Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
Lies, Lies, and More Lies
04/17/2007 - James WhiteHere is the last clip I will post from this portion of tape I found. If you listen carefully, you will get a good idea of how dishonest the SSC is. You will also hear Rich and I chatting as well.
First, it is a lie that I wish to be the "elder" of the Mormons, take Joseph Smith's place, or have anyone "follow" me. They know this. This is a reflection of my asking the SSC, the first time they showed up, who their elders were, based upon Hebrews 13:17. "Jesus is my elder!" was their response (read Hebrews 13:17 and you'll see how well that response correlates to Scripture).
Next, everything they say about the debate we had that evening is, of course, dishonest. I never made any of the claims they were yelling to the passing Mormons. So, they do not mind lying "for the cause," even when it means Mormons might not attend the debates! These men know they could never engage in debate in that context, but they are willing to mock those who do. A sad commentary.
As the camera pans across the street, I told Rich about "John the security guard." We had run into John a number of times over the 18 years we had been going to Salt Lake. I remember one very intense encounter. The anger I felt coming from him was just overwhelming. So, here I am telling Rich that he had just come by, shook my hand (he had refused to do so in the past), and thanked us for the way we do things. The contrast between those who show respect to the LDS by dressing appropriately, studying their own faith and the beliefs of the LDS Church, and seeking meaningful conversation with them, and the behavior of the SSC, is surely not lost on those observing these events.
By the way, when I speak of "leaving," I'm referring to heading to lunch. We would time it so that it came after the big rush out of the morning Conference session. I really miss those times.
Then you hear them lying big time when they claim they are "working with us." This is one of the main problems in even attempting to work when the SSC is around. No serious representative of the truth wishes to be associated with men so bereft of the truth as the SSC.
So now, with the advancement of the Internet since these events, we have been able to provide you with first-hand sight and sound of what it is like to be accosted by the SSC. I pray for the day when these men will be disbanded, their support gone, and meaningful witnessing restored to Salt Lake and Mesa. It would be wonderful to see them converted, as well, so that they could come into submission to God's truth and give evidence of the fruit of the Spirit (and that really important work, self-control). But for the moment, they are very much like the Assyrians being used of God against the Israelites: they are a blight upon the LDS people, a judgment, designed to hard them even more against the truth. And just as God judged the Assyrians for the attitudes of their hearts even while being used as His instrument, so too He will judge the SSC, in His time, in His way.
I Love Gail Kiplinger!
04/16/2007 - James WhiteSo the Mormons are streaming out of the Conference Center, heading for lunch. Thousands of folks passing right by you. And what do you preach? Well, if you are one of the members of the Street Screeching Cult, you preach about...King James White, of course! Oh, and you have some poor deluded soul smile while wearing a bald cap and yell out, "I love Gail Kiplinger!" (it's Riplinger). I'll never forget turning around and seeing that these men had taken the time to produce signs about me, and then to listen to them making fools of themselves in front of the Mormons proved, once and for all, that whatever else you call these guys, "preacher" is a title far too high, far too noble, for whatever it is they do.
Some More of the "Preaching" of the Street Screechers
04/15/2007 - James WhiteA few days ago I was rummaging around through some old video tapes and found one marked "SLC Street Preachers." It contains 34 minutes of video from the second year the SSC was in Salt Lake, including the infamous "I Love Gail Kiplinger!" portion I played on the DL when we got back. As I listened to it I was reminded of just how grossly dishonest these men are. They have no problems lying through their teeth. It is shocking, but, it shouldn't be. In any case, they love claiming they have all sorts of converts from their "preaching." Here you catch Lonnie not only claiming about people getting "saved" at the last Conference (remember his claims last weekend on the video I posted?), but as a good, credentialed Ruckmanite, he plainly asserts that God's power is so limited, so feeble, that God can't save a Mormon through the instrumentality of an English translation such as the NIV (Lonnie seems utterly clueless that I use the NASB). In any case, you get a good taste of the cultic nature of the SSC in this short clip:
Once again, if you know anyone in churches that support this kind of activity, attempt to reason with them. If they are Ruckmanites, you will probably fail, as reasoning rarely works in that context, but if they have any common sense, any concept of biblical norms, they should be shocked at the behavior of these men.
The Ever Humble, Ever Less Orthodox Paul Owen...UPDATED
04/12/2007 - James WhiteWhile believers were attempting to explain the concept of substitutionary atonement, penal satisfaction, etc., to an atheist, good ol' Paul Owen, former (sorry, not enough room to fill this list in anymore), pops in to help out:
I don't agree with "penal substitution" because God would simply not punish His Son for the sins of others. Christ was given up to evil men and the devil to suffer on the cross and to die to appease God's offended holiness, but He was not punished for the actual sins of the people. That post-Anselm view of the atonement is hogwash. You need to study harder...I guess if we all just study harder, we will be able to have as impressive a list of former beliefs as Owen! Excuse me while I get back to studying!
BTW, "God would simply not punish His Son for the sins of others" is a line I have heard many times before...from Muslims. You think there's a chance?
According to Paul Owen, he did not write the above commentary found at Triablogue. If so, then surely he cannot be held accountable for what someone else would say in his name. But I am a bit confused here. The "Paul Owen" on Triablogue does not agree with penal substitution. Yet, on 3/19/07, Owen wrote, "None of this language requires a penal model. We just disagree." He also wrote,
In my opinion the problem with many of the Reformed orthodox (and Calvin too often speaks this way as well) is they took an unbiblical model of penal suffering which was derived from the medieval doctrine of the Mass and purgatory, and applied it rather uncriticially to the logic of the atonement. Anselm and the earlier church understood that satisfaction for sin was precisely a means of avoiding punishment. If God still demanded that Christ be punished in our stead on the cross, not only does this rob his obedient life of its compensatory value, but it makes meaningless the very idea of “satisfaction” itself. The reason a Judge or Monarch demands a punishment is precisely because he has not been satisfied by any compensatory gift. What I am arguing is that Christ’s obedience unto death was a pleasing gift to the Father which negated the necessity of punishment. It is “propitiatory” in the sense that the need for punishment was done away with, not propitiatory in the sense that the demand for punishment was fulfilled.
Now, is the above substantively different than the comment left at Triablogue? If it is, how? Owen even concluded that particular portion of his commentary with these words: "Sorry you can’t bring yourself to think a little more open-mindedly about an issue that is not nearly as straightforward as you seem to wish." Isn't that very much like what the "Paul Owen" on Triablogue said as well? If I have "blundered" I am more than happy to admit my error. I was deceived, as Steve Hays was, by a person writing on Triablogue under Paul Owen's name who...presents the very same viewpoint as...Paul Owen. So if the comment left there represents the same viewpoints as Owen, just where is the ground for offense? Shouldn't Owen simply be upset with the person using his name, and yet be thankful that that person has accurately represented his own views?
Finally, as to why I noted this. Simple: I had seen Owen's comments on this topic a few weeks ago. I didn't mention them. Why then mention the Triablogue commentary? Well, first, Steve sent it to me. But more to the point, it is one thing for Owen to spread his views on the oxymoronic website. By now, anyone who goes there knows what they are going to be getting when they do so. But when he leaves that realm and starts promoting those views elsewhere, as it appeared he had done so here, that's what prompted the discussion.
So to Paul Owen, if you did not write the comments on Triablogue, then I apologize for being fooled like everyone else. But more so, I would be happy to apologize if you could demonstrate how the comment left in your name is substantially and fundamentally different in theological perspective and assertion than what you have actually posted on your blog, and in particular, in the link cited above, the infamous "#1035" which garnered, as far as I can see, 151 comments. Indeed, your words in your first paragraph found there are just as liable to the opprobrium I heaped upon the comment at Triablogue:
Nowhere does the Bible say that God sent his Son “to die,” as though God would be the one who would put Jesus to death as some sort of substitute punishment. Instead, the death of Jesus is put squarely on the shoulders of sinners (Acts 2:23b; 4:10-11) and the powers of darkness (1 Cor. 2:8). Rather than seeing the logic of the atonement in terms of a substitute punishment to satisfy the strict justice of God, it seems better to see Jesus’ death in terms of the hostility of sinful powers.
A Resurrection Sunday Thought
04/08/2007 - James WhiteA thought about the work of Christ on this Resurrection Sunday from my debate against Richard Hopkins on the subject of LDS Temples.