A cold splash take on James White (and really all similar Critical Text scholars and defenders)

A Canadian correspondent's take on James White:

"My overall impression of White is that he has lost faith, he appears lost. His arguments are not rooted in a growing faith born from an inspired understanding of the scriptures. Rather they come across as arguments of a world-centred man. Contrast him to a Sproul or some of those that he mocks and this becomes clear."


W.

My correspondent is not saying White has ever mocked Sproul, he was making a one-to-one comparison between the two; then he went on to mention those White mocks, usually true believers, zealous for a Holy Spirit preserved, inerrant Bible; zealous to defend it against the mocking and scorn of the world, most notably the seminary indoctrinated and the various priesthood of scholars.

"His arguments are not rooted in a growing faith born from an inspired understanding of the scriptures."

This sentence is well put. He's talking of White's views on the manuscripts issues. Basically whether or not there is error in the word of God. You never want to question the work of the Holy Spirit in another person, but when a person is a public Christian teacher telling others there is error in the Bible and mocking and laughing and intimidating with scorn and other means anyone who holds a different view...that is a foundational area of the faith, the word of God...and that person, the one saying there is error in the Bible, is the one questioning the work of the Holy Spirit.

I left this comment on another blog:

People can't figure White out because he seems truly born again when he speaks on political and social issues, as when he speaks to doctrinal positions other than the foundational issues regarding the word of God itself.

This can be the flaw of Christians who take a solely academic approach to the faith, perhaps. I say solely.

It can also be due to a mental or emotional issue such as a narcissism disorder, and this would play into it this way: the Bible is something we *must* look up to and put ourselves under, in a no playing games about it way. A narcissist who by nature can't be taught anything can get around that regarding learning doctrine because there is room to satisfy vanity in seeing the true doctrine amidst a wildly overgrown field of ancient and modern error. Yeah, he learned from systematic theologians x, y, and z, but that is small compared to his own effort and ability to separate out the wheat from the tares regarding doctrinal truth. He *can't*, though, so easily dismiss the existence of the source and authority of that doctrine. The best he can do to *get above* that is to adopt the pose that it really is he that determines ultimately what the Bible says. To stand above the text and be a mediator between it and the ignorant masses. His narcissism is well taken care of now, and everything is right with his world.

Your posts are very on the mark. You're particularly good at pointing out White's unconscious adoption of postmodernist academic rhetoric and approach and attitude [comment was to Kent Brandenburg]. It's these elements - including the emoting, theatrical affectation of voice and body language (the eye rolling, etc.) that I find most curious regarding how seemingly approving his defenders are regarding it.

As for always bringing up so-called KJVOs, the Critical Text defenders first tactic is to get their opponents to *concede* error in the word of God. It's a very 16th century Counter-Reformation move on their part.