James R. White (1) (1962–)

The doctrine of the Trinity is perhaps one of the most misunderstood, abused, attacked, or ignored doctrines of Christianity. However, it is also the very heart of the faith once for all delivered. In this book, James White offers a precise and compact primer on what the Trinity means, what it doesn't mean, why we believe Scripture teaches it, and why it matters. With the denial of any of the doctrine's three pillars -- absolute monotheism, the real existence of three separate divine show more persons, and the full deity of Christ and the Spirit -- there is no Christianity and there is no salvation.

The doctrine of the Trinity has spawned any number of lengthy theological tomes, but I recommend this to anyone who wants a brief, readable, convincing introduction to the critical importance of this teaching. A central insight I hadn't fully considered is that the Trinity was revealed not in the Old or New Testaments, but between the testaments in the incarnation of the Son and the coming of the Spirit. By the time the New Testament was written in attestation of Trinitarian truth, the experience of God's self-revelation in Christ and in the Spirit-filled Church had already planted this doctrine deep in the hearts of the first believers. White draws out this insight and many others in clear and precise language, and I can't recommend this book highly enough. show less

White's response to Chosen But Free. In general, Geisler's book was warmly received by everyday laypeople, but critically received by scholars. Because Geisler is well respected (even by people who are dismayed by Chosen But Free), an entire book was considered needful. A few observations: much of the criticism is that Geisler has misrepresented calvinism. I'm intrigued that misrepresenting Scripture seems to be a secondary focus, which is backwards to me, and fits my unscholarly assessment show more that many calvinists are more devoted to Calvin than Scripture. Not all, of course. But White doesn't help the cause, from my perspective. It is an able defense of reformed doctrine, and will be helpful for those looking for a readable discussion of a reformed response to nonreformed arguments. show less

When I read Geisler's Chosen but Free, I was astonished. My wife actually asked me to stop reading it, since it was making me angry. And it was making me angry because we had such a solid and respected Christian brother jumping into a debate that he didn't even understand. It was clear from the first chapter that he didn't really know what Calvinism was teaching, and yet he was attacking it.

White's response is wonderfully thorough and carefully documented. White examines Geisler's beliefs, show more his sources, and his wording, not to tear down Geisler, but to try to present a fair and Bible-based presentation of Calvinism, something Geisler did not do.

Geisler wrote a bad book, but I wouldn't tell people not to read it. Read it! Read it, and then take a look at what White says. I think more Calvinists will be the result.

If you have not read Geisler's book, I think this one will still be understandable, though there are other works on Reformed Theology that may be a better start.

Just please don't fall into the trap that Geisler did -- letting your traditions dictate how you read the Bible, and therefore end up twisting Scripture and other sources alike (as well as misrepresenting your opposition) just to defend it. show less

James R. White states his purpose as “a corrective to the ongoing (if dwindling) KJVO movement” and “an introduction to the history and background of the biblical text” (p. 19).

In Chapter One, James White defines King James Only. White’s “Groups” or categories of KJVO is found on pages 23-28.

• Group #1: “I Like the KJV Best”
• Group #2: “The Textual Argument”
• Group #3: “Received Text Only”
• Group #4: “The Inspired KJV Group”
• Group #5: “The KJV as show more New Revelation”

These categories serve more for polemic purposes than educational ones. They cause readers to understand the KJV controversy incorrectly. Groups 1-3 have compelling legitimate reasons to complain of being called KJV Only. Groups 4-5 fail to include some who are legitimately KJV Only (that is, those who reject the ideas of re-inspiration and new revelation, but nevertheless believe the King James Bible is the only translation that should be used by English-speaking Christians.). “Group # 2” perhaps best illustrates the weirdness of White’s categories. In it, he dumps Majority Text advocates (pp. 24-25) who have compiled Greek texts in distinction to the Textus Receptus, and have made translations in distinction to the King James Version! He admits they are not KJV Only, but still places them within the “range of beliefs within the broad category of KJV Only” (p. 23). Ridiculous.

Not recommended for beginners. White intends this work as an introduction to and explanation of the “King James Only Movement.” At some point, those who are studying the “versions” issue should read this book. However, it will confuse the beginners, and set them up to wrongly understand what does and does not constitute “King James Onlyism”. Problems need to be addressed in the generally accepted categorizations that White has foisted on his readership. show less