I think it is nice that you are defending him. As I've said before, I haven't read the book myself. I just posted a link to an interesting perspective. I think NO MAN is above criticism. But I can believe what you say that he would never KNOWINGLY do anything unbiblical. I think the points about the missing doctrine are solid, if true. I think the points about his motive are weak. Who can know?
The critique I posted didn't completely slam him, by the way.