Mark Ward Says in a Recent Youtube Video Concerning Thomas Ross:  “I Regard Him as an Extremist of a Particularly Dangerous Kind, the Kind that Is Super Intelligent”

Thomas Ross debated James White last year with White arguing in the affirmative the proposition that a new translation, the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), was superior to the King James Version (KJV).  Ross took the opposition.   Since White was in the affirmative, Ross refuted White’s arguments for that proposition.  The above quote from Ward comes from an introduction to the first of three videos he is producing to answer ones Thomas Ross made after the White debate.

Answering Thomas Ross gets far more traffic for Ward at his site.  I don’t want to make it easier for him, so I’m not linking to his series.  You can find it on your own, if you want to see it.  He also mentions me in the video.

An Extremist of a Particularly Dangerous Kind?

So why does Ward say Thomas is “an extremist of a particularly dangerous kind”?  He gives no reasons.  None.  The definition of ad hominem is this:  “(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.”  Like James White himself, Ward attacks Thomas Ross as a person and not his position.  He does not explain.  I’m saying this is appalling slander of Ross by Ward.

What does Ward mean, “extremist”?  The definition of “extremist” itself is derogatory.  Collins Dictionary defines extremist:

1. a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical. adjective. 2. of, relating to, or characterized by immoderate or excessive actions, opinions, etc.

And then Ward says Ross is “of a particularly dangerous kind.”  So Thomas Ross is not just “dangerous,” but “particularly dangerous.”  Those words themselves are extreme.  Their very mention of another person, a truly saved person as Thomas Ross, requires explanation.  Ward gives none.  He just makes the claim.

What Ross Does

Thomas Ross is careful first to come from scripture.  He exposes or exegetes scripture very carefully for his positions.  Second, he backs his positions with historical doctrine.  He shows how that others in the past take the position, so his doctrine is not new or innovative.

In his debate with White, Ross dismantled White’s position with evidence, point by point.  White himself resorted to ad hominem style arguments by regularly pointing out how fast Ross talked and judged his motives.  He never answered Ross’s primary argument against the underlying text of the LSB and other modern versions of the Bible.  Ross showed plainly how that in hundreds of places, lines of underlying Greek text behind the LSB had zero manuscript evidence.  Instead of answering, which he couldn’t, White insulted Thomas Ross as a person, just like Ward is doing.  This shouldn’t help White or Ward.  It should warn off their listeners.

Ward Poisons the Well

Ward is free to go ahead and make statements like he did about Thomas Ross.  He can do that, but anyone reading should take note of what he is doing.  His statement should discredit him.  It is a classic, informal logical fallacy called, “poisoning the well,” which means the following:

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).

Ward and his audience very often attack the persons of their opposition.  Ross offered a face-to-face discussion or debate with Ward and Ward refused.  He says it is because Ross is an extremist and dangerous, and then he proceeds to treat Ross as though his arguments were legitimate, needing addressing.  Do you see the obvious contradiction there?  Ward contradicts his own fallacious reasoning.

Any Reasons for Ad Hominem Attack by Ward?  None

The only possible reason one could ascertain for why Ward poisons the well and uses the ad hominem against Ross is because Thomas Ross is “super intelligent.”  Why would intelligence and even super intelligence be a negative for someone on a subject matter?  Ross doesn’t claim super intelligence for himself.  Ward made that claim for Ross and gave it as the only reason for Ross’s extremism and danger.

Mark Ward explained that when Ross offered him an in person debate, his counsellors told him that it was not worthy of Ward’s own personal gifts and the purposes of his work.  And yet Ward has plenty of time to produce three videos dealing with “super intelligent” Ross, where Ross cannot answer him in person.  What evaluation could someone make of such a dodge of Ross by Ward?

Think of Wards accusations if it were a court of law, where the accused “extremist” and “particularly dangerous” individual cannot answer his accuser.  Only the prosecution speaks.  Ward sits alone and makes slanderous declarations against Ross with no cross examination.  This is unjust treatment of unbiblical and sinful manner.

Injustice toward Ross

Psalm 89:14 says:

Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

Proverbs 21:3 says:

To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

It is not just to make a false, slanderous accusation against a godly Christian man like Thomas Ross, no explanation or reasons, and not give him a face to face opportunity to answer his accusation.  This is not due process.  It is not justice.  Mark Ward treats Thomas Ross in a manner of contempt like Jesus warned against in Matthew 5:21-26, akin to murdering someone in his heart.  A man claiming to be a Christian like Ward should not treat another man, whether Christian or not, with contempt.  Ward treats a believer like Ross with contempt.

Doubling Down on Appalling Slander of Ross

Someone in the comment section dealt with Ward’s appalling slander of Ross, when he wrote:

It seems interesting that you would make the claim that Ross is a “extremist of a particularly dangerous kind” because he is “super intelligent”. When the same could, and probably should, be said about you. Btw. This comment meets your comment requirements because it is no more of an ad hominem attack than you yourself made.

To that, Ward answered:  “I stand by what I said. Every word.”  He had a great opportunity to retract, and he didn’t.  Instead, he doubled down on his appalling slander of a Christian gentleman and scholar.

Ross wasn’t even dealing with Ward in the videos to which Ward refers.  He was elaborating on the arguments of the White debate.

Ross Not Extreme or Dangerous

What makes anyone an extremist and dangerous and then on this issue of the intelligibility of the KJV?  Ross takes the position that God preserved all of the words of God in their original language for every generation of believer.  Is that really an extreme and dangerous position now?  It is the biblical and historical position of the church.

Ross answers arguments against the intelligibility of the KJV made by White in the debate.  Truly saved people all over the United States still use the KJV in their churches.  It is still the most commonly used version of the Bible in conservative Bible believing churches in the United States.  It’s not extreme to do so.  And it is not extreme to defend the intelligibility of the KJV.  There are good arguments for its continuation, which is why so many people still do use the King James.

Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray Recently on the KJV

I was listening to Jordan Peterson in an interview with British conservative journalist Douglas Murray.  Peterson asked Murray:

I have a friend who is extremely erudite and literate and charismatic and maybe Canada’s most remarkable journalist. . . . He has the knowledge a vast corpus of poetry and its evident in the manner in which he speaks, because he has that lilt and cadence and rhythm that’s part and parcel.  And you’re very very well spoken.

And Peterson asks Murray to what he attributes that quality of his.  Murray answers:

In my case it is the great good fortune of having been brought up with the King James Bible, . . . . which if you have [that] in your head and you recite [it] every Sunday, gives you a pretty good idea of how to cadence the English language.

Murray characterized this as ‘furnishing his mental furniture and having to furnish it well.’  Murray didn’t see the King James Bible as extreme and dangerous to his public usage of language and understanding how to speak to a modern culture.  No, it was a great help, the greatest help to his speaking ability, communicating to a contemporary people.

It is not good at all to slander your Christian opponents as a strategy to discredit them with ad hominem attacks.  This is what Ward and White do and very often from which I’ve seen and read.  I call on Ward to cease, desist, and retract such appalling slander about Thomas Ross and others.