"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." (John 6:38-39)

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." (John 10:27-28)

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. (NASB)
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (ESV)

That's why white doesn't post the answers to my questions on his blog. Answer the questions in the threads: Is Jesus Christ God, is the Holy Spirit God etc. He can't answer those questions because he thinks he is a god. He is a pretex evangelist. Any obedient Catholic in this forum can defeat James White in a debate using the Catechism. James White IS a straw man with no moral courage.

Yeah...I read it. It kinda' feels like being called out by Jack Chick. If I'm not with my wife in the delivery room (which is a distinct possibility), I may indeed give him a call. I'll probably listen (at least for a bit), but if he's too freaky-zealous I'm not going to "poke a rabid dog with a stick". That's just plain silly, and I'm not going to present an occasion of sin for either of us. If he doesn't act like a humble servant of God, I see no reason why I should encite him into acting even more haughty or beligerant. If his debates are any indication of how he conducts himself on the radio, my expectations are pretty low. If he has learned how to respect people, however, and treats others with Christian charity and humility, I see no reason why I shouldn't call in.

Funny. I read in the past that White doesn’t believe that K. Keating won’t debate him because he (Keating) says that he is too busy with other aspects of his apostolate. However, he expects everyone to take his word for the reason that he won’t debate Sungenis. He says something like Sungenis is not mainstream enough. Then he (White) debates someone like Rutland. I have asked in this forum who Rutland is and no one can (or hasn’t) told me. He is apparently unknown to most if not all folks here. I never heard of him before But I’m thinking that there aren’t many here who do not know who Sungenis is. Did you see the clips of the White/Rutland debate? Rutland may be a very good Catholic but he is not up to taking on the likes of White. Sungenis is. White is obviously afraid of losing. And he would.

After all...if James White converted to Catholicism....who would he debate? How would he earn a living?

John 3:2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God [as] a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God MAY BE with him."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one MAY BE born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one MAY BE born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:27 John answered and said, "A man can receive nothing unless it MAY HAVE been given him from heaven.
John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless [it is] something He MAY SEEthe Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you MAY EAT the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
John 7:51 "Our Law does not judge a man unless it first MIGHT HEAR from him and MIGHT KNOW what he is doing, does it?"
John 12:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat MAY FALL into the earth and MAY DIE, it remains alone; but if it MAY DIE, it bears much fruit.
John 13:8 Peter said to Him, "Never shall You wash my feet!" Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you MIGHT NOT HAVE any part with Me."
John 15:4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it MIGHT ABIDE in the vine, so neither [can] you unless you MIGHT ABIDE in Me.

"But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone [in it], but I and the Father who sent Me. Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true.

John 6:44, 65...except the Father...draw him; mood ignored
No Man Is Able to Come to Me
We note verse 44 as follows:
“No man is able to come to Me, except the Father--the One Who sent me--MAY draw him (helkuse auton): and I will raise him up at the last day.”[28]
[28 = I counted about 16 translations that hid the subjunctive aspect, may.] 
It should be noted that this passage is translated incorrectly by disregarding or hiding its conditional nature, which we have shown in our translation. The passage does not say, except the Father drawhim," implying absolute certainty that the Father will so draw. The inspired text reads:
except the Father...may draw him, a third class condition construction.[29]
[29 = This is a probable future condition, expressed by eva.n (ean) with the subjunctive mood, e`lku,sh| (helkusç, may draw). See §12, Third Class Condition, page 159 of this book. (Reference not given here).] ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

OK, I Just HAVE to Link to This

06/20/2005 - James White

   OK, I will refrain from any comments. The comic strip says it all. You'll see. Hat-tip, bird-dog, etc., to centuri0n via the Fluffy One. Don't ask, it wouldn't make sense if I explained it anyway.

09:28:30 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Another Fractal for the Desktop

06/19/2005 - James White

   Added a layer, tweaked things, and poof something completely different pops out. Once again, here's the full size version.

02:00:00 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

More Freebie Clips for Cheap Calvinists (and Others)

06/18/2005 - James White

   Well, posting the cross-ex portion on John 6:37 has been such a smash hit that Rich thought it would be fair to provide an equal length portion of the cross-ex where Bill Rutland is asking the questions, so here is a three-minute segment of some of the material from that section of the debate. Enjoy!

20:40:28 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

UCC Can't Figure Out if Jesus is Lord

06/18/2005 - James White

   The United Church of Christ, the denomination in which Barry Lynn is a minister (the same Barry Lynn I debated on the issue of homosexuality a few years ago), is currently debating, and will probably reject, a resolution simply stating that Jesus is the Lord. Here's a quick summary. There should be some means of burying the corpses of former Christian denominations, but there doesn't seem to be any truly effective means of doing so. Write "Ichabod" over the door and lock it up.

09:50:45 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

A Few Glimpses from the Debate Plus a Video Clip

06/17/2005 - James White

   I thought I'd post a few shots from the video of the debate. Here is a side-by-side shot of the cross-examination period. And here is a humorous point in Rutland's closing where he began by talking about how I am the premiere Catholic apologist today...and I was like, "Uh, wha?" And people started to snicker, and he stopped and looked at me, and I explained what he had said, so he recovered very well and said, "Well, must have been wishful thinking."
   Then, one of the most telling points of the debate had to do with my questioning Mr. Rutland about John 6 and Jesus' words there. Watch and listen for yourself to see if Mr. Rutland provided a coherent response to the biblical text itself.

20:40:40 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

A Fractal for Hobster

06/17/2005 - James White

   Hobster, one of our channel regulars and one of our ops, complained that his desktop wallpaper, consisting of some of my fractals, was getting old. So, I thought I'd help him out. And you thought it was just a phase...! Here is the full size version.

12:43:28 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

Portions of the Rutland Debate on Today's DL

06/17/2005 - James White

   We are making the mp3's of the debate available today, and hope to have the DVD's ready to go early next week (taking pre-orders now), so I played some sections from the debate in the first half hour of the DL today to give you a "taste," and then commented thereon. Second half hour was more on debating with Roman Catholics, some background stuff, how Scott Butler has video tapes of the first debates I did with Mitch Pacwa back in 1991 (which would be worthwhile just for the hair we both had then) and how we'd love to make them available, etc. Here's the program. And, if you want the entire debate, here are the links:

For the White vs. Rutland debate on Sections 841 and 1260 in mp3, CD, and DVD.

12:21:04 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Sippo Declines

06/16/2005 - James White

   As per a note on his website dated today, Dr. Sippo has declined to debate any of the topics offered to him, insisting we only debate his "grudge match," and, of course, accusing me of "backing down" for seeking to engage him on all sorts of other Roman Catholic teachings. I'm sure his followers will continue to adore him for his bravery, while the rest of those interested can judge for themselves who is willing to debate and who is not.

17:13:25 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

For Those Looking for the DL...

06/16/2005 - James White

   For personal reasons I had to move the Thursday evening edition of the DL to Friday morning, 11am. See you then!

17:08:13 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Haven't Mentioned These Folks in a While

06/16/2005 - James White

   When I travel I try to remember to bring some extra "Precious Feet" with me to give to the pastors of the churches where I'm ministering. The Precious Feet are the international pro-life symbol, and you will note that unless I forgot to put one back on after having my suit coat pressed, I have one on my lapel when I'm dressed to speak. Well, the folks at Heritage House 76 (www.heritagehouse76.com) have come up with a whole line of pro-life stuff. I get the feeling at times that this issue has disappeared off of the cultural radar screen, and we are reaping the results today: the secular world-view that allows us to treat life so lightly, and human life in particular as nothing but the random result of purposeless chance, is behind much of what we see in the evil in our society. We cannot stop speaking out against the murder of the unborn, especially in light of the fact that science continues to prove us right with each and every exploration of our life prior to birth. Give that site a visit and don't forget to wear your own Precious Feet. They are real conversation starters (or conversation killers if the other person is hyper-emotional, which has happened a few times!).

09:39:46 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

Sippo's Response

06/15/2005 - James White

In a state of fear and panic James White has begged me not to debate him on justification! He grovels asking that I pick any other topic but not THAT!

   Well, maybe that is overstating it. James wants to do another topic. He suggests Purgatory. Unfortunately, that is poor debate topic and it does not get to the heart of the matter.
   My areas of special interest is St. Paul and Justification. I know that area inside out. It is also the only thing that matters in a cath/prot debate. As Martin Luther stated the heresy of "justification by faith alone" (JBFA)is the doctrine upon which the Deformation stands or falls. If it can be shown that the prot doctrine of JBFA is false, then the whole prot system collapses and Catholicism remains standing triumphant. Purgatory is trivial by comparison and is indeed a derivative topic from Justifcation.
   This is a grudge match, James. We debated this topic before and you lost. You have written several books dealing with Justification. Why are you afraid to revisit the topic now? You should be able to do this one in your sleep.
   Puragatory is out. Our respective fans what to hear us do justification. We should give them what they want.

Dr. Sippo:
   I firmly believe, deep down inside, you know you cannot handle any other topic, such as the Papacy, Papal Infallibility, etc., and that your sole area of self-claimed expertise is your New Perspective-tinged personal view of justification from the Roman Catholic viewpoint. Surely you would have to admit that the next debate on that topic shouldn't be with a Roman Catholic (I speak as one seeking to fill out the library of materials my ministry offers), but with a representative of the New Perspective, correct? Debating another Roman Catholic who happens (unlike my previous opponents) to think the work of Sanders or Dunn is highly compelling in reference to Trent might be interesting to a very small group of people, but that isn't a group of people we are going to be hearing from anyway. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

17:46:19 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Can Art Sippo Debate on Anything But Justification?

06/14/2005 - James White

   Two items about Dr. Sippo's debate challenge: 1) I do not believe he will allow for meaningful cross-examination, which has worked so well with the likes of Mitch Pacwa and Patrick Madrid and Gary Michuta and...well, you get the idea. I believe he knows he could not survive in such a context and hence will bluster about having only a couple of questions with long periods to respond, etc. 2) Why can't Sippo debate on anything other than one topic? I've only done one debate on purgatory, and it went very well. If Sippo is right on justification, then purgatory should follow easily, as should indulgences. I personally think the issue of Sippo's grandiose claims and constant deprecation of "prots" (myself at the head of his list) would best be determined by a closely moderated debate that would include trial-like cross-examination of Rome's infallible teaching on the existence and necessity of purgatory, with emphasis upon the close examination of such passages as 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. We've already debated justification---he's already declined a challenge to debate one of the Marian dogmas. I have almost half a dozen sola scriptura debates on my resume, multiple justification debates, numerous Papacy/Papal Infallibility debates, but only one full length purgatory debate (and one mini-version from long ago in Austin, Texas). So if I am going to invest the time and effort to arrange this so as to provide something useful to a wider audience, let's make it worthwhile. So, closely moderated formal debate with intensive cross-ex on purgatory. How about it, Dr. Sippo? I know some churches in the midwest who would be willing to host such a debate.

22:01:37 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Cyprian and the Chair of Peter

06/14/2005 - James White

   I flew by Steve Ray's site and noted something odd. There is a sorta random quote generator, "Quote of the Moment," and the one I saw was this:

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
St. Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church

   So I look at this quote and think to myself that anyone who has gone past the quote-book stage of reading Cyprian knows what he said about Stephen; they also know that Cyprian believed himself to sit on Peter's seat as the bishop of Carthage, and that the unity of Peter was expressed not in the person of the bishop of Rome, but in all the bishops of the Church. So, why have such a quote, unless the assumption is that the majority of readers are simply not going to have the context to realize that Cyprian is a prime witness against Roman supremacy? It is a bit like the alleged Augustinian line, "Rome has spoken, the case is closed." Myths die hard.

19:56:11 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

My "Hysterics" Ignored

06/14/2005 - James White

This just appeared on the Envoy forums:

Hi Gang,
I am getting a bit tired of James’ hysterics. If he wants to keep going postal about our debate, well let him. I have another debate in November that I must prepare for. When my kids were young and we put them to sleep they would cry in protest. We found the best way to handle it was just to let them cry. Goodnight James!
PAX CHRISTI
Bill

   If I may offer a brief translation: "I'm digging myself so deep here I can't see the sky anymore, so I'm going to head for the hills." There is no defense of the indefensible, and since I have documented any number of simple untruths on the part of both Sippo and Rutland, this is a wise move on his part, to be sure. I do find it humorous, however, that Rutland would actually think a debate in November is relevant to his failing to acknowledge his own false statements. I'm debating John Dominic Crossan solo, and then he and Marcus Borg (joined by my partner Jim Renihan), in less than three months, but that hasn't kept me from thinking telling the truth is important and worth investing a few moments. And so, with another simply false assertion (when did documentation of facts amount to hysterics--Bill has been taking lessons from CNN it seems) Bill heads out to prepare for his next debate in November. I hope whoever he debates video tapes every moment of it, from start to the time they walk out the door, and keeps every single e-mail, too. Seems to be a wise stance to take.

12:41:11 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

tiredofNJ Replies to Dave Armstrong

06/14/2005 - James White

   I guess Dave Armstrong has gone off about the Rutland debate as well, but since I removed his blog from my RSS feed (he posted a reverse-color picture of me from years ago and I finally decided that life would be so much more enjoyable without having to encounter such material on a daily basis) I haven't seen it. But I liked what tired had to say in response to DA, and the way he said it, so here it is:

Dave's post makes two claims. One, James White did a, b, c, d, e, f-z14, and when these are linked to passing statements he made about Rutland ("Notice once again the 'poison the well' technique."), James is a hypocrite. I've never cared for this sort of argumentation, the hallmark of embittered spouses and certain political activists, storing up grievances and unloading them when opportune. These matters should be dealt with at the time or left alone; if you did try to resolve them and they were not met to your satisfaction, that doesn't make them relevant. For even if James really is the Pharisee of all Pharisees it doesn't negate his claims against Rutland. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. He did not condone lying about them.
   The second claim is that James is boasting about the debate (with occasional, subsequent mention of Rutland perhaps doing the same). Dave links us to this as James's "post-debate" analysis. This is James's post-debate analysis. I attended the debate and James's speaking engagements in the days following. He was happy with the debate. The post Dave linked to re: Rutland was in response to Rutland's false claims about the debate, not to the debate's content. James's position has always been "that both sides should simply leave these judgments to the listeners (let their arguments speak for themselves)."
   If it was really "his ongoing goal, apparently, to make all Catholic dialogue opponents look as ridiculous as possible," why did James say he was happy with the debate? Why did he hold out hope as late as June 12th that Rutland would correct Sippo's errors?
   The "hand-shaking controversies" section is inane. I've attended 14 of James's debates. He is always courteous to his opponent and expects the same from his audience. This is one of the reasons he has a good relationship with Mitch Pacwa (last I checked, a Roman Catholic). He did not shake hands with anyone for the rest of the weekend. He even apologized for it last Sunday from the pulpit of a Baptist church. Baptists aren't RCs.
   Dave hopscotched through the interaction, picking out enough to justify another White-is-a-hypocrite conclusion ("if Rutland is guilty of these things, that it is nothing that White has not been doing himself for many years"). But those things that Dave calls "these things" were not the crux of the discussion. The issues prompting James's posts were Sippo's falsehoods and Rutland's eventual endorsement of them, nothing else.

12:24:51 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Today on the DL

06/14/2005 - James White

   Well, we kept the lines open for all the brave souls on the Envoy forums to call today, but they didn't call! I'm shocked and disappointed. Well, OK, not really. So, the first half hour was all about the Sippo/Rutland melt-down, then we took some calls. Here's the program.

12:11:07 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Could It Get Any Loonier? The Rutland/Sippo Meltdown Continues

06/13/2005 - James White

   There are times when you start to get worried that someone is going to become suspicious that you are actually paying these folks to act the way they do. I just arrived home from Newark to find the Rutland/Sippo topic not only continuing, but getting even farther off into flights of fancy. Yes, I know, at some point it will get just too silly to even bother with any longer, but for now, it gives you an insight into how folks can manhandle the truths of the Bible and history, since they play so fast and loose with the truths of everyday life (even when others have documentation and video!).
   Where to begin? Well, let's start with the claim by Art Sippo that Bill Rutland was kept in the dark about the format of the debate until the week before, and that we were going to have very short opening statements of ten minutes, with a 90 minute cross-examination marathon. I asked that Bill Rutland repudiate this falsehood. While correcting some minor elements, he has instead given Sippo the "pass" in the following post. Rutland writes:

   What James fails to mention these e-mails took place over a period of about thee years. White has used this same statement to claim that I “perused” Mr. Arnzin. We entered into a discussion about debating well before the 2004 Great Debate. The truth is that Mr. Arnzin approached me about the 2005 debate. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

17:02:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Bill Rutland Tries to Provide Cover for Rome

06/13/2005 - James White

   Well, you have to give him some credit. Mr. Rutland did not wait a few months to make his views known, as some in the past have done, but chose to comment on the debate and to go ad-hominem within a few days, joining, it seems, the rest of the cyber-RC apologetics community in throwing sufficient dust in the air to keep the attention off of the real issues for a little while. Given that I am accused of any number of things by Mr. Rutland's post on the Catholic Answers Forums, allow me to once again set the record straight.

   Having just completed a debate (Great Debate X, 6/9/05) with Mr. White I feel that I have a unique prospective on the man as a debater. He is a very good debater and knows Catholicism as well as about any Catholic. The problem is that he has a hatred of the Church that borders on obsession.

   Notice once again the "poison the well" technique. I do not have to start off, "Mr. Rutland, who apostatized from his profession of faith only a few years ago, obviously hates his former faith." I would be more than happy to let anyone simply view the debate for themselves and see if someone is filled with "hate" or whatever. And isn't it odd that if a Roman Catholic is passionate, they "love the Church," but if a Protestant is passionate, they "hate the Church." The double standard, which we have documented for many years now, goes on. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:05:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Art Sippo Lies About Thursday's Debate

06/12/2005 - James White

   I just read the following coming from Art Sippo's keyboard. I honestly hope Bill Rutland will write to him and rebuke him for posting such outrageous lies, I truly do. Sippo writes:

Sadly, Mr. Swan you are coming into the middle of a discussion about which you know nothing. I was privy to the pre-debate antics of Mr. White. He had kept the format of the debate secret until last week when Bill Rutland finally DEMANDED to know it. It was then that Mr. White dropped the bomb-shell on him that there would be short opening statements (I think it was like 10 or 15 minutes) followed by 90 minutes of interogation with 5 minute final statements.

   This is an outrageous lie. There is not a shred of truth in it, and I can document it. Sippo, of course, cannot, but documenting his outrageous claims has never been one of his strong points anyway.
   We have used the same format for debate for a number of years now. Bill Rutland wrote no less than six e-mails to Chris Arnzen, who arranges the Great Debate series, asking to participate. One would think that a person who wants to participate in the series would actually have taken the time to observe the most recent debates in the series itself. In any case, the entire outline of the debate, including the order of speaking, time frames, etc., sent to Mr. Rutland did not differ one iota from the time frames used by Gary Michuta and Mitchell Pacwa in the preceding two debates, and were almost identical to those used by Patrick Madrid (I recall some slight alteration of the time frames agreed to by both sides immediately before the debate in conference with Bill Shishko in the Madrid debate, though I do not recall the details). This alone exposes Sippo's lie (great secret when it has been used for years and video taped, isn't it?), but there is more. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

12:20:56 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Quick Note for Tonight!

06/11/2005 - James White

   This is just for folks coming out tonight in Tom's River: we will be at Faith Baptist Church, 1528 Route 9, Tom's River, starting at 6pm! Sorry to be posting stuff like this two hours before we start, but I did not have the info till now! My apologies. Even if you can't make it at 6, keep on coming, as we will be there a while. :-)

12:54:33 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

The Brave RC Apologists at Envoy

06/10/2005 - James White

   I was finishing up a few items on this "down day" after the debate (I am finally getting the hang of this: never schedule anything for the day after a debate---why did it take me 15 years to figure that out?) and getting ready to pack up and head down to New Jersey (Please, Lord, if you could, and I know this is a tall order, but, could I make it through the Belt Parkway and over the Verrazano Bridge without...You know...hitting an accident?) when all of a sudden this strange thought hit me: I wonder if anyone has commented on the debate over at the Envoy web board? I had not looked at the board since before leaving for Massachusetts, so I figured there would probably be something there, especially since Art Sippo struggles to go a day without posting something about how I fear him, etc. So I popped by. And guess what? Yeah, you guessed it.
   It is definitely ironic, less than twenty four hours after engaging in the tenth annual "Great Debate" on Long Island, (my 56th moderated, public debate, and my 34th against a Roman Catholic apologist) to read the words of folks who, though they have never met me (and, in my experience, have never attended a debate, or even taken the time to listen to one) know all about my very soul. For example, one kind lady, Betsy, writes, " James White is a liar, a coward AND a wimp." No, documentation did not follow. Does it ever? But one particular fellow, john6jmj (ironic for any Roman Catholic to make reference to John 6, when you think about it---and in last night's debate, Mr. Rutland refused to even touch the text of John 6:37, claiming we really can't know what the grammar means because, he said, God transcends time!), really got on a tear because Sippo has said he has had a standing challenge for me to debate him since 1991 (the date of our encounter in Toledo, the one where he demonstrated that in public he then had the behavioral standards of a ten year old). So he's jumping up and down and is all excited, and writes, "Patrick, all I hear about is how great James White is. Now the truth comes out. Sounds to me like Dr. Sippo is ready to go." I wonder where he hears that? Then he starts losing control: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

19:44:51 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Headed to New Jersey

06/10/2005 - James White

   Just a quick note for those in the NJ area: I guess I didn't have anything on the calendar page about my trip down to Trinity Fellowship Church in Tom's River (I need a secretary!). Well, here's the info. I speak tomorrow night and Sunday morning.
6:00 - 7:15: Introductions and 1st lecture-------------The Da Vinci Code
7:15 - 7:45: Break
7:45 - 8:45: 2nd lecture----- Postmodernism and the Emergent Church Movement
8:45 - 8:55: Break
8:55 - 9:30: Q&A
Sunday Morning, 9:30am, Ministry Report and in the Sunday AM service an exposition of 1 Peter 3:15-16. The church currently meets at North Dover Elementary School at the corner of Church and New Hampshire Roads in Tom's River (their new building is not quite done yet). You can call 732-914-8885 for more information. If you are in the area, feel free to stop by!

11:35:59 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

A Quick Note on Last Night's Debate

06/10/2005 - James White

   Lord willing, as you read this, I am sleeping away. But before I hit the hay at 3am eastern time, I just wanted to report briefly on the Great Debate X. I was tremendously happy with the results of the debate, both in terms of turnout and as far as the debate itself was concerned. I had hoped the gospel would be clearly proclaimed, and it was. I had hoped that the foundational incoherence of the Roman system would be seen, and it was. All in all, a very enjoyable and useful evening. Kudos to Rich Pierce, who spent 14 hours in the room setting up, recording, and breaking down equipment, and to the wonderful volunteers who helped man the book table and pack things up. Chris, Brian, and everyone else were super. A very profitable evening. The Lord truly blessed. And now...to sleep! :-)

00:10:56 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

From the Front Porch

06/09/2005 - James White

   While sitting on the front porch of a bed and breakfast in Mantova, Italy, I wrote (yes, with a pen...on a piece of paper...old school, I admit!) the following regarding tonight's debate. Please pray the gospel will be clearly heard tonight.

   It is an incontestable fact of Biblical revelation that the only normative means of forgiveness set forth in Scripture is through union with Christ in His substitutionary death upon Calvary's cross. And yet is it not the ultimate irony, the ultimate self-contradiction, that those who cry the loudest against God's sovereignty in the matter of personal salvation, who decry the great biblical truth of divine election, and who defend with every fiber the myth of human autonomy, are the very ones who would say that God would redeem men and women while leaving them unchanged, unregenerated, fully absorbed in their idolatrous worship, so that they awake in the after life to meet a God they have never known but will now ostensibly worship for eternity? And should it be said that they had in their ignorance been worshipping the true God all along, what a torturous manner of abusing language this is! God loves them enough to redeem them but not to send to them a Phillip? Surely God should have left the Ethiopian eunuch alone, for he was already one with a desire sufficient for salvation in Rome's modern view, but by sending Philip did God not risk the exercise of the eunuch's free will and the loss of his "saving ignorance"?

07:11:38 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Those Terrible "Calvinist Baptists"

06/08/2005 - James White

   While my focus is primarily upon the issue of Roman Catholic inclusivism for the debate tomorrow night, I couldn't help but run into an e-mail written to the Internet Monk regarding his former view that "Calvinism is Cool," asserting just the opposite. It was referred to under the incredible title, "Finally Some Honesty about Calvinist Baptists" from a former "Calvinist Baptist" himself, a man busily doing everything in his power to justify his continued love affair with the Tiber River. In any case, the IM posted the e-mail even though he surely doesn't continue to even identify himself as a Calvinist. As I read the e-mail, written by someone only identified as "Charles," I tried my best to "hear" it, despite where it was posted, by whom, and how it was lauded by the former Calvinist Baptist. But I could not get past the constant accusations of dishonesty and conspiracy on the part of all "Calvinists." And, since my name somehow managed to appear in it (without any documentation of the associated accusations, of course), I thought I'd comment on a few items raised by "Charles."
   First, the e-mail is a study in self-contradiction and double-standards. Any Reformed emphasis is an emphasis upon men (Calvin, Luther) and not upon Christ; but, rebuttals of Reformed views are simply "biblical" (not focused upon Wesley or Arminius). I cannot even recognize the activities of these alleged Calvinists who claim to be "better" than everyone else. I just preached in Massachusetts about how Reformed theology cuts out any ground for saying we are "better" than anyone else---that in fact, it is non-Reformed theology that is forced to that conclusion as a basis for answering why we have believed and others have not, in fact. That it is non-Reformed theology that makes God a respecter of persons. But anyway, to the section where I am referenced. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

07:39:03 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Want Evidence of Total Depravity?

06/07/2005 - James White

   First, read Matthew 19:3-6. Then read this. Then read Romans 3:10-18. God's judgment, illustrated, and another reminder: judges need a divine standard upon which to judge. God has given it. Woe to those who ignore it.

19:16:18 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

The Best Blog Audience in the Blogosphere

06/07/2005 - James White

   Let me just say on behalf of Rich and I that we definitely have the best blog audience in the blogosphere, bar none. I made known a need, and for all intents and purposes, that need has now been met through the prayers and support of God's people, and I am very thankful. Yes, many would say I'm demonstrating my utter inability to "market" by in essence saying "Thanks, we've met that particular need," but that's how it should be done. Just leaving it hanging there is not proper. You folks know the needs keep coming and are regular, and we trust that those who first honor the Lord in supporting their local church and who then feel led to support other works will continue to help us do what we do. We will never mislead you by saying there is a need when there isn't; and given the nature of our message and ministry, we will never have air-conditioned dog-houses, palatial mansions, or private jets. We will never even be as large as most of the other ministries that have existed for the two-plus decades we have been around. But we will always be thankful for those precious folks who pray for us, support us, go to bat for us when we are evil-spoken of. You all are the best!

12:24:38 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

An Unusual Request

06/06/2005 - James White

   Greetings from Long Island. Despite NY's best efforts at hiding road signs, I made it back onto the Island for the tenth "Great Debate" this coming Thursday evening. I hope to see all of our friends here in the New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania area in just a few nights.
   I need to bring something to the attention of those who pray for Alpha and Omega and the work we seek to undertake through this blog, the Dividing Line, etc. Very few understand that the debates that have blessed so many over the years are the result of the hard labor of a small number of people. Wonderful folks here on Long Island invest great sums of time, and money in arranging for the room in which the debate takes place, arranging the myriad of details involved in such a gathering, and advertising it so that a new audience is reached each year. But there is another investment as well, one that is very large.
   Let me give you a little history. Did you know that video tape exists of my first debate against Gerry Matatics (Long Beach, 1990), and the first two debates against Fr. Pacwa (El Cajon, Jan. 1991)? Don't bother going to our DVD page to find them: we don't have them. Roman Catholic realtor and sometime apologist Scott Butler owns them. And he doesn't distribute them. Why? Well, the first one isn't out because he and Catholic Answers got into a spat over details of the distribution, so it was simply shelved. The two Pacwa debates (attended by a large audience and by such notables as Bart Brewer and Scott Hahn) did not, in Butler's opinion, go real well, so, they are shelved, too. Now, it does seem odd, does it not, that though these debates featured me, I have no control over them? That is because back then we were, simply, clueless about such things. Butler told us, long ago now, that if we wanted to pay half of his production charges, we could have a copy of the debates. We did not then, and probably do not now, have that kind of money, so those debates, as valuable as they would be, remain locked away, undistributed. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

14:43:23 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Greetings from Bethlehem Bible Church

06/04/2005 - James White

   Just a quick note from the Bible Conference of Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston, MA. Arrived last evening, a bit late, and given traffic, got to the church less than fifteen minutes before we were to begin. Got all set up and managed a presentation on the New Perspectives on Paul. This morning we covered a wide variety of topics, including the Trinity, evangelizing Roman Catholics, and sola scriptura. I will be speaking in both services tomorrow and in Sunday School as well. On Monday I head for Long Island, and the debate Thursday night.
   It was very encouraging to talk to folks here who had been blessed by various of my books and debates, including former Roman Catholics, individuals who had come to the doctrines of grace, etc. Always good to see how the Lord uses our small efforts to bless people far and wide.

20:03:17 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

No DL This Afternoon

06/02/2005 - James White

   My apologies, but I've pushed too hard today and the voice isn't going to make it for a DL. I did an hour long program this morning back in MA, and it started falling apart then, and joined with an hour long conference call this morning, well, if I am going to be able to speak Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, I better be wise and save it. Please pray for me as I head back to MA, NY, and NJ, and for the debate Thursday night. May God's glorious grace be clearly seen and glorified in it all. I hope to be able to blog some while away, as I believe I will have Internet access while back there.

14:25:28 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Phil Johnson Joins the Blogosphere

06/01/2005 - James White

   Phil Johnson of Grace to You, Grace Community Church, a speaker at our Conference last year, and a generally all around good guy, has finally succumbed and joined the blogosphere. If you've only seen Phil in suit and tie, you have to check out the Hawaiian version on the blog. I've already added the RSS feed to my Sage list.

10:58:26 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Today on the DL

06/01/2005 - James White

   Our one-day-late version of the DL went well, with a wide variety of questions from all over the spectrum. Here's the program.

08:43:44 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives