Dr. James White’s Transubstantiation of his “Son-Logos knows not the Last Day” into “the humanity knows not the Last Day” by the magic of the Word: “Veil.”
Dr. Father Christiaan Kappes
I’ve been fascinated by the writings and podcasts sent to me by long-time followers and interlocuters of Dr. James White. I remembered him as a boy: A rather intimidating and fairly charismatic Evangelical. My boyhood remembrance of him smearing most interlocuters, particularly Roman Catholic priests, at debates was about the sum-total of my recollections. He was formidable in my recollections. I did think of him a tour de force in those pre-internet days but lost track, strangely after the internet. Mr. William Albrëcht brought his teaching back into focus for me since he is often at cross purposes with Dr. White on questions of Roman Catholicism. Reacquainting myself with him is an interesting experience; it’s too bad he’s never found a way to learn from others and perhaps be open to working even with fellow Evangelicals of scholarly repute for a united theological front at an increasingly difficult time for all Christians of good will; who acknowledge the Trinity, undiminished divinity of Christ, virgin birth, infallibility and sufficiency of Scripture for all dogma, and redemption uniquely through the blood of Christ who will judge all on the Last Day. So far, we’ve heard and seen the following disturbing declarations about Jesus in his Logos-Son divinity by Dr. White:
[Dr. White:] Well… when it says: ‘Nor the son,’ (Mark 13:23[…] to say: “Well that’s the humanity,” um, “and not the deity.” That’s the easy way out and that’s normally how people try to respond to the critics and the critics go: “Can you show me that from the text?” Especially since it says: [NKJV Matthew 24:36]But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only (oudeis oiden, oude huios, ei mê ho patêr monos). But the “Father only […]. So, you don’t believe “the monos” part and […] people on the other side that are sharp enough to catch you on that because you are gonna have to use of “monos” [viz., “only”] in John chapter 17; it’s this consistency thing; I know it’s a bit of pain but it’s this consistency thing. So, if you want to say in order to protect my formulations, um, I’m gonna go beyond what the text say and I’m gonna say this is speaking on the son in his human incarnation and I’m gonna just ignore the use of the term monos.
This astounding claim, that the divine Son-Logos is ignorant, was followed up by an attempted clarification and defense by Dr. White:
I would just point out … that just seems honestly to cause some serious problems for people who try to force Aristotle’s Categories on the Christian God and it would seem to cause some problems for people who are today just obliterating the clear distinctions between [sic] Father Son and Spirit; not as to their deity, not as to the fact as each is described as Yahweh, their full participation in the divine being, but the fact that the Bible differentiates between.[1]
The only case of “participation in the divine being” in Scripture is 2 Peter 1:4, where human beings alone (who are corruptible) can nonetheless have a chance “to participate in the divine nature.” Dr. White, despising any form of philosophical precision and allergic to Scholasticism, espouses a Father, Son, and Spirit who merely “participate” in the divine being or nature, just like Peter did on Mt. Tabor. Since this second debacle, when left to his own non-philosophical and non-Scholastic and self-described Biblical theology, he goes from denying the omniscience or all-knowing Word of God, to betraying how this makes sense consistently for his mind (consistency is a big word after all for Dr. White): Since the Word only participates in divine being, just as St. Peter did by a special grace, he surely can be ignorant like Peter. This is consistent, an important consideration in Dr. White’s challenge to Evangelics thus far, “consistency.” However, due to only greater negative reaction, we start to see a newly designed strategic move:
Rhetorical strategy #1: Don’t make any more affirmations (dangerous), only ask rhetorical questions to avoid any more commitments about your dogmatic beliefs
Rhetorical strategy #2: Don’t use any more of your own words (they show what a mess your theology is in when ignorant of philosophy and Scholasticism but trying to piece together the Bible free of any help from Christians of the past). Quote somebody else after only implying that the quote is orthodoxy (but with enough wiggle room to get out this time).
Rhetorical strategy #3: Use the Roman Catholic play book: If Catholics can change bread and wine into non-bread and non-wine by the magic words “Hocus Pocus,” maybe I can change heresy into orthodoxy by reverently uttering the words “Veil, Veil, Veil” over the Ignorant-Son-Logos and participating-Son-Logos, then I can transubstantiate heresy into Christian orthodoxy: Now these words mean the Son is omniscient! After the magic words, it still looks like heresy, writes, like heresy, but its substance has been changed by priestcraft: the mystery of the Veil.
Ultimate Strategy: Pray that some major controversy on another subject allows for a distraction and keep churning out Alpha & Omega wisdom with minimal loss of donor and fan base.
As an author of peer-reviewed studies, I have people find mistakes and errors all the time among editors and peer reviewers. I have a slip of the tongue, a momentary lapse. My job is to admit my mistake and change my assertion and check the ego. Heck, even the best scribes and amanuenses of antiquity mess up the Bible in Biblical papyri and vellum. What has fascinated me is that Dr. James White could be characterized to have a godly charism not unlike the popes of Rome: Under certain specified conditions he never errs. As a life-long student of Roman Catholicism, I know there are three very, very strict criteria embraced by Vatican I that limit the time, place, and format of papal infallibility, which means that in a collection of authority-statements of Catholic popes (viz., Denzinger) only about a half-dozen pages (of about 500) or so are per se considered by putative papists to be infallible. What I have yet to figure out are the criteria and conditions under which Dr. White has ever erred. I assert that he exercises something like the charismatic gift of transubstantiating heresy into orthodoxy in the manner of priestcraft by a mysterious Veil, but this is consistent with his charism of an infallibility, of the sort for which Pope Pius IX would have paid handsomely in 1870.
Eternal Memory, Nicaea and Chalcedon, down with the popish and priestcrafty transubstantiation of error into orthodoxy by the Hocus Pocus: Veil.
FURTHER READING
The Source of Dr. James White’s Arianism on Mt 24:36/Mk 13:32:
“Nor the Son [knows the last day], but the Father only”
[1] https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/road-trip/on-the-road-trip-with-james-4/.
Answering Islam Blog 
Excellent.
LikeLike