# James White on 1 John 5:7



## Kaalvenist (Mar 9, 2006)

Did anybody else see James White's "The Comma Johanneum Again"? I sent a comment in on the website, mostly asking about his remark about defenders of the _Comma_ being "outside the realm of meaningful scholarship."

Any thoughts?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 9, 2006)

Here are some authorities in support of including 1 John 5:7 in the canon (not to mention WCF 1.2, 2.3; WSC 6; WLC 9).

See this thread.

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Kaalvenist (Mar 9, 2006)

Here is what I said to Dr. White:



> "[W]hile I disagree with Byzantine priority, etc., at least that position can put together some form of defense of its position. But I draw the line with the Comma. Anyone who defends the insertion of the Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful scholarship... This brand of TR Onlyism/KJV Onlyism is defenseless apologetically..." (04 March 2006, "The Comma Johanneum Again")
> 
> So I guess that John Calvin, Theodore Beza, the Westminster Assembly, Francis Turretin, Matthew Poole, the 1689 Baptist Assembly, Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Brown of Haddington, Robert L. Dabney, and Edward F. Hills are all to be considered "outside the realm of meaningful scholarship"?


Don't get me wrong, I usually enjoy reading Dr. White's material (it's not every apologist out there who's a Reformed Baptist elder); but I'm also a member of the Trinitarian Bible Society, and I don't care for his casual swipes at my dearly held "traditions of men."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Mar 10, 2006)

Andrew, of the "pro"s on that list you provided the only one I recognized as being what you might call significant is Rushdoony --and I don't remember much of his qualifications as a textual critic. Do you know something about any of the others that would add more weight to their opinion? Waite is not going to carry a lot of weight with me given his anti-Calvinism (and no, a person doesn't have to be doctrinally correct to be significant, but he should be able to argue coherently).


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Andrew, of the "pro"s on that list you provided the only one I recognized as being what you might call significant is Rushdoony --and I don't remember much of his qualifications as a textual critic. Do you know something about any of the others that would add more weight to their opinion? Waite is not going to carry a lot of weight with me given his anti-Calvinism (and no, a person doesn't have to be doctrinally correct to be significant, but he should be able to argue coherently).



I'm guessing that the list Andrew found was the result of a Google search, and is not intended to be a comprehensive list. After all, there are several significant heretics on the list (e.g. Riplinger, Ruckman).

I would also say that Ted Letis was a well known scholar.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Andrew, of the "pro"s on that list you provided the only one I recognized as being what you might call significant is Rushdoony --and I don't remember much of his qualifications as a textual critic. Do you know something about any of the others that would add more weight to their opinion? Waite is not going to carry a lot of weight with me given his anti-Calvinism (and no, a person doesn't have to be doctrinally correct to be significant, but he should be able to argue coherently).



The two men on that list whose opinion I would give the most weight to personally are Dr. Theodore Letis and Dr. Edward F. Hills. 

Dr. Letis died last year, but I had some correspondence with him in the 1990's. He founded the The Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies and has written extensively on textual criticism. 

Dr. Hills died a couple of decades ago, but was a noted defender of the Textus Receptus. His widow is a member of a congregation in my denomination and continues to assist in various ways my friends at the Encyclopedia Puritannica Project.


----------



## sastark (Mar 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The two men on that list whose opinion I would give the most weight to personally are *Theodore Letis*


----------



## py3ak (Mar 10, 2006)

Has anyone seen Dr. Letis' contributions to the Theonomy-L list? Available here:
http://aomin.org/TLetis.html#Note2

Was this fairly representative for him?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 10, 2006)

At the end of the day, you have to admit that there are sincere believers and ardent defenders of the authority _and the integrity_ of Sctipture on both sides of this issue. Sadly, through misunderstanding, some in one camp or the other impugn the faith-commitment of them defending the contrary position. In fact, *argument and invective* seem to be the main reasons some people have for beating this drum so furiously.

For my part, while I'm terribly reluctant to take White's dismissive attitude (for one thing, I'm nowhere in the league with scholars on either side), I think the paucity of the Greek witness is a serious obstacle that may forever create division on the matter. For now, I remain unconvinced of the _comma_'s authenticity.

Every thought (word) of God is precious (Ps. 139:17). Let's focus on the 99.99% of that revelation that we agree on.


----------



## JOwen (Mar 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Andrew, of the "pro"s on that list you provided the only one I recognized as being what you might call significant is Rushdoony --and I don't remember much of his qualifications as a textual critic. Do you know something about any of the others that would add more weight to their opinion? Waite is not going to carry a lot of weight with me given his anti-Calvinism (and no, a person doesn't have to be doctrinally correct to be significant, but he should be able to argue coherently).



I wonder what qualifies White as a true textual critic? Was it his crackerjack Th.M/Th.D degree from Columbia Evangelical Seminary? White has zero training in the rigors of text criticism at the B.A level to his post grad work, as has been well documented elsewhere. At best he's a Bethany House promotions officer with a few good one liners learned from Bahnsen.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 10, 2006)

[moderator]

I have assumed a zero tolerance platform as of late; If I see any inuendo, ad hominem, slander, below the belt assaults on any believers from here on out, the guilty party will be banned immediately.

I'm over this; tread carefully.

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## py3ak (Mar 10, 2006)

Jerrold,

Treading carefully, of course, would you be able to add any information about the textual critical credentials of other people on the list?


----------



## JOwen (Mar 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Jerrold,
> 
> Treading carefully, of course, would you be able to add any information about the textual critical credentials of other people on the list?



Sure. Dr. Theodore Letis and Dr. Edward F. Hills (Letis being the understudy of Hills) were both Ivy League Ph.D's with extensive educations in textual criticism. Letid was a Ph.D from university of Glasgow and wrote a significant body of work on the Ecclesiastical Text. Dr. Hills, was also a Ph.D, but from the University of Chicago who's thesis was also on the Received Text. 

Ted Letis was a friend.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 10, 2006)

Thank you. I will keep that in mind if I have opportunity to read what they have written.


----------



## brymaes (Mar 11, 2006)

*White\'s Response*



> "[W]hile I disagree with Byzantine priority, etc., at least that position can put together some form of defense of its position. But I draw the line with the Comma. Anyone who defends the insertion of the Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful scholarship... This brand of TR Onlyism/KJV Onlyism is defenseless apologetically..." (04 March 2006, "The Comma Johanneum Again")
> 
> So I guess that John Calvin, Theodore Beza, the Westminster Assembly, Francis Turretin, Matthew Poole, the 1689 Baptist Assembly, Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Brown of Haddington, Robert L. Dabney, and Edward F. Hills are all to be considered "outside the realm of meaningful scholarship"?



White responds to this here.


----------



## Steve Owen (Mar 11, 2006)

I have the greatest respect for James White. His recent book on _Justification_ is absolutely first class and strongly recommended. The only thing that spoils it a little is his use of the wretched N.E.T. which he constantly has to correct with the NASB. Why doesn't he use the NASB in the first place? However, I'm looking forward very much to hearing Dr White, along with Joel Beeke, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London in July.

However, it's unfortunate that White has a bee in his bonnet about the Greek Text. What heresy is one imbibing if one holds to the _Johannine Comma_? That 1John 5:7 is true is beyond dispute. Why all the fuss?

Moreover, to discard the views of men like Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry and Robert Dabney because they are not 'modern' is a wretched argument. All these men were well aware of the lack of textual evidence of the _Comma_; their support for it came from the internal evidences rather than from the manuscripts. Most people here will have a copy of Matthew Henry. Go and read what he says about it.

What Dabney says is interesting:-



> 'The oft-contested text in 1John 5:7 also furnishes us a good instance of the value of that internal evidence which the recent critics profess to discard.........The internal evidence against this excision, then, is in the following strong points:
> 
> _First,_ if it be made, the masculine article, numeral, and particle......are made to agree directly with three neuters- an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. But if the disputed words are allowed to stand, they agree directly with two masculines and one neuter noun......where, according to a well-known rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender connected with them......
> 
> ...



I have to confess that I am moving from a M.T. position to a T.R. position. On the one hand, I am not preared to let Nestle/Aland tell me what my Bible is, and have them change it every time a new edition comes out, but on the other, I note that the M.T. supporters cannot decide among themselves what the Majority Text is. I want to be able to pick up my Bible and say, "This is the word of God" and the Bible I'm picking up is a NKJV.

Not very scientific, but it works for me! :bigsmile:

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 3-12-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2006)

I am not putting this forth to correct Martin, but merely for the sake of completeness. 

The foregoing (found in Dabney, vol. 1, beginning p. 377) is from an article dated April 1871 (S.P.R.) "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the N.T. Greek".

The following article in the same vol. is dated July 1881 (S.P.R.) "The Revised Version of the N.T.," some 10 years later. In it, Dabney reviews the revisors work to date on the revison (which complete revision--OT/NT the Americans subsequently rejected in favor of their own labors, resulting in the ASV of 1901).

Here is what he writes re. the _comma,_ p. 395:


> So slight were the modifications [of earlier revisors] in its [TRs] readings clearly determined by the vast collations made by the critics of the immediately preceding generation (collations embracing every one of the boasted unicals, except the Sinai MS.), *that of all the important various readings only one (1 John v.7,) has been given up to excision by a unanimous consent of competent critics.*


I add this to complete the record. Not that it stands as a clear repudiation of Dabney's earlier judgment, but that 10 years later, he was prepared to allow that "unanimous consent of competent critics" had let the _comma_ go, whilst retaining the TR's readings in virtually every other significant place.

Dabney was quite *unsatisfied* with the latest revision, thinking it loaded with changes for the sake of change, with little else to commend them. The spirit of innovation in the revisors was stronger than the spirit of cautious progress.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Mar 11, 2006)

To Dr. White (since you seem to frequent this site):

"Just because someone commented on the text, or even accepted it because it was in the default text they used, is hardly relevant to determining if they made a concerted effort that led them to accept it over against rejecting it." (10 March 2006, "Another Example of Tradition")

With the exception of the Westminster Assembly and the 1689 Baptist Assembly (who merely put 1 John 5:7 as proof texts in the Westminster Confession, Larger Catechism, Shorter Catechism, and the Baptist Confession), all of the other individuals I cited gave attention to the fact that it is a contested text (as Martin gave mention of Matthew Henry and R.L. Dabney). Calvin gave probably the least extensive remarks in his Commentary, but he was nonetheless aware of the situation. Turretin, Gill, and Brown all made mention of this text in their works on systematic theology, arguing for its basis in the text against the gainsayers (Gill also made mention of it in his Exposition of the passage). Considering the fact that you made such extensive use of Gill in your _Potter's Freedom,_ why not at least refer to the fact that Gill gave an extended defense of the _Johannine Comma?_ Instead, in a single sentence on your blog, you write off him and all the rest cited as simply irrelevant.

"(I note with a smile the lack of Burgon's name: at least this writer knows Burgon rejected the _Comma_)." (_Ibid._)

Yes, I know that Burgon rejected the _Comma,_ but that is not the only reason why he did not make my list (note also that Letis did not make my list). Every scholar or scholarly group that I cited was Reformed or Calvinistic (including Calvin himself). Solid theologians that hold the good, sound, biblical theology of the Reformed faith maintain the inspiration of this passage -- not just the Semi-Pelagians you usually argue with.

I guess what I'm saying is, historically, Reformed scholars didn't try to pick on the weakest exponents of a position in order to slam it -- in the Reformation period and following, they attacked Bellarmine, Episcopius, et al. I realize that Tom Holland was the individual in question, but at least give mention somewhere, anywhere, to the fact that John Gill (with whom you agree 95% of the time), and Robert Dabney and Matthew Henry (with whom you agree 85-90% of the time) argued for the textual basis of the _Johannine Comma,_ and go after _that,_ not some guy most Reformed and Presbyterians have never heard of.

Lastly, my name is not "one of the participants," or "such folks," or "this writer," or "these folks." My name is Sean P.M. McDonald. I am a communicant member of Springs Reformed Church (RPCNA) in Colorado Springs, CO. I also protested in December 2004 when you spoke so warmly of your own unbiblical tradition, the celebration of Christ-mass. (I didn't receive a reply, probably because I didn't mention it on any web boards.) I stand firmly committed to the Westminster Standards, and don't see a need to cross Chapter 1, Section 8 out of my copy of the Confession.


----------



## tellville (Mar 13, 2006)

And Dr. White responds directly to the Puritan board here: 
http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1282


----------



## Steve Owen (Mar 13, 2006)

Yes, it's a pity that Dr White has his textual criticism blinkers on and can't see that the question of the _Comma_ is decidedly nothing to do with T.C. If it were, then the question would be long over since there are precious few Greek texts in which it occurs.

The question, insofar as there is one, concerns the internal evidences as I posted before. Did the Holy Spirit inspire John to use some rather dodgy grammar at that point, or was the _Comma_ excised at some stage from most Greek texts by over-zealous Arians?

I wish Dr White well in his discussions with the Moslems, but I seriously doubt if anyone is likely to be converted one way or the other by arguing about the text. In my, admittedly limited, discussions with Moslems, the matter has never come up. The question to broach with Moslems in my opinion is the need of a Saviour.

Dr White is of course right that Henry, Dabney _et al_ did not have access to all the Greek manuscripts that are available today. However, they had sufficient to know that the _Comma_ was not in most of them. Their support for it was based on other reasons than the texts.

Finally, I am neither KJV-only (_quite_ the reverse, I assure you) nor TR-only. I am actually leading a Bible study at present using the NIV because that is what the others feel comfortable with, and the Gospel is more important than my preference for a Bible version. Dr White can have his Critical Text and God bless it to him. However, I feel very confident using the NKJV and cannot see where it is likely to lead me into theological error.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 3-13-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Philip A (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> However, I feel very confident using the NKJV and cannot see where it is likely to lead me into theological error.



Which is a point that he frequently makes himself; if you were to read his book, you would find that he makes the point that no theological issue hangs on any disputed text, and that no disputed text contains any doctrine that will lead anyone into error.


----------



## 4ndr3w (Mar 13, 2006)

Dr. White continues to prove himself diligent, consistent and scholarly regardless of his credentials. To go against such a man is like spitting in the wind. He has made a clear defense of his position.


----------



## MeanieCalvinist (Mar 13, 2006)

I agree with you here concerning Dr. White's article and responses on this topic.

In Christ,

MeanieCalvinist


----------



## Kaalvenist (Mar 13, 2006)

Dr. White,

1. No one on the Board has yet used the "The Reformation used the TR, God blessed the Reformation, _ergo_ we should only use the TR" argument. I personally believe that such an argument is a back-door method of attributing infallible authority to the church, and belongs more in Rome (or Edmonton) than in Geneva.

Admittedly, my first recourse was to the Reformers, but that was because of your attack on the scholarship of any who defend the _Johannine Comma._ I also point to historic Protestant teaching, and approvingly cite WCF 25.6, when discussing the subject of apocalyptic interpretation; but although I believe that the Reformers' arguments were valid concerning the Antichrist, that does not mean that this is a point where I simply "toe the line" or "follow them lock-step." Similarly, I find their arguments for the inclusion of the _Comma_ convincing. I'm not claiming that the Reformation (or Second Reformation) is "the standard" to which we must attain and adhere; I simply agree with their reasoning and argumentation (as I agree with them on most things, not because they said it, but because I likewise find it in the Word).

I might, after conducting more research and study of the subject, one day reverse myself on this point; but at the moment, I find myself occupied with more pressing concerns.

2. Why do you continue examining the works of Independent Fundamental Baptists on this subject, when John Gill (who you quoted for entire pages in your _Potter's Freedom_) gave an extended defense of the inclusion of the _Johannine Comma,_ both in his _Exposition of the Old and New Testaments_ and _Body of Doctrinal Divinity?_ I was not asking you to "follow lock-step" with Gill (I personally deplore his Hyper-Calvinism and anti-Sabbatarianism), just recognize him as a noted exponent of the inclusion of the text, and respond to him.

3. Is it just defense of the _Johannine Comma_ which earns your stern rebuke, or do you include Byzantine priority and (general) defense of the TR in said rebuke?

4. On what basis did the (non-KJV) Continental Reformers argue for the inclusion of the _Johannine Comma_ (since it was not adherence to the KJV that was driving their argumentation, as could possibly be said for post-Westminster British Calvinists)?

5. Explain the quotes of the _Johannine Comma_ by the early fathers (notably Cyprian).

6. Why did Jerome argue for the _Johannine Comma,_ and put it in the Vulgate?

7. It seems that your driving concern is, "Which position (Critical Text, Majority Text, or Received Text) is most convincing apologetically?" Why? I mean, I understand that you have your Th.M., Th.D., and D.Min. all in Apologetics; but is it possible that, in your examination of this subject, your overriding concern of apologetic value is affecting you as much as the supposed extra-scriptural traditions of your opponents?

8. This is not an issue where you can claim superior exegesis as the ground for your conclusion; it is a question of what John originally wrote. Now, should I listen to the Reformers and Reformed who argued for the inclusion of the _Johannine Comma_ (which you claim is an unscriptural tradition), or should I listen to you and the other modern scholars who argue against the inclusion of the passage? Either way, I am putting my trust in the supposed "experts" who are the ones actually deciding this controversy -- both involve my trusting in something or someone _beside_ Scripture; so that if I follow you, I am following an unscriptural tradition, just as surely as if I follow the Reformers.

9. I do not see arguing for the TR (or the _Johannine Comma_) as parallel to the Papists arguing for the Vulgate. If I was arguing for the infallible authority of the AV, you could then make that argument. Instead, I am arguing for a particular Greek textual tradition of the New Testament (not a Latin translation). Yes, I use only the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible; yes, I am a member of the Trinitarian Bible Society. But my commitment is to the TR. I recognize the fact that the AV is not a perfect translation, and has some language that could be updated. If a version were to be produced that was superior to the AV, I would heartily embrace it.

10. I consider this an intra-mural debate among Reformed brethren. Unless you feel that it is warranted, please do not bother responding to this post on your own blog; I believe that the subject under debate in your newest post against John Loftus is vastly more important than the question of whether or not 1 John 5:7 should read as I read it.

Actually, I might suggest that you create a profile and begin posting on the Puritanboard; I for one believe that a noted Reformed apologist would be a welcome addition to the Board. (Even if that meant destabilizing the precarious balance currently maintained between Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, and Reformed Baptists. )


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 13, 2006)

The Appeal to Popularity/Common Practice fallacy runs rampant in this discussion! Surely more would be accomplished in such a discussion without worrying so much about who believed what, but WHY we should believe what we do.

[Edited on 3-13-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 13, 2006)

James White is a great and able champion for biblical doctrine; but on the subject of the manuscripts and the King James Version he has feet of clay...

A side question: How are Ruckman and Riplinger heretics? OK, I know next to nothing about Ruckman, but I have read some of Riplinger. She's obviously not a Calvinist, and she's obviously a street level writer (I don't mean pedestrain) and all that (i.e., she's not in the ivory tower), but...heretic? If you approach any non-biblical source with the necessity of separating wheat from chaff there is at least some interesting wheat in Riplinger's books...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> James White is a great and able champion for biblical doctrine; but on the subject of the manuscripts and the King James Version he has feet of clay...
> 
> A side question: How are Ruckman and Riplinger heretics? OK, I know next to nothing about Ruckman, but I have read some of Riplinger. She's obviously not a Calvinist, and she's obviously a street level writer (I don't mean pedestrain) and all that (i.e., she's not in the ivory tower), but...heretic? If you approach any non-biblical source with the necessity of separating wheat from chaff there is at least some interesting wheat in Riplinger's books...



Riplinger-in one radio interview it was justification by works (it was a while back when I heard it so I can't get any more specific than that, although I am open to correction)....made Rome look like hard line protestants. 

Ruckman believes the greek mss are corrected by the AV1611


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2006)

Although I am committed to the critical texts and have done some work in textual criticism, I noticed a few holes in the method. While I believe the evidence against the TR is significant, it is not damning and does not yet clsoe the discussion. I have seen TR's defend their text on the level of evidence, adn that's good I suppsoe. However, I think a stronger case couold be made against the critical text by doing a presuppositional critique on the methods of many textual critics.

Of course, I am a presuppostinalist and hold to the critical text, so I am open to see how this argumetn would play out.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 13, 2006)

She's not a Calvinist, but she's hardly a Roman Catholic. Your reference is not only a thin memory of hearing something on the radio, but it's written rather confusedly as well...(I mean, you left a word out or something). 

You say she believes the Greek mss. are corrected by the 1611, but really what she believes is in the role of the Holy Spirit in giving us the Word of God, and she sees the great Reformation translations as that Word of God. I do to. When I hear a James White talking down to me like I'm some confused child, telling me he and other scholars know better and that all the deletions and changes in the 'better, newly discovered' manuscripts are actually God's Word all this Christian can do is grin and try to set them straight (which doesn't get very far) and then just leave them be... 

The sophistry of the White side of these issues betrays them. Their worldly motives do as well. I'm sorry, but I believe the Holy Spirit has given us God's Word, and I don't see Him working through Westcott and Hort and their followers... I also don't think that once God's elect challenged and defeated the darkness and bondage of the Roman beast that it took the Holy Spirit 300 plus years to give the actual true Word of God to Christians...


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 13, 2006)

For White's sophistry look at Douglas D. Stauffer's One Book Stands Alone. White usually rebuts any criticism, but he seems to have remained silent regarding Stauffer's book (a search of his website anyway a couple of months ago came up with nothing). 

As to worldly motives: when you are on a translation committee for a modern version you are a bit compromised when giving opinions on the general subject of the manuscripts and the Authorized Version... He also falls into the worldly trap of fearing the Faith will sound foolish to the ears of the world. I.e. instead of defending the role of the Holy Spirit in having brought the Word of God to Christians he states "there's no way you can defend that against muslims and other non-Christians"... Just give them the truth. Give them the Word of God. You can plant a seed, only God can make it grow. You can't argue a person into belief, especially if you are using worldly philosophy or worldly scholarship in fear of sounding foolish. God's wisdom is foolishness to the world. Give people the Word of God.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2006)

I said Ruckman, not Riplinger, believes the AV1611 corrects the Greek. As to the Riplinger stuff, you are correct, it is a fuzzy memory, but there is at least some basis for it. Also, implicit in my response was that I am open to correction, which I have yet to see anything substantial about Riplinger either way at this point.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2006)

I am not saying that there are no good defenses or reasons for holding to the TR. I do believe there are such, even if I do not hold them. But Riplinger and Ruckman are not good defenses.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2006)

My memory came back to me: First, my mistake. She didn't attack justifcation, but regeneration. Her thesis: the modern bible versions are wittingly or unwittingly proponents of new age mysticism, as are there defenders (myself included, evidently).

Now, for giggles, consider:
Gail Riplinger's Acrostic Algebra!

Step 1 : (NASV - NIV) - AV = X 
Step 2: (NASV - NIV) - AV = X 
Step 3: (ASI + NV) - AV = X 
Step 4: ASI + NV - AV = X 
Step 5: SIN = X 


She describes the historic Reformed doctrine of regeneration, a doctrine taught by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, the crafters of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Puritans, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield, J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul, as a "scandalous and sacrilegious" belief that "will stun and shock the reader" (NABV, p. 231). 

she identifies the "Five Points of Calvinism" as a "Satanic pentagram" (p. 231).

For the rest of the link see http://aomin.org/NABVR.html


----------



## Mr Peabody (Mar 14, 2006)

Here's ATRobertson on the subject at hand:1Jo 5:7 - 
For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en toÌ„i ouranoÌ„i ho pateÌ„r, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en teÌ„i geÌ„i (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to 1Jo_5:8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian´s exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

That doesn't address internal evidence, nor does it have a clue about the role of the Holy Spirit in preserving the Word of God. Let me see, your Mr. Robertson and Mr. White and Mr. Westcott and Mr. Hort (etc., etc.)...or the Holy Spirit... Hmmm... I'll go with the Holy Spirit.

I also don't appreciate scholars working in atheist fashion looking for 'breaches' in the wall of doctrine such as the Holy Spirit's role in preserving the Word of God in a manner to tell me that if one thing can be said to be false then it's all false. 

I'm a believer and a fool for God. The wisdom of this world will always be against the wisdom of God. A belief such as that the Holy Spirit shepherds and protects the Word of God and preserves it for God's elect is foolishness to the world, but to me it's not foolishness. Call me a fool.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

>she identifies the "Five Points of Calvinism" as a "Satanic pentagram" (p. 231).

This has already been stated by me. Your repeating of the fact that she's not a Calvinist says nothing regarding whether there is wheat amidst chaff in her books on the subject of the manuscripts and the Authorized Version and the modern versions. I'm a Calvinist. I don't call people heretics who don't currently see or understand or accept biblical doctrine at the level of Calvinism. 

And you didn't state what her belief regarding regeneration is. Lutherans think baptism regenerates, yet you throw Luther in with the other names you list. Zwingli wrote at one point in his life, before he got political, that baptism was a needless ritual for fools "who needed it." 

>For the rest of the link see http://aomin.org/NABVR.html 

Quoting White's website on the subject of a person who champions the Received Text is like quoting an atheist on the subject of the Resurrection.

[Edited on 3-14-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## Kaalvenist (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> >she identifies the "Five Points of Calvinism" as a "Satanic pentagram" (p. 231).
> 
> This has already been stated by me. Your repeating of the fact that she's not a Calvinist says nothing regarding whether there is wheat amidst chaff in her books on the subject of the manuscripts and the Authorized Version and the modern versions. I'm a Calvinist. I don't call people heretics who don't currently see or understand or accept biblical doctrine at the level of Calvinism.
> ...


White's main objective in the article (since it seems you didn't read it) was not to criticize the TR, but to criticize Gail Riplinger. If you would like to read a KJV-only critique of Riplinger, see David Cloud's article:

www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> ...



I've read White on this subject completely (I'm a Calvinist, first of all, I'm very aware of White and his website and his writings on this subject), and I've read most all criticism of KJV-only types and of Riplinger in particular. 

They all are intellectually dishonest (yes, I've yet to come across a critique of a Riplinger type that didn't indulge in an orgy of fallacies and sophistry), and you don't have to be someone who thinks Riplinger has no chaff in her books to see or think that. 

Again, why hasn't White responded to Stauffer's book? If you read Stauffer's book you'll see why. He calls White to the carpet and leaves White no line of retreat.

(Anybody who wants to state that I don't know anything about White or who want to assume I'm anti-Calvinist please read my posts in this thread and on the forum in general. This is more evidence that the critics of the TR have a little difficulty making their case without getting into sophistic territory...)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> ...



Cloud is not a reputable source; he see's Calvinism as heresy. he actually endorses D. Hunt's stuff.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/calvinismdebate.html

[Edited on 3-14-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## DrOakley1689 (Mar 14, 2006)

Quoting White's website on the subject of a person who champions the Received Text is like quoting an atheist on the subject of the Resurrection.


Greetings:

I will be addressing this recent series of posts likening me to an atheist, attacking my character, and completely ignoring the issues, in just over an hour on my webcast, The Dividing Line. I invite any who wish to call in. I am open to dialogue. Just have your facts in order before you call. 

James>>>


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 14, 2006)

James,
On 03/10/06 I dealt with the attack:



> I have assumed a zero tolerance platform as of late; If I see any inuendo, ad hominem, slander, below the belt assaults on any believers from here on out, the guilty party will be banned immediately.
> 
> I'm over this; tread carefully.



[Edited on 3-14-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

Even your response here, James, is 'off'. The analogy doesn't say you are an atheist. It says your position on the subject is sooooooo partisan that to link material on your site to substantiate a point, when you are being discussed as one side of it all to begin with, is rather silly. It's like quoting an atheist on the subject of the Resurrection. You see that's not calling you an atheist...

You routinely abandon the standards you demand of others when discussing and debating such things as the doctrines of grace (which we agree on) when you shift over to discussing and debating manuscript and KJV issues.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

Douglas D. Stauffer's book.


----------



## john_Mark (Mar 14, 2006)

Michael, what does "likening" mean?


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

The analogy doesn't call White an atheist which is what he wants to communicate, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it. If I'd used the analogy: "It's like quoting a member of the 'Earl of Oxford is Shakespeare' club to substantiate a point about the identify of Shakespeare. 

Am I calling White an "Earl of Oxford is Shakespeare' proponent?

Sophistry, lawyering, parsing... It all becomes so acceptable for the subject of the manuscript issues for people who are so demanding otherwise regarding the arguments of their opponents on doctrine in general...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 14, 2006)

Michael,
Seems as if he has invited you to the Dividing Line; are you gonna call and interact?


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

What could I say many more capable have already said? Why hasn't White dealt with Douglas Stauffer. Stauffer has a Th.M. in Theology and a Ph.D. in Religion. He's written a book. He's presented his material. If White felt confident enough to engage the late Dr. Letis (evidence, by the way, of the patience of Mr. Letis, but he was known for being willing to put up with just about anything the internet could throw at him) why not Mr. Stauffer? 

White knows my position. He responded to me after ONE email I sent him by telling me through his proxy (his producer) that my email address was now blocked and anything I composed for Mr. White to read would be lost in space, thank you. 

White is a demagogue on the manuscripts issues. His book on the subject has been torn apart by people more knowledgable than myself. I'd be doing them a poor service in attempting a poor impression. White needs to debate somebody like Stauffer for him to be serious regarding these issues, not me.


----------



## john_Mark (Mar 14, 2006)

I asked a simple question. Just to be sure I looked up the definition of likening. 

ikÂ·en (lkn) tr.v. likÂ·ened, likÂ·enÂ·ing, likÂ·ens To see, mention, or show as similar; compare

Not to side track the post, but it seems Dr. White used the term appropriately. Also, if David Cloud is omitted why not Stauffer for his dispensationalism as well as being listed on anti-calvinist sites? Anyways...back to lurking.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

For the record, I only know of Douglas Stauffer through his book on the subject at hand. I mean, he could be deceased for all I know. I'm just saying he is the type of person White needs to debate.


----------



## DrOakley1689 (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> What could I say many more capable have already said? Why hasn't White dealt with Douglas Stauffer. Stauffer has a Th.M. in Theology and a Ph.D. in Religion. He's written a book. He's presented his material. If White felt confident enough to engage the late Dr. Letis (evidence, by the way, of the patience of Mr. Letis, but he was known for being willing to put up with just about anything the internet could throw at him) why not Mr. Stauffer?
> 
> Sir:
> ...


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

Yeah, and I gave you a simple answer.

The subject of the manuscripts is not a Calvinist/dispensationalist issue. 

White doesn't hold to classical covenant theology (at least he has shown a lack of interest in the subject, and has been shown up in his debate with Douglas Wilson by his lack of understanding of CT; i.e. he allowed Wilson to get away with alot due to White's lack of understanding of CT issues), but that doesn't effect the subject of the manuscript issues, now does it...?


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

James White wrote: "The book to which you refer came out six years after mine. I have never seen it."

You know you have a large cadre of internet friends who direct you to anything and everything said about you, and to suggest that a book that addresses you so directly and to such length is something you hadn't known about I find to be amazing.

[Edited on 3-14-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Respectfully, if you're not able to adequately d eal with Dr White via his invitation to phone in as Stauffer would, why publicly post about him here?



I really don't think even you take this question to be serious. Having a position based on reading and experience and everything else that goes into having a position on something is not the same has having facts marshalled in a way that a person who is approaching a debate or writing a book on a subject has. 

I have some understanding of Covenant Theology and I have some understanding of the doctrine called 'New Covenant Theology', but I'm not prepared to debate NCTers on the radio, thank you. CT vs. NCT is similar to the manuscripts issues. There are enough arcane points and enough rabbit trails available to any debator and demogogue that to be serious White needs to go up against a person throughly briefed in the subject who White knows will not allow him to do his usual sophistic thing.


----------



## Lewis Paul (Mar 14, 2006)

If you, by your own admission, don't feel qualified to debate by phone, why do you feel qualified to continually challenge him in this forum? It doesn't make much sense for you to repeatedly tell him who he ought to debate on this subject so that he can see how wrong he is and it is not right for you to question his character when he legitimately asks people who are challenging him anonymously from web forums to actually have a conversation with him.

[Edited on 3-14-2006 by Lewis Paul]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

This needs to be said: White plays this game of going on forums and blogs and challenging people to call in to his internet broadcast. He gets taken up on it 1 in 900 times. Because he's not serious. It's not serious to have a broadcast where you can schedule any number of willing debators and detractors who have written books and articles and perhaps have even debated the subject matter in question formally before and never book them on your broadcast, yet challenge people on internet forums to show up who obviously would be at every disadvantage regarding having facts in memory and so on and so forth. It's disingenous, and White does it all the time.


----------



## jenson75 (Mar 14, 2006)

I appreciate the ministry of James White and I look forward to hear him at the School of Theology at the Met Tab in July. 

Please don't continue this discussion. It is a dog-fight, which no one is going to win. I have pressing issues which I would like Dr. White to assist in, but with this discussion going on, it will take up his time. That is why no one at AOMIN is answering my emails (hint!)...


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Lewis Paul_
> If you, by your own admission, don't feel qualified to debate by phone, why do you feel qualified to continually challenge him in this forum? It doesn't make much sense for you to repeatedly tell him who he ought to debate on this subject so that he can see how wrong he is....



Qualified in talking live on a program, sir. If you can't see the difference you just aren't trying. White is a professional apologist (and on the manuscripts issues he is a professional demogogue). He intentionally doesn't debate people like Stauffer and obviously prefers to get internet forum people who have not written books on the subject to call in. If you think that is serious behaviour on White's part then you have a different standard for serious than I do.

Challenge what I've stated here on this forum in writing, and do it now and do it clearly. What have I written here on this forum regarding White or regarding the manuscripts issues that you take issue with?


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

Worth reiterating, for those who came in late or chose to dismiss it:

Having a position based on reading and experience and everything else that goes into having a position on something is not the same has having facts marshalled in a way that a person who is approaching a debate or writing a book on a subject has. 

I have some understanding of Covenant Theology and I have some understanding of the doctrine called 'New Covenant Theology', but I'm not prepared to debate NCTers on the radio, thank you. CT vs. NCT is similar to the manuscripts issues. There are enough arcane points and enough rabbit trails available to any debator and demogogue that to be serious White needs to go up against a person thoroughly briefed in the subject who White knows will not allow him to do his usual sophistic thing.


----------



## john_Mark (Mar 14, 2006)

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle at the assertion that Dr. White intentionally doesn't debate folks like Stauffer. Usually, the most qualified folks won't deabate him. Is this the chapter from Stauffer you are talking about? http://www.mccowenmills.com/Default.aspx?tabid=169 Amazon says that Stauffer cites White's book on 11 pages. My guess is that this chapter contains most of the citations.

I've been in White's channel for around 4 years or so now. I have never once heard the name Stauffer. If Dr. White is not serious about challenging folks to call in then it would be very simple for you to call in and prove how "not serious" he is. Even a Roman Catholic who engaged in ad hom against him called in and had a cordial discussion.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> This also needs to be said: He probably would never have invited you on the show, except that you, yourself, made assertions concerning him and he's simply calling you to the carpet to back up what you've said ABOUT him and say it TO him, giving him opportunity to immediately respond with dialogue.



The problem with this statement is I'm am hardly the first to have said what I've said about White regarding his writings on the manuscript issues. 

If there's one positive thing that has occured here is White has been publically confronted on his silence regarding Stauffer's book. And anybody who thinks White didn't know about the book is willing to swallow more than even I would suspect is possible among his fan base regarding the manuscripts issues...


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle at the assertion that Dr. White intentionally doesn't debate folks like Stauffer. Usually, the most qualified folks won't deabate him. Is this the chapter from Stauffer you are talking about? http://www.mccowenmills.com/Default.aspx?tabid=169 Amazon says that Stauffer cites White's book on 11 pages. My guess is that this chapter contains most of the citations.
> 
> I've been in White's channel for around 4 years or so now. I have never once heard the name Stauffer. If Dr. White is not serious about challenging folks to call in then it would be very simple for you to call in and prove how "not serious" he is. Even a Roman Catholic who engaged in ad hom against him called in and had a cordial discussion.



The number of times 'White' appears in the book is one thing. Stauffer is rather direct and harsh with White, and he backs it up. White is not a mere passing mention or subject in the book. Stauffer uses White as a foil in a much more than passing way. And it's not ad hominem, he hangs him with his own words.

Considering though the disingenuous way White dealt with a scholar like Theodore Letis I don't hold alot of faith that Stauffer will get anything resembling an honest and fair response. White pretty much has zero credibility on these issues at this point. He's great on the doctrines of grace, but as I said at the beginning of this thread: on the issues regarding the manuscripts and the KJV he has feet of clay.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 14, 2006)

With respect to Dr. White, this one is done............

Michael,
I believe you owe our brother an apology.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 14, 2006)

I've just come back to this thread, so regretfully I was not able to close it sooner.

This is done, and this kind of internet "tit for tat" and "your source is foolish" "no, your source is stupid" drivel will not be tolerated. From anyone.

Done. Do not repeat this.


----------

