I usually enjoy your program, but today was an exception. Hearing Dr White speak, I was reminded of the Jews during the ministry of Jesus, those who would mock Jesus because He was not what they had expected. They didn’t believe Jesus was who He said He was because they didn’t have eyes to see or ears to hear.

What if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true??? That would mean that Jesus Christ and God the Father did appear to Joseph Smith and the true Church was restored. It would mean that God speaks through a living prophet today.

I want to ask you and Dr. White a question… Are you and Dr. White really about what you profess, or are you in it for the money, fame or power of your position??? Your anti-LDS attitude truly makes you suspect. The LDS Church never cuts other faiths down— they invite others to come and see for themselves if what they have to offer is true or not. They encourage their members to come to their own conclusions. Does that same philosophy threaten you in any way?

I have investigated many different faiths in my lifetime. I’ll never forget the strong spirit I felt during a special Easter program held in a Baptist church I attended years ago. Over the years I’ve loved hearing people express their honest, heartfelt testimonies of Christ in many different religions. I don’t think there is one religion only that can lead a person to a belief in Christ —and neither does the LDS Church. Belief in Christ comes by hearing and applying God’s word in our life.

I came to know God as my Savior, almost 22 years ago, after reading His words. I was truly born again, something people who knew me then and now can testify of. My life has never been the same and my love of the scriptures has only increased since then!

Ever since I was born again, I have loved reading the Bible and Book of Mormon daily and I love hearing truth wherever it is spoken! My favorite movie to this day is, “Facing the Giants”, written by a Baptist. I love that movie because it is my story in many ways. I went from the depths of despair because of infertility, to the heights of being born of God in the Spirit and experiencing a love, peace and joy I had never known before.

I don’t understand the need you have to make others believe the LDS Church is following a false Christ. Evil may confess that Jesus is the Christ, but evil doesn’t cause anyone to come to Christ and live by His teachings! I and millions of others like me have found faith in Christ and are now faithful members of the LDS Church. If the LDS Church were proven to be false I would never regret the person it has helped me become. Isn’t that the ultimate test of truth???

Debbie

"Now it may well be that a man leaving one religion for another can write fairly, without bitterness, about the one he left behind. After all John Henry Newman did just that in his autobiography, Apologia Pro Vita Sua. But it stands to reason that most people who suddenly think they have an urge to write about their change of beliefs just want to vent their frustrations or justify their actions. Their books should be read with discretion, and they should not be used at all as explanations of the beliefs of their old religion if the books betray the least hint of rancor" [Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Fransisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 33].

From: Patrick Coffin
Subject: Front row seat to a high-powered debate

The Bible Answer Man Debate: Imagine having a front-row seat to a high-powered debate between a Fundamentalist Bible teacher and a Catholic apologist. Donate to our Spring 2010 Radio Club Drive by May 3, 2010, with a pledge of just $18 or more per month, or a one-time gift of $200, and you'll receive The Bible Answer Man Debate between James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and Catholic Answers' own Senior Apologist Jimmy Akin.

This unique debate happened on Protestant turf, with radio host Hank Hanegraaff ("The Bible Answer Man") serving as moderator. In this three-CD set, Jimmy Akin and James White- as Hanegraaf admits, without rancor or ad hominem attacks- get down to the nitty-gritty on what still divides Catholics and Protestants, and how Catholics can best approach objections to the Catholic faith, whether the issue is Mary, justification by faith alone, points of Church history, or interpretation of Scripture.

The Bible Answer Man Debate is informative for Catholics and a real eye-opener for other Christians- a must-have for any apologetics library! A $29.99 value, it's our gift to you when you join by May 3, 2010 . . . our way of saying "Thank you" for partnering with us!

Need I then recount how councils disagreed with councils? And there is no ground for anyone to murmur against me that of the two that disagree one is not legitimate. For by what shall we judge such a case? By this, unless I am deceived, that we shall determine from Scripture which one's decree is not orthodox. For this is the only sure principle on which to distinguish. It is now about nine hundred years since the Council of Constantinople, convened under the Emperor Leo, decided that images set up in churches should be pulled down and smashed. A little later, the Council of Nicaea, which the Empress Irene, in hatred toward the first council, assembled, decreed the restoration of images. Which of these two shall we acknowledge as legitimate? The latter, which gave images a place in churches, has subsequently prevailed among the people. But Augustine says that this practice involves an ever-present danger of idolatry.

5. Does anyone worship or pray with his eyes fixed on the image, without being persuaded that the image is hearing his petition and without hoping that it will give him what he wants? Probably not. So thoroughly entangled do people become in such superstitions that they often turn their backs on the real sun and pour out their prayers to the statue they call Sun; or again, while the sound of the sea is battering them from behind they batter the statue of Neptune with their sighs as though it were conscious, that statue which they venerate as representative of the actual sea. What causes this error-almost forces the illusion on them, in fact-is the human likeness with all its bodily parts. The minds of the worshippers are accustomed to living with their own bodily senses, and so they judge that a body very similar to their own is more likely to be responsive than the sun's orb, or the wide waves, or any other object clearly not built on the same plane as the living creatures they are used to seeing.

6. It may be objected that we ourselves have many vessels and other accessories made of similar metals, which we use in the celebration of the sacraments. They are consecrated to divine service and are called holy in honor of him who is worshipped through their use for our salvation. Such vessels and implements are obviously the work of human hands: what else could they be? But do they have mouths that will never speak, or eyes that will never see? And does the fact that we make use of them to offer our supplications to God mean that we are begging anything from them? Of course not.

The principal cause of insane, blasphemous idolatry is this: a form resembling that of a living person- a form that by its lifelike appearance seems to demand worship- is more powerfully persuasive to the emotions of its wretched suppliants than the plain fact that it is not alive and ought to be scorned by anyone who is. The evidence of mouths, eyes, ears, nostrils, hands, and feet in the idols has more power to lead an unhappy soul astray than the evident inability on their part to speak, see, hear, smell, handle things, or walk has power to bring such a soul back to the truth.

7. The inevitable result is the deterioration the psalm goes on to describe: May those who fashion them become like them, and all who put their trust in them. Let people with open and seeing eyes gaze at images that neither see nor live, and let their minds become closed and dead as they worship.

[John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 19, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms, Psalms 99-120, Exposition 2 of Psalm 113.5 (Psalm 114) (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2003), pp. 315-316].

Does anyone worship or pray with his eyes fixed on the image, without being persuaded that the image is hearing his petition and without hoping that it will give him what he wants? Probably not. So thoroughly entangled do people become in such superstitions that they often turn their backs on the real sun and pour out their prayers to the statue they call Sun... The principal cause of insane, blasphemous idolatry is this: a form resembling that of a living person- a form that by its lifelike appearance seems to demand worship- is more powerfully persuasive to the emotions of its wretched suppliants than the plain fact that it is not alive and ought to be scorned by anyone who is.

Let me first make a point, Chris, that I’ll hope you’ll understand, and that is I don’t try to prove the inerrancy of Scripture to a nonbeliever. I think Scriptural inerrancy is a Christian doctrine that someone comes to believe after becoming a Christian as a part of training in Christian doctrine and discipleship. In order to get someone through the door, through the gate into eternal life, you don’t need to convince them that Scripture is inerrant. All you have to do is convince them that Jesus was who He claimed to be, that he rose from the dead, in authentication of those claims and that therefore you need to place your faith in Him and become a Christ-follower. And what implications that has for your doctrine of Scripture can follow later on. In other words, my strategy of evangelism is to set the bar as low as possible, to put as few hindrances in the path of the unbeliever to getting him to come in faith, to faith in Christ. So I don’t argue about inerrancy with an unbeliever. I just argue that we have historically reliable documents to show things like the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances and transformation in the lives of the disciples, and what that leads to. (Live recording was April 24)

Is every Christian in the world able to find enough time, and become educated enough and familiar enough with Scripture to be his own theologian? And if he consults other ones, wise enough to always get it right when he chooses?

Islamabad (AsiaNews) – A court in Kasur district, Punjab, convicted a Christian couple, Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi, to 25 years in prison. According to the Centre for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS), judge Ajmal Hussein convicted the couple for touching the Qur‘an without washing their hands.
Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi were released on bail last January, but were re-arrested after the judge ruled against them. The husband was locked up in Kasur’s district prison; the wife was sent to the women’s prison in Multan. Both have started serving 25 years behind bars.

CLAAS, an association that fights for the rights of the poor and marginalised, said that the couple was accused of “contaminating” the Qur‘an when they touched it “without washing their hands”.

The incident, which dates back to December 2008, unleashed the fury of Muslim extremists who put pressure on police. Unconfirmed reports suggest that extremists paid off police agents to discover “new evidence” to justify the sentence.

At the end of the police investigation, husband and wife were charged with blasphemy.

The blasphemy law is the harshest tool for religious repression available in Pakistan. It was adopted in 1986 by then dictator Zia ul-Haq to protect Islam and its prophet, Muhammad, from attacks and insults.

In fact, it is actually comprised of sections 295-B and 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, which respectively punish with life in prison anyone who defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur‘an, and imposes the death penalty on anyone who defiles the name of the Prophet Muhammad.

In the last two months, there were two more convictions against Christians in Pakistan.

On 11 January, a court in Faisalabad sentenced Imran Masih, a 26-year-old Christian man, to life imprisonment for insulting and desecrating the Koran. He was accused of deliberately burning Qur‘anic verses and an Arabic book in order “foment interfaith hatred and hurt the feelings of Muslims.”

On 25 February, a court in Karachi sentenced Qamar David, also a Christian, to life imprisonment for hurting the religious feelings of Muslims when he sent blasphemous SMS.

CLAAS announced that it was filing an appeal with the High Court in Lahore to have the 25-year sentence against Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi overturned.

If Calvinism, especially in its supralapsarian form—which argues that God foreordained the eternal fates of humans not yet created in a world not yet created, never mind fallen—is true, then most of us are lost, and not just because, in the words of Dirty Harry, we don’t feel particularly lucky, but because we are asked to love a monster. A deity who out Hitler’s Hitler in a blood-thirsty self-preening is too repellant to contemplate, never mind adore. Especially one whose obsession with his own glory reduces every person to nothing more than an adornment. If this is true, let’s please stop talking about the sanctity of human life. In this horrific scheme, there is nothing more expendable than a human being. “I need more glory—throw another baby on the barby!” (Whether non-elect infants go to hell has been a long-fought controversy within the Reformed world, admittedly, but there’s nothing it its confessions or theology that seriously argues against it.)

DEAR SOR FACULTY:

I have been told that recently you received a mass email from a Muslim, attacking me, and including links to his pay YouTube site.

For those of you who have been around here a while, you have seen such things before, involving any number of people at Liberty. I think I received one the first week I came on campus. Nonetheless, I am sorry that you have been "dragged into" this. You are seeing a portion of the life I have to live, sadly.

Most of you know my younger brother, Emir. He is President of Truett-McConnell College, one of the Baptist schools in Georgia. We have faced this type of vitriol for most of our lives. Perhaps recently it has gotten worse, since some Christians (who are no fans of LU, or Dr Falwell) have now joined in the attacks. I never thought I would see the day when alleged "Christians" join with Muslims to attack converts. In fact, it has gotten so bad that they procured or hired someone to go to the courthouse in Columbus, Ohio, to get copies of our parents' separation, divorce and appeal papers. The purpose of this was to "expose" us as frauds. They wanted to prove that we were not former Muslims. They have actually posted these documents online.

What they ended up doing was proving that we were, in fact, Muslims. The court papers showed that (1) we are immigrants, (2) we were Muslims, (3) our father was so devout that he demanded that the court order that we continue to be raised Muslim, (4) they he wanted visitation on the Eids (Muslim holy days], (5) that we were Turkish citizens and would become American citizens from our Turkish papers, and (6) that our father still had property, money and furniture back in Turkey.

In fact, some of you may have known Jamal Jivanjee, who graduated from Liberty a few years ago. He was saved out of the same Islamic Center, on East Broad Street in Columbus, Ohio. Jamal is now a Christian speaker, and the executive director of Illuminate. The irony is, Jamal knew us as Muslims, because we went to the same Mosque, prayed in the same prayer room, and was taught in the same classrooms as we were. In fact, his family rented an apartment from our father!

Regardless of how this ended up backfiring on them, you can imagine the horror of having your entire life up online, for the joy and derision of others, especially those who should know better.

Again, I apologize you had to be bothered with these skirmishes.

If you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to write me back.

If you wish to see the rebuffing of this Muslim's arguments, I have answered his claims individually and placed it in a handout. We scoured all ten videos he uploaded, and prepared answers to his objections. Feel free to come by office and pick up a copy.

Blessings:

Ergun

I'm sure for most of Ergun's supporters, this will be enough. I mean, didn't he sorta apologize for something back in February (though only for a few days before pulling the apology down)? And what if he were to stop claiming all the things he has claimed for all these years? What if he stopped claiming to have been born in Turkey and to have been trained as a jihadist and attending madrassa there and knowing Arabic and living in only majority Muslim countries before coming to the US via Beirut and Cairo in 1979 as an older teenager and debating known Muslim leaders and...all that stuff? Isn't that enough? Well, you tell me! When you were a child (assuming you had a good upbringing here) and you lied to your parents, would you have gotten away with, "I am not admitting I lied, nor am I apologizing for having done so...I just promise not to tell that particular lie again in the future"? If you think that is sufficient, well, you are welcome to your opinion. I just hope you don't raise your kids to think that is sufficient.

Meanwhile, the white-washing continues at Liberty University. It seems this goes all the way to the top, and the "good ol boys" mentality of "circle the wagons, them nasty folks will go away eventually" remains in full swing. Removing falsehoods from Caner's biography does not explain how they got there in the first place. Silently deleting them (well, how can you do that in this day of Internet perma-documentation?) without notice, without explanation, and without apology, does not explain to the student who enrolled at Liberty under the false impression that the leader of the seminary was an expert in things Islamic why he or she has not been misled and deceived. And in all of this, what is being said about the integrity of high-profile leaders, entrusted with the theological education of young men for ministry? I wonder, would a Liberty Seminary student be admitted who submitted an application filled with the kinds of myths Ergun Caner disseminated for so long? Would he pass a class wherein he submitted papers citing from such great Muslim leaders as Abdul Saleeb, or from interviews he never had with Shabir Ally? If not, why not?

09:13:19 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Argumentum ad Misericordiam and Misdirected Nausea

04/14/2010 - Tur8infan

07:48:45 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Monday Miscellaneous---a Day Late!

04/13/2010 - James White

20:12:58 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Dr. Robert Price's Reason for Accepting the CRI Debate Challenge

04/13/2010 - James White

19:01:13 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

Romans 4, Silver Bullets, Romans 16:17, William Albrecht, and Peter Lumpkins...All on the DL!

04/13/2010 - James White

14:32:58 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Sola Scriptura and Unity Debate

04/13/2010 - Tur8infan

11:40:53 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Caner Debacle Gaining National Attention

04/12/2010 - James White

Some things just don't go away by ignoring them, spinning them, or yelling louder that your critics are meanies. Ergun Caner's myth-making is becoming more widely known despite the wall of silence he, and evidently, the leadership at Liberty, are hastily attempting to erect. I'm seeing other sites picking up on the story, and today ran across a very interesting comment made by someone with deep connections in the SBC, Wade Burleson. In the comments on this blog entry Burleson writes:

Though I have never written on this subject, I have read yours, Debbie Kaufman's and James Whites articles with interest. I do not know Ergun Caner, but I hope he comes clean-quickly. What is available in published form is enough to indict his truthfulness, without ever going to motive. An "apology" for "mistakes" of "unintentional misleading statements" is like a CPA apologizing for "unintentionally" ignoring GAAP accounting principles and the law of the land - he may be sorry but there are consequences when the issue goes to the heart of one's calling.

The new bio of Dr. Caner will go up this week on his website. It has been approved by the Chancellor himself, Jerry Falwell, Jr. When I say, "approved," I mean the Chancellor sat at his desk, read it, and said, "Post it."

As of this morning, Caner's "Bio" link on his website still 404's. It has been that way for over a month now, if I recall correctly. The "apology" from February 25th remains MIA as well. Since that time documentation has been posted blowing holes in his "I came here at 15 trained to be a jihadist" story. He grew up from age 4 in Ohio---heartland of the good ol' USA. So much for "I had always lived in majority Muslim countries" and "I came here via Beirut and Cairo" and claiming his first language was Arabic and training in a madrassa in Turkey---all of it, simple hype meant to sell his story to undiscerning listeners. Ergun Caner has been creating a myth about himself for years now, aided, it seems, though probably unknowingly, by the "superstar" mentality that pervades certain portions of the Southern Baptist Convention. Got a great testimony? Come on up here and tell us about it! Maybe those first few times in the spotlight after 9/11 sealed it for him, I do not know. But I do know that this is a simple matter of truth vs. falsehood, honesty versus deception, and for Christians who follow Him who is the Truth, there is no wiggle room here, no place for neutrality. If you let the President of Liberty Theological Seminary make up his entire history just to "impress" the audience, upon what ground can you ever stand to 1) claim the Gospel message is REALLY true, or 2) demand integrity from anyone in what they claim or teach?

Here is what I expect will happen: as long as Ergun Caner provides Liberty with a + sign on the "paying customers" side of the ledger (enrollment), the wall of silence will remain up, the massive holes blown through Caner's story being patched quickly by the diligent servants on the other side. As soon as the + sign becomes an = or a - sign, the wall comes down, "Oh, we had no idea, we must do the right thing" will become the mantra, and Ergun's defenders will all of a sudden find themselves needing to, shall we say, attend to other issues. What began as primarily an amazing insight into the psyche of one individual leader is now beginning to reflect upon the structures that have not only allowed him to live in a self-made world of mythology for so many years now, but seem intent upon assisting him to perpetuate that myth even in the face of a clear demonstration of the truth.

11:04:04 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Two Very Different Calls on Last Thursday's Dividing Line

04/11/2010 - James White

06:55:24 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Heresy Never Dies

04/09/2010 - Jeff Downs

This week, men from around the world gathered in Mississippi for the Twin Lakes Fellowship.

Martin Downes (no relation to me) had the opportunity to address the issue of heresy in his lecture "Heresy Never Dies." You can listen to this lecture by clicking here.

Downes is the author of Risking the Truth: Handling Error in the Church.

You can check out other presentations made at this years Twin Lakes Fellowship by clicking here

13:24:22 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

Warren/Piper, Peter Lumpkins, Corey the Anti-Christian Apologist, and More, on Today's DL!

04/08/2010 - James White

Wow, we covered the gamut today. Started off playing Phil Johnson's comments on the Warren/Piper controversy that erupted last week, then added a few of my own thoughts, then moved on to Peter Lumpkins being awarded the "lamest attempt to malign" award for his "James White thinks it is dangerous to preach the love of God" silliness. Then we took a call from Corey, who threw just about everything but the kitchen sink my direction in a vain attempt to disprove the Christian faith. Took some more calls, including one very encouraging call, and a question on Psalm 110. Fast moving program! Here it is.

And while we are on the subject, I just realized I forgot to blog Tuesday's DL, on which I played some of Ehrman's comments in the debate with Craig Evans, and took calls. You can get that one here.

19:11:02 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Note to Peter Lumpkins: It is Hard to Lie Openly When the Videos are Posted On Line (With Update)

04/07/2010 - James White

I just saw someone responding to Malcom Yarnell (@myarnell) repeating some more slander from Peter Lumpkins (@SBC_Tomorrow), a man who has proven himself recently to have no interest in truthfulness or honesty (a shame, since he claims to be a Christian leader). What was once somewhat amusing (his constant repetition of the "hyper-Calvinist" label, etc.) has become somewhat pitiful when you see how low he has to stoop to create attack pieces. Lumpkins has been one of Ergun Caner's primary defenders---well, ok, he hasn't defended Caner on anything at all, but he has done all he can to blow smoke so as to distract folks from realizing that Caner has yet to answer the mountain of documentation that has been posted regarding his numerous false statements. In any case, Lumpkins has just posted this attack upon me using a clip from a video I posted on August 29, 2008. Here is the video Lumpkins produced, editing my original video (which is nearly 20 minutes in length) down to 92 seconds:

James White on Jerry Vines from peter lumpkins on Vimeo.

Now, notice how Lumpkins attempts to distract you by adding text, text which does not match what I am actually saying. He wants to distort my words. What I said was that discussing the love of God is a dangerous topic for me to address due to the traditions people have about the subject. But that is not enough for Lumpkins. He changes the entire meaning of my words by changing "address" to "preach." Here is the original video, check it out for yourself:



Now, notice how Mr. Lumpkins, without editing the audio, has lied about what I said. I never said it is dangerous to preach the love of God, hence, his entire post is a gross caricature, beneath any serious Christian leader. I said this was a dangerous subject to address, and I then explained why: people have strong emotional attachments to their own traditions on that matter. I expanded upon this for almost 20 minutes. You will notice Lumpkins links to Vines' sermon, but he does not link to the original video he has edited and misrepresented. He seems to be hoping, I imagine, that people would not take the time to look for themselves. Anyone who does knows Lumpkins has twisted my words.

I can only suggest that Mr. Lumpkins' withdrawal of his article and the posting of a notice of repentance and apology would be sufficient to rescue what little credibility the man has left. Otherwise, he needs to be marked out as the troubler of the brethren, in accordance with Romans 16:17-18. Meanwhile, I invite Malcolm Yarnell to view the actual video and withdraw his support of Lumpkins' deceptive assertions. Simple Christian integrity is, once again, a rare item in some circles these days.

With that, I am....thankful it is easy to document blatant and deceptive dishonesty.

Update Mr. Lumpkins refuses to repent of his dishonesty, like others we have documented of late. He admits what he put on the screen is not what I said, but attempts to obscure this little ray of honesty by saying I misquoted myself(!) and that it was the "approximate" meaning. The inanity of the deceiver caught by documentation is sad to observe, but it is there nonetheless. Here is his comment. I can only conclude that he is unwilling to receive correction or to be truthful, and hence needs to be marked out as one of those troublers of the brethren noted in Romans 16:17. Of course, that would require his church to accomplish, and I am doubtful that is going to happen, but for me, and anyone with the slightest ability to discern facts and motivations, Mr. Lumpkins has shown himself unworthy of further notice.

13:52:33 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

A Quick and Frustrated Review

04/07/2010 - James White

Yesterday on the DL I played a portion of Bart Ehrman's comments in a "debate" that took place at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on April 1, 2010. He was debating NT scholar Craig Evans. From the introductions, folks came from all over to hear this encounter, even from the UK. As I rode along one of my familiar routes in the gorgeous Arizona Spring weather (heavy headwind on the way out, almost fell asleep at 22 mph on the way back), my mood soured considerably, for numerous reasons.

Jim Elliff was right, Bart Ehrman dominated this encounter. But it wasn't because of the depth of his arguments. Not by a long shot. His arguments remain just as surface-level as they have ever been, fully refutable if his opponents would simply have the temerity, or the time, to do so. But that's the problem. This "debate" was doomed from the moment Craig Evans agreed to the single worst format I have ever seen for a debate in an academic setting.

When I downloaded the audio file I was more than a little surprised to see that it was less than ninety minutes long. Ninety minutes? Why fly anywhere, let alone across the Atlantic (as some evidently did) for a ninety minute encounter? What can meaningfully be accomplished in a time frame like that? So the brevity of the encounter robbed it of any chance of usefulness right at that start.

But, it was far worse than that. This wasn't a debate. There was no interaction, no cross-examination, no rebuttal. I have no idea who came up with this format, but please, please, never, ever, ever suggest it again. Whoever came up with it could not possibly be a debater himself. Seven questions, each asked to Ehrman and Evans, with a short time span to respond (I didn't time it, but it seemed like 5 to 7 minutes or so---I could be wrong, as I was listening to it at increased speed). That's it. No interaction, hence, no debate.

You could not have designed a better format for Ehrman, or a worse one for Evans. I have never heard Bart more riled up. I thought he was pretty excited in our debate, but that was nothing compared to this. He was on rapid-fire preaching mode to an extent I have never heard before. Sure, it's the same old stuff, and it is getting quite exasperating to hear Ehrman repeat it over and over again, never once even acknowledging the devastating rebuttals that have been offered to each of his points (even claiming he has never heard a good response to some of them). He even repeated the slander of Dan Wallace and the folks at CSNTM that he enunciated in our debate in Florida, saying that it is a "waste" of hundreds of thousands of dollars to photograph and catalog manuscripts if we don't believe the variants matter. (Ehrman has been corrected on this repeatedly: it is simple dishonesty on his part to keep repeating it). But it truly seemed to me that Ehrman has become louder and louder, more and more shrill, as he has moved deeper and deeper into his role as "leading anti-Christian apostate author." He was not nearly as careful with his language as he was with me, which leads me to think he is becoming ever more bold in his anti-Christian denunciations (a trend reflected in his published books as well).

Both men had been provided the questions ahead of time, clearly. Evans read his responses. Ehrman did not. Ehrman flew through his standard repertoire knowing full well that any meaningful rebuttal of even 1/4 of his texts would exhaust Evans' time. But he didn't even have to worry about that, since Evans wasn't given any time to rebut anyway! The absurdity of the format boggles the mind. It gave Ehrman exactly what he wanted, and left Evans sounding hesitant and uncertain. Part of this was due to the nature of the speakers, but part of it was also due to Ehrman being right about an important point: Evans was, in fact, using very careful language, and the two were speaking past each other at that point. Ehrman was directing his blasts directly to the believing Christian in the pew; Evans was using "scholar speak." Ehrman was making the wild accusation that if there is any question at all about anything in the Bible, either as to the original writings themselves (whether the Gospels contain expansions, traditions, anything beyond strict Western style journalism) or the transmission of the text (his wildly untenable theory that if God inspired it, God would make everyone who ever copied it infallible, hence, no textual variations), then you cannot trust any of the Bible at all. Evans was talking about "general reliability" and the "core of Jesus' teachings." Ehrman directly challenged him to speak plainly: does he believe in a perfect Bible, or a generally reliable Bible (as the two are not the same, especially in the mind of the audience Ehrman was aiming at). Evans failed to give a compelling reply, and Ehrman took advantage of it.

So having heard the encounter for myself, I can see why Jim Elliff found it so problematic. Possibly, had it been formatted in some meaningful fashion, with a limitation of scope (seven questions, each on a topic wide enough for a full debate, made it hopelessly surface level, again playing into the hands of the critic and making the job of the apologist impossible), the results could have been somewhat different. But Evans was put in an absolutely impossible position by the utterly untenable format (to which he must have agreed, so I am not completely exonerating him in the matter), a format designed for the scatter-gun approach of a critic like Bart Ehrman. While I am sure many of Ehrman's points were addressed in the conference that followed, the real question is, how many people will hear only this debate, but never hear any of the conference that came afterward?

Lessons to be learned? For goodness sake, think about format and topic! If you do not allow for meaningful cross-examination, why bother with the pretense of a "debate" to begin with? Do not ham-string your own defender with a short format that lends itself completely to the authoritarian argumentation of a Bart Ehrman (who truly believes his own press when it comes to these topics). And keep in mind that many modern evangelical scholars do not hold to as high a view of Scripture as the folks in the pews, and hence will seem to be "dodging" if they are not open about this from the start. Better yet, have folks debate Bart Ehrman who can go toe-to-toe with him on these points and give them the chance to interact and rebut! Of course, those folks are few and far between, mainly because of the implied belief amongst scholastics that they should be above getting "down and dirty" in the details. Ehrman has completely abandoned that concept, obviously, and hence it takes someone willing to step outside of the genteel "box" of the academy to respond to him. If these basic guidelines are not followed, you are paying good money to drop an anti-Christian weapon of mass deception right in the center of your own campus!

12:36:39 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

Lou Ruggiero on His New Book

04/06/2010 - James White

Some of you remember the "debate" with "Lou Rugg" of PalTalk fame:



Lou is very big on self-promotion. Sometime last year he was talking about how his new book would "crush" me, etc. I have yet to see this book, but he promises us that, eventually, Calvinism will be vanished from the face of the earth through his personal brilliance and insight. So today Lou IM'd one of our channel regulars with these messages:

LouRugg_777: White gets humiliated with his Pharaoh position

LouRugg_777: I expose him so badly he should dig himself a hole and hide

LouRugg_777: The Potter's Freedom will have no credibility after this whole thing is over

Well there you go. If you are looking for a humility-based book destroying Reformed theology, I'm sure Lou Rugg's work will be just what the doctor ordered. :-)

19:35:58 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

A Brotherly Response: Updated! See Below

04/05/2010 - James White

(Please see the end of the article for an update from Jim Elliff.)

I was directed to an article posted by Jim Elliff relating to…well, what I do, and I am compelled to provide what is hopefully a brotherly rebuttal and response.

On Thursday April 1 Craig Evans debated Bart Ehrman at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on the topic, "The Biblical Accounts of the Resurrection: Are They Reliable?" I am looking forward to hearing the recordings of this encounter. Evidently this encounter prompted Jim Elliff to write an article titled, "Public Debate with Bart Ehrman: A Bad Decision."

Pastor Elliff presents a general denunciation of (seemingly) all public debates with atheists, apostates, religious leaders from other faiths---in general, all "false teachers." Evidently, then, all teaching about apologetics should be one-sided, never involving interaction with false teachers of any kind. Pastor Elliff insists this is a biblical injunction. He writes,

First, because Ehrman is a false teacher and we are forbidden to give such men a forum to express their views.

I would agree that we are not to give false teachers a "forum to express their views" within the context of the worship of the church. That is what church discipline is all about. But that is a different thing from expanding this out to a general denunciation of any direct interaction with false teachers "on your turf" (whatever that might mean). I see no evidence that the apostles invited false teachers into the church to "dialogue" or debate, but surely Paul dialogued (debated) regularly with those who opposed his message (primarily Jewish opponents, but there is no reason to assume he did not respond to all false teachers, no matter what their views) in the public square. Neither text Elliff cites (2 John 10, Romans 16:17-18) speak to public disputations or encounters in an educational institution or in any context outside of the worship of the church. Pastor Elliff writes,

Inviting a false teacher to present his errant views in order to persuade students and the public is like allowing a gunman to shoot randomly out into an audience of military personnel because it is assumed the troops have body armor. For one thing, body armor cannot shield against all shots, and for another, there are many people attending who have no armor at all. At last week’s debate, for instance, there were many people from the public who were not even believers. Some young people also attended, and some seminary students who are not yet prepared for the effects of doubt-producing verbiage.

I appreciate the pastoral concern, however, I don't find this thinking realistic at all. The Bart Ehrmans of the world already "own" the "turf" of the educational system. Our society is soaked with their arguments and their "doubt-producing verbiage." They are the darlings of the media. Their books are the texts our children read in the university. They are on CNN and Fox, YouTube and Vimeo. We are the ones who can hardly ever get our views expressed in the public square, and even then, we almost never get to do so in a fair, moderated way so as to expose their errors. I have learned the value of cross-examination, of being able to ask the tough questions that no one else will, and about the only time that happens is in a scholarly, moderated debate. So, I really wonder if Pastor Elliff is unaware of how pervasive is the "doubt-producing verbiage" today, and, does he really believe the answer is to hide behind walls raised by ecclesiastical silence? Surely the church should be addressing these issues head-on in our teaching (as we surely do in my fellowship), but I would suggest that the proverbial horse is already well clear of the proverbial barn door. Our members will be encountering this "doubt-producing verbiage" day in and day out. How valuable it is to be able to provide them with direct refutations that demonstrate that we can stand face-to-face with the most probing critics of the faith! Pastor Elliff continued,

The assumption was that they would see Ehrman lose the debate and the Christian view would triumph. It didn’t happen. Now the work in evangelism by the friends who naively brought them is that much harder.

This is surely a naive and foolish assumption to bring into a debate with the leading critic of the Christian faith! But again, it could be said that unbelievers coming into that debate had the exact same assumptions, only in reverse. But I am again left wondering how Pastor Elliff's solution solves anything: how is the Christian believer aided by only getting to hear refutations of Ehrman that avoid engaging Ehrman himself? Again, they are going to hear his views on NPR and CNN and everywhere else, so, how is it better to get a response to Ehrman only in an ecclesiastical context, far from Ehrman himself? In fact, does it not follow that there are gifted men in the church who are called to "refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9) and that they would be the best ones to be dealing with Ehrman? How many local pastors can engage Ehrman's claims regarding the text of the New Testament? Is it not wiser to engage him in a formal debate context, and then make that specialized kind of refutation available for those who do not have the calling, or the training, to engage such issues?

Next, Pastor Elliff tells us that "the minority position almost always gains some followers regardless who wins the debate." But again, I find this thinking confusing. Preaching the truth will always have a result, and sometimes, it is a negative one. The lost are always looking for new ways to express their rebellion, are they not? I well know that when I debate, false professors amongst the flock may well find this to be a good reason to "jump ship." But, is that a bad thing? Unregenerate men move from religion to religion, unbelief to unbelief. Does Pastor Elliff believe God's elect will be taken in? I would hope not, hence, I do not see how this is a relevant argument. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

22:05:39 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

You Can Tell I Have a Debate Coming Up

04/05/2010 - James White

I know, I know, I'm a geek. On many levels. Fractals and gadgets and cycling and all that, I know. So some of you know that I've gotten into creating special ties for major debates. I designed a tie for the Ehrman debate featuring P52. Another for my debate with Shabir Ally on the prophecies of Jesus in the Old Testament. One for my debate with Dan Barker in Illinois, etc. So, I was thinking last week, what would I do for the upcoming debate with Robert Price? And the idea came rather easily.

Robert Price does not believe Paul wrote anything attributed to him. Nothing. But even beyond that radical position, he denies that 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 was an original part of 1 Corinthians, no matter when it was written. So, I thought it would be a great idea to take the uncial text of that vital portion of Scripture (this from Codex Sinaiticus) and create a tie. This time I inverted the colors, did some tweaking, used my 1990s vintage graphics program for Windows (PhotoSuite III---still my favorite!) and voila! One radically cool looking tie:

1 Corinthians 15:1ff from Codex Sinaiticus by DrOakley
Design a custom tie with zazzle

Yes, of course I posted it for sale, too, however, I only request that you don't show up to the CRI National Conference wearing it. That would be...well, you know...weird.

I get regular requests when I travel for information on how to get my wild and wacky ties: either the biblical manuscript ties, or the fractal ones. I keep telling folks, "Just search for Zazzle on the blog." And that would work, especially since I just used the word Zazzle. Here's the flash panel with all my ties:


Look for a personalized gift at Zazzle.

14:37:57 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Dave Hunt on Romans 9: Tradition-Driven Eisegesis Once Again

04/05/2010 - James White

   The Berean Call put out their monthly newsletter a few days ago, and I could not help but noticing the following paragraph. If you are not intimately familiar with the argument of Romans 9, and especially its insistence that the choice of Jacob and the rejection of Esau was not in any way, shape, or form, based upon the actions of Jacob or Esau, foreseen or otherwise, but was instead based solely upon God's "purpose in election," you might wish to review the text before reading this tradition-laden means of getting around the text:

Regarding Romans 9:19, we know that it is not wise to single out one verse apart from full context. The issue of Jacob and Esau and their being loved or hated by God before their birth has occupied more than one discussion throughout history. If one confines the argument to portions of Romans 9, it does sound like God arbitrarily selects some for salvation and others for damnation, but Romans 9 does not occur in a vacuum, and the rest of Scripture furnishes the balance. God's foreknowledge enters into the equation at this point. Some theologians have stated that it would be accurate to translate the passage, "Jacob have I chosen, but Esau have I rejected." Specifically, in the case of Esau, the implication of "rejected" is a judgment based upon knowledge of his actions. God, who declares "the end from the beginning," (Isaiah 46:10) knew, before they were born, the course each child would take.

   1) How many times people have rebelled against this truth over the course of church history is, of course, irrelevant to the biblical teaching itself.
   2) Whenever you find someone (and Dave Hunt has made a living off of this) going to the "rest of Scripture" argument before exegeting the text in context, you know you have found someone's tradition.
   3) Notice that in essence this paragraph admits that, contextually speaking, if you just let Romans 9 speak for Romans 9, it teaches God's sovereignty (misidentified as "arbitrary" when, in fact, it is based upon the good pleasure of God's will, His eternal purpose, which is anything but arbitrary).
   4) Whenever you find anyone from the Berean Call citing un-named "scholars," beware. Remember, these are the same folks who drew from a Yahwist cult to try to get around Acts 13:48, suggesting that the first fifteen chapters of Acts were written in Hebrew!
   5) There is no doubt that "chosen/rejected" is part of the meaning of the text, but there are plain, easily chosen words that have those meanings, and Paul did not use them. Loved and hated are words with meanings. People may not like what they mean, but that does not change their meaning.
   So compare, then, the words of Scripture with the words of the Berean Call and remember, once again, the grave error enunciated by Dave Hunt nearly a decade ago now, "James, I have no traditions."

Scripture states: though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad---in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls---(Romans 9:11)

But the Berean Call says,

Specifically, in the case of Esau, the implication of "rejected" is a judgment based upon knowledge of his actions. God, who declares "the end from the beginning," (Isaiah 46:10) knew, before they were born, the course each child would take.

   The result? Paul's entire argument is turned on its head. How much more plainly can the Apostle state "and had not yet done anything good or bad"? But, when wedded to a tradition that you refuse to see, even the plain words on the page cannot dissuade you from pursuing your goals. Another great example provided by the folks up at the Berean Call.

07:19:26 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Two Evenings at the LDS Easter Pageant: Mormonism Has Changed

04/04/2010 - James White

   Twenty seven years ago yesterday my wife and I, newlyweds, hopped on my Kawasaki 440 and drove out to the Mesa Temple in Mesa, Arizona. We stood in amazement at the large crowds attending the LDS Easter Pageant. We stood next to the now long-gone Arby's and pondered the ministry possibilities. The next year we were back, this time with the late Wally Tope, passing out tracts and witnessing to folks. Then in 1985 we started the full-bore work, all six nights of the event, continuing that until the advent of the KJV Only Street Screechers just a few years ago.
   We could have done the entirety of this year's event, if we had looked closely at the calendar. The Street Screechers did not show up this year, and once we got out there on Friday night, we realized why: they were all up in Salt Lake City (where they get a lot more press coverage, which they crave). I should have seen the conjunction between General Conference and the Easter Pageant, but I had a few other things on my mind (like the Michael Brown debate), so it never crossed my mind.
   In any case, I was struck once again by how much Mormonism has changed since those first encounters in the mid 1980s. The vast majority of Mormons simply do not have the slightest interest in defending their faith any longer, if they even know its particular points of uniqueness. When we would talk to Mormons in the 1980s, they knew their faith, and cared about proclaiming it to others, and defending it as well. In other words, they tended to actually believe it is true. But things have changed over the past decades. Mormonism has been so deeply infiltrated by post-modern thinking that, combined with its predisposition to subjectivism, has led to a tremendous decline in its apologetic ferver. A general apathy in the face of challenge now marks the large majority of Mormons.
   In the first years we engaged in that work in Mesa I would come home hoarse from speaking all night long. Hours of fruitful conversations, especially with young people. Where have all the young people gone? I honestly wonder if we are also seeing the result of the "electronic" generation. Kids used to get bored (they had seen the Pageant many times before), and would come and talk to us. Now they sit there and play video games on their iPhones. I suppose if we made it possible to text with us they would talk to us, but the idea of actually looking someone in the eye and talking to them is becoming a oddity of the past. Who saw that coming?
   I do not know what the future will hold, but one thing is for sure: I sensed a real "hardness" on the part of most we encountered, not a hardness marked by a zeal for falsehood, but a hardness marked by apathy engendered by spiritual deception joined with cultural decay. It was truly sobering.

22:09:41 - Category: Mormonism - Link to this article -

So Now There are Fractal....Shoes

04/01/2010 - James White

   Last month Carla, who does a lot of A&O related graphics, t-shirts, etc. (see here), mentioned that she has been designing shoes. I guess Keds allows you to design...almost anything and put it on a pair of their classic Keds. I don't remember who came up with the idea, but I provided her with the wildest, brightest fractal in my collection, this one:



It is one of my older ones, so old I don't remember if this was a tweak of a pre-existing formula or just what. I just know it has orange and blue, and for me, that's all it needs (my favorite colors, and my favorite color combination, as you can tell my looking at my Bible covers, my Mac case, my phone case, etc.). Now, I even made a tie of this one, which you can see here. So Carla designed the shoes, and yes, here they are:



You can see 'em up close here. Now, I prefer white instead of the black (all those things can be customized), but I'm pretty proud. Just think of it! In one month I've been linked with Sproul, Piper, and Edwards in the infamous Southern Baptist "How to Recognize a Calvinist" paper, warned about by George Bryson in an e-mail sent to all Calvary Chapel Pastors, and had one of my fractals put on a pair of Classic Keds! I do believe I've arrived!

18:00:34 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Monergism vs. Synergism Debate Part II

04/01/2010 - James White

We took the gloves off today a bit, but remained within bounds for brothers in the Lord, as Michael and I debated again on the DL. Accusations of a "schizophrenic God" and "robots" came up, which surprised me a little, but that's OK, at least we got down to some brass tacks, so to speak, in examining the foundations upon which we stand in examining the Scriptures. I got the distinct feeling that some of my more famous internet stalkers, including some who call themselves Reformed (but spend most of their time opposing divine election and the perfection of Christ's atonement) had gotten in touch with Dr. Brown. In any case, here is the second half of the debate. We will combine the two into a single file for download later.

12:56:24 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives