IT IS A GREAT THING to begin the Christian life by believing good solid doctrine. Some people have received twenty different "gospels" in as many years; how many more they will accept before they get to their journey's end, it would be difficult to predict. I thank God that He early taught me the gospel, and I have been so perfectly satisfied with it, that I do not want to know any other. Constant change of creed is sure loss. If a tree has to be taken up two or three times a year, you will not need to build a very large loft in which to store the apples. When people are always shifting their doctrinal principles, they are not likely to bring forth much fruit to the glory of God. It is good for young believers to begin with a firm hold upon those great fundamental doctrines which the Lord has taught in His Word. Why, if I believed what some preach about the temporary, trumpery salvation which only lasts for a time, I would scarcely be at all grateful for it; but when I know that those whom God saves He saves with an everlasting salvation, when I know that He gives to them an everlasting righteousness, when I know that He settles them on an everlasting foundation of everlasting love, and that He will bring them to His everlasting kingdom, oh, then I do wonder, and I am astonished that such a blessing as this should ever have been given to me!

"Pause, my soul! adore, and wonder!
Ask, 'Oh, why such love to me?'
Grace hath put me in the number
Of the Saviour's family:
Hallelujah!
Thanks, eternal thanks, to Thee!"

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

Ol' Bob Ross Keeps On...Doing His Thing

04/27/2005 - James White

   For those of you who get Bob Ross' e-mail updates, yes, I know he's still on the warpath. I feel for him, but decided last year that he is beyond correction, and in light of his encouragement of Wilkin's efforts, and his manifest ignorance of Wilkin's views, and his continued comments about a debate he did not see or hear (there's a lesson in there somewhere), he's only proven my point. I shall let him continue on his rant undisturbed...he will move on to some other target eventually. Lord bless him.

10:54:14 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Bob Wilkin in Debate and in Exegesis (Part II)

04/26/2005 - James White

   First, we note the phrase "no one is able." The verb "to come" (evlqei/n) is filling out the verb dunatai, which is what you always expect: even in English when we say "able" we follow it with an infinitival phrase, "to do something." In this case, it is a negation, "no one is able to come to Me." Is there a context to "coming" to Christ in the preceding verses? Most assuredly. The present participle of this verb appears in John 6:35 in the phrase "the one coming to Me will not hunger." The present participle emphasizes on-going action. In the same way, the present participle is again found in John 6:37 in the phrase "the one coming to Me I will certainly not cast out." This appears right after a closely related term is used in the phrase "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me." It is important to note the contextual flow here, for this provides the context of the use of "coming" in 6:44. In 6:35 Jesus speaks of the one who comes to Him finding in Him true spiritual food; but in 6:36 He says these men are not so coming to Him, but are, instead, unbelievers. John 6:37ff must be read in light of the fact that Jesus has just identified these men who have listened to Him preach all the preceding day, and had wanted to make Him King, and who then followed Him across the lake, as unbelievers. They will, He knew, walk away at the end of the day. He contrasts their unbelief with those who are coming to Him, believing in Him, gazing upon Him (all present tense, on-going verbal actions in the text). So then, we must see 6:44 continuing the thought of 6:37-40, with 41-42 providing a descriptive interlude of the grumbling of the Jews over the claims of Christ, leading to further explanation of why it is that these unbelievers are not believing in/coming to Christ. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Bob Wilkin in Debate and in Exegesis (Part I)

04/25/2005 - James White

This picture sort of sums up the end of the debate: I'm listening to the moderator who is trying to make some serious closing remarks, and Wilkin is...well, I guess only he knows. At one point he was taking pictures of the audience. All I can say is that Dr. Wilkin evidently is not interested in convincing serious Calvinists of his position, for his presentation was fully intended to impress only the already convinced. That audience seems to be entertained by behavior that "my" audience would find not only distracting, but simply disrespectful.
   I really do not know how we managed to set up a debate that had no cross-examination, but there was none in the debate against Robert Wilkin in Oklahoma City (my fault, I'm sure: I was simply too busy to give it my attention until too late to do anything about it). Given the way it went, that was probably providential, in that I am uncertain Dr. Wilkin would have been able to muster the necessary restraint for it to take place. In any case, I did not get to engage him in his assertion that I was guilty of eisegesis in reference to John 6:44. Now realize, this was after Wilkin had already done the classic "John 12:32" end-around anyway, but his specific assertion was that the one who is raised up on the last day is the one who comes, not the one who is drawn, in John 6:44.
   The verbal elements of John 6:44 are: 1) du,natai evlqei/n (dunatai elthein); 2) o` pe,myaj (ho pempsas); 3) e`lku,sh| (helkuse), and 4) avnasth,sw (anasteso). Now, #2 (it is the description of the Father as the one who sent the Son) is not really directly relevant to our question, so we will focus upon the other elements. The last verb is "I will raise up" on the last day. This is the promise of Christ. He says He will raise "him" (auvto.n) up on the last day. Who is it that Jesus raises up? This is the big question. Is there a difference between the "him" who is raised up, and the "him" only three words earlier who is drawn? I say there is not, but the Arminian must insist that there is a major break here, and that the one who is drawn is not at all necessarily the same one who is raised up. Wilkin's assertion is that the one who is drawn is the one who comes, but that not all who are drawn come. Can this argument be substantiated by the text? [continued]

02:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Wow, What a Night

04/22/2005 - James White

   Well, if I had written out how I expected the debate to go...I would have been wrong. I never expected legions of straw-men, enough ignorance of Reformed theology to make Dave Hunt proud, and a nasty, cutting presentation aimed not at the thesis but at me, in particular. But hey, I can roll with the punches, and once again, as in Debating Calvinism, the contrast between the two sides was very, very marked. While I accurately cited his book just briefly to give the audience context, he quoted snippets from debates, presenting a theology that had so little resemblance to what I actually believe it was almost like reading a comic-book. While I focused upon the specific thesis topics in my PowerPoints, he included one portion where he showed a large mansion, saying, "This is what Dr. White thinks his gospel is: glorifying to God and majestic. But since his definition of faith is rotten, in reality, this is Dr. White's gospel..." flipping to a picture of a run down, leaning over, rotten wooden shack in a field. Yes, this was the level of his presentation. I was simply amazed. Dr. Wilkin must have skipped the classes at Dallas where they actually presented Reformed theology, for one thing is for sure, he has a very, very warped view of what it is.
   More when I return. Thank you for your prayers, and a special thanks to Mark Bainter for driving up to OKC and video taping the debate. Mark may not technically work for A&O, but without him, and just a few others like him, we would not be doing what we are doing right now. God bless you all.

22:33:20 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Bob Ross Supports and Encourages Anti-Lordship Viewpoint

04/20/2005 - James White

I am not at all certain of Bob Wilkin's view on this matter, but I do understand that he does NOT hold that one can be a "regenerated unbeliever." To that extent, at least, we can agree with him. On the other hand, if he holds to the "unregenerated believer" view espoused by Dave Hunt in his debate with White, then we must disagree with that concept. -- Bob L. Ross

   Evidently Bob Ross is back on the warpath, accusing me of heresy and the like, and making sure to contact Robert Wilkin about our upcoming debate:

I have personally given notice to Bob Wilkin that what White holds on this subject is not creedal Calvinism, and should not be treated as such. In an email to me, Wilkin has assured that "I plan to mention once or twice that White's views are not those of all or even most 5-point Calvinists."

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

19:58:10 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

A Real Important Debate This Friday in Oklahoma City

04/18/2005 - James White

   For those in the area, you are invited to attend the debate this coming Friday evening between myself and Dr. Robert Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society (Ph.D., Dallas Seminary). Here are the details as to location, time, directions, contact info, etc. I do not believe the debate will impact the Thursday DL, for those interested, as I fly over on Friday morning. The debate will have two parts. In the first I will defend the thesis statement, "Resolved that regeneration precedes faith." Then in the second Dr. Wilkin will be defending the statement, "Resolved that works are not an indispensable element of true faith." We will both be using PowerPoint presentations, and I expect the pace will be pretty fast. I'm really looking forward to this debate, and will have more to say about it either before or after, depending on our scheduling on the Dividing Line.

09:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Michael Spencer: Last Time (Updated, Expanded)

04/15/2005 - James White

   Last evening I spent a lot of time--way too much time, especially given how far behind I am on a number of things, to respond to the "Internet Monk" and his essay about why he is "different" than "us Calvinists." Now, I interacted with him, even told some of my own personal stories, all to point out that us "Calvinists" are not only human beings, but can stand toe-to-toe with such essays without compromising the gospel in the process. Read them for yourself. Up-front, but hardly "nasty."
   Well, evidently, the IM has adopted the viewpoint that he can dish it out--he can talk about the "Reformed Inquisition" and the like, but if someone responds, even in a fair manner, they are the equivalent of Nazi storm troopers. "Persecution!" is the call. He's so mean! What a nasty man! I.e., "I get to say what I want. I can demean you, I can attack your life, your character, and your theology, but don't you dare point out where I'm inconsistent, or I'll wrap myself in the robes of martyrdom, and that will get all my post-modernist friends in a real tizzy." Conclusion: the man has no interest in actually hearing the other side. His is the final word. The rest of ya, just clam up. I'm sure I'll hear about how I forced a kind, gentle person to shut down his blog because I'm just so mean. Sorry, but this is just silly. Mr. Spencer, if you are going to broadbrush an entire group of folks and attack their beliefs, don't be overly surprised if they point out your errors. That doesn't make you a martyr, that makes you a fuzzy thinker. Here's his commentary: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

09:58:57 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

A Calvinist Responds to Michael Spencer, Internet Monk (Part II)

04/15/2005 - James White

I cannot comfortably say that the reformation of the church needs to remake it into the image of what I saw in the conservative resurgence in the SBC. I support much of that reformation, but where is the humility? The generosity of Jesus? The flavor and aroma of grace? I have had enough of war metaphors, because I have seen enough war. No more.

I'm not able to look into men's hearts like you seem to be able to so as to see their humility level. But this isn't why you are not like me anyway.

I am not like you because I constantly find Jesus taking me out of the places and labels other Christians find essential, and instead showing me that he is more, greater, deeper, wider than any way I can try to limit him. He was greater than my fundamentalism. He was greater than my Charismatic phase. He was greater than my liberal, seminary student days. He was greater than my years as a youth minister on church staff. Now I am finding he is greater than my years of Calvinism.

Again, lovely words, but I reject the idea that truth about Christ is a limitation of Christ. If He is "greater" that just means you were ignorant before...not that what you believed that was true is now false, or, worse, that nothing is true or false outside of your experience anyway.

There is a visible horizon with Jesus, because there are things I can understand and affirm in the creeds and confessions.

There's a spot where we are different: where did the inspired Scriptures go? ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:47:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

A Calvinist Responds to Michael Spencer, Internet Monk (Part I)

04/15/2005 - James White

   Michael Spencer, aka "Internet Monk," wrote an article that has been linked to by a number of folks today, so I felt compelled to respond. Just to do something different, my responses are in blue.

I'm Not Like You: An Apologia to My Readers (Calvinists especially)

Michael: No, you aren't. Though we have never spoken, at least to my knowledge, you seem to have a number of folks who, even though they don't agree with your current theological...direction, still like you a good bit. I had seen something you wrote last year and found a few things I like, some I didn't. BTW, why is it that if I challenge your statements about me, I'm inviting you to a chopping block? Is that just the "Hey, I'm emotional" and therefore massively inconsistent thing?

I am not like you. That's not an attitude of condescension, it's just a fact that I need to bring to the front of our relationship. You are writing me letters and notes about N.T. Wright, my views on inerrancy, my coziness with Catholicism. Your concern is appreciated, but now it's time to stop it. We need to accept that we are different, and we are not on the same page in this journey.

That's neat. Hope you don't mind, however, if we keep reading, first of all, and secondly, when we find you inconsistent with the truth, we point it out? I mean, you do seem to be suggesting that what you say is true in some sense, and Christian in some sense, so, unless you are saying that we don't have the right to address the same issues, it is alright if we speak our mind as well, yes?
...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:46:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

James White the Gnostic Heretic (Updated!)

04/11/2005 - James White

   My personal Alexander the Coppersmith, Paul Owen of Montreat College, has offered his views of my various heresies today. I note that the best that has come out of my bearing his animosity and constant vociferous hostility over the years is that he has been forced, for various reasons, to become ever clearer in revealing his theological positions, and for that I'm grateful. I would imagine blasts like the one below should help those who would involve themselves with him in any kind of church or conference setting see where he is really coming from. He is surely no friend to the vast majority of the apologetics community (they already figured that out for other reasons), but in reality, he is no friend to the largest portion of anything that would call itself "conservative Evangelical" or "conservative Reformed." I guess if something good comes out of his constant rants (i.e., the church is warned of a wolf in sheep's clothing), that is a good thing. Here's his most recent missive: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

13:21:58 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Why Trying to Deal with rC's Goes Nowhere

04/11/2005 - James White

   Mr. Enloe just commented on the article I noted yesterday, and in so doing, demonstrated that I completely, and utterly, wasted my time in the recent discussion (well---at least as far as communicating with rC's, anyway). When someone has decided that they know what you believe, despite your repeated corrections, there really is nothing more you can do. Here is just one paragraph of the longest portion:

Dr. White lives in a world completely defined on all sides, pro and con, by theological extremism. As such he is an extremist and cannot help but present only extremist criticisms of everything that disagrees with his extremism. I agree with you: until he learns to tone his extremist rhetoric down and actually interact with what is being said, there's no reason to spend any serious time trying to deflect his criticisms of this website. Though most of what he says assuredly plays very well on the fears and radicalisms of the Fundamentalist crowd he serves, he has yet to hit us with anything substantive. For instance, looking with deep suspicion at the word "Catholicism" being joined to the word "Reformed" is hardly an argument, especially when it comes from a man who is willing to chop the Reformation off at the historical roots and treat the Scriptures like they are a mere piece of technology controlled by the levers and buttons of a high degree of competence in manipulating Koine Greek slaved to a thoroughly radicalized vision of "onlies". Mere self-testimonies about loving the truth and being unwilling to compromise simply don't cut it in the world of respectful theological discourse. This is a lesson which Dr. White needs very much to learn and begin to practice in his dealings with others.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

13:05:21 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

More on Why "Reformed Catholicism" is Just Simply...Catholicism

04/10/2005 - James White

   The title should have warned me, "This article ought to make us yearn for unity...we are not as separated as some would have us be." Yeah, that non-perfecting, repetitive sacrifice of the Mass is just real close to the Reformed doctrine of atonement. Right next door. Anyway, the article is "more of the same," but the paragraph chosen for posting on ReformedCatholicism.com ended with the following words:

For his fans, Karol Wotjyla is the prophetic figure who, at the close of the bloodiest and most barbaric century in human history, in spite of an assassin's bullet and Parkinson's disease, missionized the world in an exhausting and unprecedented series of travels; inoculated the Church against mutated strains of the same heresies Leo and Gregory combated centuries ago; began the painful process of reconciliation with both the Jewish people and separated Christian brethren; and played a decisive and perhaps pivotal role in the defeat of that twentieth century version of barbarism known as Soviet communism. That the latter happened, in our Strangelovian age, with nary a shot being fired might well be regarded as an event only modestly less miraculous than the Resurrection.

   How anyone, and I truly mean anyone, cannot see how that is so outlandishly blasphemous as to result in an unvoluntary groan of disgust I honestly cannot understand. Evidently, writing for a blog named for an utter oxymoron eventually dulls you to such things.

16:46:35 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

They Went Out From Us

04/07/2005 - James White

   Evidently there is no "tolerance" amongst the uber-tolerant "Reformed Catholics" for believing that the gospel is what defines the Christian faith. One of their number, who has moved a very, very long way away from where he once stood and from what he once professed, taught, and even preached, recently wrote an article titled "Noisy Gongs and Clanging Cymbals." In it he makes oblique reference to me, of course, and my stand on the fact that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, the gospel is definable beyond "Jesus is Lord," and Rome's gospel is not the gospel once for all delivered to the saints. I guess there is tolerance amongst the rC's for Papal Infallibility, Marian devotion (goodness is there with this fellow!), Masses and purgatory, but none for believing the solas of the Reformation are true and actually matter. In any case, it is a very sad, but very sobering example of not only the double standard inherent in all such ecumenical, truth-compromising movements (You conservatives are so mean! You are so intolerant! Purgatory isn't all that bad! But if you hold firm to your beliefs, we will call you noisy gongs and clanging cymbals and deny that you do what you do out of love!), but in this case, how far one will go from what one once professed.
      We are not the first generation to see this, but until you do see it, close at hand, the words of Scripture can tend to remain somewhat distant. John, the last of the apostles, as an aged man, well knew this truth. He wrote to the infant, small, struggling church, wracked with heresy and division (1-3 John). And he had to write about those who had once been a part of their fellowship, even those who had stood before their congregations, joined in the Lord's Supper, sang the hymns---but who were now false teachers, leading many astray. He spoke of those who had gone out: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

15:19:26 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Final (and I Do Mean Final) Response to Mr. Enloe (Part III)

04/06/2005 - James White

I close with some questions to Dr. White. If he denies that he practices nuda / solo Scriptura, why do his apologetics against Roman Catholics and other Protestants denigrate all authorities except Scripture?

   Answer: If saying all other authorities are not theopneustos equals denigration, then I guess I'm guilty. But as I have noted, Mr. Enloe simply has no idea what he is talking about when he says I denigrate all authorities except Scripture. Such is simply a straw man misrepresentation. Goodness, he knows I'm an elder in an LBCF Reformed Baptist Church--how could I hold the views he ascribes to me?

What other publicly-binding authoritative entities does Dr. White recognize than the local church?

   If I have defended the doctrine that the Apostles established the eldership of the local church as the highest ecclesiastical authority, why ask such a question?

How does his understanding of the local church not ultimately reduce to the "local" individual?

   I've published on the subject. I invite Mr. Enloe to read. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

What "Reformed Catholicism" Does

04/05/2005 - James White

Tim Enloe writes on Dave Armstrong's blog:

   I also as a Reformed Christian want to say to my Catholic brothers that I strongly disagree with the views of my Baptist brothers Drs. White and Svendsen, and all their like-minded friends from other denominations. Nobody on either side of the divide needs to be "reminded" that the issues that separate us are very serious; much less does anyone need to be "reminded" of this at a time of great personal sadness when brothers have lost someone they consider to be their beloved Pastor and Father.
   The stark insensitivity to basic human compassion that is produced by this utterly radicalized "timeless truth" version of justification by faith alone, where "Good News" supposedly consists of mercilessly beating other image-bearers over the head with abstract, impersonal Doctrinal Propositions and congratulating oneselves for superior fidelity to "Truth", is not even remotely close to the position and spirit of the Protestant Reformers. Combined with a failure to appreciate the very good things that John Paul II did—things which only someone in the pope's position of cultural visibility could have accomplished—it is a gross discredit to the Protestant cause today.
   Thankfully, things are changing within our ranks.

   If I might just say, Mr. Enloe is not in my "ranks," nor is Paul Owen or all the others who have decided that compromise and a gospel without substance is all they have to offer to the world. I openly, if with sadness, draw the line where it must be drawn. He went out from us so that it might be demonstrated he was not of us. I still love the gospel more than the approval of men. No compromise.
   John Calvin (who, until recently, was considered a Protestant Reformer):

This much it seemed proper to say in passing, that my readers may understand how very widely the Roman See, as it now exists, differs from the ancient See, under which it endeavours to cloak and defend itself. But whatever they were formerly, as they have no true and legitimate office in the Church, they only retain a colour and empty mask; nay, as they are in all respects the opposite of true ministers....I now leave all the pious to judge what the supreme pinnacle of the Roman hierarchy must be, to which the Papists, with nefarious effrontery, hesitate not to subject the word of God itself, that word which should be venerable and holy in earth and heaven, to men and angels. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, vii:30.

15:31:58 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

See, I'm Not Alone

04/05/2005 - James White

   If you have time, you might wish to listen to the late Greg Bahnsen's sermon on Roman Catholicism, available here.

13:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Further Response to TGE (Part II)

04/05/2005 - James White

1) Did Hebrews 8 have a meaning when it was penned originally under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God? Yes. (But that meaning isn't necessarily identifiable with the assured results of the distinctly Modern and scientific type of hermeneutics that Dr. White practices.)

   What is "modern" about the examination of the text in its original context? Isn't the whole point of exegesis to allow us to "hear" the text in its ancient context, in its ancient setting? Isn't the imposition of some later tradition truly the "modern" viewpoint, the "modern" concept?

2) Was that meaning understandable to the audience to which it was written? Yes. (But Dr. White doesn't think about Scripture or live it out like that audience,

   How does Mr. Enloe know this? Does Mr. Enloe think about Scripture or live it out like the original audience of Hebrews by making reference to a Presbyterian form of church government?

for whom Scripture was part of a full-orbed culture, not a standalone text conveying all things only with its bare words interpreted via grammatical techniques.)

   I reject this repeated, yet, honestly, meaningless mantra. Standalone? WCF 31 is the context of the text to the original audience, perhaps? Bare words? We keep asking for where this "clothing" is---what clothing did the text have for the original audience that I have stripped from it that Enloe has kept by holding a particular ecclesiology or by studying the views of people who lived 1200 years after the writing of Hebrews?

3) Is that meaning obtainable today? Yes. (But perhaps it’s somewhat harder to do so than Dr. White appears to think it is?)

   Why? Why can't Mr. Enloe show this from my written works? Even if, as it seems obvious, Mr. Enloe has not read any of my recent works, surely he has enough to work from to demonstrate something concrete here, but he simply refuses to do so. This has been one of the great problems in attempting to dialogue with Mr. Enloe over the past many months: asking for concrete examples is met with this kind of nebulous response, and when this is pointed out, we are told that *we* are the ones who believe in abstract "eternal truths" that "float about in our heads." It truly makes it impossible to come to any conclusions when one side simply won't touch down to earth long enough to provide solid examples to examine. Elsewhere Mr. Enloe commented, "Several, including me, have said that proper exegesis is more difficult than the methodology James White uses." OK, which specific elements of my hermeneutic methodology are wrong, Mr. Enloe? Is it the examination of lexical meanings in a historical context? Semantic domains? Syntactical analysis? Discourse analysis? What is it? Can you answer, directly, clearly, specifically? ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

12:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Further Response to TGE (Part I)

04/04/2005 - James White

   In Dr. White's latest reply to me he says that I provided only one example of his misconstrual of sola Scriptura: his position on paedobaptism. He claims that his exegetical work on Hebrews 8 and 10 in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review proves that my accusation is false. It may be that he didn’t argue that way in the particular article that he references, but he has on many occasions in his chatroom argued that way.

   I'm sorry, but I truly feel like I am on solid ground to point out that if you are going to accuse someone of holding to a particular viewpoint, documenting it should not be so very difficult, especially when I have written so many works that provide page after page of exegesis. If I do not practice sola scriptura, then should it not be possible to demonstrate this rather easily? And yet we have found it very difficult to get straight answers on what should be a rather easily documented allegation. When I say a Roman Catholic, or a Mormon, or someone else, is violating the principle of sola scriptura, I am able to demonstrate it by reference directly to the scriptura. If one cannot do so, one might wish to avoid addressing the issue.

Certainly his recent blog post on removing the "trailer" (tradition) from one's "boat" (theological system) before sailing the boat supports what I’ve said about his attitude toward other Protestants.

   I am sorry the humorous story has proven so very difficult for folks to understand. Whether someone gets the illustration or not seems to provide some indication of how deeply one has been influenced by various traditional viewpoints. You are not supposed to put a boat in the water with the trailer still on it. The boat was not designed to function in that fashion. But you see, the folks driving the boat around didn't realize it was not supposed to be attached. See? They expected the boat to function in one particular way, but it could not do so. They did not understand the relationship of the boat to the trailer. See? I have no idea what TGE thinks this means, but once again, I am one of those who believes that Scripture, and Scripture alone, is theopneustos. If you join to that which is theopneustos that which is not theopneustos, you are joining things that are not meant to be connected, and that is true even if you do not realize your error. Are there Protestants who do this? Yes. Is TGE disputing this? ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives