor that the original
writings of the Scriptures were "inspired." He believes it was the
"speaking" that was inspired, not the "writing." See our website for quotes from Ruckman in the article at --
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/unlearnd.htm(2) James does not comprehend what Ruckman means by the KJV's
"correcting the Greek" and the alleged "mistakes" in the KJV being
"advanced revelation." Ruckman actually means no more by this than what
James himself practices on this matter, for James is one of the leading "correctors" of the Greek, promoting what would constitute "advanced revelation" over
alleged mistakes in variant copies of Greek manuscripts and/or texts.
Ruckman and James differ only in regard to which sources are the most accurate in "correcting" the variant Greek manuscripts/texts. Ruckman believes the KJV does the best job of "correcting" the alleged mistakes of the Greek textual copies, while James apparently favors the perspective of "textual critics" such as Metzger, Aland,and other moderns (TKJVC, page 151) -- except of course where James may be inclined to believe that he himself is the more accurate "corrector" of the variant Greek texts.
Why does James keep reminding us of his inadequacies as an "apologist," which make him more of an "appallingist"?
Labels: James White
