On February 18, 2023, when Thomas Ross debated James White on the superiority of the KJV and its underlying text to the LSV and its underlying text, I was overseas.  I got back to the United States yesterday.  After the debate, I tried to find information about it, and could find very little to none.  As of right now, I have watched a short interview someone made with Thomas Ross and a five minute criticism by James White on his dividing line program.

Criticism of Thomas Ross in the Debate

Most of the combined time of the two critical pieces after the debate dealt with one thing Thomas Ross said after the debate (not during).  Thomas said he was Landmark (watch here).  I don’t have a problem with his calling himself “Landmark.”  It wasn’t wrong.  I would not have done it in an interview, but I am glad Thomas stands by what he believes on this.

In his five minute critique of Thomas Ross on his Dividing Line, James White attacks the style of Brother Ross (between 8:45 and about 15:00).  He mocks Thomas in in an insulting way for more than half his five to seven minutes because he talked too fast and used too many powerpoint slides.

All the while, in his inimitable way James White praises both his own style and his own humility.  In hindsight, White should win because he used less slides and related to his audience better, not because he made better points or told the truth.  Is this the standard for a debate?  I haven’t seen the debate, but it would not surprise me if Thomas could have communicated better, but in the end, was he telling the truth?  Did he make arguments that White did not answer and did he answer or refute White’s arguments?

Landmark?

White took a shot at Thomas Ross for being Landmark.  He does not deal with it substantively, which is quite normal for White.  He uses it to smear Thomas Ross.  This is a debate technique often used by White.

The man, who interviewed Thomas Ross, asks him about Athanasius not using 1 John 5:7.  Thomas gives a good answer.  As a part of the answer, Thomas distinguishes Athanasius as state church.  Since Thomas had likely just promoted a position on the church keeping God’s Words, he did not espouse Roman Catholic Athanasius as a true church.

As a separate point, is White right that Landmarkism is a flawed historical position?  In his twitter feed, White says:

I wish I had known about the Landmarkism as it would have clarified a few statements in the debate. Landmarkism is without merit, historically speaking, of course.

Knowing Thomas was Landmark would not have changed the debate on the preservation of scripture.  It wouldn’t.

No Issue

I get along well on the preservation issue with people who take another ecclesiological position than I do.  I and others can separate this line to keep what we have in common.  The confessional position of the reformed Baptists and Presbyterians says that God used the church to keep or acknowledge the canonicity of the New Testament text.  Its adherents would say, “God used the church to keep His Words.”  I would say, “God used the church to keep His Words.”

The reformed and Presbyterian both say the true church is universal.  I say it is local.  They say all believers kept God’s Words.  I say, true churches, which believe in regenerate membership, kept God’s Words.  This difference does not change what we believe on preservation.  It would influence a debate about the nature of the church, which isn’t the debate here.

Neither James White nor any one else since the debate has explained why Landmarkism has no merit.  The ex cathedra speech of White gives him his only authority.  White clarifies that Landmarkism has no merit, ‘historically speaking.’  That is the most common criticism against Landmarkism.  It can’t be proven historically.  This parallels with White’s main criticism of the preservation of scripture.  It can’t be proven historically.  Does that make what God says in his Word, not true?

If we can’t prove the doctrine of justification historically, does that nullify justification?

Historicism

God does not require anyone to prove a position is historically superior.  That itself is a position without merit.  White selectively supports historicism when it is convenient for him.  God didn’t promise to preserve history.  The true position is not the one with the most historical evidence.

However, as a matter of faith, we look to history.  We look to see God doing what He said He would do.  We don’t have to prove He did something in every moment of every day of every year that He said He would.  Historicism parallels with so-called science (cf. 1 Tim 6:20).  Science cannot prove a universal negative.  Roman Catholicism burned and destroyed the historical evidence of other positions.  “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11:1).

True Churches, Not Athanasius

Foundational to Landarkism is the perpetuity of the church.  God works through true churches.  True churches always existed throughout history separate from the state church.  Since the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, we trust those churches above the state church.  With that as his position, Thomas Ross in part says that he respects the Waldensian text above the work of Athanasius.

We can enjoy good work from Athanasius without looking to him as a primary source.  I agree with Thomas Ross.  We can quote the verbiage of Athanasius to show an old defense of the deity of Christ.  He is helpful in that way.  No one should give too much credit to him.  He was not part of the pillar and ground of the truth.

I would gladly debate James White on the text of scripture, the doctrine of preservation, or on the nature of the church.  To win the debate, of course I would need to use less powerpoint slides than he and interact with my audience in a helpful way after the supreme model of James White.  James White though not the pillar and ground of the truth is at least the pillar and ground of debate style.