Blog

Well, I’ve given him more than enough time. I know he has received my e-mails. He simply will not respond. Though I have asked him to back up his strong statements, Dr. Douglas Stauffer, author of One Book Stands Alone, will not do so. Though he has stooped to unsubstantiated, false ad-hominem, he will not so much as respond to

I’ve written to Dr. Stauffer and asked him to stand behind his published statements. I’ve invited him to join me on the DL, and inquired about his willingness to publicly debate the issues. Though a number of days have passed, he has so far declined even replying to my e-mails. I’m wondering if he will end up like D.A. Waite,

A lot of you were a bit shocked at the vitriol expressed by Mr. Dries a few days ago. Believe me, in the years since I wrote The King James Only Controversy I’ve seen it all before. “You God-hater! You Bible-hater! You are trying to destroy people’s faith!” etc. and etc. Emotionalism is an ever-present part of dedication to that

Evidently Dr. Stauffer is a hyper-dispensationalist, limiting the NT Scriptures that are “for the church” to the Pauline epistles, etc. No wonder his “exegesis” of Titus 2:13 is next to impossible to understand. David Cloud writes, According to Stauffer, Paul is THE spokesman for the church age (p. 17); the general epistles of Hebrews to Revelation, while containing some church

First impression: absolutely nothing new here, nothing beyond what KJV Onlyism has been offering for forty years. Not a smidgeon of meaningful interaction with my own work. Same ol’ same ol’.     But, there are a few almost humorous things, and some completely absurd things. You will find this book filled with standard KJV Only “loaded language” throughout. In the

The gentleman on the Puritanboard (since banned) that I replied to Tuesday on the DL–the one who referred me to Stauffer’s book–has informed me of his views of me and my replies to his statements. I post this to illustrate the spirit of KJV Onlyism and as evidence, since some seem to need it, in support of my statement that

I promised to continue responding to Sean McDonald (who called the DL) and the article he posted on the Puritanboard. He asked, 3. Is it just defense of the Johannine Comma which earns your stern rebuke, or do you include Byzantine priority and (general) defense of the TR in said rebuke? I think I’ve been very clear that this entire

I did a little looking around the net for materials by Dr. Stauffer, and very quickly ran across this article. And it took just a moment to read this: The Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope’s library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai) were the two texts that

Today on the DL I responded to a series of posts that appeared on the Puritanboard web-board, and then took two calls, one from one of the folks on the Puritanboard itself (though not the fellow who I invited to call in). We even went a little long to get our second caller in. Here’s the program.     One of

I was just reading a post by Michael Dries of Christ Community Church, Folsom, CA, which likened me to an atheist and refers to my “sophistry.” I think I’ll respond to Mr. Dries on the DL this morning, and if perchance he should be made aware of this (I looked for an e-mail address, but could not find one), I