Dr. James White says Traditionalism is "almost impossible to critique."

About this sermon

Dr. White continues to resort to a marginalization tactic where by he deems Professor Flower's argument unworthy of his time on the basis that its unique alone to Flowers (idiosyncratic). But, Dr. White, at other times, has said, "Flowers sounds like most Southern Baptists," or "Flowers has obviously been influenced by NT Wright." Which is it? Is Flowers a new unique strange breed of theology or a "typical" representative of Traditionalist Southern Baptists? Dr. White needs to make up his mind and stick to a uniform defense in order to maintain any level of credibility in his dealing with Flowers. I cannot find any worthwhile distinction between Prof. Flowers views and Dr. Michael Brown's philosophical answers to Dr. White's arguments. Can any of you? I didn't think so. Yet, notice how Dr. White responds to Dr. Brown in contrast to how he responds to Prof. Flowers. That alone should reveal that this is a diversion tactic unique to how White has chosen to "deal with" Flowers rather than actual scholarly argumentation fitting a scholar of Dr. White's notoriety. Objective observers are going to see through this diversion tactic.