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):

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.

No need to comment on this one. Just read it and try not to drool.

I have often noted these amazing words:

When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.

Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his
head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.

Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth! He continues the essential ministry of Christ: he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ. (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 255-256)

Which is why I find "Protestants" who toss out Chesterton quotes so amazingly inconsistent, like this one:

"The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine, and a good cigar."

Really? Well, if so, then the steak will give you Mad Cow, the glass of wine contains just a few drops of cyanide, and the cigar is laced with radioactive materials.

When we have brilliant, godly, Scripturally sound men like Edwards, or Spurgeon, or Warfield to read, who never once profaned the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ with words and beliefs like those expressed above by O'Brien, and whose insights to this day are compelling and convicting, why do we play games with quotes like Chesterton's? Play with a loaded gun long enough, and it may well go off.

The redoubtable Kevin Johnson, in
response to the Machen citation below, has now accused me of mis-quoting both Calvin and Machen. Perhaps Mr. Johnson should look up the meaning of "mis-quoting" in an English lexicon, just as looking up pseudadelphoi in a Greek lexicon would have assisted him as well? He cannot show where the citation is inaccurate or in error: so, he confuses disagreeing with him on its meaning with a mis-quotation. The fact is Machen interprets Galatians 2 the same way I do. He said, "thus a false brother is a man who claims to be a Christian or is thought to be a Christian and yet is not." Those are his words, not mine. Now, the really sad thing (and this should concern everyone who seeks to proclaim the gospel of grace to those who have been given a false hope within Roman Catholicism), Mr. Johnson then says:

There was a time when Kevin knew why Rome's gospel was false. But evidently monocovenantalism and a dash of NPism has removed that knowledge, or at least, that conviction, and now Trinitarian baptism is sufficient to overthrow Rome's denial of the sufficiency of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. Baptism trumps sacerdotal forgiveness by priests. Baptism covers over the blasphemous sacrilege of the Mass, when the priest, the alter Christus, commands Christ to come down, and Christ bows in obedience! Trinitarian baptism covers over purgatory, satispassio, prayers to saints and Mary...all of this is now rendered secondary by the all-powerful act of Trinitarian baptism! The Judaizers in Galatia never dreamed of the perversions of the gospel of grace promulgated by Rome. Mr. Johnson had better take care. One more step backward and he will find himself neck deep in the Tiber River. Throwing exegesis to the wind has a way of leading folks that direction.

The Gobbler (don't ask, we won't tell) pointed out to me today the ironic words of J. Gresham Machen in his notes on Galatians...ironic because they appear under the subtitle "Plain Meaning" as I recall. Please don't ask me where Machen absorbed these radical Anabaptistic, post-modern, discrete, separated from the space-time continuum propositions, but it is truly tragic, isn't it? :-)

Paul here calls the Judaizers "false brethren," and the meaning of that term is clear. 'Brother' in Paul's epistles means 'fellow-Christian,' and thus a false brother is a man who claims to be a Christian or is thought to be a Christian and yet is not, or does not show himself by his present actions to be a Christian at all. It is not a pleasant term, but the reason why it is not a pleasant term is that the thing that is designated is not a pleasant thing. These Judaizers might have seemed to a superficial observer to be true disciples, but in their heart of hearts, Paul seems to mean, they were Pharisees rather than disciples of Jesus Christ. They were depending on their own works for salvation, and according to the apostle Paul a man cannot possibly do that if he is to be saved. So, Paul calls them false brethren. Unlike the leaders of the modern Church the apostle Paul believed in calling things by their true name. Machen's Notes on Galatians, John Skilton, Editor. p. 106.

I know, I know, I promised, so here is a paragraph from the discussion of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in the upcoming book:

The burden lies squarely on the shoulders of the one who would insist that Paul communicated to the Thessalonians beliefs and doctrines nowhere found in Scripture. If the Roman Catholic wishes to use this passage, then he must show us how the Thessalonians were taught such things as purgatory, the Papacy, and the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of Mary, all dogmas without sound exegetical basis in Scripture. Yet it is clearly obvious that these were much later developments, beliefs utterly unknown to the Thessalonians (or anyone else in the Apostolic period for that matter). If a Latter-day Saint wishes to find in such a passage a basis for temple ceremonies and priesthoods and exaltation, the same burden of evidence must be met.

I used to get all of my books done early. That was a decade or more ago. Doesn't work that way anymore. Bethany House is expecting a book very soon, and I have a tremendous amount of work to do. So, instead of even wandering off into the web so as to experience the temptation of investing time in replying to folks, I'm going to just post little snippets of the work as I go along as a teaser....and as a means of keeping myself on track. One of the chapters deals
with the "gnostic gospels." It begins:

You have seen it as you stand in line at the grocery store. One of those scholarly journals with the picture of a space alien dressed as Elvis also has a big, bright headline that screams out, “Bible Scholars Discover Jesus Lived in India” or some other such wildly strange claim. If you are brave enough to actually pick it up, or if the line is moving very slowly anyway, you discover that these “Bible scholars” are basing their conclusions on all sorts of books you have never heard of before. You’ve never seen “The Gospel of Thomas” or “The Ascension of Isaiah” in your Bible! And when did the “Gospel of Mary” make it into the Bible?

Sorry for the delay in getting back to the blog. Arrived home late Sunday night from New York, and the day after you get home is always very busy. Anymore it takes you an hour just to delete all the spam in your mailbox....

Very briefly: the "blog wars" have devolved to the level of "oh yeah!" I shall allow the various folks out there to slap each other on the back and congratulate each other on their ability to repeat their a-contextual traditions ad nauseum. Those who desire to be subject to Scripture and derive their beliefs from the text have already come to their conclusions on the meaning of Galatians 2:4-5. Here is a tremendous example of how tradition can overthrow exegesis. Oh, by the way, did anyone else notice that no one bothered, in offering allegedly sound meanings for "false brethren," to note the only other place it is used in Scripture? The only other reference is 2 Corinthians 11:26:

I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren;

The context makes it plain that Paul was not using the term in a favorable light here, just as in Galatians 2:4. What kind of dangers would false (but actually covenantally true) brethren offer to Paul? But looking at cross-references is really irrelevant when, in the final analysis, the Scripture is subject to your inescapable traditions anyway. Let the wise person take note.

Greetings from the frozen tundra of Long Island! I watched my little Weatherbug thingy last night and saw it down around 0 windchill. For a survivor of the last summer in Phoenix (which set four new records for heat), that's COLD. I am happy to report one of my Christmas presents, a long leather coat, handled the wind and cold just fine, however.

Yes, I know, [Pete] is right, there are better things to be doing than fighting the blog wars, and given the very close proximity of a book deadline, I truly must be brief. However, there is benefit to continuing the conversation simply because it is this very kind of exchange that, if the issue is left unresolved, leaves people believing the Word is incapable of communicating truth with clarity and force.

Part of the current problem has to do with the fact that those pontificating upon the issue either did not participate in the original conversation so as to know the topic ("Saul") or, if they did, seem to be willing to shift the grounds (pun intended). Let's refocus and in so doing see that 1) the text is clear, and 2) those who are claiming to be dealing with the text have already leapt off into the realm of tradition.

Quick refocusing: The question that prompted the discuss was, "Are Roman Catholics, by their Trinitarian baptism, properly called our brothers?" Some defended the concept. I denied it, and pointed to Galatians 2:4-5 as basis for not granting such a precious and important term as "brother" to one who does not embrace the gospel of grace. Now, if someone wishes to argue that this is an improper comparison, feel free: the fact that Rome's "gospel" makes the
Galatians heresy pale in comparison is not to my thinking even an argument. Should someone think otherwise, please take the time to read Indulgentiarum Doctrina, the Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, and ponder how such words could be called "Christian." Further, if the argument is, "I don't mean brother as in 'brother or sister in Christ,' but I mean it as in 'fellow baptized person about whom I will not make any comment as to whether you share with me the most foundational, basic, and vital elements of Christian commitment,' then we are on different planets as well. Ironically, I'm on the same planet John Calvin was on when reading this passage:

Now we see in effect why Saint Paul blameth the Galatians for falling away like perjured persons towards God, and towards our Lord Jesus Christ, as having given him the slip, and forsaken the faith which they had plighted unto him. And by this example we be warned to hold us to the pure doctrine and simplicity of the Gospel, without wavering one way or other. For it is not enough to
have the name and title of Christians, no nor yet to bear the mark of baptism: but we must continue steadfast in the doctrine of the Gospel. Calvin’s Third Sermon on Galatians, 1:6-8.

Purity of the gospel seemed, as the two previous citations of Calvin further indicate, to be the true mark of the faith, not the mere possession of an "objective" marker, i.e., baptism. That is certainly the point of Paul in Galatians 2. Ironically, one of the TR's (truly Reformed) noted:

But why were they called "false brethren"? Dr. White would have us believe it is because they did not possess the gospel. And finally Dr. White gives us his definition of what a brother is, "A brother is a brother in the bonds of the gospel".

Yes, I believe they were false brethren because true brethren do not sneak into the church (hey, they were baptized! That's not sneaking....unless, of course, you only enter the church by God's work of regeneration, not by means of any sacramentalism) seeking to take God's children captive to themselves! False gospels have a nasty habit of creating havoc that way. But it does seem Calvin said the exact same thing, so, I wonder how it is Calvin became (momentarily) infected with Anabaptist presuppositions disconnected from the space-time continuum? Unless, just maybe, the text is really as clear as it seems? Nah, too easy.

Now let's briefly respond to the ruminations offered today. We were told today that noting the difference between a noun that indicates action (“teacher”) and one that indicates relationship (“brother”) is “of little value.” Ah, well, I feel very refuted! I wonder why so much of the best exegesis in print makes note of just such things? This explains how “Saul” can miss such an obvious fact as Paul’s never addressing the Judaizers/false teachers in Galatia directly. It is a well known fact that he refers to them in the third person, never in the second. Hence, his entire discussion about calling the Galatians his “brothers” completely misses a rather obvious point: Paul was not talking about the Galatians when referring to the false brethren who crept into the church to which he makes reference in that passage. This is basic level material, but none of Saul’s cheering section seems interested enough in sound exegesis to note it and call him on it. He likewise opined:

It is also interesting that White concedes (as he must) that the pseudadelphoi (false brothers) were in the Church.

Concede? It has been part and parcel of everything I’ve said from the start (one of the problems with coming into the conversation late, I guess). But, as I have likewise repeatedly noted (and, if you are actually interested enough in this conversation to follow the blog entries flying around out there, you will note a consistent inability to respond to the entirety of the comments I have made, including the coherence of the passage shown in the verbs Paul uses to describe the false brethren as having gained such entrance stealthily and in an illegitimate manner), they were such falsely. They “crept in.” Does that really mean they were truly a part of the church? This is why the visible/invisible distinction, coupled with the biblical teaching of the nature of the New Covenant, drives my position (not some external tradition). As to whether these men performed baptisms or not, I have never even considered the point, nor does the text. The point is that they themselves would have been baptized: obviously, you do not invite brand new proselytes to the inner circle of the Apostolic band to which Paul makes reference. They may well have been in the formal fellowship of the church for quite some time. In fact, it is plain as day they claimed to be followers of Jesus Christ, had been baptized, and gave forth a confession of faith. Which is what makes the passage all the more important: despite all of the credentials, Paul declares them false brethren. He rejects their profession, and does not own them as his brothers in the faith. They are, in fact, his enemies. (And if you are like most folks at this point
you are pulling your hair out wondering why on earth anyone would want to so read this passage as to ignore this clear element just to make sure these men are still called “brothers.” Some are simply contumacious and like to argue about such things. But for most, there is a one word answer: tradition. Saul likewise wrote:

One of the key points White was disputing to begin with was the supposed non-validity of the baptism of the Church of Rome.

Non-validity? Please, I’m not nearly as nuanced as that. My argument has been, from the start, the non-validity of Rome’s gospel. Baptism is secondary to the gospel, and if Rome does not possess the gospel, then arguing about her baptism is, obviously, secondary. Of course I deny the “validity” of Rome’s baptism: I do so because baptism separated from the truth of the gospel is an empty act, not the divinely instituted mark of the follower of Christ. Let’s hope no one will seriously argue for baptism devoid of truth, separated from the gospel.

Kevin Johnson has chimed in as well:

Given that, what is the significance of using "adelphos"/"brother" with "pseudo"/"false" if not to indicate some sort of relationship both to the Galatians and to the Church?

Possibly, in light of the use of the verbs pareiserchomai and kataskopesai and the adjective pareiskatos, all of which contain elements of secrecy and dishonesty, the relationship is one of false and deceptive profession? :-)

The influence of NPism and other such traditions is clearly seen in Kevin Johnson’s question:

Please Dr. White, tell us what the bonds of the gospel are. Do you mean that a brother is one who has legitimately professed faith in Christ?

No, a brother is one in whose life the Spirit of God has worked the miracle of regeneration, has taken out a heart of stone, giving a heart of flesh, a new nature, resulting in repentance and faith and confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. As such, we serve a common master, share a common faith, and neither of us is seeking to enslave the other to a false gospel (does that seem just a tad…obvious?). The depth to which one will go to avoid these
plain truths is seen in the follow-up:

Where in Galatians is the word "brother" defined as one "in the bonds of the gospel"?

Hmm, am I seriously being asked to defend the idea that the term “brother” is consistently used by Paul in Galatians for those who are, in fact, opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and are seeking to enslave believers? Would Mr. Johnson likewise defend such a viewpoint in Acts 20:29-30, where we have the very same kind of false brethren noted, men who are obviously “in” the church as well, but seek the destruction of God’s people? What would cause
anyone to desire to call such a person “brother”…outside of some external tradition, that is? But in answer to the question, do we really have to invest effort in supporting the supposition that Paul believed the purveyors of “another gospel” to be outside the realm of the faith (cf. 1:8-9)? No, Galatians does not offer us a dictionary definition of adelphos: it gives us, instead, a clear use of the term, both positively and negatively, that we can allow to have its full impact upon our thinking if we are willing to be taught thereby.

Mr. Johnson likewise falls into the same pit as Saul in ignoring the fact that Paul never addresses the false teachers directly in Galatians, but is instead writing to the church about them. The direct rebukes contained therein are to those who were in danger of abandoning the truth for their sham gospel. Again, this is basic material, but it seems to disappear in defense of “baptism makes everyone my brother---quit with all this ‘gospel’ stuff, I want objective certainty based upon human actions” stuff.

Well, much more to be said, but I have duties here on the Island to take care of. I’m sure my absence from my blog till next week (classes start Monday evening, teaching both Systematic Theology II and Development of Patristic Theology Through Augustine in a 5 hour block!) will be touted as my complete capitulation in the face of the overwhelming insights of the Truly Reformed. Alas, such is life! I personally will not sweat much over it…in fact, out here, I won’t be sweating at all!

Last night I was directed to the comments of someone with whom I have discussed the "baptism as sign of objective covenant, Roman Catholics are our brothers" issue a number of times. I was left speechless when this person claimed that when he tries to discuss this with Reformed Baptists, and presents "exegesis" to them, "there really is little if any response. Challenges disappear into thin air." To call this "self-deceptive" is to be very, very kind. The
comments of another were offered on the passage. I found them fascinating:

Cf Galatians 2:4, speaking of "false brothers" (Greek pseudadelphos). For those who wish to know: when pseudo is prefaced to a noun, it does not necessarily turn that noun into its opposite. That is, pseudadelphos does not necessarily mean: "they appeared to be brothers, but in truth they weren't really, really brothers." Pseudo also prefaces teachers in 2 Peter 2:1. Were they not really
teachers? Of course, they were teachers; but what they taught was false and faithless. An adulterer is a false husband, not because he is "not really married," but precisely because he is untrue to what he is. That, by definition, is a hypocrite.

Let's see if we understand this...a false teacher is still a teacher, hence, a false brother is still a brother? Let's remind ourselves of what Paul said. These are men who were "secretly brought in." Into what? They "snuck in." Into where? They snuck in "to spy out our liberty." Our liberty? Is it not their liberty as well? Why did these false brethren do this in this secretive, dishonest, hidden fashion? "In order to bring us into bondage." Us again? Not them?

A quick review of the facts of this single sentence in Greek reveals that these were secretive men who snuck in from outside; they had devious, dishonest, evil motivations, and sought to bring the very leadership of the Christian Church into bondage. Now, what is the natural meaning of "false brother" in this context? A Christian, or a non-Christian?

Next, the comments cited above miss one important point: it is said that in 2 Peter 2:1 the same prefix is used of "false teachers." That is quite true. However, there is a fundamental difference between the meaning and significance of "teacher" versus "brother." A false teacher is one who is actively involved in promulgating false teachings. But what is a false brother? Brother is a state, a status, a relationship, not an activity, something the comments above ignore completely. If we say that you have false teeth, are they really teeth? A noun that speaks of a state or relationship that has "false" in front of it would indicate that the relationship really doesn't exist. And in Galatians 2, in light of the deception of these men and their nefarious desires, this is clearly the meaning.

Were these men "in" the church? Yes, they even had access to the leadership of the church itself. Obviously, they were baptized men who made a profession of faith in Christ. But despite their actions (baptism), and their words, Paul knew they were false brethren. And how did he know? Because they did not possess the gospel. A brother is a brother in the bonds of the gospel. That is what Paul means.

Now, one of the most amazing efforts to get around this simple, clear fact is to abandon the context, ignore the text, and run to a completely different context and a completely different usage of the term "brother." Paul referred to the Jews as "my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (Romans 9:3). Of course, a brief consideration of the text reveals that the term "brethren" here is being used of fleshly relationship, Paul being a Jew. There is no logical or rational connection to the use in Galatians 2, nor can such a connection be forged.

My dear friend David King noted the following words from John Calvin that are obviously quite relevant to this topic. Note in the first quotation the definition of "false brethren" as "counterfeit Christians."

(Commenting on Psalm 83:8): But it is, as it were, the destiny of the Church, not only to be assailed by external enemies, but to suffer far greater trouble at the hands of false brethren. At the present day, none are more furiously mad against us than counterfeit Christians. See Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. V, trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), pp. 344-345.

Accordingly he enjoins them to regard as devils those who shall dare to bring forward a gospel different from his, — meaning by another gospel, one to which the inventions of other men are added; for the doctrine of the false apostles was not entirely contrary, or even different, from that of Paul, but corrupted by false additions. To what poor subterfuges do the Papists resort, in order
to escape from the Apostle’s declaration! First, they tell us, that we have not in our possession the whole of Paul’s preaching, and cannot know what it contained, unless the Galatians who heard it shall be raised from the dead, in order to appear as witnesses. Next, they assert, that it is not every kind of addition which is forbidden, but that other gospels only are condemned. What Paul’s doctrine was, so far as it concerns us to know, may be learned with sufficient clearness from his writings. Of this gospel, it is plain, the whole of Popery is a dreadful perversion. And from the nature of the case, we remark in conclusion, it is manifest that any spurious doctrine whatever is at variance with Paul’s preaching; so that these cavils will avail them nothing. See Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. XXI, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), pp. 30-34.

We had one of Jehovah's Witnesses come into #prosapologian last night. Someone asked him to comment on John 2:18-21, and specifically Jesus' words about raising His own body from the dead. We were told that "the temple of His body" was actually a reference to the church! Now, it is interesting to speculate on how some of our very vocal critics would respond to this JW.
Would they discuss medieval categories with him, and eschew the discussion of the actual text due to the inability of anyone to truly disassociate themselves from their "presuppositions"? Or, would they avoid the text by attempting to press some extra-biblical source of authority, like the Nicene Creed?

Well, we went straight to the inspired text and pointed out a few things to our JW friend. We pointed out that John never uses the Greek term swma of the church---that is Pauline. So why does he assume Paul's use here? We then pointed out that the text speaks of that point in time when Christ was raised from the dead, and with that event as the trigger, the disciples remembered "that He said this" with the emphasis upon that term "this." Our JW friend had come up with a whole bunch of imaginative ways to explain what it was the disciples remembered, but had a hard time explaining how the specific words of Jesus raising the temple in three days could at all be relevant to the subject of the church. And though he had claimed Kittel's TDNT supported his view, we were able to counter-cite from the same source (something that went unanswered from his side). Now, did he repent and believe? No, but the folks in channel that watched the hour long conversation were equipped to respond to the most developed forms of JW internet apologetics, and, hopefully, had their faith in the deity of Christ and the bodily resurrection strengthened. So you see, the issues we have been discussing, especially when it comes to the exegesis of God's Word, are central to practical apologetics. Let the mockers mock: when it comes to actually doing the work of apologetics, what will they rely upon when the challenges arise?

TGE blew a fuse and came unglued because I dared to contextualize my comments in providing a calm, reasoned response to a point raised by Alastair (below). Compare what I said with this kind of vitriolic ad-hominem:

I think, rather, that you're just one more arrogant little Modern pretending to be better than everything and everyone who's come before you, and that your attitude toward those who disagree with you is one of the most un-Christlike things I've ever seen or heard on this Internet.

Hey, love ya Tim! I'll keep praying you'll regain your balance someday. I'll keep replying to Alastair as time allows (though I'm leaving next week), but you know what...all I have to do is let you vent your spleen like that, and it makes my points for me. :-)

Ol' [Pete] has dug up another conspiracy! While safely ensconced in his super-secret hideout in the wilds of Nova Scotia, he discovered that if you look for the new debate book with Dave Hunt, due out next month, you will find that it is a co-authored work, with my name, in the US and, of all places, Japan. However, if you look up this book in Canada, the UK, Germany or France via Amazon, Dave Hunt is the only author! Evidently he was debating himself. As Pete said, he's really looking forward to the upcoming Debating Spurgeon: One Quote, Two Meanings book.

I recognize that there is a fair amount of confusion on the part of some regarding the current controversy noted in the recent blog entries. It is my hope that over time that confusion can be cleared up, and in the process, some of God's people will be blessed. Even with the gaseous cloud of vituperative sarcasm being belched out by "Purist," his rank humor can be used to illustrate many points in the debate.

Going back to the response offered by "Alastair," I note again the utter absence of exegetical interaction with the invitation I offered Mr. Enloe, that being to explain the presence of "false brethren" amongst the baptized members of the leadership of the church. He, and other AAPC devotees, have expressed the idea that the Roman Catholic is my brother merely because of the "sign" of Trinitarian baptism. This text seems to contradict such a conclusion. Next, I have no interest in debating Alastair's peculiar take on NPism. Yes, the comments I have made on NPism are focused on Wright for the obvious reason that it is his work that is impacting the churches in the United States more than anyone else. Moving on to the sub-section "Christian Knowledge" Alastair quoted from my blog:

Folks, the foundation of the Christian life is knowing who God is, what He has done in Christ, and that I have peace with God not because of anything I have done but solely because of what Christ has done. Until that relationship of peace is established and understood, the rest is just window dressing. You can sprinkle water on somebody’s noggin until they drown, but without that foundation you will never build a proper, balanced Christian life.

For those who recall what I was talking about, I was responding to the constant denigration in TGE's writings of my deep, constant, and abiding concern for the doctrine of justification, the importance of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, etc. I was saying that outside of the establishment of that divine condition of eirene, shalom, peace which comes about only through the much-maligned truth of sola fide, faith alone apart from works of righteousness, all the rest of TGE's "Second Christendom" rhetoric has no meaning. Alastair missed the context:

The foundation of my Christian life is not my knowledge of who God is, what He has done in Christ, and that I have peace with God not because of anything I have done but solely because of what Christ has done. My Christian life is founded upon the reality of these things, not upon my knowledge of their reality. This is no small distinction. Someone can taste of the reality without being able to articulate it in an orthodox manner.

I never said it was my knowledge, but how can I have a Christian life if I am ignorant of my justification before God? Here again the text steps in: what comes after Romans 5:1 and the establishment of peace is, in fact, the rest of the Christian life itself. But that life comes about as a result of justification by grace through faith alone, and that standing as a justified person is what gives rise to all the rest of Romans 5:1-10. Where does the text tell us about those who are ignorant of their peace with God? Since the text says by faith (not by baptism, which is the key here), what, or more properly, who, did they believe in? All the Christian characteristics noted in the following verses assume the state of justification exists, by faith, so that peace exists between the individual Christian and their Lord. Despite all the cries of "individualism!" and "Donatism!" that might be raised, the fact is that these are personal terms. No Christian society will ever exist outside of the regeneration of the individuals that make it up. Hence the problem with TGE's sacralistic usage of the Oak of Geismar: no one is justified by destroying their idols as long as they remain an idolater at heart. Cut down their idol, then stand there with a garden hose and sprinkle them down in the name of the Trinity if you wish: such is not Christian evangelism. The tragic element of that section of TGE's comments was placing the action of chopping down the oak in opposition to the proclamation of the very heart of the gospel message. And that was my point.

Our less-than-brave (read "cowardly") mole seems to have constant access to his website:

Fight on O Great White Warrior! Lift your sword as we ride on and stand shoulder to shoulder to battle these great heresies and the wretched souls who will own them!

Why thank you, so much! I will do my best. However...how about having the, well, guts, to come out from behind your anonymity, and join me on The Dividing Line so that we can discuss these issues one-on-one? Seems your ilk...sorry, type, prefers monologues rather than dialogues. It is so much easier to blather on without having to worry about actually interacting with answers to your position. Perhaps you, who are obviously able to express yourself forcefully in print, would be able to engage the exegetical and theological issues, to the benefit of all who would hear? So how about it, Purist? Is there more to you than sarcastic bluster?

Hey, you know that show, "Celebrity Mole"? We have an IRC mole now. This morning a conversation broke out in channel about the importance of exegesis, the rules of hermeneutics, and eventually the entire concept of creeds, Scripture, inspiration, etc. Well, hardly any time later we find an anonymous blogger named "Purist" who is intent upon going after yours truly posting something that borrows directly from the logs of the discussion (or so it seems to us anyway). Whoever this guy is, he has a lot of less-than-repressed anger. See for yourself. Bring your asbestos gloves. Anyway, I do wonder what it is like to hide behind pseudonyms like that. Strange, very strange. :-)

I just got an e-mail wherein someone recounted showing Angel's recent work to Dave Hunt. His response, rather than explaining his continued misrepresentation of Spurgeon, was to allege that I was not able to get the "required" three endorsers for our debate book (which we will soon be listing here on the site). Hey Dave, Multnomah asked me ONCE for names, and that as I was leaving town. The only person I felt I could actually subject to the experience of having to read the book as an endorser was Phil Johnson! Otherwise, why are we looking for endorsers on a debate book? Aren't the readers supposed to be the judges of a debate book? What is an honest endorser supposed to say, "Uh, well, this isn't even a close one"? I repeat my call to Dave Hunt: let's make this book worthwhile by debating the issues openly in a moderated, public debate, and then adding that video/DVD to the book! I'm open to it, and every time one of your fans writes to me to complain, I'm going to be reminding them of my invitation to you. You know you agreed, more than once, to do so. Let's set it up! You have my number!

I do not have any idea who "Alastair" is outside of his being a big fan of NT Wright, NPism (wait...another connection between AAPC and NPism?) and the author of a very poor "review" of J. Ligon Duncan's article in response to NPism. But he has decided to take up the cause for TGE, and in the process has given us much to think about regarding the wide differences that exist between us. Unfortunately, not an iota of exegesis is offered by Alastair in fulfillment of the challenge to deal with the text of the New Testament. This is, sadly, the commonality of this movement: when challenged to get beyond sophistic formulations and get down to the vital matter of dealing with the text, these folks just fall apart. If these wonderful sounding axioms and credos are so divinely wonderful, why do they cripple their users when it comes to handling the text?

More to come. This could be useful to a lot of folks, and as time
allows today, I'll try to add some more commentary.

Some may be confused about the comment I made below regarding Galatians 2:4-5 and the issue of whether the Roman Catholic is my "brother." Part of the controversy, of course, goes back to the nature of the New Covenant, Hebrews 8, and all the many discussions focused thereon (I will have a full-length article on Hebrews 8 and the Newness of the Covenant in Christ's blood in the next edition of the Reformed Baptist Theological Review, www.rbtr.org). But part also goes to the concept, emphasized by those associated with the AAPC movement, of the "objectivity of the covenant." A person "properly baptized" is now objectively a part of the covenant according to this view, whether regenerate,
repentant, elect, etc. In the end, such a non-elect person can only find covenant curses, never true salvific covenant blessings. Be that as it may, if one believes Trinitarian baptism makes one a member of the New Covenant, then the issue is, 'Who am I to not refer to such a person as my brother (or sister), and encourage them to covenant faithfulness?' Hence, the assertion is made that the Roman Catholic is my brother.

Of course, I do not believe baptism joins anyone to the covenant in Christ's blood, and I truly wonder about any concept of baptism that separates it from faith. The reason Galatians 2:4-5 enters the conversation is simply due to the fact that it speaks of "false brethren" when making reference to individuals who were inside the fellowship of the church. These were obviously baptized men, and yet, Paul identified them as false brethren. The relevance to the question "is the Roman Catholic my brother" is almost too obvious for comment, given the issue of the false gospel promulgated both anciently by those false brethren, and the gospel of Rome today. While you would think such a biblical example would be forefront in the discussions, my experience has been that rather than offering a contextually accurate, grammatically insightful, exegetically sound response, we hear all about Platonic forms and medieval Christendom and discrete theological propositions and cutting down oak trees---oh, along with one of the standard sacralistic slams like "Donatist" or "Anabaptist" or some such. Yes, most folks do wonder a bit when theological students refuse to engage the text in such a fashion when given the opportunity to do so, especially when those same folks, only a few years ago, before all this new hyper-or-mono-covenantalism came back into vogue, would not have hesitated to engage the text in just such a fashion.

Tim Enloe says he's not going to respond, and then he responded.
:-) In part:

So go ahead, Dr. White. Blog some more about my "discontent with truth". You're only preaching to a very narrow choir. Which is, of course, exactly how your very narrow, very much Donatist-like theological tradition likes it.

For those not familiar with the digs used by sacralists, you might want to get hold of a copy of Leonard Verduin's The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. There is a whole chapter on the use of that term as a derogatory remark. Be that as it may, I have a suggestion for Mr. Enloe. It seems that despite his hard work on his thesis, TGE has lots of time for writing other stuff, especially on this topic. So, how about we benefit everyone and actually address an issue in a formal, written format on this website? How about we address the issue, "Is the Roman Catholic My Brother"? I think our readers would find such an encounter, with specific limitations on lengths, most useful. How about it, TGE? Galatians 2:4-5 revisited? You say I'm "courting heresies," so lets obey the concept of Isaiah 8:20, and see who handles the Word of God aright?

To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

And the response was quick:

The answer to Dr. White's debate challenge to me is "No". There are far more credible men out there who can stand against Dr. White--why doesn't he seek them out? I am just a layman and an undergraduate student who sometimes has a little bit of time to post informal, rambling stuff on a blog. Why a Doctor of Theology with a well-established, public ministry would care to publicly and formally debate with an undergraduate student who wrote some rambling stuff on an out-of-the-way blog on the hind-end of cyberspace seems very strange.

Why should it seem strange? TGE has been active in Internet apologetics for quite some time; has been associated with a number of ministries, and I have said many times he is one of the sharpest folks I've ever met. But the answer to the question is not far to be had: I have said from day one the issue is exegetical. Mr. Enloe has repeatedly (and falsely) asserted I believe I am
immune from external influences in my interpretation of Scripture. Myself, and others, have attempted to explain that the proper practice of sound hermeneutics is designed to identify those external influences and filter them so that the actual meaning of the original text can first be ascertained before it is then transferred into the context of the modern situation. An exegetically based discussion of the issues would demonstrate this for all to see, to the benefit of any follower of Christ. Sadly, Mr. Enloe's response to a challenge to engage the biblical text is:

But at the end of the day, the problem is less with his actual views than it is with his horrible, sectarian ATTITUDE. Can't get him to understand that, though. He just wants to run formal debates and piously intone "To the law and to the testimony and if they speak not according to [my sectarian exegetical conclusions] they have no dawn."

Big words that would be easily proven, if true. Odd that the one avoiding the demonstration would make them. In any case, my invitation remains open.

And as to seeking out others, well, I know of some who are doing just that.
:-)

N.B. One of the greatest ironies is found in one of the comments posted in response to TGE's blog, from one of the more notorious of Rome's self-congratulatory defenders, Dave Armstrong:

Very short-lived promise from yesterday, Tim. :-) But hey, I can relate totally. For once we agree on something. When it comes to your criticisms of Dr. White, we're like two peas in a pod. Now you can see the frustration I've had trying to interact with the man, since 1995.

Few books have been written that are as insightful on the subject of the deity of Christ as this one. B.B. Warfield, one of the greatest theologians of the modern era, provided this wonderful work long ago, but it continues to speak with power to this day. I have written a strong commendation for the book which is cited on the back. This is a book you will want for your own library, and, you may wish to encourage your elders with copies as well! See our bookstore for ordering information. We now have this wonderful work in stock, and when you get these resources from aomin.org, you are helping to support the debates, the Dividing Line, and everything else we do.

OK, I've made glancing comments on the Dividing Line without getting specific, mainly due to respect for the individual (I still like this guy!) and out of hope that some semblance of balance might be regained. But today's rambling comments by Timothy Enloe (see the blog entry for 1/14/04) simply demand a brief response. Seemingly, unless you believe it is God's intention to create anther "Christendom," i.e., a Christian society (and hence hold to a particular form of post-millennialism), you separate the gospel out from the "rest of life." The result? Well---and Mr. Enloe says this repeatedly---specifics regarding the doctrine of justification do not seem anymore to be relevant to the gospel itself (if you are wondering where you heard that before, let me remind you: it's called ECT, Evangelicals and Catholics Together). The example used by Enloe in the current blog is quite insightful: the destruction of the Oak of Geismar by Boniface in the 8th century. Enloe narrates it briefly, and then makes the amazing statement, "Boniface preached the Gospel by chopping down a tree, not by thundering about Justification By Faith Alone." So, that was the extent of the proclamation? Cut down the tree and then sprinkle the amazed and awed pagans, and now you have a Christian society? Does not history tell us what happens when this kind of "societal evangelism by baptism" is practiced? You end up with wet paganism. What happened to following the Apostolic example found in the New Testament? Why didn't Paul knock over the altar to the Unknown God? Why am I a Platonist for noting that the Apostles seemed quite concerned about the details of their proclamation of the gospel? Have all those statements about "watch your doctrine!" from 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus fallen out of the canon up in Moscow, Idaho?

Folks, the foundation of the Christian life is knowing who God is, what He has done in Christ, and that I have peace with God not because of anything I have done but solely because of what Christ has done. Until that relationship of peace is established and understood, the rest is just window dressing. You can sprinkle water on somebody's noggin until they drown, but without that foundation you will never build a proper, balanced Christian life. Whether justification involves imputation or infusion may sound like a war over words, but it isn't, anymore than saying there really is no difference between saying Jesus is God or "a god." The issue of whether there is, in fact, a positive imputation of Christ's righteousness or not (the issues relating to New Perspectivism) is vital to how we view ourselves, our relationship to God, our standing in Christ, and any number of pastoral questions and issues. And whether the mere act of Trinitarian baptism actually joins one to the covenant in the blood of Christ so that one so baptized is in fact to be considered a "brother" (contra Galatians 2) is likewise of vital importance to our evangelism, our view of the gospel, and our apologetics. These are vitally important issues, with great importance to the faith. I can only hope that those who once seemed to be balanced in their understanding of these things will regain that balance, all to God's glory.

Now for our contingent of humorless Calvinists: Angel's cartoons come from listening to the Dividing Line and other tapes and materials presented by this ministry. They are meant to make a point. They do so with humor and yes, sarcasm. That's how they get the message across in a way it will be remembered. Dave Hunt grossly misrepresented Spurgeon (see the documentation
in my entry for 1/07, now in the blog archive). Despite being corrected repeatedly, Hunt has remained adamant in his error. So think about it, which is more likely to make the point and get remembered: the blog entry with its nice table, or the wonderfully composed cartoon above?

Further, it is apologetically relevant as well: if we do not call folks on "our" side like Dave Hunt to be accurate in his handling of such materials as the sermons of Spurgeon, how can we complain when our enemies mishandle documentation? If Hunt is willing to stand behind such obviously erroneous statements, despite the corrections of his friends, what does this say? In case you are wondering, Dave has called myself, and numerous other Calvinists, "elitists" many times (lots of documentation on that one), and as to the high praise for the book, well, I personally have always found it outrageously funny that Tim LaHaye, after saying Calvinism comes "perilously close to blasphemy" (would I debate LaHaye on the issue? At a moment's notice! Think of how many folks would get to hear about the doctrines of grace!), would say of a book copyrighted in 2002 that "This may well be the most important book written in the 21st century." Comments like that are begging for an "Angel-ic" response. :-)

Finally, one of our regular participants in channel, Mark Ennis, really summed it up well. He said, "The way he is handling Spurgeon is the ultimate example that proves Dave Hunt has no idea what language Calvinists speak." Exactly! Spurgeon was talking about the merit of the cross, not the intention of the cross, and as in so many other situations, those who oppose the doctrines of grace do so by not listening to what is being said to them. BTW, if you would like to join the conversation in the chat channel, click on the "A&O Chat" button to the left.

Now to quote folks from the chat channel when I first posted this, "Angel r0x0rz!"

For those waiting, interminably it seems, on Drawn by the Father, we have been promised it will arrive this week. Thanks for your patience.

Also...skip the DVD stuff as yet. All this silly -r +r stuff is driving us nuts. More work to do before we get that perfected (if it is perfectible). If you got a DVD and your player can't play it, we will send you a video to replace it. Every DVD we send out plays on ours, but, sadly, that doesn't mean a lot.

Oh, hey, for those of you who, like me, love tweaking the look of your systems (I use WindowBlinds on my XP desktop, and SilverScreen on my Tungsten T3), I found a real nice looking skin today for WindowBlinds...called "Smyrna." It not only looks nice, its biblical. :-)

Click here for the review. It begins, "The debate over God’s sovereignty in salvation has reached a new low with the publication of this book." Nice to hear others saying the same thing.

Norman Geisler has resigned from ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) in light of the organization's inability to remove Dr. Pinnock and Dr. Sanders from its membership. Here are his reasons:

http://www.normgeisler.com/etsresign.htm

Anyone who has taken the time to read much of Charles Spurgeon knows he believed in, and preached, the dreaded doctrine of "limited atonement," or as many of us prefer to put it, "particular redemption." I took the time last year when Dave Hunt's new book came out to read a sermon from Spurgeon that made the point rather clear. Many have pointed out his glaring error in asserting that Spurgeon denied limited atonement in "unequivocal" language. Hunt has waffled on the subject (the term "unequivocal" doesn't really leave you much meaningful wiggle room), and about as close as he's gotten to an admission he was wrong is to say that perhaps he was somewhat "strong" in his language. It would be very nice if Dave would just say, "OK, sorry, I blew it," but that does not seem a possibility.

Well, a few weeks ago Phil Johnson of spurgeon.org pointed out the probable source of Dave's error. He points to Samuel Fisk's book, Election & Predestination. Hunt lists Fisk as one of his sources (Hunt relied heavily upon such secondary sources, and I have always surmised, given the character of the quotation, and how the sermon goes on to identify limited atonement as Christian doctrine, that Hunt had simply grabbed this from somewhere else). Compare these two citations for yourself:

And then read what both authors somehow missed on the very next
page:

Blessed be God, His elect on earth are to be counted by millions, I believe, and the days are coming, brighter days than these, when there shall be multitudes upon multitudes brought to know the Saviour, and to rejoice in Him. Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption.

Could someone help me with the meaning "unequivocal"? :-)

Lots of folks ask us about Dan Corner, the fellow who has been so kind as to give me the Skull and Crossbones Award for bad theology, and who says I won't debate him. We have exposed Dan Corner, the great opponent of "OSAS," on our website. Now, we have photographic proof that Dan Corner will not debate the real issues. :-)

For some odd reason someone unknown to me recently posted to a discussion forum one of those e-mails you write because you really feel strongly about something. I had forgotten, but a few years ago Marc Carpenter, one of the more famous Internet Hyper Calvinists, had sent out one of those unsolicited e-mails to a large group of folks (you know the type that has a huge 'cc' list?). I actually took the time, for some reason, to sit down and write a fairly full reply. I'm not sure why the person who reposted it did so, but I thought my reply was worth providing to a larger audience. The issue does come up frequently, and real Calvinists are often unfairly painted with the hyper-Calvinist label, so here are some thoughts on the subject. I don't know if the follow up he wrote is on his website or not, but since this isn't his website, but mine, you can look for his response if you are so inclined to do so. :-)

A fine young fellow that I've been seeing a lot of lately (has something to do with my lovely daughter, I do believe) showed me a periodical titled "The Arminian." I was first amazed that there are still folks left on planet earth that willingly, gladly, without a word of remonstrance, accept the name of themselves. But what was far more interesting was the fact that there was an article in it by Steve Witzki written against "eternal security." You can see the article Here. Right at the beginning you will find the author quoting James Akin, staff apologist for Catholic Answers, from the debate notes he posted on his website from our radio debate from many years ago. This is the same debate where Akin misidentified various elements of the Greek language, as we documented in a previous Dividing Line broadcast. What was so strange is that this Arminian writer seemingly has no problem borrowing from a Roman Catholic when he is arguing that church history stands opposed to a belief in the perfection of the work of Christ. Of course, would the author likewise follow Akin’s historical arguments on such topics as the Mass, purgatory, or the Marian dogmas? We think not. But for those who get all upset when I point out the confluence of Arminianism and Roman Catholicism (based upon the centrality of synergism to both systems), please take up your complaint with Mr. Witzki.

Nine years ago now a panel discussion featuring three KJV Only advocates (Sam Gipp, Joe Chambers, and Thomas Strouse) and five non-KJV Only advocates (Dan Wallace, Don Wilkins, Art Farstad, Ken Barker, and myself) was recorded in the studios of the John Ankerberg Show. During the taping of the 4th episode, a complete non-event took place that I knew, given the wild-eyed fanaticism of some of the KJV Only advocates, would end up being twisted into absurdity. I wrote about it shortly after KJV Only folks began telling tall stories about it (click here). Much to my amazement, a quick Google search reveals that many years after the truth about the incident was told, KJV Onlyists continue to peddle a lie as if it were the truth. I was recently made aware of the fact that the entire, uncut, unedited 4th program is available for viewing
online. I just watched the whole thing, and 1) remain amazed that KJVO folks continue promoting their fable in light of the documentation available; 2) laughed to note that Thomas Strouse’s voice sounded worse than Don Wilkins’ did (was that God striking him down?); 3) that if this is divine intervention, can’t God overcome a sip of water? and 4) I was once thin as a rail (I was riding more than 5,000 miles a year on a bicycle at the time), had hair (yeah, it was thinning), and man, where did I get those glasses??? It was fascinating to watch the unedited program. I had forgotten that John Ankerberg stopped the whole thing and basically chided everyone for taking too long to answer questions. Having done radio for years, I did my best to be fast, fast, fast. Dan Wallace simply made Sam Gipp look silly, and I remember feeling sorry for Strouse as Gipp made some of the comments that he did. It is definitely worth the 30 some odd minutes to watch it. One thing is for sure. You see why the leading KJV Only advocates prefer monologues to dialogues!

I noted on 12/29 that I had preached a brief sermon on the new Mel Gibson movie. I heard from John Piper that he has written a small book embodying the very concerns I voiced in that sermon. If you would like to get hold of it, you can see it and order it (when it comes out) at www.passion-book.com. I had realized the need for such a work, had considered trying to do something in a flash, and am very thankful someone else has far more foresight than I do!

Secondly, I have neglected to let folks know that the Reformed Baptist Theological Review is now accepting subscriptions. For details on this new publication, see www.rbtr.org. I will be contributing an article on the exegesis of Hebrews 8 to the second edition, due out in July. You might wish to subscribe for yourself, and then buy a second for one of your elders. I did!

We received a phone call at PRBC this weekend. A woman in northern Utah called, seeking help. Seems someone from a "Reformed Baptist Church in Phoenix" had given some literature to her husband years ago outside the Salt Lake City Temple. She had read these books and wanted to know more about what she had now come to believe was true (we have contacted fellow believers in Utah to follow up in a more personal manner than we can from Arizona). What books had this man been given? Drawn by the Father and God's Sovereign Grace. Those not familiar with the books should know both are presentations and defenses of Reformed theology, i.e., Calvinism. Drawn is about John 6:35-45, and God's Sovereign Grace is my friendly presentation of the doctrines of grace (both have been reprinted and are available in our bookstore). Now, many, many folks would find passing out clearly, openly, unashamedly Reformed literature in Salt Lake City at the General Conference of the Mormon Church to be sheer lunacy. But we have known for a long time that the God of Scripture is so far beyond the anthropomorphic "exalted man" of Mormonism that the contrast of divine truth to human error can be used by God to draw His people unto Himself. It is such a joy to not have to worry about shaving off the rough edges of truth so as to mollify the "libertarian will" of man. Christ's sheep hear His voice. We just need to proclaim His truth with clarity and leave the rest in God's hands.