Sorry, I am being unclear again. What I was referring to is the age old debate of the Alexandrian vs the Berzantine Texts. Many make a huge deal about that issue and I think it was you that once said something to the effect that this has been debated for centuries, but you choose to focus on the Formal Equivance vs the Dynamic Equivalence. Perhaps I have misunderstood you on that issue?
I know this particular matter is a little more that the Alexandrian Text vs the Berzantine Text. To tell you the truth, as I study this issue, I am finding it hard to understand some of the issues involved. Yet, that has never stopped me before, if It did I probably would still be Arminian in my soteriology today.
I do understand what you mean about removing part of the foundation and agree. Yet is it really true? Have people like James White unwittingly bought into a lie. Or perhaps, they are purposely doing so to support an agenda?
Sorry, my head is starting to spin.
I was recently told about a debate between James White and another Reformed Christian by the name of Robert Truelove, that although I have not watched it yet, sounds like it deals with this issue.