Three Old Titles Become New Again on Kindle

Every now and then I get a phone call from someone wanting to find one of James’ first three books in our bookstore. These titles have been out of print since Crowne Publications closed its doors around 1993. While the technology of our world has raced forward I am not always able to keep up with it’s advances. I can only hope to eventually get around to it. Two years ago I determined to find a way to scan these titles and get them published on Kindle and bring new life to them. Well, something always seems to come up with these endeavors and the project went to the back burner. Last week I received another such phone call asking about The Fatal Flaw. I was convicted by this and started asking around in order to find a fast track to complete this project and the channel rats came through by helping me navigate the process quickly.

With all of that said, I am pleased to announce that the following titles are now again publicly available.

The Fatal Flaw

Answers to Catholic Claims

Justification by Faith


P.S. I see that our old Romanist friend Art Sippo was quick to offer his unique style of comment on the Answers to Catholic Claims book. ;-) If you want to hear Art in action you can listen to a portion of his debate with James on Justification. I say a portion because Catholic Answers “lost” the second half. Either way it is enlightening to hear.

Dialogue with Elder Rawchaa Shayar on Hebrew Israelism

Well, this program won’t be interesting for everyone, but for those who are interested in a dialogue on key issues with a representative of Hebrew Israelism—should fit the bill!  A little over an hour with Elder Rawchaa Shayar on the deity of Christ, the Bible, Babylon—lots and lots of things.  Best to be sitting down for this one!

Here is the YouTube link:

KJVO Discussion, the Pope Escapes His Handlers Again, Debate Tomorrow, the Trinitarian Controversy

Covered a WIDE range of topics today.  Started off expressing our deep condolences to Tony Bartolucci and his family in the death of his daughter Giana.  Then we discussed the debate we will be doing tomorrow at 4pm with representatives of the Hebrew Israelite movement.  Moved from there to a discussion of Jeremiah 34:16 and Romans 13:9 and King James Onlyism.  Then we discussed the Pope escaping his handlers again and proclaiming live-in cohabitations valid marriages, and finally spent a good half an hour or more on the “Eternal Functional Subordination” controversy, spending some time reading from Reymond’s Systematic Theology as well.  A wide variety of topics, to be sure!

I mentioned some links I was going to include to K. Scott Oliphint’s discussions of the assets of the Son.  They are found here and here.

Here is the YouTube link:

Consistency and Fairness Once Again; Then More on the Comma and Textual Criticism

Managed to sneak in a third Dividing Line this week (since I have no idea what the next few weeks will bring, for, uh, medical reasons).  Yup, talked a bit more about fairness, consistency, etc., and then moved on to a bit more on textual criticism, traditionalism, and the Comma Johanneum.  I don’t know when the next DL will be, but, we will let folks know here, on Twitter, and on Facebook.  Unless, of course, we get kicked out of social media before then!

Here is the YouTube link:

Of Hearing, But Not Hearing

Why is it that some people simply refuse to hear what you are saying? How can you state something as clearly as it could possibly be stated, but they still hear only part of it, rather than the whole?
Bigotry. A deep dedication to a set of propositions that end up functioning as a filter that screens out all opposing facts or concepts. That’s how, that’s why.
Screen Shot 2016-06-16 at 5.55.54 AM (2)For the past decade I have been seeking to communicate the gospel to the Muslim people. I have proclaimed the same message to them that I proclaim to all the other groups to whom I seek to proclaim the gospel: true peace with God can only be found in the repentance and faith in Jesus the Messiah. There is no other way. Without Jesus, you have no peace—no peace with God, and, as a result, no true or lasting peace with others. There is only one way, only one God-ordained, God-given, God-determined way of peace with Him. Since Jesus is the unique Incarnate One, trying to find any other way of peace with God will result in disaster and is, in fact, an act of rebellion against God, for it is a positive statement that He lied in testifying of Jesus as His Son by raising Him from the dead.
I have proclaimed the perfection of Christ’s atonement, and its utter necessity and perfection, in every context I have found: whether on the Internet, the Dividing Line, or in person in debates quite literally around the world.
No one can possibly point to a single time I have contradicted myself on this point. And yet, despite this, I have Christians speaking as these have spoken in the graphic I am attaching to this post. Why? Well, here is the thought process. In their thinking, Islam is one, monolithic faith. No variation, no differences. Their arguments against Islam depend upon their ability to say THIS is Islam, all of it, in its entirety, and since it is wrong about this, therefore, my case is established. Islam is a false religion. Repent and believe!
The problem is, Islam is not a monolithic faith. While you can surely identify a core set of teachings, the outworking of those teachings, and how they are understood, and practiced, and promoted, today, differs around the world. This is not even an arguable point, but many have so little contact with, and knowledge of, the variety of expressions within Islam that it is easy for them to dismiss this reality, especially since it threatens their (at times) simplistic apologetic approach.
Has anyone ever heard me say “Islam is a religion of peace?” No, they have not. Given my fundamental belief in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only means of peace with God, how could I say that of anything or anyone who denies the Christian message? Sadly, many of these Christians have fallen into the trap of defining “peace” as the world does: in reference to external conflict, terrorism, jihad, etc., rather than thinking from a biblical perspective first, recognizing that the rejection of Jesus as the sole mediator between God and men of necessity precludes Islam from giving true peace to men (a “mere prophet” is insufficient to bring about that peace).
But even if we were to limit our examination of “peace” to external conflict, it is painfully obvious that the meaning of terms like “jihad” does differ within the Islamic community. Attempting to deny this requires a tremendous effort at redefinition that mainly takes the form of, “Well, if a Muslim disagrees with my definition of what they mean by jihad, they are not really a Muslim.” And you can always find Muslims to aid you in that task, since, of course, the ISIS style Muslims, who are busily murdering other Muslims for disagreeing with them, make the same argument. Of course, making ISIS style thinking the standard of how you argue might not be wise, but who am I to point that out?
What IS without argument is that there are *streams* of Islamic belief and expression that are more peaceful, outwardly, than others. The toxic, self-destructive forms, *which I have always said have deep and ancient roots in the Islamic tradition itself,* often turn on each other, leading to the conflict so often seen down through Islamic history. But one must be blind, or bigoted, or just willfully dishonest, to not see that the history of Islam *as a whole* is not just one massive bloodbath. There have been times of peace and stability where a progressive culture was created that produced philosophers and mathematicians and scientists. I would argue that form of Islam is highly susceptible, however, to the corrosive effect of the ISIS style of jihadism, and it is so because of the *inability* of the religion’s founding documents to fend off the very man-centered, “this really proves total depravity is true all around the world” impulses of low-order Islam. But the fact remains that, by God’s common grace, a higher-order Islam has existed, and continues to exist through to this day. I know, personally, Muslims who remain faithful to the central tenets of their faith who would never accept any definition of their faith that would lead them to murder their fellow men. Argue that they are not Muslims all you want: all you are doing is demonstrating why the conflict exists in the first place.
The problem with the question “Is Islam a religion of peace” is that it assumes an obvious definition of “Islam” that history, reason, experience, and study, says does not exist. Far better is honesty: the form of Islam being promoted most widely in our world today (Wahhabism) is NOT, and cannot be, a religion of peace in either the fullest or more narrow externalistic sense. Its founding principles demand that it be war-like and that it use force as the means of ensuring external obedience to its interpretation of sharia. But demanding that this corrosive form be taken as the only representative of Islam is to make the very same mistake the secular world does in demanding I answer for the Westboro Baptists and Steven Andersons and Walid Shoebats of the world. And since I know every single one of those who are twisting my words, ignoring my meaning, etc., make those very distinctions, in fact, demand that they be made for their own personal interests, I point out the hypocrisy of the double standard.
Do Muslims do to me exactly what these Christians do to Muslims? ALL. THE. TIME. Is it more common for Muslims to broad-brush than it is for Christians to do it? I firmly believe so! Does any of that give us an excuse to continue to fail to think clearly, fairly, and accurately? Can anything allow a Christian to use double standards? The answer is, to those with ears to hear, and minds to think, clear.