Captain Deflector vs The Reformation

In James White, Preservationist Textual Criticismby Chris ThomasLeave a Comment

James White’s latest lying escapades

The article in question:

Mr. White’s foolish response:

He mentions his written debate with Doug Wilson.  Everyone should listen to this Word Magazine:  WM # 80: Review: Douglas Wilson and James R. White Debate the Text of the NT

min 42:20 Sam could hold to the Confessional View of Scripture because the Confessional View of Scripture is the historic view of Scripture, it’s authority, it’s inspiration, it’s infallibility, & it’s Providential Preservation. These are things that James White doesn’t hold to.

43:15 the Textus Receptus isn’t a concept. A concept is a an abstract idea or a general notion. The Textus Receptus is a concrete reality that can be bought here (

43:30 in order for the “advancements”, new manuscripts, etc., to be considered, he must first exegetically demonstrate from the authentic texts of the Reformation (Bomberg Hebrew Bible & the Textus Receptus) that the Reformers view of Providential Preservation was wrong. He has never even attempted to do this. He just assumes they were wrong. But how, within the framework of his RTC mindset, does he objectively know the TR was wrong? Because textual critics said it is wrong. This is an appeal to authority. It can only escape being fallacious if it can be shown that they can verify their claims. But how can the claims of RTC be verified? Only one way: by an appeal to the autographic text. Something they can’t do.

43:44 he confuses the issue. The Reformers began their reasoning process about the evaluation of Greek mss and their variants with Scripture’s own teaching about it’s Providential Preservation. Unlike Mr. White, the Reformers believed that within the mss they had, that the autographic text was therein contained and by collation of these manuscripts the “scapes”, as Richard Capel called them, could be removed. They did not believe the idea of RTC that the autographic text was unknown to them.

44:14 Quibbles over the use of Matthew 5:18. Which is a prooftext in the confession and continually made use of by the Reformers to support the very thing to which Dane was referring

44:28 Matthew 24:35 is another verse used by the Reformers to justify the Providential Preservation of Scripture which they specifically applied to the TR (see p.97 of Cartwright’s Answere to the Prefaceσυν-θεωι-ἐν-χριστωι-the-answer-to-the-preface-of-the-rhemish-testament/)

44:46 Why isn’t it the best translation? Because of Mr. White’s bias against the AV. Strange that the Reformed commentators had no issue with it.

44:57 Here I “disagree” with Dane though it may seem I’m being nitpicky; the Confessional View of Scripture begins with Scripture as its starting point. But I take his meaning. And he’s right. the CVS begins with faith while the RTC position begins with autonomous human reasoning. Scripture says the latter is sin. (For whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Romans 14:23)

45:23 Actually not all believing people hold to the view that the autographic text is available to us. It is deceitful to suggest otherwise. Mr. White hopes you won’t notice the fact that he doesn’t believe we know the autographic readings. The Reformers believed they had the autographic readings without loss or addition in the Bomberg Hebrew Bible & the Textus Receptus.

45:40 They new of at least two great uncials: Vaticanus and Codex Bezae. Mr. White continues to make a big deal out of the papyri. Pastor DeSoto has dealt with their “influence” here: (

46:00 “Horrifically Anachronistic”? This is laughable. The Confessional Text Position is the historic position of the Reformers. That’s it. Of course it’s not a textual critical position. As Christians we are not allowed to evaluate the Greek mss, their content, and their variants through the lens of the anti-christian Enlightenment as Mr. White does. We are commanded in 2 Cor 10:4,5 to evaluate the textual evidence through the lens of Scripture.

46:12 “TR-Onlyism” is nothing more than a foolish attempt on Mr. White’s part to poison the well of discourse by linking the Confessional View of Scripture with the unbiblical view of the Ruckmanites which elevate a translation above the authentic Greek & Hebrew texts. Ironically this is exactly what Mr. White does in elevating the LXX and other ancient translations above the Masoretic Text.

46:21 It’s the theological position of the Reformers.

46:28 “You cannot use this methodology to derive the Textus Receptus.” This is a lie. The Reformers’ methodology, while not an Enlightenment influenced textual critical position, evaluates the textual evidence from a Scriptural position. That methodology is what produced the printed collation of the Greek mss that we call the Textus Receptus. Again Mr. White is being deceitful.

46:20 Mr. White again claims that appealing to Scripture for our methodology of how we evaluate Greek mss & their variants is circular argumentation. This is a strange claim coming from someone who claims to be a presuppositionalist. ALL appeals to final authority are inherently circular because nothing is more authoritative than one’s final authority. Ours is the word of God. Mr. White’s and that of other RTC advocates is their own autonomous human reasoning. Scripture condemns the latter.

46:48 Dane never claimed Dr. Kruger in any way holds to the CVS. It’s not a misuse. We use it to demonstrate their inconsistency. You can see how they are inconsistent in this book by Louis Gaussen: (

47:38 mentions his video with Dr. Kruger. Which was dissected here: (

48:00 The answer to whether it’s omega or omicron was answered during the Reformation. His horrible Greek pronunciation aside, he doesn’t want to accept that because he would be able to promote himself as an “expert”. It’s εχομεν by the way.

48:41 “The church, however you want to define that.” Mr. White knows we are talking about the people of God throughout history. It’s deceitful of him to imply any other view. And yes they have. God’s people throughout history, by the leading of the Holy Ghost, have been lead to hold the correct reading.

49:10 “Primary error from Jeff Riddle on down.” Mentions how he tried to insert himself into the conference. Shame he isn’t truthful about how he wasn’t interested in the debate challenge issued by Dr. Riddle.

49:33 he already knows what’s going to be said? Is he psychic? Has read what the speeches are going to be? Truly amazing. But he lies again. IT ISN’T KRUGER’S ARGUMENT. Dr. Kruger’s canonical argument is only mentioned to show how he is inconsistent. The canonical argument being put forth is the one found in Louiss Gaussen’s The Canon of Holy Scriptures in Two Parts. Specifically part two called: The Method of Faith. And that is where Dr. Kruger makes his error. While he puts forth the common evidential view of the canon, he is unaware of the method of faith. ( It is deplorable that Mr. White continues to misrepresent what is occurring.

49:46 The people who put together the TR did not agree with Mr. White nor did they practice Restorationist Textual Criticism. It’s precursor found in Walton’s Polyglot was said by John Owen, to border on atheism. It’s development into a system began with Richard Simon’s History of the Text of the New Testament ( which was designed as a tool to be used to undermine Sola Scriptura during the counter-reformation. After it’s development into a system by antichrist it was further developed through the 18th & 19th centuries by liberal German theologians and German Rationalists leading R.L. Dabney to conclude that it was forged in the well of infidel rationalism. We’ve gone beyond Owen’s warning that it “borders on atheism”, to it being the doctrine of antichrist and atheists.

50:21 the people of God via the leading of the Holy Ghost have already have the reading in Romans 5:1. See above.

50:35 We don’t affirm exclusively the Byzantine text. He’s confusing categories again.

50:45 Looking forward to what CBGM is going to do with it? What nonsense. They’re the one’s who changed the entire meaning of 2 Peter 3:10 (

51:10 it isn’t Dr. Kruger’s system. Does Mr. White honestly believe Dr. Kruger came up with his idea out of thin air? Oh wait! Mr. White doesn’t actually read people like Gaussen or Cosin (

51:24 Uh-oh. Mr. White admitted that Dr. Kruger does apply his system to the content of the books. “The books as a whole.” However, unlike previous authors, Dr. Kruger claims that the canonical text is as yet unknown.

52:00 the confusion is on the part of Dr. Kruger and Mr. White. And if the system couldn’t produce its own text the Reformers, using the system, could not have produced the TR.

52:17 the content is included? How can this be if the content is in a state of flux. This is more deceitfulness on Mr. White’s part. The evaluation of mss and their variants changes over time. Textual family designations are now considered obsolete. CBGM is a new theory for evaluating the mss and their variants. New discoveries can change what was once considered Scripture. And there is no way to determine when, if ever, the work of RTC will be done.


52:24 all the transcriptional errors were dealt with during the Reformaiton

52:35 Hello! Anyone home!! We don’t use RTC because RTC is unbiblical. So of course we can’t produce the TR with it. No one has ever claimed that! But if he dealt with us honestly, he knows he would lose the argument.

52:58 who on our side has said not to get bogged down dealing with details? We can easily show, and have shown, that based upon their own assumptions, RTC advocates are hypocrites. We like the details. Because the details always demonstrate that RTC advocates are just being arbitrary.

53:05 Our position came about during the Reformation and is taught in the writings of the Reformers which he does not read. Furthermore, he again equivocates between what the Reformers did and what RTC advocates do. He is a liar.

53:18 “Ahistorical and inchorenet”. Lol. I guess he assumes if he continues to say such foolish things people won’t actually read the Reformers.

53:28 blah blah blah

54:00 Mr. White claims to agree with James Ussher’s quote “The marvelous preservation of the Scriptures [demonstrates this]. Though none in time be so ancient, nor none so much oppugned; yet God hath still by his providence preserved them, and every part of them.” (Body of Divinity, p.8) and that he can demonstrate it. This is another lie. He does not agree with Ussher’s view of providential preservation which was one of the foundational documents of WCF/2LBCF Chapter 1. Nor can he demonstrate it because RTC is inherently arbitrary. One cannot demonstrate anything with certainty when one begins with an arbitrary reasoning process. Mr. White is not only a liar, he’s delusional. He’s essentially promoting magic and alchemy.

54:22 we only use Dr. Kruger’s words to show that he is inconsistent.

54:32 Rome was not using the argument mentioned by Ussher to champion for the Vulgate. Rome used the Ruckmanite argument.

54:44 not Kruger’s methodology. It existed BEFORE Dr. Kruger was born. And Dane isn’t saying “follow us”. He’s pointing back to the Reformers, whom Mr. White doesn’t read.

54:50 Why should we do RTC? It’s unbiblical, of the spirit of antichrist, and atheistic. It’s a false doctrine that accuses the Holy Ghost of lying which is blasphemy, it teaches Christ is not descended from Kings which is another gospel and therefore accursed, it agrees with Satan that man can know good and evil independently of God and using our autonomous human reasoning determine what is and isn’t Scripture and this is idolatry. All this means that RTC is an heresy.

55:13 “all ages” includes every century. Which means that among the mss that existed then, there were faithful apographs that accurately reflect the true readings of Scripture and Christians could know it.

55:27 no one says the early church isnt relative. The documentary evidence shows that the TR readings were prevalent in the past, no matter how much Mr. White and his ilk wish to lie about the evidence.

55:44 There is debate about the content of Athanasius mss and their identity. Acting like there isn’t is deceitful.

56:05 depends upon what your definition of “is” is

56:28 Mr. White equivocates on the usage of corruption. Dr. Ehrman in his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture ( demonstrates that the word doesn’t just mean scribal errors.

56:47 The Which TR argument again. Which is a dumb argument. See the following: &

56:53 the variants between the texti recepti are completely different than the variants between the NA series

57:27 “All the original readings are in the manuscript tradition”? This is a meaningless agreement on his part as he has no objective foundation for evaluating the mss and their variants.

57:32 “That’s why we have to do textual criticism”? No, the reason textual criticism is an ongoing and never-ending process is because RTC advocates reject Scripture as their epistemic foundation. That’s it. That and it feeds the ego and desire for approbation in men like Mr. White.

57:46 “That is, we need to continue the process of examination, in light of new findings, reasoning, CBGM”. So he admits that the text is in flux and readings can changed based upon the whims of RTC advocates. This is a good admission on his part.

58:00 How does knowing more now mean the judgments of the Reformers were wrong? This assumes that all or most of the mss they collated and printed as the TR are wrong. But if the text they used was wrong, then so is the doctrine they based upon their text. If I were Sam Shamoun, I would hammer this point home.

58:10 Erasmus, Beza, etc. had access to Vaticanus and Bezae and other mss that contained readings now preferred. The Reformers rejected today’s preferred readings as corruptions of the autographic text.

58:17 “Not a one of them would have been in your camp, not a one of them. That’s just a fact.” Anyone who has READ the reformers as Mr. White has not, knows his claim is false. Unless of course Mr. White is a necromancer and claims to have raised their spirits from the dead.

58:28 again acts as if Dane isn’t a confessional baptist. Remember, previously he said they were “obstensibly” reformed baptists.

59:13 so our dealing with the mss we possess is superior to any other time before us. What arrogance on the part of Mr. White

59:22 “No two mss are identical” big whoop. That’s not the issue. The issue is: by what objective standard do we evaluate Greek mss & their variants? We, like the Reformers, believe we begin with Scripture. Mr. White and RTC advocates believe their autonomous human reasoning is sufficient and more sufficient than Scripture. The latter position is sin.

59:30 the Reformers dealt with this reality by an appeal to Scripture. Mr. White claims to deal with this reality, but he does so by appealing to himself. That’s arrogance.

59:44 People actually doing real work in the field, Mr. White is not one of them, have abandoned the quest for the autographic text.

59:53 Acts as if the work on the TR began and ended with Erasmus. It is this type of foolish comment that exposes Mr. White’s agenda: to disparage the Reformed position at all costs lest he be forced to admit his own arrogance and pride and repent.

59:57 “Be consistent.” Mr. White is the only one who is inconsistent. If he were, he would change his doctrine every time a new edition of the Nestle-Aland text came out. He’s foolish.

1:00:04 He mainly quotes people’s opinion of what Erasmus said.

1:00:10 the were aware of the most common textual variants. They didn’t need critical editions to be aware of them. That’s absurd.

1:00:43 the claim isnt that they had access to every variant we do today, but that they were a) aware of textual variants, b) aware of the more hotly contested variants.

1:01:00 Stephanus & Beza admitted that their textual work was influenced by their theology. And the framers were also influenced by their theological beliefs which was the foundation for their arguments against the authority of Rome and their doctrine of providential preservation which Mr. White denies.

1:02:04 yes they were referring to a specific Greek & Hebrew text. They considered the ones they had to be authoritative and to be the logical equivalent of the autographs. If Mr. White had actually read the Reformers on their view of Scripture he would know this.

1:02:10 Which TR? This is a dumb comment. ( Also, it was Thomas Watson who said “We may know the Scripture to be the Word of God by its miraculous preservation in all ages … Nor has the church of God, in all revolutions and changes, kept the Scripture that it should not be lost only, but that it should not be depraved. The letter of Scripture has been preserved, without any corruption, in the original tongue.” (Body of Divinity, pg.19)”

1:03:00 Why printed? Because the manuscripts were collated and printed. Why would you need the manuscripts anymore if they had already been printed? Why printed? Probably because it was the printed edition that the majority of Reformers had access to and to which the common man could have access.

1:03:32 When did you make Erasmus the church? This is a dumb question as no such claim was made nor implied in the article.  Erasmus, like almost everyone at that time was a Roman Catholic priest.  The Reformation was started by a Roman Catholic priest.  John Calvin was originally a Roman Catholic and training for the priesthood.  So if Erasmus being a priest invalidates his work in any way, then the Reformation is invalidated as well.  This is the problem for Mr. White.  He rarely thinks through the statements he makes.

1:03:50 When we mention the term church we are referring to the body of Christ throughout history.  Which we have stated numerous times.  It is deceitful for Mr. White to imply otherwise.

1:04:30 “Meaningful apologetics”. Sorry James, but the Reformers did meaningful apologetics with the church of Rome using the Textus Receptus while believing it to be the logical equivalent of the autographic text which they successfully defended. So much so that Rome had to change tactics during the counter-reformation and created the first formulation of RTC. Furthermore, men like Dr. Joel Beeke & Pooyhan Mershahi do meaningful apologetics with the Textus Receptus witnessing to muslims.

1:05:00 it is anachronistic to seek among the Reformers and their work of collating the Greek mss the same things one expects to see today

1:05:50 the individual scholars were part of the church which is the body of Christ. Mr. White should study basic Christian theology.

1:06:36 Dr. Garnet Howard Milne’s book: Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? demonstrates that the Reformers and the framers of the confessions held the Textus Receptus to be the authoritative Greek New Testament to which they were referring in WCF/2LBCF 1.8. It is deeply disrespectful to these men to claim that they in any way would agree with Mr. White’s view of Scripture which they soundly condemned in the strongest language in their writings. The same writings Mr. White has not read. Or if he has read them, then he is a most disturbing form of liar.

1:07:00 All evidence is interpreted evidence. This is what Mr. White likes to ignore. We are required by Scripture to evaluate all evidence, not just in the field of textual criticism, by the standard of Scripture. (2Cor10:4,5) Mr. White wants to evaluate Scripture by the evidence interpreted through the lens of his own autonomous human reasoning. And that is the issue. Is scripture our final authority or is our autonomous human reasoning our final authority? Mr. White answers yes to the latter while the Reformers and framers of our confessions answer yes to the former.

1:09:13 Why is the argument fundamentally flawed? Because Mr. White rejects the longer ending of Mark. Why does he reject LEM? Because the textual critic do. Why do the textual critics reject the LEM? Because codices Vaticanus & Sinaiticus are missing it. Why is the testimony of the two codices considered authoritative? Because of the biases against the Textus Receptus. No matter what else Mr. White says, the reason the argument is “fundamentally flawed” is because it disagrees with his own unbiblical biases.

1:09:50 “massive category error”. A laughable claim at best. Does he honestly think that the gospel books would contain a different message than “The Gospel” set forth by Paul? The answer is yes he does. So he is equivocating and rejecting a primary hermeneutic principle given to us in Scripture: namely that Scripture is to be judged and evaluated by Scripture. It’s even taught in the confessions.

1:10:00 “it’s the same mistake that muslims make.” Debating muslims isn’t a biblical work. Evangelizing them. And we have already seen above two men using the TR to successfully evangelize them and answer their textual questions successfully.

1:11:50 He makes a false distinction between the content of the gospel books and “The Gospel” as if the former wouldn’t include the latter. Again he ignores a fundamental point of hermeneutics: Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture. And if he had read the Reformers, he would know this is also a fundamental point for evaluating Greek mss & their variants

1:12:30 – 1:13:33 upset at my so-called misrepresentation of Luke 23:34. Lol. See this post which covers everything that needs to be said about the issue.

1:13:42 Ahh personal attacks. Mr. White, if you would actually stop lying and bearing false witness AND deal with what the Reformers actually wrote WITHOUT trying to interpret it through the lens of RTC, that would be great. For years? Let’s see, he blocked me back in 2016 I believe over a skeleton meme that he thought was funny. Our interactions have been detailed here:

That’s the substance of our actual interactions.

1:15:40 He ignores here the part of the confession which states that God, by his singular and providence has kept His word pure in all ages. That includes before the printing press. We don’t close our eyes to variants. We just side with the Reformers about them on the same grounds upon which they made their decisions: Scripture.

1:16:12 Calls the Scrivener’s Textus Receptus of 1894 a “fake text.” Keep in mind, that unlike Mr. White, F.H.A. Scrivener was an accomplished scholar and textual critic. None of his contemporaries called it a “fake text” or even a “counterfeit text”. It was a text that attempted to reconstruct the textual choices from the editions of the TR and other documents that the AV translators utilized in producing the AV. Another actual textual critic, Dr. Edward Freer Hills has stated that the AV should be treated as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus. I suppose it is easier to disparage their work, than to deal with their arguments.

1:16:35 It is only Mr. White who is ignoring the Reformers and what they wrote about the variants. The notes in Stephanus 1550 are marginal notes that reflect the Byzantine text differences with the TR. It is obvious that Stephanus didn’t consider them authoritative because they are MARGINAL readings.

1:16:55 Mr. White is not Reformed.

1:17:50 Mr. White has never proven that the Confessional View of Scripture is incoherent. What he has done is demonstrate his ignorance of the writings of the Reformers and his willingness to both lie and bear false witness on this issue.

1:18:00 Launches into his mocking of Dane’s testimony. That was an extremely foolish thing to do. Because in calling it empty, he has lied. Why? Because multiple people who have known Dane for years, and even a former roommate of his, have testified to the truth of what he has stated. Best never to do that Mr. White. It only makes you look foolish.

1:18:26 What is destructive to the truth is rejecting Scripture as your final epistemic authority and replacing it with the contra-biblical views of counter-reformationists, German Rationalists, and other such heretics. Mr. White’s is the only view destructive to the truth that God has given us because it rejects that truth as our final authority and agrees with Satan that we should determine good and evil for ourselves. We don’t use anti-biblical reasoning to defend Scripture.

1:19:18 the information at the bottom of the page is based upon arbitrary reasoning about Greek mss and their variants. It is not based upon Scripture. Therefore, it is sin. He is like a theistic evolutionists saying we should interpret Scripture through the lens of evidence instead of interpreting evidence through the lens of Scripture.

1:19:28 Mr. White demonstrates his ignorance of the limits of inductive reasoning. Everything we know from the Greek mss, papyri, versions, etc., does not give us any guarantee that what we know in any way accurately reflects the original. It’s a guess based upon incomplete evidence. And we have no way of evaluating whether or not that evidence is actually any good. And here is an excellent example of that fact demonstrated: ( But let’s not forget that NA28 changes the doctrine of Eschatology in 2 Peter 3:10.

1:19:40 Mocks Dane with an effeminate voice and mocks Dane’s testimony and calls it hooey and piety.  This is is deplorable.

1:20:19 “It has to do with using everything he’s given us to make sure that we have it”.  And that right there is the difference between Mr. White and the Reformers.  And yet he claims that holding to the historic Reformed view is betraying the Reformers.  The Reformers believed we had God’s word uncorrupted in the Bomberg Hebrew Bible & the Textus Receptus.  To deny this is to betray the Reformation.  And that is exactly what Mr. White is doing.

I stopped here as there’s not much left but more ranting.  One can go through the posts here interacting with his claims over the years or Dr. Jeffrey Riddle’s Word Magazine that do the same and see that Mr. White’s arguments 1) haven’t changed, 2) have been refuted.  There’s little point in going over any future videos of his as he seems to have gone completely off the rails on this issue to the point of mocking another pastor over that pastor’s testimony.  Considering his ungodly behavior recently and throughout the past 25+ years, we should pray for Mr. White that God brings him to repentance over these issues.  I have heard that his current church will not hold him accountable for these sins.  That is a shame.  God judges such churches.

Leave a Comment