King James Only Controversy (2nd Edition)

If Dr. White argues for no textual variants in reference to the autographs, I can understand that.

But otherwise, Dr. Ehrman's got him cornered.

 

Aspects of the current OT textual scholarship and intense loyalty to the Masoretic text as the "received text" make it easy to establish a simple case for acceptance of a NT "received text".

To make the case though you have to lay aside the notion of originally written texts.

Rob

 

James White's as sharp as they come. I'm curious as to what's been added to the second edition. I have had a couple of copies of the first (gave them all away to people needing them).

His books are excellent works to help those trapped in cults and his counter-cult apologetics ministry is one sorely needed in a day and time where churches are weak in standing up to give an answer for the hope we have (1 Peter 3:15)

 

I really enjoyed Dr. White's KJO Controversy, he did an excellent job. When he did his job on Chosen but Free and Giesler answered him it appears White had not even bothered to read the book but just went into the Calvinist knee jerk attack mode. I hope it was a lesson learned by him to actually read the material you are critiquing before criticizing it. Other than this he is a sharp cookie you just have to read with a jaundiced eye if anything touching Calvinism enters the picture.

 

Are you sure you're not responding in a typical Arminian mode?Did you ever read White's The Potter's Freedom?It sure sounds as if you haven't.He indeed did go into detail against Geisler's work.

You can't really be that familiar with the ministry of James White.He takes painstaking efforts to familiarize himself with the works of his opponents.You need to be more careful about the things you have said about him.

 

I know White certainly hammered Gail Riplinger in their little debate; she stammered & stuttered just about the whole 2nd half of it, unable to counter his points.

 

"he takes the SAME position on textual variation that many KJVO people take.
That you can't have textual variation and both still be the Word of God."

This must be in reference to the autographs to make sense, or we back to the same old KJVO stuff.

Not good, I say.

 

Rippon have you read Gieslers rebut to Whites work?

 

As to your remark about Armenian response, please be informed I am the disciple of no man, Calvin,Arminius,or anybody else. I am a disciple of Christ , period end of story. I read enough of "The Potters Field" to write what I wrote. Further I am normally a fan of Dr. White and trust his work on Giesler was an aberration. I am interested to know how much has been changed or added to the second edition of his KJO Controversy I will probably buy and read it as I have the first edition.

 

TCG,you're confused.Dale-c said in his OP that Bart Ehrman takes that position -- not James White.The former insists that if there is textual variation then it can't be the true Word of God.This is the same view that KJVO folks take.

 

First of all you should know better than to call it "Armenian".It's Arminian.

I am you are the disciple of no man.But your theology resembles that of the Arminian construct.

POB,was that deliberate or unintentional?I have a feeling it was the former.You know very well that Dr.White's book is The Potter's Freedom.

And I doubt your claim that you read much of it.Otherwise you would not have said the utterly absurd things about Dr.White's lack of research practices.

You claimed that Dr.White wrote out of a "Calvinist kneejerk attack mode".How can you be so wrong POB?Dr.White went into detail and did research on Dr.Geisler's positions on Calvinism through the years.He tried to present the views of NG and then addressed those views biblically.Can the same be said of the writer(s) of the appendix of Dr.Geisler's second edition work?

Dr.White thinks that the added appendix in the second edition bearing Geisler's name was done as a class project by undergrads.Dr.White calls it "an embarrassment".He says it has "gross misrepresentations" and a "total disconnectedness" to it.

Dr.White's work on The Potter's Freedom was no aberration.He was just as exhaustive and clear as he is in all his books.

What you need to do is read through White's book in its entirety -- Bible in-hand.Then compare NG's work and not the contrast.

 

Rippon, thanks for show me the light. I needed that. :thumbs:

Then it's on Ehrman.

 

We disagree on the Potters Freedom. I can live with that. So in this case we will agree to disagree. Rather than stick with the subject "Chosen But Free", you are correct he attacked Geisler's general theology over the years. That does not make for a credible critique of the book.
By the way have you read Calvin's commentary on 1 Jn 2:2 ?

 

I know this is slightly off the OP but I have a question.
Do Calvinist learn to label people in Sunday School, or do they have a secret oath they take that they must label people (supralapsarian arminian insomniac) or what?:laugh:

 

It's not just a matter of having differing ideas about TPF.You have deliberately mischaracterized White.You said that White appeared not to have read the book (CBF)"but just went into the Calvinist kneejerk attack mode."You went on to say that this was a lesson for White -- that he needs to "read the material you are critiquing before criticizing it."That's utter nonsense on your part.Dr.White always does his homework on subjects.When he debates on a wide range of subjects he always represents his opponents fairly.He doesn't take things out of context.He gives accurate representations.Obviously he disagrees with their positions -- but he knows their positions through and through.
I have to make the conclusion that you certainly did not read TPF despite your claims otherwise.What you need to do is to actually read White's book before saying such baloney.
If you "normally respect his work" do you think he would change his regular way of delving into material of his opponents?Of course not.His expertise on the topic of KJO is representative of his treatment on all subjects he tackles.
It's interesting that some folks find out about Dr.White's ministry and they love his Calvinism but do not at all care about his stance on the King James Controversy.Then they slowly change their view on the KJC and realize that White is just as correct about that issue as he is on Calvinism.Or other individuals get to know and appreciate his position on the KJC and general apologetics.However,they despise his Calvinism.There's a disconnect in their minds.Later they realize that White is right on that too.Hopefully you will come around by honestly approaching the subject and White's treatment of it.You will then come to an awareness that you were wrong.

Again,you say false things.Of course he stuck with what Geisler had written in CBF.What Dr.White also did was trace NG's thought pattern over the decades regarding the subject-at-hand in an effort to portray him fairly.Geisler (and his co-writer(s))did not fairly represent Dr.White.You need to do your homework and say truthful things from now on.

 

Most people on the BB would categorize themselves as Biblicists.I guess they are labeling themselves.But these "Biblicists" fall under the classification of Arminian.Try as they might;wiggle as they will -- they are Arminian.But being an Arminian has a stigma attached so they disavow that designation while still holding to a substantially Arminian theological construct.Many Arminians are not brave enough to own up to their theological heritage.Other Arminians are ignorant of Church History.A large number insist they can't be Arminian because they hold to OSAS.That's absurd because Arminius himself did did not commit himself one way or the other on that -- neither did his followers.Besides OSAS is not really that similiar to the 5th point of TULIP.
Dr.Norman Geisler chooses to call himself a "Moderate Calvinist".That's just double-talk.He holds liitle to nothing in common with historic Calvinism soteriologically.He's an Arminian -- full-stop.I wish he could be honest.He calls mainstream,historic Calvinism "extreme Calvinism".He reserves the right to turn everything around as he sees fit -- regardless that things have had specific meanings before he came on the scene.

What I would like for those who say they are middle of the road,straddling the fence,noncommittal,or any other halfway copout to answer the following question.What specifically about Arminianism do you object?

___________________________________________________________

I'm sorry that the above is off-topic.Returning to the OP -- What specifically has James White said in his book which is false?(Of course I am addressing the KJVO folks.)