James White, burned like Eck in Protestant fashion

"The modern love for manuscripts was no part of the history [of Christianity down through the ages]. Mss. were not the object of devotion. Mss. were not looked upon as "treasure," "blessing to the church," etc. This is the language of modern empiricism. When one hears this language come from a speaker one should immediately recognise a departure from true Protestantism.

The text underlying the AV is the reformation text. The translators did not consult "mss." in the sense the word is used of Sinaiticus. The "treasure" is the Word; the revelation of God's will and its preservation is the "blessing to the church." Protestants recognised that this treasure and blessing was to be found uncorrupted in the text which had passed down to them."

- Rev. Matthew Winzer
Australian Free Church,
Victoria, Australia

This is a powerful rebuke that I had not seen nor thought of before. The context of this statement is statements made by James White in his debate with Chris Pinto. White began to waft poetic about how Sinaiticus was a treasure and blessing to the Church and so on. Mr. Winzer has identified White's (and all supporters of the Critical Text industry and their bibles) foundational approach. White undoubtedly has said similar things in the past yet has never been exposed on it. He's exposed now. Look for him to incorporate a Satanic defense for it in the future, pretending self-awareness all the while as to what he was doing in expressing such things in such a way. "The language of modern empiricism" indeed. James White, burned like Eck in Protestant fashion. Not on a stake, but on his own worldly presuppositions.

* * * * * * *

Somebody questioned Winzer on Christians not seeing manuscripts as treasure: "[W]hy do you say they didn't see Mss as a "treasure"? Witness Calvin for example who many times refers to "older" and "better" manuscripts." (The person who wrote this question, by the way, missed the entire point of Winzer's previous post, which unfortunately is par for the course in these discussions. I.e. the King Rats of the Critical Text industry rely on their vast army of useful idiots to run interference when necessary.)

Winzer responded: "I see where Calvin refers to mss. as witnessing to the reliability of a reading. I do not see where he speaks of mss. themselves as being God's blessing and gift to the church. This kind of language is a part of the infatuation which develops with archaeological discoveries and an over-appreciation for material evidence. Calvin fought a good fight against relic-worship. I doubt seriously that he would have contributed towards another form of it."

(Also, one of the foundational points that Winzer himself introduced to that Puritanboard forum which gets lost constantly is there is a difference between editing a received stream of similar manuscripts vs. *constructing* a new manuscript from divergent sources. The Critical Text industry which White champions is engaged in doing the latter. The Reformation did the former.)

Another major point in all this is this is nothing less than the Counter-Reformation all over again. The main battle thrust of the Romanist Counter-Reformation against the Reformation was to introduce various manuscripts and Bible versions with different readings with the sole purpose of attempting to get Protestants to lose faith in an inerrant and God-preserved word of God and thus to then give their 'faith' back to men and the word of man which would be the Pope and Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.