James White on 1 John 5:7

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
>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]
 
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.

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]
Click to expand...
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
 
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
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.

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]
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...

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...)
 
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
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.

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]
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...

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]
 
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>>>
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

1) My invitation, and if you wish to call it, challenge, stands. I have a few decades of proof that I can dialogue respectfully with anyone on my program. I invite you to call in. 877-753-3341, toll free. :)

2) The book to which you refer came out six years after mine. I have never seen it. At your suggestion, I have now ordered it. I will be overjoyed to interact with it. And if I do so, and demonstrate inconsistency on its part, will you, perhaps, be ready to change your viewpoints? I truly wonder.

Phone lines are open, sir. I await your call. :)

James>>>
Click to expand...
 
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...?
 
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]
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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]
 
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.
 
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!)...
 
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....
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
1 John 5:7
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
Peter
P
Reformed Covenanter
William Beveridge on 1 John 5:7
Replies
2
Views
712
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Grant
  • Locked
  • Poll
1 John 5:7-8
2 3
Replies
64
Views
9K
Jerusalem Blade
Jerusalem Blade
Reformed Covenanter
Peter Martyr Vermigli on 1 John 5:7
Replies
1
Views
817
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
BlackCalvinist
  • Locked
1 John 5:7 manuscript evidence....
2
Replies
34
Views
26K
DTK
D
Back
Top