White uses 19 minutes and he says perhaps one thing new, that is, he really does believe in preservation of scripture, and acted angry that anyone could say he didn't. By that he means that all the words of scripture exist in manuscripts in the world somewhere, so anyone saying he doesn't believe in preservation is a lying deceiver. Just let that sink in. Besides that, he said nothing new. He categorized me with two Ruckmanites, Sam Gipp and Steven Anderson. He called me a reformed KJVOist. He called the first post in this series, "this horrifically dishonest and deceitful article by KJV Onlyist Kent Brandenburg." I'll be dealing with what he says in his new videos about me.
Some of you may wonder why I might not call in to his program, figure out the timing of it and try to get a phone call. If you call into his show, you'll just be a tool for him. What I would be glad to do is debate him with a real moderator. I would do that with him. He would be defeated.
I want you all to know that I'm not backing down with White. It should be obvious to any thinking and especially godly person that he isn't telling the truth. I'm not judging why. He just isn't. I'll leave the why to him.
At 1:14:41, White asks sarcastically concerning Erasmus, "Are you going to tell me he was inspired?" This is the "benefit" of White sitting and talking to himself. This is a stupid question. He doesn't say that in a moderated debate, because it is foolish. He's intimating that those who wrote the confessions (you know which ones I'm talking about, but there were several that taught the same thing over many years), believed in some kind of double inspiration. White is smearing their trust in providential preservation, that God assured them of the text of scripture through the testimony of the Holy Spirit, with this type of question. He doesn't provide a theological alternative and he doesn't have one, so he mocks and ridicules at one of the highest extents of anyone out there.
White asks then, "Are you going to tell me that Erasmus is the final authority on these things?" What person do you know that believes that position on planet earth? Who believes that? What's the point of that question except to slander? James White is now calling me a liar and deceitful. I am straight shooting this. I guarantee you that. Only the doctrine itself is at stake for me. White doesn't affect my church one bit or really anyone else that I know. I say that White either doesn't know what he's talking about or he is lying. I thought of a third alternative, but it could be under the first, that is, he is just deceived. I also think that is possible. These questions and statements are on a level of ridiculousness that say something is wrong with him.
Just after 1:15, White says that there was no counsel that said TR versus Alexandrian versus Western, etc., because they didn't know about "these things." These things. What things? They didn't know what they believed about preservation of scripture, how it was done? Of course they did. It's all over the place in their writings. White just doesn't like what they wrote. He doesn't report what they wrote. He could. He doesn't.
White refers to citing their authority (the LBC authors) about something they never even contemplated or had an opportunity to deal with. He says that is an abuse of their confession. It's actually representing what they believed. Using it to attack him is an abuse, he says. He doesn't believe what they believed, and it is complete legitimate to point that out. Believing that the manuscripts exist somewhere is not preservation. Believing that you have them in your possession is preservation. The latter is what they believed. This is the spin of White and others like him.
White continues, saying it is all indefensible., because the parallel to this is "take whatever Uthman(?) says." He's equating it to Muslims. It isn't the same argument by a long shot, but I've already answered it in earlier posts in the last three weeks. Scripture is self attesting, and the Holy Spirit testifies to it. He doesn't do that with the Koran. This is how White insults. Someone could do the same tit for tat, but what does that accomplish? It would be crazed on the same level as White.
White condescends and insults people who believe the 1689 position, shortly before 1:17, saying that the people who take it are just on facebook impressing one another. The guy he's talking to does more evangelism in a week than White does in a year, I would suspect. He's one of the most evangelistic men I know. He's one of the best Christians I know. He's never had a facebook page. White likes calling people a liar, but it's very easy for him to be loose with the truth. Debating one "scholar" in a mosque is not categorically better than evangelizing all the Muslims in your community during the year. The pride of White about his exploits is disgusting to me here. I would be happy if he just did it, but the fact that he acts like it is more significant than what everyone else does is sick.
White charges after 1:17 that these men are like this because it isn't evangelistic with them. Oh my. It's just a head wag here. I know Thomas well. This is so wrong -- so, so wrong. It's a worthless, less than worthless shot to take. He does this kind of thing over and over, but it's just a self-aggrandizing personal assault.
Just before the 1:18 mark, White connects what Thomas commented to being more and more "cooly reformed." Thomas is trying to be the coolest reformed guy. This is one of those, if I had just sipped a beverage, it would have spewed on the keyboard. One, Thomas isn't reformed. Two, he is one of the least cool people you ever met. He is the anti-cool. He makes James White look like James Dean. A guy that memorizes verses while he brushes his teeth. That's not cool. Then White says he's "sick and tired of Calvinists." Laugh. Thomas is not a Calvinist. Maybe White can make a video now criticizing Thomas for not being a Calvinist.
White next says, "Facebook is not the church!" Who is he talking to? I'm quite sure that Thomas does not have a facebook account. He's one of the most diligent and vigilant Christians I know. Then he says, "The local pub is not the church!" Hahahahaha. Thomas is a total prohibitionist. I'm quite sure he doesn't even look at alcohol. Who is White talking to?
As I watched White riff through the end of his monologue, there was some great irony. He was defining sovereignty for us -- "you don't get to run your life." I'm quite sure that Thomas Ross is as submitted to his church and faithful in his church as anyone I know. Nothing defines "running your life" like your deciding what the Bible is. Instead of the Bible being a settled text, dependent on the sovereignty of God, no, it's an ongoing process up to us. That is James White running the Bible, and others like him.
I'm going to keep going with this series, answering White's recent videos, where he talks about what we've written here.