Where have the Protestant Pundits gone? It seems that the Protestnat [sic] Pundits just kind of drop in to give a few insults and then run away newver [sic] staying to engage in any frank discussion. Very typical. I hae [sic] made a number of charges about Protestantism that the pundits refuse to refute.

I got an e-mail from a Protestnat punpit [sic] who shal [sic] remain namelss [sic] but whose initials are Jimmy Swan. He was all cut up about being banned from this board. Golly! I wrote back to him that this is only done to the REALLY nasty people. I wonder if he got the hint? For those who do not know this fellow, he thinks that Catholics should ignore the general historical consensus that Luther was mentally disturbed and instead accept the position of Fr. Josef Lortz, a german priest in the 1930s who was a CARD CARRYING NAZI and who (among other things) wrote an extended defense of Hitler's book Mein Kampf in contradiction to the position taken by the German hierarchy. Luther was a great hero to the Nazis for a variety of reasons including his rejection of 'decandent'[sic] Rome for 'modern' German values and his snti-Semitism [sic].

Art, we've been through this so many times now, I don't know how else to say it. Please drop the invective and ad hominem and just make your case, critique the other guy's, and move forward with the conversation. All the egregious stuff is just plain unedifying and it has no power to persuade, only provoke.

Don't hold your breath for the invitation for me to be on Catholic Answers Live to discuss, oh, "Does John 6 Teach the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist," (I'd do it in a heartbeat), but today we had Tim Staples on the program for 90 minutes to debate 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 and the doctrine of purgatory. You are invited to take your Bible and listen carefully to our presentations and interaction, and ask yourself a simple question: who handled the text consistently, and who gave evidence of engaging in eisegesis? We took a number of calls in the last 20 minutes as well, with (mainly) good questions. I encourage Catholic Answers to make the debate mp3 available to their audience, I truly, truly do. Tim got enough "ra-ra" shots in at the end (Mr. White teaches silly myths, the constant teaching of the church for 2000 years, etc.) to keep their regular donors happy, but I am not concerned about them. I debate for those who will honestly consider the arguments carefully, not emotionally. Here's the program.

And I would like to reiterate my willingness to not only debate a topic such as the one suggested above (and truly, wouldn't the Catholic Answers audience enjoy such an exchange?), but any number of others. I would also invite Tim Staples to do what Michael Brown and I will do in the future: a full, formal, video taped debate. We have been attempting to get Mr. Staples to do that for many years now, but it seems that Catholic Answers has adopted a "no debating folks who know us that well" policy. Perhaps CA's supporters might bring some pressure to bear upon them to start doing real apologetics again? Let's hope so.

Don't forget to be with us live this afternoon at 3pm PST, 6pm EST, for the special 90-minute edition of the Dividing Line, featuring a live debate with Tim Staples of Catholic Answers on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 and the doctrine of Purgatory. The format is as follows:

15 minute opening statements (Tim gets to go first)

8 minutes rebuttals

5 minutes cross examination each

8 minute closing statements

Then, we will take phone calls for just under 20 minutes. We will open the lines for your calls when Tim begins his closing statement. So be ready to ask a QUICK and CONCISE question at 877-753-3341.

Matthew 19:10-12
10 The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." 11 But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

I have been very busy since the end of the Michael Brown debate today, and in fact, have been working toward a possible major debate event that I really didn't think was going to happen (can't go into details yet), so I have not had a chance to do much else. I would like to thank Dr. Brown for a very irenic and hopefully useful discussion, and I look forward to a significantly less interrupted series of encounters on the DL in the near future. For those who missed portions, or who expressed frustration at the breaks (I had said I thought we would get 38 minutes out of an hour, and it was actually 36), here is the full audio, breaks removed, from both days, in a fairly tight audio file (for those poor souls, like Carla of Canada, who still suffer from Dai Lup syndrome).

Evidently Anthony Buzzard was listening to my exchange with Michael Brown today, and, not surprisingly, being a Socinian, is far more in line with Arminian soteriology than Reformed. Here is a comment he left on Dr. Brown's website:

Dr. Brown,

I think you should continue to press your point about the constant plea of God that we choose to do right. If in fact we’re not making any choice, and all the choices are made by Him, then language has ceased to have any intelligible meaning. Calvin’s God simply plays games with the human race if He commands everyone everywhere to repent, knowing full well that He has already decided that it is impossible for the non-elect to be saved.

You will note that Buzzard does not understand the position he is denying: who said "we're not making any choice"? Surely not I. We make choices all the time. What I did assert was what the Scriptures teach:

“because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Rom. 8:7-8)

We make decisions all the time: outside of grace, rebellious decisions, sinful decisions. Notice as well the Socinian man-centeredness, as if condemned men deserve some kind of "chance." The Gospel isn't a game of chance, a system to be "worked" to gain something from God. It is the Triune God's central act of self-glorification. But, again, we are dealing with a non-Christian view of the Bible here (Socinianism), so that should hardly be surprising.

Of course, the question in my mind is, "Was Sir Anthony listening to the DL as well?" Let's hope so!

My thanks to Michael Brown once again for a very engaging conversation. I really look forward to tomorrow, and even more so, when we can have Dr. Brown on the DL. We should try to arrange that as soon as possible, though, my trip to London will put a major hole in the upcoming schedule, obviously. I didn't mention it, but I wanted to chuckle on the air, since each time Dr. Brown said he was going to join me on the DL, he said, "God willing."

Well, the Lord answered prayer and opened the way for an Unbelievable Radio Program debate with Sir Anthony Buzzard, formerly of Atlanta Bible College, one of the leading Socinians of our day. Justin Brierley just confirmed his willingness to do the debate on the 23rd of February while I am in London (in fact, Justin is attempting to arrange a second debate for the same day on another topic). That will be the morning after my debate with Abdullah al-Ansari at Trinity Chapel in London. We are also working on another visit to Revelation TV later in that week. What is really nice about the Buzzard encounter is that he is actually reading my book! I will find it refreshing to engage someone who has actually taken the time to hear what I have to say. I know next week when Michael Brown and I square off on Calvinism on his radio program that he will have read The Potter's Freedom as well, which always makes for a better and more useful debate.

We are still looking for folks to help us with the costs of the trip, including airfare, hotel, food, etc. If you would like to help edify the saints in London and bring these debates about, please prayerfully consider assisting us.

TurretinFan joined me yesterday for an hour-long examination of Tim Staples' attempt to undermine Reformed objections to purgatory, specifically, his lengthy attack on Calvin's doctrine of God's sovereignty and providence found in his 5-CD series, published by Catholic Answers, on purgatory. Though we had much more material we could have covered, we managed to get to the key errors in Staples' understanding. Here's the program.

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

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

My question is, isn't following Christ following his morality. I have read plenty of your arguments but why don't we ever discuss morality. Who cares about theology if the morality is flawed. God isn't going to test us on our understanding of the 2nd Council of Carthage or Martin Luther. I am not arguing this solely against your website, but against any apologist website that puts emphasis only on words and not on actions. We would all be blessed to put our polemics aside and work to make this planet one that truly reflects God's wishes. Of course, I suppose the argument would lie on what is morality, but that's why we have the Bible...right? Anyways, I don't agree with everything you have on your page but your heart seems to be in the right place. I suppose I would challenge you to defend Christian morality rather than Christian theology. After all, my Lutheran friends are rather offended by your theology. haha Let's find common ground.

I know I mentioned it on the last DL, but I should have blogged the fact that I am out of town this week, teaching at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary's Mill Valley campus. Sorry if anyone tried to listen to the DL and found...well, nothing at all. Lord willing, we will be back on a regular schedule next week.

Please note the week after is going to be...insane. As the banner ads show, I will be joining Michael Brown to discuss Reformed theology on his nationwide radio broadcast on Tuesday and Wednesday, and then Thursday Tim Staples and I will be debating 1 Corinthians 3:10ff and purgatory on the DL. I will be speaking at a conference the preceding Saturday, twice on Sunday at PRBC, and Friday and Saturday evening in a conference on Islam the following weekend, and the next week I head to Georgia! Who is in charge of my scheduling, anyway? Oh, that's right, I am.

While I am away Rich is making good progress on getting the new studio/meeting room finished. I can't wait to shoot our first video in there. I also expect that the DL next Tuesday will be streaming from our new DL machine, too.

Speaking of the DL and our great supporters, we have put an item into our shopping cart, here. Now that we have the computer on Rich's side of the glass updated, it is time to work on the one on my side of the glass. For about 16 months now I have been basking in the glory of a MacBook Pro, which has become my primary computer. It goes with me to the office, back home, on the road, to the debate, conference, and classroom. I am typing on it even as I sit here in Mill Valley. It is a great unit, and we want to bring it into the DL studio to become the unit I use while on the air. To be able to do that, I need to replace it with a new and more powerful unit. I do my own videos on this Mac, and the new Macbook Pros are much larger and more powerful, disk and RAM wise, than this one. We have put the above item into the shopping cart to start working toward updating my "go everywhere, hopefully survive TSA screening" main unit, and putting this unit into the DL studio. Your help in the on-going work is greatly appreciated.

Dear Moms and Dads and Pastors (Jan. 12)

Please pass this info along to everyone who may be worried. The earthquake was scary but the building held up fine. We even have internet at the moment. But we may not later. So don't worry if we don't write back soon.

We have plenty of water and a large pot of rice and beans, snacks and medical supplies

The earthquake hit about one hour after we landed, we were on the road about 1/3 of the way to the guest house. It took two hours of driving through rubble and by many large collapsed buildings to get to the guest house. (I saw at least 6 bodies of those killed by the street, but there must be thousands thoughout the city) I went with Jason to see the two orphanage building, and both are intact, on generator power, and the kids are safe. The streets are crowded because everyone is scared to go inside, but we are in a strong building. We don't know what the plan is from here, but we will do what we can to help tomorrow and take it one day at a time.

Thank you for your prayers, we will try to stay in touch.

James

"The bottom line here is this: Jesus Christ did not suffer and die so that we don't have to. Jesus Christ suffered and died so that our good works offered up in him can be truly pleasing and salvific before God. And indeed, Jesus didn't suffer and die so that we don't have to suffer and die, he suffered and died so that our suffering and death could be salvific."

““Look, my servant will succeed! He will be elevated, lifted high, and greatly exalted– (14) (just as many were horrified by the sight of you) he was so disfigured he no longer looked like a man; (15) his form was so marred he no longer looked human– so now he will startle many nations. Kings will be shocked by his exaltation, for they will witness something unannounced to them, and they will understand something they had not heard about. (1) Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the LORD’s power revealed through him? (2) He sprouted up like a twig before God, like a root out of parched soil; he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention, no special appearance that we should want to follow him. (3) He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant. (4) But he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain; even though we thought he was being punished, attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. (5) He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed. (6) All of us had wandered off like sheep; each of us had strayed off on his own path, but the LORD caused the sin of all of us to attack him. (7) He was treated harshly and afflicted, but he did not even open his mouth. Like a lamb led to the slaughtering block, like a sheep silent before her shearers, he did not even open his mouth. (8) He was led away after an unjust trial– but who even cared? Indeed, he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the rebellion of his own people he was wounded. (9) They intended to bury him with criminals, but he ended up in a rich man’s tomb, because he had committed no violent deeds, nor had he spoken deceitfully. (10) Though the LORD desired to crush him and make him ill, once restitution is made, he will see descendants and enjoy long life, and the LORD’s purpose will be accomplished through him. (11) Having suffered, he will reflect on his work, he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done. “My servant will acquit many, for he carried their sins.” —New English Translation

First, TurretinFan posted a fascinating quote from Erasmus that I had not seen before:

What weight the authority of the church may have with others, I know not; but with me it weighs so much, that I could be of the opinion of the Arians and Pelagians, if the church had approved their doctrines.

TurretinFan asks if Cross, Beckwith, and Liccione could endorse Erasmus' statement. That is a question that would definitely interest me as well. It surely illustrates sola ecclesia in its most dangerous form. I know one church father who would have rolled his eyes at that statement, one Athanasius of Alexandria.   

Then, I encountered Steve Hay's downright Erasmian lampoon of the Roman position expressed by Cross, Beckwith, and Liccione. It is well worth reading in its entirety, but I only include the final portion here. It borrows from the Manhattan Declaration but this time brings together Trinitarians and Arians (specifically, Jehovah's Witnesses, the best known representatives of the Arians today).

II. We Affirm Together

Jesus Christ is Lord.

Unless he's the Archangel Michael.

Either affirmation is rationally defensible.

That is the first and final affirmation and counter-affirmation that Christians make about all of reality.

It's plausible to believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

It's plausible to believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

It's also plausible to believe in Jesus Christ, the first creature.

A fully informed person of good will, with knowledge of the languages, could affirm either reading of Scripture.

III. Signatories

Bryan Cross

Francis Beckwith

Michael Liccione

What makes this so bitingly humorous is its truth content. It rips the mask of scholarly respectability off of the Roman position and shows it for what it is. I hope people will remember what Frank Beckwith said in defense of Bryan Cross' errant views on Nicea and the sufficiency of Scripture to demonstrate the deity of Christ. Keep this in mind, all of you ecumenically minded Protestants who are thinking of having Dr. Beckwith speak at your next conference or retreat:

What Bryan is saying is really uncontroversial: the Arian reading of Scripture is not obviously irrational. It is, of course, heretical. But that does not mean that a fully informed person of good will, with knowledge of the languages, could not have come up with the Arian reading of Scripture.

Today on the Dividing Line I spent the first half of the program responding to Bryan Cross and Frank Beckwith on the issue of sola scriptura. The fundamental attack upon the sufficiency of Scripture and hence its truly divine character and purpose in Roman Catholicism remains central to any discussion of the issues that separate us. Then I went to the "mailbag" and responded to a whole host of e-mails I have received. I may need to do this more often as it is simply impossible for me to type up responses to all the e-mails that make it past Rich's system to mine. Here's the program.

You're strutting on you tube with your chest stuck way out boasting "I know more than Chuck, I'm more spiritual than Chuck" Even if you do have superior biblical knowledge, you don't get to use it to attack and tear down the reputations of your fellow servants of the risen Lord Jesus Christ. Also, regarding what you said about Chuck Smith being the leader like a pope was incorrect because I happen to know first hand there are Calvary Chapel pastors who don't necessarily agree with everything Chuck teaches, and that the doctrinal structure between Chuck Smith and other Calvary Chapel pastors is a relatively loose coupling. Not at all as you represented. But because you presented that pretending to have first hand knowledge when you obviously do not, you were being dishonest at best. Knowledge puffs up. God resists the proud. And what makes you think you are any less blinded to the traditions that exist in your own doctrinal paradigms? I suppose you see perfectly and Chuck is blind right? If you actually do see clear to remove the mote from your brothers eye, do it by speaking the truth in love in an email to Chuck, not in a retaliatory vindictive work of the flesh designed to tear down your brother and exalt yourself. Talk about being blind. I am ashamed of you.

The term 'refute' means "shown an argument to be unsound". The bishops did not 'refute' Arianism; they condemned it, by defining the Faith by way of an extra-biblical term: homoousious. They were unable, by Scripture alone, to refute Arianism. The Arians could affirm every single verse of Scripture. That's precisely why the bishops had to require affirmation of the term homoousious. So if the bishops had no authority by way of apostolic succession, then their requirement of affirming homoousious would have had no more authority than its denial by the Arians. Scripture alone was insufficient to resolve the dispute, precisely because both sides could affirm every verse in Scripture. And since sola scriptura denies the transfer of authority by way of apostolic succession, therefore the Council of Nicea and the Creed, given sola scriptura, only have authority if you agree with its interpretation of Scripture.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (‎صَغِرُونَ). The Jews call Uzair a son of Allah and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; Yet they were commanded to worship but one Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to him: (far is He) from having the parents they associate (with him). Fain would they extinguish Allah's light with their mouths but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected even though the unbelievers may detest (it). (Surah 9:29-32)

11. It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels bow down to Adam, and they bowed down; not so Iblis; He refused to be of those who bow down. 12. (God) said: "What prevented thee from bowing down when I commanded thee?" He said: "I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay." 13. (God) said: "Get thee down from this: it is not for thee to be arrogant here: get out, for thou art of the meanest (of creatures)" (‎‎ٱلصَّغِرِينَ).
14. He said: "Give me respite till the day they are raised up." 15. (God) said: "Be thou among those who have respite." 16. He said: "Because thou hast thrown me out of the way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy straight way: 17. "Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor wilt thou find, in most of them, gratitude (for thy mercies)." 18. (God) said: "Get out from this, disgraced and expelled. If any of them follow thee,- Hell will I fill with you all. (Surah 7:11-18)