I'm not aware of whom you speak as to those flirting with heresy.I would place this in the realm of prolegomena, which is usually prior to exegesis. For example, I'm not sure I could give a persuasive exegesis that universals exist ante rem, but I believe it quite strongly.
On a similar point, the Bible says the soul exists. We all agree. Does exegesis say that the soul exist as a substance in the body or does it exist as the form of the body? Exegesis really can't answer that.
He would have stronger ground if some of his friends weren't flirting with heresy. In fact, some of his statements have been troubling as well. As to Twitter, White is far, far, far more active on Twitter than Barrett and Carter. In fact, he retweets them far more than they ever deal with him.
I was not sure how coherent my post would come out. I don't disagree that there are issues that are under-studied among us all. My main point is that men who are flirting with the "great Tradition" might not have their prolegomena set well themselves.
I was musing about some of this today because one of the things that's difficult to sort out is how we exactly land on the right way of thinking about things. I believe it is a gift of grace that sort of sets us on the right path. One of the basic issues of prolegomena is the Creator/Creature distinction and respecting that our knowledge of God is analogical. William Lane Craig, for instance, errs at a basic level of assuming it is univocal and that he can "work upwards" from human philosophy to use philosophy to comprehend things we were meant to apprehend within creaturely limitations. This is why he works from philosophy as to what freedom or love would demand and then looks for theologically "fruitful" ideas like Molinism in which to box in Divine freedom.
It's hard to say how we land on these things because one could theoretically use GNC to come to WLC's conclusions if one thinks that God thinks and experiences reality as we do.
I think that one could argue that there is sort of a catholic prolegomena, but it is hard to argue and it is hard to "prove". When I read about the ante-Nicene Fathers I was struck at how much they had "received" in their conviction and that the metaphysical outworkings were force upon them. Something that was primarily to be adored (the Trinity and the Divine essence) had to be spoken of within the limits of human capacity in order to set catholic boundaries. They insisted upon "of the same essence" not because they had comprehended the Trinity but because they had apprehended enough to be able to force others either to confess that the Son and Spirit were fully God or they were not Christians at all.
If I could fault White for something it is that his instinct is correct o rely upon the sure Standards of Divine Revelation, but the issue of how God's people sort of settle upon a correct "prolegomena" is sort of overlooked. If I could fault some of his detractors, they are downplaying the role and interplay of the Scriptures in forming us into this prolegomena (since it is revealed that God's ways are not our ways) and that there is not enough humility in the idea that we don't come at this initial state simply because we "accept the great Tradition" and rely upon our brain power. That we "start well" and don't end up in damnable error is a gift of grace.