Greetings from Florida,

Many years ago I read an article by James White in the Christian Research Journal on the doctrine of the Trinity. This article caused me to understand the subject better and enabled me to witness to folks in the UPCI. Our church has hosted two debates on the subject in the past five years and we have seen some folks strengthened from these discussions and we have seen some leave the UPCI. I personally pass out "The forgotten Trinity" at these discussions as well. All of this is a result of reading that one article.

I was formally anti-Calvinist as well, though still not a Calvinist, I am now open to seriously studying the subject because of James' attitude with others that are non-Calvinist. I now have many friends that are Calvinist and have realized that you can't judge all Calvinist alike.

Finally, this ministry continues to bless me with the wonderful articles, books, and especially the debates. I pray for James and alpha and omega ministry on a regular basis. This is a very unique ministry indeed and it must continue.

--DA

It point (as it always has) to the central flaw at the core of Calvinism: its deep and fundamental inhumanity....Logical completeness and spiritual contraction fits the madness that is Calvinism perfectly....Normal people do not pit God against his good creatures this way. But Calvinism (which Trent analyzed as a resurgent form of Manichaeaism) routinely does, at least in it anti-Catholic polemics. Of course, five centuries has done something to wear the edge of Calvinism more demented hatred of creatures....Instead, the Calvinist zealot now confines his denunciation of enjoyment, supplication, and love of creatures strictly and solely to those creatures who happen to be dead....I doubt this correspondent can be persuaded to disengage from the project of downloading pre-recorded Calvinist boilerplate to consider such an obvious bit of common sense. But I hope others, not caught in the grip of Calvinist insanity, might.

A reader asks:

Why isn't Mary considered the first priest since she actually brought Christ into this world?

Well, in a certain sense she is since she participates in the common priesthood of all the baptized. However, the short answer is: Because Christ did not ordain her to the sacerdotal priesthood.

I suggest this. Pick one sermon - say the Prestonwood Baptist Church sermon from 2001. (Sorry that the link is to AOMin, but hey, I'm not the one taking down links to my sermons all over the web!) Listen to that sermon, and compare it to the established facts about Caner's background. The conclusion is inescapable.

A kid from Ohio went around right after 9-11 telling churches that he was trained as a Jihadist/terrorist while he was growing up in Turkey.

1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. // 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

22:41:53 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

Radio Free Geneva: Second Program on Jack Graham Anti-Calvinism Sermon

09/30/2005 - James White

   Today's DL continued the Radio Free Geneva series in identifying the recent anti-Calvinism sermon of Jack Graham of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas as "one of the worst," and today we hear why with the repeated mis-citation of Titus 2:11 and the mis-citation of Matthew 23:37 as well. Words just disappear right off the page of Scripture when your tradition glasses are that thick! Listen in here.

17:09:25 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

After Many Weeks of Silence...

10/09/2006 - James White

   Personally, I think it is somewhat symbolic of not only the past eight months worth of attempted interaction, but of the entire situation in seeking to have meaningful debate and biblically-based dialogue with the opponents of God's freedom in salvation in the Southern Baptist Convention. You've read the e-mail I posted that was sent to all parties; you've read the immediately preceding article in which I documented various of the aspects of the recent situation leading to the cancellation of the debate. You will note that in all of this, Ergun Caner was silent, and has been silent for a number of months, actually (all replies came from Emir, not Ergun). So what would the first statements by the President of Liberty Seminary be like? Would they be focused upon issues, providing insight and helpful context, free of insults or name-calling? Well, we no longer have to wait. Compare and contrast, if you will. I hardly need provide more commentary:

Calvinist Debate Cancelled by Hyper-calvinist
James White backs out of the debate. Refused to submit to moderator rules. Details will follow tonight.

08:04:11 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Quick and Stupid Note

05/04/2005 - James White

1) I do not know who put up the Dave Armstrong blog. I was pointed to it last night.
2) If they did not obtain permission from Angel for the use of his cartoon, whoever it is should take it down.
3) If you want to see how to deal with Dave Armstrong, look back a few months to what happened when I invested the time to dig into his book. Response? Bluster, sputter, retreat, collapse, invisibility, Lent.

   UPDATE: DA blogged some more on his speculations concerning his anonymous pseudo-blogger. I'm sorry, but anyone in DA's position, who is constantly throwing stuff out there, is simply playing games if he then decides on some arbitrary standard as to who is an "anti-Catholic," and then on that basis, says he will not interact with them (though, of course, he can make comments about them all he wants, he just doesn't have to actually respond to refutations). As he commented on this current odd situation he just had to add, "rather, one should look to his critique of one of my arguments (quite conveniently, after I made a resolution not to dialogue with anti-Catholics anymore), as the proper way to do it." Mr. Armstrong is once again re-writing history. As anyone can see by going back to the records, Armstrong made the most recent version of his "I will not respond to anti-Catholics" promise after and as a direct result of my critiquing his book. In fact, at first, he tried to respond to my articles (here's an example). But it was painfully clear he was in way over his head, so he all of a sudden had a change of heart and issued his "don't respond to anti-Catholics" decree. Now he would have his readers thinking he actually did so before I began my review, so that I was taking the easy road in going after him only after I knew I would be "safe" from his brilliant and awe-inspiring rebuttals, which, sadly, the world cannot now see because he is so consistent in keeping his oaths. Please! Someone fax over some reality to Mr. Armstrong.

09:04:55 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

A Few Miscellaneous Notes on a Wednesday

09/22/2010 - James White

Randy wrote:

Regarding today's Dividing Line, you *do* use "Anti-Calvinist" quite a bit, along with "Anti-Trinitarian," and "Anti-Reformed" rather than calling them by their "postive" terms. So, stay consistent as to whether people should be defined by what they are positively (Arminian, Oneness believers) or whether it's fair game for folks to call each other Anti- whatever. Because, you do it too, which I've found unfortunate at times.

I note that David Armstrong, Catholic Apologist and Graphic Distorter Extraordinaire, likewise did a search for "anti" on my website.

Of course, what I was referring to is the use of the term "anti-Catholic" as a buzz term meant to poison the well. When I refer to Roman Catholic apologists I refer to them as just that: Roman Catholic apologists. I refer to Mormon apologists, Islamic apologists, etc. I do not make my position the norm and then define everyone else thereby. While there are some who could be rightly described by such very limited phraseology (those who never make a positive presentation of their own positions, and are focused solely upon a single "error" to which they respond constantly), the Roman Catholic use of this phrase "anti-Catholic" is so constant and so transparently meant to conjure up images of Jack Chick that I feel my meaning was quite plain.

What is more, there is, obviously, a world of difference between identifying a statement by someone as "anti-Reformed" (as you can identify many such statements from the likes of Dave Hunt or the leadership of Calvary Chapel) and engaging in the mantra-like repetition of "anti-Catholic" that one hears on EWTN. This is a simple matter of contextualization and not engaging in basic category errors.

Next, we get some real doozies when it comes to e-mails, especially from our Roman Catholic friends. Months ago I got this one, was going to post it, but never go around to it. Since I got another interesting one this morning, I thought I'd dig it up. Julie wrote in:

ALthough Mr. White has a fair amount of knowledge, it is quite apparent (not only from his writings but from watching him speak) that his spiritual life is not very deep and is over reliant on emotion. Interestingly, the famous Carl Jung said "I have treated many hundreds of patients, the larger number, being Protestants, a smaller number Jews and not moire than 5 or 6 believing Catholics". His observations where confirmed by others: Catholics who followed their faith had less anxiety and turmoil inside then Protesants. You all need the sacraments, my friends. The Last Supper was prefigured by the wedding of Cana; a substantial change happens at both. Jesus was very anxious to have SUPPER with his disciples, not just to talk with them. It is a memorial of his sacrifice, for the pain and lacerated body are not present on the altar at Mass, but His glorified body, presenting his sacrifice forever to the Father. Jesus wants to get as close to your heart as He can. You are what you eat. Mr. White can become another Christ, but it is his chose. His calvinism probably psychological influences his lack of decision on this matter. Some of his arguments are sound, but in general he is wrong and leading people astray. May God have mercy on his soul...

I wasn't aware Rome granted to its followers the ability to read hearts and minds! In any case, this next one came in this morning from a "proud convert to the Universal Church of Christ" (ever noticed how rarely these folks talk about being converted to Christ, but instead, to Rome?) named Charles:

I notice that at the top of your page you cite Luther's 5 solas. Does Mr. White also believe in the real presence of the Eucharist, Baptismal grace, and the Immaculate Conception? From my reading this website I would say not. So if not Luther, who has interpreted the Bible without error? Anyone? Are only those who are as smart as Mr. White able to discern what the Bible really means? At one point, Mr. White has to realize that he is fighting a war, not for God, but for his own personal beliefs about God. What makes him feel good inside is what must be the truth. I for one, thought not nearly as educated as Dr. White, am happy to follow, without question, a Church that at least states that Christian Dogma has little to do with an exercise of the mind, but rather an exercise of the soul and heart.

A Proud Convert (2 years) to the Universal Church of Christ.

This website is just plain ridiculous in it's premise that the Catholic Church hasn't gotten anything right. I'd rather trust the Holy Spirit than a man, no matter how brilliant and well-researched his positions.

One can only hope and pray such glib blindness will be removed by sovereign grace so that the gospel of Jesus Christ may become clear to Julie and Charles.

10:19:55 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Wow...Psalm 135:6 and John 6:44 Thrown Out...Musically

01/04/2007 - James White

   The Calvinist Gadfly posted this. It's...uh...wow. Be prepared.

00:01:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Today on a Mega Sized Radio Free Geneva

08/18/2011 - James White

I do not know if we have ever done a two hour DL before. Possibly. In any case, I did not even get through half of what I wanted to cover. So, we will do another DL, though not a two hour one, tomorrow. Might go for a jumbo, we will see. In any case, today I dedicated the program to responding to the outrageous statements made by Tucson area youth pastor Micah Coate, a 32 year old gentleman who just put out a candidate for "The Worst Book Ever Written Against Calvinism," yet a book that carries the endorsements of such men as Paige Patterson, George Bryson, Jerry Vines and Tim LaHaye. It is a classic example of "anti-Calvinism Derangement Syndrome," as I documented today, and will continue tomorrow (along with some other items) in a special Friday morning edition of the DL (11 am MST). Here's the program.

Right now I have two items to get to on tomorrow's program: first, I will go through the saga we discovered this afternoon (thanks to TurretinFan, SirBrass, and AOMin, along with others, for digging the info out of the net) concerning how this utterly absurd and libelous section ended up in George Bryson's book, (cue scary music) The Dark Side of Calvinism, p. 372:

Even more pointed, in comments found on the Internet in a section called “Whilin’ Away the Hours,” the Calvinist John Rabe offers what he calls: “A loose paraphrase from the James White and George Bryson debate on the Bible Answer Man:
“begin paraphrase:
“BRYSON: Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people for no good reason and
causes babies to be raped.
“WHITE: Yes, and here’s why I believe that. Genesis 50 says ...
“end paraphrase[.]
“Yikes! With friends like this who needs enemies?”

Remember what the apostle James says:
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. (James 1:17)
If the Calvinist is right, then James could and perhaps should also have said:
Every good and bad gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights and darkness.
I can understand why the admission of White is so disturbing to Calvinists. In his defense, however, White is only admitting what should be obvious to all Calvinists.

Micah Coate, doing due diligence to check his sources and strive for accuracy, simply took Bryson at face value, did a little editing, and came up with this whopper in his book:

In debating George Bryson, leading Calvinist James White admitted to Calvinism’s view of God. The following is a loose paraphrase from this debate:
BRYSON: Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people and for no good reason causes babies to be raped.
WHITE: Yes, and here’s why I believe that. Genesis 50 says . . .
BRYSON: Yikes! With friends like this who needs enemies?
While White’s response is shocking, I deeply appreciate his honesty in acknowledging the “sovereign” attributes of his god. Because Calvinist theology has misinterpreted certain verses of the Bible for 400 years, they have essentially created a totally new and totally foreign god. (p. 285, Kindle Edition).

We have tracked down the audio clip. Listen for yourself:




I just love the contrast in the methodology and research of the two sides of this issue. Compare and contrast the care I took in tracking down sources in writing The Potter's Freedom; paying people to scan through Chosen But Free looking for Scripture references to make sure I was accurately representing the source (it had a horrible Scripture index and I did not have an electronic version back then), etc., all in an effort to make sure the presentation was not marred by error and straw-man argumentation. And what do we have here? A blog article quoted by a second source in a combox on a website gets picked up by Bryson who was surfing the web trying to find things to put in the new edition of his book to save face over how badly he did in our 2001 debate. Even though George was right there in the studio, and could have checked the recordings for himself, he grabs this absurd little paraphrase, puts it in his book, and then makes an absurd conclusion that he completely knows is utterly false and contradictory to my actual position. Finally, Micah Coate takes Bryson at face value, not knowing he is now putting something out that is about fourth hand and has changed each step of the way that in no way, shape, or form, represents anything even slightly close to the truth, and adds his own incredible "conclusion" at the end as well. A lesson to be learned about the kind of "research" that is acceptable amongst the Hyper Anti-Calvinist crowd, and that gets endorsed by the likes of Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines.

And the second item I want to get to tomorrow is the clip of Dirk Jongkind refuting a key element of Bart Ehrman's textual argumentation. I hope to get to it, we will see.

19:43:14 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Resources for London

01/16/2010 - James White

I just got word on a possible debate topic for Revelation TV, which would be really great. But more importantly, if the hoped for encounter with a particular anti-Trinitarian materializes, there are two resources on the ministry resource list that would be very useful in preparation for that encounter, as both focus upon the OT text as it existed in the days of Jesus, i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls/Qumran materials. The ministry resource list is here, and if you order the list by priority (high to low), I've put those two items in the "highest" category.

It looks like the next six weeks are going to be very, very busy, and not in just one area, either. Anti-trinitarianism, textual issues, Reformed theology, Roman Catholicism, Islam---and it looks like I'm doing the "schedule something just about every day while traveling over seas" thing that doesn't give you a moment to breathe. All prayers on deck, please!

20:14:38 - Category: Resources - Link to this article -

The Two Humanities in Romans 5, and Ergun Caner's Self-Proclaimed Innocence

05/07/2013 - James White

Today on a jumbo length Dividing Line I started off asking for your help to get me to London and South Africa in late September or early October. If you would like to help me get to London for a debate on Roman Catholicism, and then to South Africa for numerous opportunities of teaching, lecturing, but most importantly, to debate Yusuf Ismail, a well known Islamic apologist, click here.

Then I moved on to an explanation of Romans 5:12-19 in light of those who deny such doctrines as federal headship, original sin, etc. It is a challenging passage, and I hope the discussion is helpful for folks.

Finally, we spent the last fifty minutes of the program responding to Ergun Caner's proclamation of his complete innocence and how anyone who has concluded he has lied about his past (as the documentation thoroughly proves) is either a hyper-Calvinist (nothing like a new false definition of that phrase!) or a Muslim! Sorry for all your non-Reformed folks who were offended by Caner's long string of documented falsehoods---you are now a hyper Calvinist or a Muslim!

Here's the program.

19:41:16 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

The July 2007 Berean Call Top 10

07/14/2007 - James Swan

Here is this month's top 10 list of why Dave Hunt's Berean Call should change its name to something else. The following quotations are all from the July issue of The Berean Call. I challenge you to be Berean. Look up the verses provided by The Berean Call, or search your Bibles and history to find out if the assertions made are true.
   
10. "Jews or Gentiles who believed on Christ, but not until they saw Him at the Second Coming, are not in the church but will dwell on earth eternally: in their natural bodies on the new earth with access to the new Jerusalem but not as its residents (Rv 21:24)."
   
9. "Jews saved at the Second Coming will eternally dwell in the promised land of Israel on the new earth (Gen 17:7; 1 Chr 16:14-18; Ezk 32:21-28; 39:27-29; Zec 12:10)."
   
8. "The sudden mass disappearance worldwide of 100 million (or maybe more) of earth's inhabitants will cause a panic beyond anything we can imagine."
   
7. "I believe that all of the babies and small children (of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc.) will also vanish, taken to heaven at the same time."
   
6. "No matter how familiar with the Left Behind series, whoever 'received not the love of the truth...believed not the truth...God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned...' (2 Thes 2:10-12). I don't think that necessarily means they have specifically rejected the gospel of Christ. It could also mean they have rejected the witness of creation and conscience."
   
5. "I agree that Calvinists deserve credit for much of the Christianity of early America, for founding Christian universities, etc. But one cannot praise Calvinism by contrasting the spiritual condition of the church of that day with the apostasy in the church today without including the apostasy in the majority of today's Calvinist churches."
   
4. "The huge difference between the biblical God and the Calvinist God is clear. The biblical God punishes men for rejecting the salvation He provided for everyone, which all could have accepted by their free will- and punishes them for their sins, which are contrary to His will, none of which they had to commit but chose to do so."
   
3. "But the Calvinist God condemns to hell those whom He could save if He so desired but for whom He sovereignly chose not even to have Christ die and from whom He deliberately withholds the salvation He pretends to offer them-and punishes them for not accepting."
   
2."Those whom God, by foreknowledge, knew would receive Christ were elected/predestined to certain blessings. The Bible does not teach that God causes some to believe and refuses to give saving faith to others."
   
1. "It is not true that I teach that everything that happens has all been predetermined by God based upon His foreknowledge. That doesn't even make sense. God wouldn't need foreknowledge to predetermine everything. He would just predetermine it. But God has not predetermined everything that happens in our world. That is Calvinist doctrine. Its denial of man's free will makes a holy God the author of all evil."

13:03:53 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

Today on the DL

09/12/2006 - James White

   Today on the DL I discussed a response written by Robert Sungenis (found here, #13) to a single line found in my August 21 blog entry. It has been posted on the Envoy forums and was forwarded to me by another Roman Catholic who began the e-mail with these words, "Great job Mr. White! Simply dismiss any philosophical, logical distinction between latria and dulia. I guess that your contra dulia/latria argument would work if you could first prove the novel, anti-orthodox, anti-scriptural, heretical position of sola scriptura." I began the program discussing this e-mail, and then moved on to examining the pro-homosexual argument that is used to get around Romans 1, the main "Clobber Passage" as they like to put it. Here's the program.

10:27:03 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Shea Not Willing to Dance to this Particular Piper

11/23/2009 - Tur8infan

Matthew 11:16-17
But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.

Mark Shea seems unhappy (link to his post). He states:

Speaking of weird partisanship, here's yet another Calvinist sitting in the peanut gallery and cheering on the atheists because they happen to be quarreling with Catholics. Better that God be blasphemed than that any slight pettiness of the 16th Century quarrel be abandoned for one second. We must have our priorities!

He's complaining because I posted a link (on my personal blog) to a debate in which a Roman Catholic archbishop and a Roman Catholic member of the British parliament got trounced in a debate with Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry (link to my previous post).

It's not the first time I posted a debate between a Roman Catholic debater and Hitchens. Shea, however, didn't make the same complaint when I posted a link to a debate between Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza (link to my previous post) some time ago.

Perhaps that's because I had positive things to say about Dinesh's performance and negative things to say about the performance of Archbishop Onaiyekan. That is still a bit odd, though, because I didn't see Shea complain when his co-religionist Patrick Madrid posted this same debate and said negative things about Archbishop Onaiyekan's performance (link to Madrid's post).

Shea mentions something about cheering from the peanut gallery, but frankly if you read my post, there isn't actually any "cheering" going on there. In fact, there was more cheering in the Dinesh post than in the Onaiyekan post.

What makes Shea's botched potshot more amusing is that so far no atheists have complained about "weird partisanship" because of my comments about Dinesh, though I spend a larger fraction of my blog addressing the false gospel of Rome than addressing the irrationality of atheism.

Although, in fairness, I did not go un-fired-upon for my posting of the Dinesh debate. Roman Catholic Dave Armstrong did mock me because my post says something nice about Dinesh's performance (link to Dave Armstrong's mockery).

So, when I post a debate that went poorly for Rome, I get targeted by Shea while he leaves Madrid alone; meanwhile when I post a debate that goes well by a Roman Catholic debater I get targeted by Armstrong.

The moral of the story: you can't make folks with double standards happy.

-TurretinFan

16:21:21 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

On Painting with Broad Brushes

03/20/2006 - James White

   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 particular system. And for the few who thought that might bother me, let me assure you: after the fiftieth time you are called the "high priest of the Alexandrian cult" or the like, it really doesn't have the sting it once had.
   Some might say, "Hey, you are painting with a broad brush." I wasn't painting at all. There is a wide, loud, vitriolic stream of KJV Onlyism out there. Ruckmanism, Riplingerism--call it what you will. Even Mr. Dries, an alleged Calvinist, was promoting a book written by a hyper-dispensationalist whose views are very much in line with Ruckman. Are all KJV Only folks a part of this stream? No. In fact, men like David Cloud, though anti-Reformed and surely guilty of poor research in the field, recognize the utter incongruity of the kind of behavior exemplified by these folks and a profession of faith in the Bible: he well knows how difficult it is to maintain some kind of decorum as a promoter of the KJV and yet refrain from behaving in the Ruckmanesque style. He takes heat from that "side" all the time, for to be anything less than utterly nasty is to "compromise" from their viewpoint.
   While I was in the UK I sat down over lunch/dinner with a fine Christian brother. I could never identify this brother simply because he would never hear the end of having broken bread with the anti-Christ himself. Let's call him Rob. I think he would accept the identification of at least being TR Only, if not KJV Only. We discussed, specifically, the Comma Johanneum. We did so forcefully, but in the bonds of brotherhood. I did not convince him, he did not convince me. I personally think I asked some questions that I hope he will think through, but the fact of the matter is that he will remain my brother in Christ whether he does or does not. I pray for him, appreciate his kind spirit and his smiling countenance, and I hope and pray that he recognizes in me the Spirit of Christ and the heart of one who loves the Lord. Not everyone "over there" is as nasty as Mr. Dries.
   But it is just here I have to point out that Rob is the exception that proves the rule. In other words, it is his rarity that exemplifies the attitude we saw in the Dries e-mails, that we see in Stauffer's twisting of almost anything I say, in Ruckman's writings, etc. and etc. The fact that a conversation with him is memorable proves that most of the conversations I have had were just the opposite. It is hard to get very far when the other person identifies you as a "devil-priest." So, I am truly not seeking to paint with a broad brush: I appreciate the minority in that camp that can hold their position without putting me on a greased aerodynamic bobsled destined for a lightning fast ride to the seventh level of hell itself. But the fact that those folks are in the minority is just that: a fact. Anyone who would dare to address the issue directly, as I have, knows I speak the truth.

00:01:00 - Category: King James Onlyism - Link to this article -

As Simply as I Can Put It

08/03/2007 - James White

   Recently Dave Armstrong has been, once again, melting down. Our favorite dendrophilic apologist (my thanks to TQuid for that wonderful term, and please note, "dendrophilic apologist" is abbreviated "da," so, it is doubly fitting) has, of late, become rather free in his insults, racking up an impressive list of ad-hominem commentary, which puts his oft-proclaimed ecumenical kindness in a bit of a bad light. But those of us who have known Armstrong for years are hardly surprised. If you address him, and begin to examine his claims, he responds either in this fashion, or, with the "I'm so hurt, I will never talk to you, or about you, again" ploy, all of which is designed to allow him to avoid having to do serious research and argumentation. His recent use of Peter's addressing the body of a dead girl and commanding her to rise (Acts 9:40) as defense for communication with the dead is just the most recent example of the kind of "apologetic" material he produces.
   In any case, Armstrong is so impressed with his own standing that he seems to think he can make up definitions for words as he goes along. It has been his practice for some time to arbitrarily define the phrase "anti-Catholic" so that he can use it of others but, due to a modern reading of Roman doctrine so as to allow for "separated brethren" to be called "Christians" while still anathematizing their theology, he can't be called an anti-Protestant. So, he arbitrarily defines the phrase so that since I deny Rome's gospel saves, I am an anti-Catholic, but since he can affirm, in some inconsistent and nebulous fashion, that I am a "Christian," then he is not an anti-Protestant.
   Aside from the less than impressive coherence of such arbitrary definitions, Mr. Armstrong has, once again, in his zeal, and in his anger, missed the point. Let me see if I can clarify it, if not for him ("ears to hear"), at least for someone else.
   There are anti-Catholics in the world. That is, their entire "ministry," their entire theology, is defined by their negative reaction to Catholicism. In the same way, there are anti-Mormons, anti-Jehovah's Witnesses, anti-Muslims, anti-Hindus, etc. and etc. Such folks are rarely stable in their faith, and are rarely deeply involved in the worship and service of the church, either. Most are ex-members of the groups that continue to define their lives. I've met them. We all have. And, may I add, there are anti-Protestants as well. There are Roman Catholics who are so focused upon denouncing non-Catholic theology and perspectives that they clearly can be identified with this phrase.
   Now, I am a Protestant apologist. As the term Protestant is so very widely defined today, I prefer a little more specificity: I am a Reformed Baptist apologist. What I do I do not because I am focused upon any one group, but because I am focused positively upon my own profession of faith, and, I consistently defend that positive profession against those who deny its truthfulness. I am an elder, involved in the regular ministry of the church and the teaching of the Word. I have written numerous books on a wide variety of topics. I have defended Christianity in debate against Muslims and atheists; I have defended the Trinity against Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals. I have taught, in formal seminary settings, such courses as Systematic Theology, Christology, Philosophy of Religion, Church History, Greek, Hebrew, special studies in Patristics, and numerous apologetics classes. Anyone who would insinuate that my life, my ministry, my writing, my entire ministry, is somehow defined by a negative stance toward a particular religion, or by Roman Catholicism in particular, is engaging in clear and gross falsehood.
   Further, to be consistent, anyone who would insist upon calling me an "anti-Catholic" would have to likewise refer to me as an anti-Mormon, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Muslim, anti-unitarian, anti-fill-in-the-rest. But who does this? And even if someone were to do so, would the effort not prove, by its ridiculous nature, that it would be far more logical to identify such a person positively by what motivates them and defines their teachings and ministry?
   So, just as I refer to Roman Catholic apologists, Mormon apologists, Islamic apologists, etc., the honest person will refer to me as a Reformed Baptist apologist. As soon as you hear a person, or group, doing the "let's define our critics by our own theology" routine, you need to consider that they may well be using such language not to aid in understanding, but to diminish it through poisoning the well, prejudicing the thinking of especially their own supporters and followers. That is what Catholic Answers is up to. That is what Dave Armstrong is up to. And this activity says much about their motivations and the truthfulness of their teachings.

15:57:22 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

The Dark Side of Calvinism

01/31/2004 - James White

Well, it finally arrived. George Bryson's The Dark Side of Calvinism is finally sitting on my desk. Despite only having "seen it from afar," so to speak, I finally had a chance to look over the work today. The sub-titles are great: "A Biblically-based examination, evaluation, and refutation of the Reformed Doctrine of Redemption and Reprobation" appears at the top of the cover, and under the title we have, "The Calvinist Caste System." Very briefly: it is not a well made book. It is an 8.5 x 11 photocopied "Kinkos" style binding, hence, not overly easy to handle. It has no Scripture index, so, to find out what the book says about any single passage can be very difficult to determine. I likewise noted a number of sections repeated material found earlier in the book (something demonstrating the need of those wonderful folks called "editors").

Of course, the big question everyone is waiting for an answer for: when George Bryson told me to "read the book" to find the answers to Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10, and Acts 4:27-28, was it because we just didn't have time for him to go over his in-depth exegesis of these key passages, or was something else involved? Now, WallyBalt, the Australian/Hawaiian Astrophysicist Guy, had already scanned the book and informed me that there was not a single reference to Genesis 50 or Acts 4 in the book. I certainly trusted someone of Balt's scholarly abilities, but I also wanted to see it for myself, and I wanted to look for Isaiah 10 as well (though, obviously, if someone skips the others, they aren't going to tackle that one!). Having now scanned the entirety of the book, I can say without hesitation that Mr. Bryson showed not the first inkling of interest
in exegeting, let alone mentioning, the three passages that I presented on the BAM debate. They were never mentioned, cited, quoted, or allowed to wave from the bleachers in the far left field. I will be playing relevant cuts from the BAM debate regarding this on next Tuesday's Dividing Line.

Now, I saw a lot of really bad argumentation going by as I was checking each page for citations of those three passages. It is clear that since our debate in 2002 Mr. Bryson has determined it would be best to create some kind of defense regarding John 6. Numerous pages in different sections are devoted to a very passionate, yet utterly muddled and incomprehensibly vain
attempt to get around the teaching of the Lord in the synagogue in Capernaum. And though he directly quotes numerous Calvinists, all of whom point to the same textual issues (especially the fact that John 6:44 says all those who are drawn are also raised up), his tradition is so thick and so impenetrable that he continuously misses the point. In fact, he can go on to make these claims
(p. 126):

• Only in the imagination of a committed Calvinist do we see that all who are drawn by the Father come to Christ or believe in Christ.
  
  
  
  


• Only in the imagination of the committed Calvinist do we see that being drawn by the Father means that the one drawn must come to Christ.
  
  
  
  


• Only in the imagination of the committed Calvinist do we see that those who do not come to Christ were not drawn.

I invite the reader to review John 6:37-44 for a tremendous example of the power of tradition displayed in these incredible statements. Is it my committed Calvinist imagination that those given by the Father and those drawn by the Father are the same group? Is it my committed Calvinist imagination that all the Father gives to the Son as a result of being given come to the Son (Bryson rejects this simple grammatical and textual fact). Is it just my Calvinist imagination that the "him" who is drawn in 6:44 is the "him" who is raised up (another plain textual fact Bryson ignores)? One thing is for certain: the words of the Lord Jesus recorded for us in this passage continue to refute every vain effort made by men to mute their testimony to God's utter
sovereignty in the matter of salvation.

I should, however, note one positive thing: there are so many citations of good, solid Reformed sources in this book that I truly believe Mr. Bryson has unwittingly lent us a hand in "getting the word out." Evidently he feels his replies are compelling, but in fact, most of the time, he simply does not provide a comprehensible, let alone a compelling, reply. Therefore, I truly believe we will see more folks coming to see the importance of rightly handling God's truth in the matter of His sovereignty as a result of this book.

19:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Today on the DL

02/28/2006 - James White

   Thanks to the frequent use of the cough button I managed to make it through the DL today, that, along with a good group of callers. Was going to play some portions of Dr. Davis' sermon, Why I'm Not a Five-Point Calvinist, but callers kept me busy the whole hour. Here's the program.

14:14:59 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Radio Free Geneva: A Special DL Tomorrow!

03/13/2005 - James White

   I am collecting "The Worst of the Worst." And I am going to start responding to them tomorrow in a special DL that will go an extra 15 minutes as well (we can cram that onto a single CD). Worst of what? The Worst of Anti-Calvinism. I was handed a stack of tapes this past week, and made the mistake of starting to listen to them.
   So, since I head to England on Wednesday, I will try to get two DL's in this week, but tomorrow's will be special: no calls, all reply to Pastor Danny O'Guinn of the Tower Grove Baptist Church in St. Louis, Missouri. He preached a sermon titled, as far as I can tell, "The Five Points of Calvinism Exposed & Exploded." I would dearly like to know when this sermon was preached for a reason I will explain in my response (if anyone knows, please let me know). This one definitely ranks right up there with the "worst of the worst," for reasons I will note. So, listen in today, Monday, March 14th, 1pm EST, 10am PST, for "Radio Free Geneva: Replying to the Worst of the Worst in Anti-Calvinism."

22:28:26 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Today on the Dividing Line

06/18/2009 - James White

   Continued our review of Norman Geisler's "Why I am Not a Five Point Calvinist" sermon today, but at the beginning we covered another example of the bankruptcy of Roman Catholic apologetics today in the wild-eyed behavior of Matthew Bellisario and others. Here's the program.

18:58:59 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Calvary Chapel Bibliology Produces Another Believing Calvinist

09/05/2010 - James White

I have said many times over the years that Calvary Chapel is right on when it comes to the inspiration, inerrancy, consistency, and power of the Bible as God's Word. Fault them wherever else you may, but they encourage their people to read, and believe, the Bible, and that is vitally important. They are to be lauded and commended for this.

But here's the problem: if you tell folks to believe sola scriptura they will naturally follow on to tota scriptura, which means you will have to be consistent in your teaching and theology. If you embrace human traditions in opposition to biblical truths, you will be "found out" by someone reading the Bible consistently. And that is what happens, over and over again, in the Calvary Chapel movement. The great non-denominational denomination has embraced an anti-sovereignty, anti-Reformed polemic that simply cannot stand up under consistent scrutiny. As a result, people taught by them keep running into passage after passage that seems to be saying the exact opposite of what they are hearing from the pulpit in regards to the sovereignty of God's grace in salvation. And though the CC leadership does everything it can to "inoculate" its people against these truths, the Word keeps producing truth-lovers instead! My files are filled with e-mails from former Calvary Chapel folks who have seen through the smokescreen and, despite the poisoning of the well, come to understand God's kingly freedom. I got an e-mail from one last week, and asked if I could share it, from K.W.:

Greetings and blessings!

I'd just like to let you know that your work on reformed theology has been a blessing to me. I have just left the theology of my local Calvary Chapel and have embraced the doctrines of grace.

I listened to your February 9, 2010 episode of "The Dividing Line," entitled, "Why Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel Produce So Many Calvinists." I had to laugh, because I (and many others I know) are CC-produced Calvinists, true to your observation.

My particular church tends to look at the doctrines of election and grace as a vague, amorphous blob. I've been subjected to a doubtful "pendular" hermeneutic, demanding the following:

#1: When faced with a passage that makes an unequivocal statement regarding soteriology (John 6, Romans 9)...

#2: ...Search out a so-called "problem" verse that in no way makes an unequivocal statement regarding the topic (John 3:16, Ezekiel 18:32)...

#3:...Plot each of them as two contradictory extremes that cannot be emphasized by themselves...

#4:...And try to "camp out" somewhere in between the two, doing all you can to confuse people and toss up smoke screens.

As you can imagine, I have been perplexed for the last five years. We have often prided ourselves for "simply teaching the bible simply," being free from any tradition, and letting the Bible speak for itself.

Well, we haven't done so. I have a lot of catching up to do regarding this topic, and to be honest, I am still struggling with the shock of accepting what has been presented to me all these years as evil and blasphemous. However, I now know that Christ himself taught these things, and they tend toward wonderful peace and stability.

In short, thank-you for your work! It is not without fruit!

Just as Chosen But Free has produced a small army of Calvinists simply due to its incredibly poor argumentation (and ease of refutation!), so too any continued promotion of consistent, believing Bible reading will keep producing folks who see, and bow, to God's sovereignty.

16:46:47 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Yesterday on The Dividing Line

04/08/2009 - James White

   Started off the program with a call from Dublin, Ireland on how to avoid being a "cage-stage Calvinist," that was quite useful. Also listened to Dan Barker claiming Calvin preached from the KJV, and finished the program with a discussion of "kufir" in Islamic theology. Here's the program.

11:09:32 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

More on Anti-Calvinism from Paul Owen (IV)

10/03/2005 - James White

   I continue reviewing the anti-Reformed interpretation of John 6 and John 10 offered by our pseudo-Calvinist scholar, Paul Owen. Before moving on to his next statement, I would like to briefly note the amusing attempt Owen has posted to provide for himself some cover regarding my previous comments on Romans 11. Though no serious minded individual could possibly be impacted by Owen's response, it remains educational to note not only the errors men like Owen propound with a serious look of scholarship on their face, but how they then attempt to get around refutations of their position. Rather than dealing with the substance of the response, Owen chose to use misdirection, focusing upon the fact that when Paul presents his imaginary arrogant Gentile who boasts of his position, he uses a singular rather than a plural. This, somehow, is supposed to be some major fact that I "missed" in my comments. Of course, I never mentioned the number of the pronoun since, as anyone can see, it is utterly irrelevant. When you present an imaginary speaker, are you going to use a singular pronoun (as in, "You will say, then, 'They were broken off so that I may be grafted in...'" etc.) or a plural pronoun? The singular, of course. This is somehow supposed to be relevant to the fact that we are still addressing Gentiles in general? Is Owen seriously suggesting that the use of the singular means Paul is speaking specifically of a particular member of the New Covenant? The singular proves a New Covenant member, rather than a single member of a group as a whole (Gentiles), is in view? Really? Yet again, amazing argumentation to say the least. This is the best Dr. Owen can come up with in the face of the refutation of his position?
   Then, in another attempt to blow smoke across the discussion, Owen tries to argue for the Jeremiah identification of the OT citation in 6:45 despite the clear verbal superiority of the Isaiah reading, all the while completely ignoring the refutation of his position provided in the ensuing discussion. Likewise, another rC writer chimes in who seemingly is unaware of the difference between citation and allusion. Almost any verbal parallel, no matter how weak or a-contextual, can be listed as an allusion. [Steve Hays provides a fuller discussion, including a useful list of citations, here]. We are truly seeing a classic example of failed exegesis flailing about helplessly, with nothing more at its disposal than obfuscation. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

The Basics of Monergism and Synergism

03/25/2012 - Alan Kurschner

The "Calvinist vs. Arminian" debate is substantially a debate between what is called "synergism" and "monergism." There is no third option (unless one is willing to affirm Pelagianism). For those who are new to the Calvinist-Arminian debate, the following is a primer on the two perennial branches of theological systems in Christianity. Or to put it another way, there are two very different ways for believers to view how their salvation was brought about.

   In general, the first type (the Arminian-Synergist) affirms what is called "synergism." Synergists believe that two forces in the universe are necessary to bring about regeneration in the life of the sinner. In specifics, the two forces at work (cooperation) that are necessary to bring about regeneration, or spiritual life, is the will of man and the Holy Spirit (grace).

   To put it another way, the work of the Holy Spirit is dependent on the creature’s will, hence, “synergism” (working together). Synergists will sincerely say, “I believe in grace alone.” But in reality, they believe that grace is not alone (sufficient), but that man’s will is necessary for regeneration to be effective.

   It could be said that synergists are “functional” Arminians because even though some will deny the label, their theology functions synergistically (thus, how they identify themselves is inconsistent with what they teach and believe).

   The second group of believers (the Calvinist-Monergist) affirm what is called “monergism.” Monergists believe that there is only one force in the universe (grace alone) that brings about regeneration in the life of the sinner. In specifics, because of the deadness of man’s spiritual state, his moral inability, the Holy Spirit performs the miracle of spiritual resurrection (regeneration) in that person, hence, “monergism” (one work). Grace is sufficient to be effective, and does not depend on some action of man.

   In other words, the Holy Spirit does not merely whisper in the hardened sinner’s ear, hoping that the rebel sinner will “cooperate”; rather, while the sinner is in a state of hardness and rebellion, the Holy Spirit penetrates in the will of man and performs the miracle of spiritual life (regeneration). That is grace alone. Faith does not precede regeneration, regeneration precedes faith.

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions– it is by grace you have been saved. Ephesians 2:4-5

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” John 1:12-13

He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” John 8:47

   Arminians cannot affirm monergism (grace alone); they must always have the creature’s will as the final determiner of their destiny, not God. Inconsistently, Arminians pray (without knowingly) Calvinisticly, “God, change my unbelieving relative’s heart.” I have never heard them pray, “God, only whisper in my relative’s ear, but don’t change their heart unless you’ve been given permission.” In contrast, the Calvinist prays and affirms biblical truth consistently.

19:46:08 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

A Touchstone for God-Centered Salvation Vs. Man-Centered Salvation

10/29/2010 - Alan Kurschner

The "Calvinist vs. Arminian" debate is substantially a debate between what is called "synergism" and "monergism." There is no third option (unless one is willing to affirm Pelagianism). For those who are new to the Calvinist-Arminian debate, the following is a primer on the two perennial branches of theological systems in Christianity. Or to put it another way, there are two very different ways for believers to view their salvation.

   In general, the first type (the Arminian-Synergist) affirms what is called "synergism." Synergists believe that two forces in the universe are necessary to bring about regeneration in the life of the sinner. In specifics, the two forces at work (cooperation) that are necessary to bring about regeneration, or spiritual life, is the will of man and the Holy Spirit (grace).

   To put it another way, the work of the Holy Spirit is dependent on the creature’s will, hence, “synergism” (working together). These individuals will sincerely say, “I believe in grace alone.” But in reality, they believe that grace is not alone (sufficient), but that man’s will is necessary for regeneration to be effective.

   It could be said that these individuals are “functional” Arminians because even though some will deny the label, their theology functions synergistically (thus, how they identify themselves is inconsistent with what they teach and believe).

   The second group of believers (the Calvinist-Monergist) affirm what is called “monergism.” Monergists believe that there is only one force in the universe (grace alone) that brings about regeneration in the life of the sinner. In specifics, because of the deadness of man’s spiritual state, his moral inability, the Holy Spirit performs the miracle of spiritual resurrection (regeneration) in that person, hence, “monergism” (one work). Grace is sufficient to be effective, and does not depend on some action of man.

   In other words, the Holy Spirit does not merely whisper in the hardened sinner’s ear, hoping that the rebel sinner will “cooperate”; rather, while the sinner is in a state of hardness and rebellion, the Holy Spirit penetrates in the will of man and performs the miracle of spiritual life (regeneration). That is grace alone. Faith does not precede regeneration, regeneration precedes faith.

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions– it is by grace you have been saved. Ephesians 2:4-5

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” John 1:12-13

He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” John 8:47

   Arminians cannot affirm monergism (grace alone); they must always have the creature’s will as the final determiner of their destiny, not God. Inconsistently, Arminians pray (without knowingly) Calvinisticly, “God, change my unbelieving relative’s heart.” I have never heard them pray, “God, only whisper in my relative’s ear, but don’t change their heart unless you’ve been given permission.” But the Calvinist prays and affirms biblical truth consistently.

11:15:29 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Regeneration and Conversion/Sanctification (Updated)

03/08/2011 - Jeff Downs

This is the week for the annual GPTS Spring Theology Conference, taking place right now. Actually, Ian Hamilton is scheduled to speak in about 2 minutes. Pastor Hamilton's lectures are being aired live on SermonAudio.com. Tonight he is addressing Regeneration and Conversion and tomorrow Sanctification, both scheduled for 7-8:30pm EDT.

To listen/watch live click here.

Mr. Hamilton is the minister of Cambridge Presbyterian Church, England (EPCEW). He has served as a member of the Board of Trustees of Greenville Seminary since 2006. He is also the author of Let's Study the Letters of John and The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy: Drifting from the Truth in Confessional Scottish Churches.

The first sermon is now online here. The second sermon is now online here

16:26:45 - Category: Theology Matters - Link to this article -

Response to Jay Dyer on Calvinism (Part 12 of 13)

02/16/2009 - Tur8infan

This is part 12 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link).

Jay Dyer says:

11) [A consistent Calvinist must be] An agnostic, in that human reason is so damaged by the fall and total depravity, it cannot accurately reason about God and ever attain certainty.

I answer:

a) The Calvinist Position (whether right doctrine or error let Scripture decide)

Scripture has been given so that we may know God and believe on the Son of God (John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.). Through faith we understand the things that Scripture teaches (Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.). The unregenerate man's faculties are hopelessly ruined in the fall (Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?) Thus, Jesus spoke of the unregenerate Jewish leaders as "blind guides" (Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.). Indeed Jesus went so far as to say that without regeneration one cannot see the kingdom of heaven (John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.)

b) The Accusation Disputed

Agnosticism is a lack of belief in the existence of God. No consistent Calvinist can be an agnostic, since faith in Christ is a central tenet of Calvinism.

Calvinism denies that unregenerate man comes to God of his own abilities, rejecting this Pelagian error in favor of the Scriptural teaching that God changes the hearts of men and opens their spiritual minds to see the truth. However, in regeneration, there is a restoration of the spiritual faculties of man: this is variously described as giving site to the blind, making the lame walk, curing the leper, and raising the dead to life. Jesus performed physical miracles in illustration of these principles, and each of these physical miracles Jesus performed pointed to the spiritual work that the Holy Spirit does.

Thus, Calvinism consistently affirms the total depravity of man and denies that unregenerate man can come to know God, even though God can be clearly seen:

Romans 1:19-20
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

c) The Accusation Redirected

Of course, Catholicism is not inherently an agnostic religion: it does acknowledge the fact that God exists. Practically speaking, however, Catholicism tries to instill a lack of confidence in people, in their ability to read and understand the Bible (even though, the Bible itself teaches otherwise). They suggest this for one obvious reason: if people weigh each doctrine of Catholicism in the scales of Scripture many doctrines (papal infallibility, the immaculate conception of Mary, Purgatory, etc. etc.) fall short and are seen to be unbiblical and even anti-Biblical.

Furthermore, the teachings of Catholicism, while not formally imbuing agnosticism do lead one to distrust human senses/reasoning (whether or not this related to the fall), not only for the unregenerate but for all men. Thus, the founder of the so-called Society of Jesus, Ignatius Loyola, stated: "I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it." The only path to certainty is apparently the definition of "the hierarchical Church." But such certainty is not obtained by reasoning, and really cannot be. Thus, if Calvinists were guilty for the reasons Dyer alleges (which, of course, they are not) then those in Catholicism would be similarly guilty, if they followed in the footsteps of Ignatius Loyola.

As you must already know, the difference is that Calvinism places faith in the Bible (the written and unchanging Word of God), whereas Catholicism places faith in Rome (that they allege is the true Church of God, but which has abandoned the true gospel). That may seem harsh because those in Catholicism claim to believe the Bible. On the other hand, they have the order of authority reversed, so that they will simply accept whatever teaching Rome gives (even when it is contrary to the plain sense of Scripture) and understand the Bible in light of that teaching, rather than the other way around - accepting only those teachings that jive with Scripture.

-TurretinFan

Continue to Part 13

14:34:42 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Beginning a New Series on the Dividing Line

10/10/2005 - James White

   I was riding northbound last Saturday morning listening to a debate which took place a few years ago between our good friend Sam Shamoun and Islamic apologist Shabir Ally. I have been collecting Ally's on-line materials of late, and had been horrendously frustrated at the men he has chosen to debate. Up until listening to Sam's debate, I simply hadn't heard anyone really take him on properly. Well, I truly enjoyed listening to the debate, and wanted to share the debate with the audience of The Dividing Line. But more than that, I wanted to respond to Ally's claims one by one, something even Sam didn't get to do, given the brief time constraints of the debate itself.
   Ally likes to use liberal Christian writings (especially Jesus Seminar style materials) to attack the Christian faith while refusing, of course, to apply the standards used by those sources to the Qur'an and Islam itself. Sadly, few of those he debates are prepared to engage that kind of apologetic. At times as I listened I could almost translate Shabir's Arabic-tinged accent into John Dominic Crossan's Irish lilt, for the words, in many instances, were identical. He also likes to throw out statements about textual criticism that simply make one cringe. In any case, there were so many statements made by him on such a wide range of topics that I felt taking time on the DL to review and rebut them would provide us an opportunity to address a tremendously wide range of apologetic issues, from textual criticism to the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the gospel, etc. So we will be following the pattern we have established in reviewing anti-Calvinist sermons in examining Ally's claims.
   If you would like to listen to the entire debate ahead of time to see where we will be going, they are available on line here.

18:53:57 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Frank Beckwith Slams Frank Turk as a "Rabid Anti-Catholic Blogger"

10/19/2009 - James White

First, take a moment to read this short blog article by Frank Turk from July of 2008. Then note Frank Beckwith's description of him as a "rabid anti-Catholic blogger" here.

Note this section:

I had no idea that Mr. Turk was so gifted in the clairvoyant arts, able to not only jump the space-time continuum to observe my teenage years but to pierce the veil of cognitive and spiritual privacy in order to extract from my soul the reflections, contemplations, and judgments that were instrumental in my journey back to Catholicism. Given his unusual interest in comic book aesthetics, perhaps he possesses powers not unlike the mutants that populate the imaginary world to which he seems so drawn (pardon the pun). Or perhaps he is just ill-mannered and presumptuous.

   Evidently, this is what anyone can expect as a response if you dare question Beckwith's "spiritual journey." It seems Beckwith does not believe he has provided sufficient information from his own writings and lectures to allow any meaningful observations regarding either his commitments when a non-Catholic or his return to obedience to Rome. So even if you listen carefully to his interviews since his return to Rome, or read his book, and carefully consider what he says, and just as importantly, what he does not, you will still be identified as "ill-mannered and presumptuous." I have a feeling I know what we will hear once we publish our response to Beckwith's biographical story of his return to Rome.

21:12:46 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Continued Response to Dr. Caner

06/08/2006 - James White

   5) Reformed brothers. So, which is it? Am I a Reformed brother? If so, why refuse to answer that honestly asked question? Or are there some Reformed brothers as long as they aren't my kind? We just don't know.
   6) Is there a meaningful parallel between the charismatic controversy of years past (who actually won that battle? Compare the "worship" at TRBC today with that thirty years ago and you might wonder as well) and the current anti-Calvinist movement in the SBC? Well, all controversies have parallels, however, there was no historical foundation in Southern Baptist life, or Baptist life in general, for the unique claims of the Charismatic movement. But once again, there most certainly is solid historical foundation for Reformed theology in Baptist history. This isn't even an arguable point. So on the most meaningful level, no, there is no parallel.
   7) "In the same regard, the present controversy cannot be blamed on all Calvinists or Reformed Baptists." Please note that last phrase. Reformed Baptists. That's me. Hi. Nice to meet you. See how the two terms go together? Yes, that's not an oxymoron. Yes, I know all about those who say it is.
   8) Caner refers to those who do not make this a test of fellowship. But we are still wondering, does Dr. Caner make the reverse a test of fellowship?
   9) Now we have a new term, "Neo-Calvinist." Sadly, this new term starts with an old term misused, "hyper-Calvinist." And such a bad person is "obsessed." No one wants to be obsessed, of course. And surely we can see the wisdom in not thinking that the almighty Kingship of God and His freedom to act in His own creation as He sees fit should ever function as a prism, a lens, for our theology. One could be forgiven for wondering out loud if it is not far more dangerous, and common, to allow the almighty will of the fallen creature man to function as the over-riding obsession of one's theology?
   10) Sadly, Caner again illustrates either his ignorance of, or unwillingness to accept, basic historical theological definitions. He writes that "Neo-Calvinists" believe:

Double Predestination. Simply put, they believe that a small group of people are predestined, even before the Creation, for heaven, and that the vast majority of the world is predestined, even created for, hell.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:01:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Helping out a Faithful Reader...

02/18/2007 - Mike Porter

   A faithful reader of this blog has borrowed some of the quotes from my first blog article on Heinrich Bullinger. Unfortunately, he also borrowed four points where I summarized a section of his sermon and confused them with Bullinger's words. As honored as I am to be confused with Bullinger, I concede that there is a bit of an age difference between us. But, thank you, Mr. Armstrong, for that momentary lift to my ego.
   While I am helping him to correct his citations, I'd also like to help him with his history just a bit. Mr. Armstrong, for the record, while Bullinger was extremely influencial in the Reformation, a point I made in my article (you did read the article fully, right?), Bullinger was not a contributing author of the Second Helvetic Confession. He was the exclusive author. It was his own personal declaration of faith which he sent to Friedrich III. Here is more background on it. And, here is the confession in full.
   You must be confusing the Second Helvetic Confession of Faith (1564) with the First Helvetic Confession of Faith (1536), of which he was a contributing author.
   A final correction I would offer is that Bullinger was by no means "anti-Catholic." Bullinger sought very much to connect with the ancient church (part of those quotes you cited demonstrate that very point). A great deal of his sermons spend time demonstrating "Der Alt Glaub" ("the Old Faith," one of his works where he seeks to summarize the Old and New Testaments as well as the faith once delivered). Further, his works on the Sacraments, in particular, his refutations of the Mass and Transubstantiation, cite heavily from Augustine in order to disprove the concept. He further sought to bring unity among the Reformed Churches, earning him the title "The Father of the Reformed Church".
   So, call him anti-Romanist doctrine if you wish, or call him anti-Papal, but it is not historically accurate or theologically fair to call him anti-Catholic.

16:17:57 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

The Dave Armstrong Arcade Game

05/26/2005 - James White

   A while back I took the time to engage Dave Armstrong's The Catholic Verses on this blog. The response by Mr. Armstrong was 1) bluster and absurdly silly replies; 2) full-scale retreat and a "promise" (again) to stop interacting with "anti-Catholics" like me. Since then, Mr. Armstrong has returned and, evidently, has healed from his wounds, forgotten his own promises, and is now busily non-responding to me all over again (even producing reverse-color purposefully bad pictures originally taken by Mormons). Remember that cheesey arcade game where the little animal pops up out of a hole and you have to bop it back in to get points? The kind of thing you played just because you only had one token left and the real games took two? Well, I may have played that game once, but found it completely boring and not worth even that last token. Ditto, Mr. Armstrong. There is no reason to even respond to a person who, upon being shown to be in error, will reply, "Oh, I don't have to answer that! That person is anti-me, and I take an oath not to respond to his kind...until this topic has passed, anyway, or I have had more time to come up with a response or something." Such is not apologetics, it is excus-a-getics, and is not worth the time it takes to activate the RSS feed.

21:16:35 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Marc Carpenter Is NOT a Calvinist

02/28/2005 - James White

   Marc Carpenter of outsidethecamp.org has written another article, "responding" to my comments on his e-mail in which he judges my heart and declares me an unregenerate unbeliever. It is odd indeed, when you realize that this man's tiny little group seems to encompass, in their thinking, the entirety of the Kingdom of God, that he would be writing and complaining about my response when I was responding to an e-mail he sent out denying I am a follower of Christ but instead insisting that I am still in my sins and he had not even bothered to send it to me! Truly amazing. In reading this response, we learn that though Carpenter believes in the "five points" he is not, in fact, a Calvinist, let alone a hyper-Calvinist. Well, it is quite true he is not a Calvinist. I'm glad we can all tell everyone that Marc Carpenter is not a Calvinist so that they will not view him as representing us. That's a good thing. I guess it is very useful to have the authority to keep redefining your position. In any case, it seems rather obvious that Carpenter's beliefs experience the same imbalance that hyper-Calvinists do, but he doesn't want to be called a hyper-Calvinist. Ah, the joy of definitions.
   There are a lot of really cult-like characteristics to Carpenter's thinking and behavior. Here is a paragraph from his e-mail/response/article (he has posted it on the web). Try to follow this one, if you can:

I have never said that Christians must be willing to condemn these people to the fires of hell itself and if they don't they're not Christians. I myself don't condemn them to the fires of hell! So if what you said were true, I'd have to say that I'm not a Christian! I have never condemned anyone to the fires of hell itself. Give evidence for your accusation or tell everyone that you have falsely accused me. Among the unregenerate, we do not know who is and who is not elect. It is not for us to know or to judge whether an unregenerate person is going to go to heaven or to hell. And among those who used to be heretics who have died, I don't know if God saved them later on in their lives before they died. So I don't know if they are in heaven or hell. I do not know if anyone in the "Heterodoxy Hall of Shame" is in hell right now. God could have saved them after they made the quotes I mentioned. What I do know is that they were unregenerate. And what I do know is that those people who are alive right now who believe in universal atonement are unregenerate. Christians do not judge whether or not unregenerate people are going to hell. They do not condemn anyone to hell. What they do do is judge a person who confesses a false gospel to be currently unregenerate. That's a far cry from condemning them to hell. So will you tell everyone you have falsely accused me?

   Let's see if we can unpack this. Carpenter says I am unregenerate. Why? Because I do not say that every person who holds to universal atonement is unregenerate. Was this not the whole point of his original e-mail? Where do unregenerate people go when they die? Hell. So how does Carpenter respond? First he says he does not condemn anyone to the fires of hell itself. Ah, but he does claim to know who is regenerate or not, yes? So, his point is, "Well, if you were to die right now, believing as you believe, you will go to hell, but hey, you might believe me before then, and get saved." Now, any rational person knows exactly what I meant by "consigning to the flames of hell." So does Carpenter. So why deny the obvious? He is here saying exactly what I said he said: that to disbelieve his views is to deny the gospel and to be unregenerate, and obviously, to remain in that disbelief of Carpenter to one's death results in what? One's going to hell. An entire paragraph dedicated to emptiness.
   Another great quote from this response is, "Give evidence that I have changed my stance over the years. You won't find it. When we find out things about people (such as Calvin), then we expose them. That does not mean we have changed our stance." Prior to his "discovering" Calvin's "views" did Carpenter eschew being identified as a Calvinist? How could he not be aware of what Calvin, and his successors, believed? It truly makes one wonder! Here's another revealing portion: I had written, "It would be an honor to join Calvin, Berkhof, Boettner, Hodge, Spurgeon and others for refusing Carpenter's "Perfection of Knowledge Required for Salvation" heresy." Carpenter replies, "Interestingly, he doesn't name everyone in the Heterodoxy Hall of Shame. What about Billy Graham, Mr. White? What about Robert Schuller? Would it be an honor to join them?" No, I did not mention them, and no, it would not be a honor to join them, and the very fact that Carpenter can't see the differences between those people and their views is one of the best examples I can see of his errors! All is black and white: everyone outside the microscopic field of orthodoxy defined by Marc Carpenter is "the same." How very sad, and how utterly untrue.
   At this point Carpenter melts down into an utterly irrational tirade, using caps and underlining and every other form available to make sure we all know he is quite upset and yelling loudly that he does not believe that perfection of knowledge is required for salvation. Of course, this is all screamed in reference to an e-mail in which he decides I am unregenerate for what reason again? Oh, for refusing to condemn every Arminian to hell...err, for refusing to say anyone who believes in universal atonement and has not seen the inconsistenty of such a belief with substitutionary atonement is, by virtue of that ignorance or confusion, deprived of spiritual life, the Holy Spirit, justification, etc., and, if they continue in said ignorance or confusion, they will go to hell. Hmm, well, that sounds like Mr. Carpenter is indeed arguing for the need of a perfection of knowledge, does it not? It is sad, indeed, to watch the contortions he goes through to promote his unique beliefs, it truly is.
   But one thing is for sure. I'm glad Mr. Carpenter openly eschews any connection to Calvinism. That is very good. Spread the word far and wide.

17:36:42 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -