<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\07514792577\46blogName\75PLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\46publishMode\75PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\46navbarType\75BLUE\46layoutType\75CLASSIC\46searchRoot\75http://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\46blogLocale\75en\46v\0752\46homepageUrl\75http://electofgod.blogspot.com/\46vt\0753757314713231228019', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

10.03.2006

More from James White



Now it all makes sense. Michael Dries, the KJV Onlyist who melted down on the Puritan Board back in March, is c.t., i.e., owner/writer of Plain Path Puritan.
White is a pure devil on this subject. He will, until hell freezes over, call anybody who exposes the corrupt manuscripts he champions "KJV-onlists". The boy can't help himself. If he doesn't do this he is put in the position of defending the devil. He willingly does defend the devil, but he doesn't want to be seen in public doing it. He's a wicked soul.


Now it all makes sense, including the desperate dishonesty, the cultic denial of salvation to anyone who rejects KJV Onlyism, etc.
I take on those who effect to teach in God's name and push the devil's manuscripts on unknowing Christians.


I simply didn't make the connection in reading his one article. Upon being challenged to document his "quotation," he has melted down yet again (John 8:44, Rev. 21:8, KJV). Unable to back up his libelous falsehood, he has instead decided to multiply it repeatedly by falsely attributing all sorts of inane things to me. Read it for yourself. Those who already reject KJV Onlyism for the error it is should just shake their heads at this kind of behavior.
Yes, all you followers, just listen to the soothing tones of your cult leader. All those evil people who would question him and the corrupt manuscripts... And I quoted from his own website the fact that he stated what I said he stated. He's banking on the fact that readers of his blog won't go there to read it. He plays the shameless liberal game of fooling a percentage of his audience despite knowing that the rest of his audience knows what he is engaging in.


But you know who should be seeking Mr. Dries' repentance and correction? His fellow KJV Onlyists. This kind of outrageous behavior gives them all a black eye. Of course, Mr. Dries knows the phone number to the Dividing Line. He will not call. He knows he cannot back up his lies, so he will just sit behind his keyboard trying to think up new ways to disturb the peace of the church and attack the brethren. The elders of his church should be most wary. I have seen this kind of zealot split more than one fellowship.
This creep sounds like a Roman Catholic priest circa 1500s.


Quick Update: I see now, looking around a bit on his blog, that Mr. Dries has been banned not only from Team Pyro
Good God!


but by Dave Armstrong as well. That says a lot.
Yes, it certainly does. It says I'm not sympathetic to Roman Catholic sophist apologists. He's also easy to make fun of, like you are.


And if you scroll down a ways you will find a graphic with Doug Wilson on one side and centuri0n on the other. Anyone who has Doug Wilson and centuri0n in a graphic about getting to the celestial city is obviously quite disturbed. Time to stay as far away from him as is humanly possible,
Well, that would be the iMonk and Centurion. And the graphic is dead on. For the record, the language and geography is from Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. I'm not suprised you missed that.


though I confess, I would love to hear an attempted explanation of why so many of the Puritans hated the KJV,
Considering the Geneva is as much Tyndale as the AV1611, it probably had to do with the notes in the Geneva they were wedded to. Do some reading maybe. It's called history.


or why Calvin corrected the TR, etc.
Yet the Geneva translation was based on the traditional text, as were all the great Reformation translations (including the Bible used in Protestant churches of Calvin's homeland).


But instead, I press on. Writing a chapter on "pandering to pluralism" right now. Must get it done in a matter of hours.
Succumbing to devilism would be a more honest topic for you. Something you really know about.

26 Comments:

Blogger Ruben said...

So are you Caroline or Michael or both?

October 3, 2006 at 11:22 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Michael Dries is a fake persona I used for that Puritan Forum. My experience with those Reformed types is they don't interact with female names. Males name, yes. Male names with a .edu in the email -- in a big way. They are respecters of persons. They were right to ban me, I don't belong in their environment (I'll put it that way).

In fact, I need to extricate myself from this current melee. The internet is crazy. If people want to read mutilated Bibles, then so be it. It's not a hellfire issue...

I engage in hyperbole on this issue... I don't really think you're all devils. Really... Dishonest, in some cases, yes; sophistic, sure... Duped, yeah... But bound for hellfire because you read the NIV/NASB/ESV et al? No... Just at some point find out what is missing or changed. Do yourself a favor...

October 3, 2006 at 11:59 AM  
Blogger MarieP said...

If you really don't think those who aren't KJV-Onlyists are of the devil, then don't say they are. Do you not realize how serious a thing it is to call someone of the devil, when, in fact, they are not?

Matt. 5
21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

You would do well to remember what you wrote on your own profile:

"doing the two great commandments of Christ at the practical level (i.e. actually doing them)"

So, do us a favor (and more importantly, honor God) by not speaking such slanderous and reproachful things about the people of God. If you have an issue with what they believe, engage them in a fashion that that is befitting a disciple of Christ.

October 3, 2006 at 1:06 PM  
Blogger dustin_lizardhead said...

Hey. Just linked over here from James White's blog (which I had linked to from another blog). This is an interesting little altercation I've stumbled upon.

I'm familiar with some things Mr. White has written -- never seen him in "real life" like this before. You're both accusing each other of dishonesty--

I suppose you know he's accusing you of lying about stuff he said, falsely (libelously, in his words) attibuting quotes to him? If you don't mind advice from a casual observer, I really think citing those references would be the best way to answer him.

You did mention it being on his blog -- and you said:
"He's banking on the fact that readers of his blog won't go there to read it." I'm definitely wanting to go there, wherever that is, and read it -- can you get me to it?

This strikes me as a pretty important and pivotal issue in your whole dispute with him -- the question of who is being more honest.

October 3, 2006 at 1:13 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Well, there was alot of posting on blogs, forum, and email at the time, and I truly don't recall where he said it, but the fact is, you can tell by the way I wrote about it back in the spring in that email he posted on his blog that he did say it. He didn't contradict it then. I suspect it was on the Puritan Board and has since been deleted or edited out. When I was banned the moderators there deleted alot of things, and one of White's posts may have been caught up in the death of an entire thread. It very well may have been on his own blog, but then edited out or deleted. It wasn't a major thing in my recent post, but just something he decided to take great offence to (which tells me he probably deleted it from his blog before taking great offence, but that will be taken as another great offense, but so be it; he certainly said it, anyone can read my email he posted on his blog and see the way I wrote it it was not in question he said it). But he said it, and it was typical of the 'clericalism' attitude coming from those types. It's just not good to be championing such corrupt manuscripts. What they really resent is the fact that they're being outflanked on their right on this issue, but they are so up to their neck in having defended the corrupt manuscripts they'd have to really take a serious hit to their vanity and pride to admit they've been duped. This is why they freaked out so massively when Riplinger published her book. It was really the first time they'd been exposed in a very public and extensive way... That such a 'nobody' took them to task also enflamed their academic vanity... Alot of vanity at work in all this...

October 3, 2006 at 1:25 PM  
Blogger dustin_lizardhead said...

Just for the sake of easier reference, as certain vital things tend to get lost in conversations like the one you're engaged in:

"Christians who are not ordained clerics shouldn't have opinions about the manuscripts"

I guess that's the quote in question, which you attributed to Mr. White. He asked you to cite the source, accusing you of libel. Pretty heavy stuff for him to say.

October 3, 2006 at 1:31 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

mariep, I actually do think they are children of the devil, but only because they show by their lack of discernment regarding the corrupt manuscripts they are yet to be regenerated by God. All are children of the devil until we are regenerated by the Word and the Spirit...

But anyway, the mocking that goes on from the White side of these issues towards Christians who have a hardcore and real and high valuation for the Word of God is a bit annoying. They're (a) championing just cartoonishly corrupt manuscripts and (b) mocking Christians who are committing the great sin of holding to the traditional text. All because you demand the right to dicate to God's Word what it is to be, and denying the work of the Holy Spirit in giving you the Word of God. It really is difficult for some of us not to hit you with the harsh rhetoric we give you...

But I'll take your advice and rebuke to heart...

October 3, 2006 at 1:38 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

White's dishonest. He knows he said "Only specialists should have an opinion on the manuscripts" in so many words; and he knows I was paraphrasing him for effect. He's a juvenile delinquent and the manuscript issues bring that out more than any other topic in him. His whole life is a continuation of his high school debating club. Point-scoring for the sake of point-scoring, and smug giggling and mocking of opponents, then giving big, arm-waving protestations when called on any of it.

October 3, 2006 at 1:42 PM  
Blogger dustin_lizardhead said...

Okay, I just read your 1:25pm post. You give some reasonable sounding explanation there, which it seems maybe you should have responded with to him initially, upon being accused by him of libel. If his words have been deleted, hey, they've been deleted.

But if I'd been in your shoes, I would have directly confronted him about that -- not owning up to something he knows full-well he said, while instead purposely going back and deleting it (that definitely DOES sound Devil-like ... if indeed that's what happened).

That would have made me furious, and it seems worth mentioning directly to him.

October 3, 2006 at 1:51 PM  
Blogger Supraman said...

Amen, mariep!

C.T. - Though you acknowledge the innappropriate nature of the language you use (particularly against Dr. White, and those who learn from him), you continue to use that language unabated...

Taking a rebuke to heart means repenting, or turning from the acknowledged bad language to language that glorifies God.

Do what you say you will do...

- Supraman

October 3, 2006 at 2:08 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

I don't say it's innappropriate, I say it makes me sick. These debates make me sick. That Christians with seminary degrees so gleefully and mockingly champion such cartoonishly corrupt manuscripts makes me sick. But these are the end times when the famine will be for the Word of God...

October 3, 2006 at 2:21 PM  
Blogger irreverend fox said...

you are one depraved soul. what makes you think you are one of the elect sir?

October 3, 2006 at 2:24 PM  
Blogger Supraman said...

C.T.,

Inappropriate or sick, take your pick... We'll call that language sick then. Which means that it is not healthy. Is God glorified in your use of sickening language?

- Supraman

October 3, 2006 at 2:36 PM  
Blogger irreverend fox said...

ps.

what does Matthew 5:43-48 mean to you? explain to us how you have applied this passage to your life and specifically to your interactions with James White.

October 3, 2006 at 2:37 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

No, the language makes ME sick. It just convicts you... I'll carry the burden though. You need to be convicted if you think corrupt manuscripts are OK...

October 3, 2006 at 2:38 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

>you are one depraved soul. what makes you think you are one of the elect sir?

Faith. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling... (It helps to have the pure and whole Word of God to do that...)

>what does Matthew 5:43-48 mean to you?

Wait, let me read it (. . .) OK: the problem is White doesn't fall into the category of an enemy as that passage refers to. White falls more into the category of a false teacher, towards which the Apostle Paul (and also Jesus Himself) was quite harsh with. When you promote the defiling and mutilation of the Word of God and present it as the very Word of God you are doing damage beyond degree to the cause of God and the Kingdom of Christ.

October 3, 2006 at 2:42 PM  
Blogger Supraman said...

C.T.,

I'm sorry you think that is the case. I can only tell you that I am not convicted (for believing something false) by your use of un-Godly language. You are grieving the Holy Spirit with it's use. And, while you seem to acknowledge that on some level, you constantly return to "it's justified because it shocks people" mode. In light of what Scripture says, I ask you (again): Is God glorified in your use of (what you call) "shocking" language? (Especially in light of the fact that you recognize that, at least some, of those who hold to the "corrupt" manuscripts are saved, and thus your brothers in Christ.)

- Supraman

October 3, 2006 at 2:48 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

You're intentionally being dense on this word shock. There is alot of disingenuous rhetoric used by you people on the devil's side of the manuscript issues. Not surprising. I wouldn't want to have to defend your position either. Pretending stupidity I suppose is a useful tactic from your point-of-view...

October 3, 2006 at 3:09 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

>Especially in light of the fact that you recognize that, at least some, of those who hold to the "corrupt" manuscripts are saved, and thus your brothers in Christ.

Not if they hold to it knowingly, and certain not if they teach it and promote it...

October 3, 2006 at 3:10 PM  
Blogger Supraman said...

C.T.,

I see...Thank you for your time. May God bless you with the clarity that only comes through His Spirit.

- Supraman

October 3, 2006 at 3:20 PM  
Blogger Highland Host said...

Though God saves the elect, He does not overnight turn them into new creatures. We have to fight against the Old Man daily, and I suspect that our host's Old Man (or rather woman) got the better of her.

Grown in grace consists chiefly in being led more and more to see our sinfulness and ill-deserving, as the Gospel Standard articles say. Madam, I pray that you will indeed grow in grace more and more. Like you I have to struggle with a temper, and like you I find I often rely on myself to control that temper - a fruitless exercise.

Indeed, any who knowingly teach error are not saved.

October 4, 2006 at 4:12 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

If you think about it though anybody who exposes or otherwise confronts the corrupt manuscripts and those who promote them, no matter how irenic or diplomatic they be, get the same treatment from the Whites of the world. The only reason White hasn't given his usual mocking treatment to Joel R. Beeke is because Beeke's name is on the back of many of White's books, praising him.

The other side desperately wants to keep things from getting to the point where everybody actually begins to 'see' how foundationally evil all this is and has been. How inserting such corrupt manuscripts that have taken over literally EVERY new version of the Bible since has molested God Kingdoms at deep, foundational levels and in primary ways. So much so that it carries on as if everything is normal. And I'm supposed to be irenic to these people, these 'scholars' and translators and committees and pastors and seminary graduates and so on. They are defiling the Kingdom of God at the level of the very Word of God itself and I am supposed to be 'nice' to them...

That's called being lukewarm, and that's not me.

The Whites of the world can do their thing all they want, but they can't do it without being called on it and exposed by God's elect every step of the way...

October 4, 2006 at 5:16 AM  
Blogger fool4jesus said...

"Have fun in hell, witch."

By their fruits ye shall know them.

October 4, 2006 at 7:03 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

See here.

October 4, 2006 at 7:53 AM  
Blogger irreverend fox said...

I don't believe that you have saving faith.

October 4, 2006 at 3:40 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Fortunately my salvation doesn't stand or fall on what you believe.

October 5, 2006 at 1:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home