Greetings:
   My name is James White. I am an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and an author. I wrote a full rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free titled The Potter's Freedom, am currently writing a point/counter-point debate book with Dave Hunt (www.aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html for my initial rebuttal of Hunt's horrific work), and I debated George Bryson on this topic at the Anaheim Vineyard last April (#494, bottom of the list at: http://aomin.org/mp3/list.html). I have also exposed fully the horrific errors of exegesis committed by Adrian Rogers in his attempts to deal with Calvinism (http://www.straitgate.com/jw082902.ram and http://www.straitgate.com/jw091402.ram). Hence, I have either engaged those you recommend in writing, or in debate. Indeed, Dr. Geisler has turned down every opportunity to defend his position in public dialogue, and we are having quite the time getting Mr. Hunt to schedule anything, either.
   Your website says that the Reformed position has no exegetical basis. I know that is untrue. Your website repeats John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:4 like a mantra. Yet I have found nothing on your website responding to the discussions of these passages offered in Reformed works (see my open letter to Hunt for a discussion of the relevant issues surrounding John 3:16, and The Potter's Freedom for an exegetical disussion of Matthew 23:37, 1 Timothy 2:4, and 2 Peter 3:9).
   I would like to invite anyone from your organization, or anyone you would like to contact, to debate these issues. My first choice would be a full public debate, audio and video recorded, of sufficient length to at least cover the central issues. I would be happy to face one or more individuals, if that was desired. The debate would involve presentation of exegetical information as well as cross-examination (the key to all meaningful debate). ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

Tom Ascol Responds to Steve Lemke

07/29/2005 - James White

   I was directed to yet another blast at "hyper Calvinism" by a Southern Baptist just a few days ago, and now Tom Ascol has started posting a thorough reply at the Founder's blog. Why is it that the opponents of Reformed theology 99.99% of the time have to rely upon straw men? If these folks really believe what they say, why won't they come out and debate the topic with the single authoritative resource being the inspired text of Scripture? I thank God I do not have to hide my faith behind straw men. What a blessing and a freedom!

11:57:03 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Pots in Rebellion Against the Potter on the DL Today

07/28/2005 - James White

   There has been an explosion of "anti-Calvinism," taking the form, as it normally does, of a field full of straw-men soaked in kerosene, all to cover over the utter lack of exegetical foundation, over on the Envoy web forums as a result of the series posted here in response to Art Sippo on Romans 9. I spent the first 45 or so reading sections and responding, and then we took some good calls. Went a few minutes long. Here's the program.
   Oh, and a new version of UltraFractal was released today, so I thought I'd play around with an old fractal file I had, and make a nice, soothing, calm, yet colorful, background fractal for use on desktops. Here's the 1280x1024 version.

20:01:24 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

A Thirst for Hermeneutics

07/28/2005 - James White

I mentioned to some friends that I would be open for them to provide me with some assistance in blogging between now and the Crossan debate, less than a month off, and the first one to submit something was my friend pastor John Samson, aka "SillyBrit2," a former subject of the British Crown, now a true Yank (he has given up on the Empire ever getting the Colonies back). Here's his submission:
   We would be horrified to hear of a surgeon who had just two weeks of training operating on someone's brain. As important as brain surgery is, I believe the job of the Gospel preacher is far more important. Eternal souls hang in the balance, and great care and attention is needed to ensure that a teaching is sound, healthy and accurate. A teacher of the Bible needs rigorous training in the science of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics). But that's not just true for the preacher; everyone of us needs to know how to gain an accurate knowledge of the Word of God.
   Some people think that if God wants you to know something about the Bible, He will just reveal it to you supernaturally. Unfortunately, that's how a lot of cults get started. 1 Tim 5:17 says, "Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine." Correct interpretation requires work; sometimes, a great deal of hard work.
   We are also told to "be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15). Without diligent study, it is easy to wrongly divide the word; to believe and to teach error. The main way this takes place is because we draw illegitimate inferences from the text - when we read into the text things that are not actually said by the text, and draw out of the text things that are actually not there (known as eisegesis). Sadly, this happens all too frequently. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Pastoral Theology - Link to this article -

A Few Crossan Quotes

07/27/2005 - James White

Just a few selected quotes from John Dominic Crossan's Who Is Jesus?

"Do I personally believe in an afterlife? No, but to be honest, I do not find it a particularly important question one way or the other."

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion ws foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

22:22:57 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

Art Sippo Responds...Sort of

07/27/2005 - James White

   I stopped being surprised a long time ago at the non-responses offered by Roman Catholic apologists to substantive and especially exegetically-based criticisms of their positions. Sippo's website, for example, links to the 15-second long context-less video snippet of an interchange between myself and Gerry Matatics on sola scriptura (the same clip I discussed a few weeks ago on the blog, providing the necessary context for any serious-minded person). Anyone who thinks such contextless sound-bites are overly relevant is obviously not too serious about the truth or apologetics. But in any case, Sippo did not even bother waiting until the end of the series to fire back, not with rebuttal or even interaction, but with his customary "prots are stupid, believe me, I'm a medical doctor" kind of rhetoric. In fact, he dismisses the entire seven part series with, "Ignorant ravings by an uneducated pundit really require no response." If I am so uneducated, I would think it would behoove Sippo to refute the documentation I have provided of his own errors. Of course, the reality is, it is Art Sippo who is uneducated in theology, Greek, and exegesis. He is a medical doctor and has no experience teaching in the field in which he pretends expertise. That is why he refuses to debate me on this issue and will not interact with the documentation of his errors.
   And so for the second time in the past six months or so one of the "apologists" of the Catholic Legate website has been thoroughly refuted without any attempt on their part at response or correction. Will this cause them to cease their insulting and dismissive rhetoric? Of course not. But all one can do is speak the truth, knowing that in the only court that matters, that is our only duty.

08:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part VII)

07/27/2005 - James White

   We complete our review and refutation of Art Sippo's comments on Romans 9 with the final portion of the chapter he addressed on the Catholic Legate website. It is in this section that Dr. Sippo attempted to present information on the original language of the text, and in the process, demonstrated that it is best not to do that if you cannot, in fact, read what you are commenting on. The final comments involved Romans 9:22-24:

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath were fit for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (v.22-24)

John Calvin commented,

22. And what, etc. A second answer, by which he briefly shows, that though the counsel of God is in fact incomprehensible, yet his unblamable justice shines forth no less in the perdition of the reprobate than in the salvation of the elect. He does not indeed give a reason for divine election, so as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected; for it was not meet that the tidings contained in the secret counsel of God should be subjected to the judgment of men; and, besides, this mystery is inexplicable. He therefore keeps us from curiously examining those things which exceed human comprehension. He yet shows, that as far as God's predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just.
   But if we wish fully to understand Paul, almost every word must be examined. He then argues thus, - There are vessels prepared for destruction, that is, given up and appointed to destruction: they are also vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end, that they may be examples of God's vengeance and displeasure. If the Lord bears patiently for a time with these, not destroying them at the first moment, but deferring the judgment prepared for them, and this in order to set forth the decisions of his severity, that others may be terrified by so dreadful examples, and also to make known his power, to exhibit which he makes them in various ways to serve; and, further, that the amplitude of his mercy towards the elect may hence be more fully known and more brightly shine forth ; - what is there worthy of being reprehended in this dispensation? But that he is silent as to the reason, why they are vessels appointed to destruction, is no matter of wonder. He indeed takes it as granted, according to what has been already said, that the reason is hid in the secret and inexplorable counsel of God; whose justice it behooves us rather to adore than to scrutinize....It is the second reason which manifests the glory of God in the destruction of the reprobate, because the greatness of divine mercy towards the elect is hereby more clearly made known; for how do they differ from them except that they are delivered by the Lord from the same gulf of destruction? and this by no merit of their own, but through his gratuitous kindness. It cannot then be but that the infinite mercy of God towards the elect must appear increasingly worthy of praise, when we see how miserable are all they who escape not his wrath.

Art Sippo provides a single paragraph of commentary on this tremendous passage: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Radio Free Geneva Airs Again!

07/26/2005 - James White

   Today on the Dividing Line we aired another episide of "Radio Free Geneva," where we dedicate our entire time to responding to the worst of the worst of anti-Reformed polemics. Today, upon finishing the Adrian Rogers HyperCalvinism study, we moved into responding to Dr. S.M. Davis' study, which exemplifies the horrific result of believing what Dave Hunt has to say. Here's the program.

12:49:16 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

John Spilsbury on "The Peculiar Interest of the Elect in the Death of Christ, and His Saving Grace

07/26/2005 - James White

   Hat tip to Kerry Kinchen for referring me to a paper by one of the framers of the London Baptist Confession (1689) on the atonement and the elect, found here. Good stuff.
   I was also referred by others to an article on Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8, which I looked at immediately due to my recent published articles on the subject in the RBTR. Here's the article. I looked for the exegesis, I really did. But I couldn't find any. I looked for a close reading of the argument of the writer to the Hebrews, but there was none. I got a lot of discussion of over-arching themes and the like, just nothing that satisfies my simple "could we try to derive our beliefs from a close examiniation of the text, please" mind. Well, I'll keep looking.

09:00:00 - Category: Pastoral Theology - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part VI)

07/26/2005 - James White

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power overthe clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (v.19-21)

   Once again I provide the contrasting commentaries. I begin with Art Sippo:

Here is the really deep mystery of God's sovereignty over creation. Even though God is ULTIMATELY responsible for everything that happens, man must accept some moral responsibility. If that were not the case, then God would be the author of sin. This is a problem with the supralapsarian position taken by many Calvinists. We have been made by God and he ordains our ends but SOMEHOW we still have free will and are are (sic) responsible for our actions while God is free from any taint of moral blame. What the objector in these verses was seen as doing according to St. Paul is denying free will and moral responsibility, not divine predestination. God made us with free will and we misuse it. That is not God's fault. It is ours.
   Admittedly, this is not a simple matter to resolve. How can God be toatlly (sic) sovereign while man is still personally responsible for sin? There is no simple answer. This is a mystery that should humble us. But we need to have faith in God and his goodness as well as his overall sovereignty. Likewise we must accept moral responsibility and admit that we are sinners before God.

   Now my own from The Potter's Freedom. I did not break at the same point Sippo did, so my comments extend beyond this section, but will be relevant to his commentary on the later verses when we come to them:

Paul well knew the objections man presents to the words he had just penned. If God has mercy solely based upon His good pleasure, and if God hardens Pharaoh on the same basis, all to His own glory and honor, how can God hold men accountable for their actions, for who resists His will? Paul's response is swift and devastating: Yes indeed God holds man accountable, and he can do so because He is the Potter, the one who molds and creates, while man is but the thing molded. For a pot to question the Potter is absurd: for man to answer back to God is equally absurd. These words cannot be understood separately from the fundamental understanding of the freedom of the Sovereign Creator and the ontological creaturelinessof man that removes from him any ground of complaint against God. Though already devastatingly clear, Paul makes sure there is no doubt left as to his point:

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:21-24)

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

On the DL Tuesday, 7/26/05: Radio Free Geneva

07/25/2005 - James White

   More of the worst of the worst as we try to finish up the Adrian Rogers "HyperCalvinism study" and move on to Dr. S.M. Davis of Park Meadows Baptist Church and his two-part series, "Five Reasons Why I am Not a Five Point Calvinist." Here we find a very articulate preacher who takes the horrific strawman presentation of Dave Hunt (even holding What Love is This? up in the pulpit) and preaches it far better than Hunt ever could. A truly amazing example of how the use of secondary sources coupled with a complete unwillingness to hear the other side results in horrific errors. The DL airs at 2pm EDT, 11am PDT. See you then!

18:04:16 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Islamic Apologetics and New Testament Transmission (#23)

07/25/2005 - James White

   I continue a series that had reached twenty one installments back in April, received one more installment a few weeks ago thanks to a guest blogger, Alan Kurschner, but still requires that I complete the work, specifically, that of responding to the article posted at the Islamic Awareness website by MSM Saifullah and Hesham Azmy, "Is the Bible In Our Hands the Same as During the Time of Muhammad?" A search on "Islam" in the blog articles will turn up the previous installments in this series.
   Our Islamic apologists included a very, very lengthy citation (almost the majority of the article) taken from James Bentley's Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Codex Sinaiticus. We had been working through the various textual variants mentioned by Bentley and responding to them. I pick up with the next variant cited, that being Luke 23:34. I place the variant in italics in the citation: "But Jesus was saying, 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.' And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves." You will note that the parallel passages in Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, and John 19:18, do not contain these words. Codex Sinaiticus (a) contains the passage in its original hand; the first corrector, however, marked them out; but a later corrector added them back in (hence, a^*.2 cited for the phrase, a¹ for its deletion). We pick up with Bentley's brief discussion:

Equally revealing is the way the correctors of Codex Sinaiticus dealt with words attributed to Jesus on the Cross by St Luke's Gospel. Jesus's prayer, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do', is deleted by a corrector. J. Rendel Harris believed that the text was deliberately cut out by those Christians who believed God could never have forgiven the Jews for the death of Jesus. Had not the destruction of Jerusalem shown this? Here, on the other hand, Hort still maintained that the text had disappeared for entirely innocent and accidental reasons. 'Wilful excision on account of the love and forgiveness shown to the Lord's own murderers', he wrote, 'is absolutely incredible.'.....

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part V)

07/24/2005 - James White

   Sippo continues in reference to Romans 9:14-16,

This is locus classicus for the doctrine that there is no strict merit before God. God is not obligated to reward the creature for morally upright works done by the natural man apart from God or His covenants. This does not exclude the possibility of condign merit {due to the obedience of faith under enabling grace} or even congruous merit {rewards based on a covenantal agreement}.

Jacob and Esau were not a part of the Abrahamic covenant? Where does the text discuss such issues as condign or congruous merit? Such an introduction of extraneous concepts utterly derails the Apostle's argument, showing once again how the faithful Roman Catholic simply cannot engage in direct exegesis of the text when Rome has "infallibly" defined what the text can or cannot say. When you find someone not deriving their beliefs from the text, but instead having to argue, "well, that does not necessarily exclude what I believe," you know you are looking at unbiblical presentation. Once again Calvin spoke with clarity:

It may indeed appear a frigid defence that God is not unjust, because he is merciful to whom he pleases; but as God regards his own authority alone as abundantly sufficient, so that he needs the defence of none, Paul thought it enough to appoint him the vindicator of his own right. Now Paul brings forward here the answer which Moses received from the Lord, when he prayed for the salvation of the whole people, I will show mercy, was Gods answer, on whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. By this oracle the Lord declared that he is a debtor to none of mankind, and that whatever he gives is a gratuitous benefit, and then that his kindness is free, so that he can confer it on whom he pleases; and lastly, that no cause higher than his own will can be thought of, why he does good and shows favor to some men but not to all.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part IV)

07/23/2005 - James White

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. (v.14-16)

   Our readers might find it useful to compare and contrast Art Sippo's comments on this text with my own from my response to Dr. Norman Geisler in The Potter's Freedom. First Sippo's commentary:

This is a classic statement about the sovereignty of God. Notice what this DOESN'T say. It does not say that God will condemn whomever he wills to but only that he will be merciful on anyone whom he chooses. This is why the Council of Orange in 529AD determined that God predestines the righteous to glory but does not actively predestine the wicked to perdition. This council's teaching was defined as official Church teaching by the Popes contemporary to it and reaffirmed later at the Council of Nicea II in 787AD.

Now, my own:

Paul is ready with an Old Testament example to buttress his arguments: Exodus 33. This tremendous passage contains themes that find their full expression only in the New Testaments full revelation of the doctrines of Gods free and sovereign grace. God showed mercy and compassion to Moses, choosing to reveal His glory as an act of grace. We must understand, in light of the prevailing attitude of the world around us, that Gods mercy, if it is to be mercy at all, must be free. Literally the text speaks of mercying and compassioning, again verbs of action that find their subject in God and their object in those chosen by His decision. It does not say, "I will have mercy on those who fulfill the conditions I have laid down as the prerequisite of my plan of salvation." Both the source of compassion and mercy and the individual application find their ultimate ground only in the free choice of God, not of man.
   This divine truth, so offensive to the natural man, could not find a clearer proclamation than Romans 9:16. We truly must ask, if this passage does not deny to the will of man the all-powerful position of final say in whether the entire work of the Triune God in salvation will succeed or fail, what passage possibly could? What stronger terms could be employed? The verse begins, "so then," drawing from the assertion of God that mercy and compassion are His to freely give. Next comes the negative particle, "not," which negates everything that follows in the clause. Two human activities are listed: willing and literally "running," or striving. Human choice and human action. Paul puts it bluntly: it is not "of the one willing" nor is it "of the one running." Paul uses two singular present active participles. The fact that they are singular shows us again the personal natureof the passage. The interpretation that attempts to limit Romans 9 to "nations" cannot begin to explain how nations "will" or "run." In contrast to these Paul uses a present active participle to describe Gods act of "mercying," showing mercy. Man may strive through his will and his endeavors, but God must show mercy.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

Holy Warriors? Or Terrorist Cowards?

07/22/2005 - James White

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen fired on a car carrying a newlywed couple and their families on Friday, killing the 23-year-old bride and wounding the Iraqi army captain she had just married. Eleven other people died in violence nationwide.
   Ooh, brave soldiers, shooting up brides. Just like last week and the brave bomber who killed a bunch of kids and a Marine who was passing out candy to them. So with this incredible, daily blight upon the reputation of Islam, isn't it so very odd that NBC has announced it is planning a mid-season show called "The Book of Daniel" that will include a "pill-popping priest" and a "contemporary, cool" Jesus. Am I the only one who finds it so very upside-down that when the news is filled with constant evidence of the result of old-time, believing, consistent Islam, the self-destructive forces of the West (the media, etc.) respond by granting Islam protected status (can you imagine NBC doing such a show with a figure representing Muhammad?) while stepping up their attacks upon the Christian faith. It truly makes you wonder.

10:46:13 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part III)

07/22/2005 - James White

   I continue with my response to Art Sippo regarding Romans 9. Sippo then cited two very lengthy passages of Scripture, Ezekiel 33:8-20, and the entirety of Romans 2. Unfortunately, he offered not a word of exegesis, and not the slightest interaction with the texts themselves, outside of a grand and sweeping conclusion,

In both of these excerpts, the Bible teaches that God will judge men according to their works and not according to some arbitrary standard of his own that merely meets his 'good pleasure' as prots have misrepresented it.

   It is indeed hard to imagine a less accurate reading of Holy Scripture than this summary offered by Art Sippo. Unfortunately, Sippo's conclusion is so brief, so shallow, it is next to impossible to know what he means by it. Is he saying there is some lower standard than God's own perfect holiness? Is he denying that no unclean thing shall enter into God's presence? Or is he saying that men can somehow get themselves cleaned up by some process sufficiently to slip into glory? I can't think of a single Protestant who would see even the faintest glimmer of their own faith in this kind of rhetorical straw-man. It would be fascinating to see Sippo attempt an exegetical demonstration of his claims, but this is a detour from the subject at hand anyway, which is Romans 9. Of course, he makes no attempt to connect this meandering commentary to Romans 9, but just moves back to the subject directly:

Notice that in the above section of Romans 9 St. Paul does NOT say that Esau was damned but rather he emphasizes that "the older will serve the younger." This seems to be dealing with something other than 'salvation' in the strict sense.

   Paul does not, indeed, say Esau was damned. Indeed, that is a rather rare statement in all of Scripture at all, and if one must have such a direct statement, there will be very few who are damned to be sure. In any case, the text does tell us that Paul is addressing God's freedom in choosing Jacob over Esau; that whatever this choice is about it has something to do with a fact Sippo utterly ignores and that is directly contradictory to his own position: "for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls...." Why would Paul refer to actions "good or bad" and make reference to "not because of works but because of Him who calls"? How is a non-salvific choice relevant to "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated"? And why would any of this result in the accusation of injustice in v. 14, that is answered with reference to mercy in v. 15? Serious exegesis takes these things into consideration, while those simply seeking to vindicate a human tradition do not need to be bothered with such details. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

Today on the DL

07/21/2005 - James White

   Today on the DL our calls, well, except for the first one, actually had something to do with the topic! We started with a ministry that promises to save a soul for every $48 you give, moved on to Dave Hunt's newest screed on Calvinism, and then back to the Adrian Rogers "HyperCalvinism" study, with a few calls on the same topic in between. Here is the program (assuming it has been uploaded, anyway).
   Also, I noted on today's program that Tom Ascol has been sucked into the blogosphere. Here's the link.

19:46:22 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Man Says Religion Motivated Slaying

07/21/2005 - James White

   The following appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune Wed., July 13th. You probably didn't hear much about this in the mainstream media. You should have. The article is by Toby Sterling, Associated Press.
   AMSTERDAM, Netherlands --- The Muslim extremist on trial for the slaying of filmmaker Theo van Gogh confessed yesterday, saying he was driven by religious conviction. "I don't feel your pain," he told the victim's mother.
   "If I were released and would have the chance to do it again . . . I would do exactly the same thing," Mohammed Bouyeri said in the final minutes of his two-day trial.
   "What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. . . . I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet," he said.
   Bouyeri, 27, faces life imprisonment in the Nov. 2 killing of Van Gogh, who was shot, stabbed and nearly beheaded on an Amsterdam street.
   A verdict is to be handed down this month.
   At one point, he addressed the victim's mother, Anneke, who was sitting in the public gallery.
   "I have to admit I don't have any sympathy for you," he said. "I can't feel for your because I think you're a nonbeliever."
   The killing is believed to have been an act of retribution for Van Gogh's film, "Submission," which criticized the treatment of women under Islam.
   The killer left a five-page note fixed to the filmmaker's body with a knife.

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

Hunt Does It Again

07/20/2005 - James White

   Incorrigible. That's the only term I can come up with. It does not matter how many times Dave Hunt does the theological and scholarly equivalent of a face-plant as he is refuted and shown to be in simple error over and over and over again. He just refuses to learn.
   Hunt has now released a new book on Calvinism, A Calvinist's Honest Doubts Resolved by Reason and God's Amazing Grace. The e-book is already ready for download, which is how I have seen it. I am happy to say I am once again one of the main targets, as I am cited a number of times. Indeed, I have to wonder how the Calvinist pastor in this "fictional" conversation came to be named "Pastor Jim." In any case, the book, barely 100 pages in length, is meant to be a "user friendly" work on Calvinism in the form of a dialogue. Of course, I find that format quite useful. I used it in my recent work on sola scriptura in fact.
   Just a couple of quick notes, then a challenge for Mr. Hunt.
   First, don't worry about any new "Hebrew original of Acts 13:48" stuff. A quick search of the entire book reveals Acts 13:48 is not once cited or discussed. Not much of a shock there.
   Hunt once again cites the same passage from Spurgeon that has been explained to him dozens of times before where Spurgeon, in defining and defending particular redemption (limited atonement) refers to the fact that Calvinists do not believe in any limitation on the merit of Christ's sacrifice, only that He makes it with the intention of saving the elect alone. Hunt simply refuses to accept correction or learn from his previous widely publicized mistakes. He refuses to admit a mistake. In What Love is This? Hunt said that in this passage Spurgeon was "unequivocally" denying limited atonement. Now note how he introduces the passage: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

15:31:48 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

On Dancing with Rome

07/20/2005 - James White

   Once again we have been given further evidence of the damage done by embracing inherent contradiction (aka "reformed Catholicism," which is neither) in one of the most amazing articles I've cast eyes upon in...days. Kevin Johnson, who has lately been keeping himself at the top of Phil Johnson's blog spotting escapades by arguing about coffee and alcohol, attempted a broad-minded, "I really like this Marian stuff but I'm not a Roman Catholic, really" response to Jason Engwer of NTRMin. And in the process we have been given example after example of what happens when you embrace a system that is inherently self-contradictory. Just a few quotations:

But these early documents do not invalidate the Roman Catholic opinion on the matter-whether Mary was a perpetual virgin, sinless, or whether she was assumed.

   The Roman Catholic opinion? OPINION? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the field knows these are not opinions they are dogmas. De fide definitions of the faith itself, unquestionable, undeniable. That would be like referring to the "Reformed Baptist opinion on election" as if it was something we could chat about over a cup of coffee but it really did not define the faith of Reformed Baptists. I would think a Roman Catholic would find such fuzzy ecumenical redefinition of the de fide elements of his faith as mere "opinion" less than useful as well. It is the hallmark of the ecumenist to reduce such issues to "opinions."

And, anyone who studies the fathers knows well that the Marian doctrines in question did develop naturally and almost without resistance over the next thousand years after the Apostles passed from the scene-so much so that Mary made her way into the creeds and the early councils of the Church.

   "Developed naturally"? What is that supposed to mean? Developed, to be sure. But development is a term capable of numerous meanings. You can have godly, biblical development, where Scripture is the guide that keeps that development from wandering into error. And then you have that kind of development that denies Scriptural correction, which becomes evolution, perversion, and the result, a mutation, not a "natural development" from biblical truth. But since Mr. Johnson seems to be claiming to be one who "studies the fathers" then he well knows that the modern face of Marian theology would have been utterly unknown to the earliest centuries, and that they would have found the teaching of such things as dogmatic, de fide beliefs simply incredible. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

12:16:01 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Update on our monsoon disaster

07/20/2005 - Rich Pierce

We have lost the use of our main workshop and are setting up a makeshift work area in my spare bedroom. Please pray that we can recover the use of the room soon. I spent all day yesterday recovering the roof so the room should be watertight again. The ceiling needs to be re-insulated and and the drop ceiling replaced. The tile floor is shot and some drywall work has to be done as well. It is my prayer that we can get the labor in here soon so that we can move back in quickly.

On a positive note, we were able to cover all of our equipment so there was no loss there.

09:11:27 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part II)

07/20/2005 - James White

I continue with my response to Art Sippo regarding Romans 9. Sippo wrote,

This is based on a philosophy of Voluntarism stemming form Ockham's theory 'absolute divine power.' According to Voluntarism, if God is bound to act by a moral standard, that standard sits in judgement on Him and He is not truly sovereign. 'Good and evil' in this system are defined purely by the will of God, not by the actions that God requires of men. Since there is no essential goodness, God can dispose of any person without regard to what they have done. The Bible real [sic] knows nothing of this demonic idea. Instead, it preaches the existence of essential goodness and evil and promises rewards and punishments accordingly.

   Actually, it is based upon the clear testimony of Scripture, not a theory of Ockham. It is hard to know exactly what Sippo means here. Is he postulating that good and evil exist outside of God as abstract principles to which God is subject? What is their origin, if this is the case? Is God actually bound by the same laws He has for men, or does His law reflect His essential nature while He is not bound to the same context as the creature? Obviously, Sippo is not accurately representing the real situation when he writes that from the Reformed perspective God "can dispose of any person without regard to what they have done." If by this he means God is free to do with His creation as He wishes, I would gladly affirm this; however, the context is not a theoretical one, but a soteriological one, and hence Sippo is presenting an egregious caricature, for while God's mercy and grace in granting life to the elect is surely ground solely in His sovereign pleasure, His disposition of the wicked is ground in His holiness and their sinfulness. This is such a basic element of Reformed teaching that one is forced to wonder what Sippo thinks he gains by such misrepresentation. But at this point I remember that he is not seeking to convince me, or anyone who believes as I do. He is speaking only to his constituency, no one else.
   Far from being demonic, the truth of the absolute sovereignty of God to act as king over His own creation is present throughout Scripture, and the Bible makes sure to assert that this freedom extends to that area where God is most glorified, that of the salvation of His people in Christ. I note some of the primary passages below.

Genesis 20:6: Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her.
Exodus 34:24: I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 2:30: But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the LORD your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done.Joshua 11:20: For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Ezra 11:1, 7:27: In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing...Praise be to the LORD, the God of our fathers, who has put it into the king's heart to bring honor to the house of the LORD in Jerusalem...
Job 14:5: Man's days are determined; you have decreed the number of his months and have set limits he cannot exceed. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

A Prayer For Righteous Judges

07/19/2005 - James White

2 Chr. 19:6-7 He said to the judges, "Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD who is with you when you render judgment. Now then let the fear of the LORD be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the LORD our God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality or the taking of a bribe."

   On this day when a new Supreme Court justice is going to be nominated in the United States, we consider how important judges are, and how they will answer, someday, for how they judged, for the true and final standard of justice is written on the conscience, embedded in the soul, etched upon creation itself, the inevitable fingerprint of the Creator. A justice that would honor life and the original intention of the Constitution would be a blessing from on high. One that would, like so many over the past decades, set himself or herself above the law, and sit as a king/priest/judge over the land, would be a further evidence of God's judgment upon a wicked people, for wicked judges are what a wicked people deserve. So we pray for grace and mercy undeserved this day.

13:56:25 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9

07/19/2005 - James White

   Art Sippo, a Catholic layman and medical doctor, is well known for his virulent attacks upon "prots" and defenders of the "Deformation," etc. He has posted an attempt to interpret and explain Paul's presentation concerning the freedom of God in Romans 9, and though Dr. Sippo will not debate these issues live in public (he seemingly will only debate a single topic, that being justification), we can still interact with his attempted exegesis as it appears in his own writings, and we shall do so here.

And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." (v.10-12)

   Before we can even begin Dr. Sippo's comments, we note that he begins long after the key exegetical question has already been asked and answered, as demonstrated by Dr. John Piper in his classic work, The Justification of God. Specifically, Paul is going to be dealing with the answer he himself has offered to the question, "Why do so many of your fellow Jews, Paul, reject Christ?" You see this in 9:1-7:

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, ² that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. ³ For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, ⁴ who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, ⁵ whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. ⁶ But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; ⁷nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."

Paul's answer is found in vs. 6, "For they are not all Israel who are descendedfrom Israel." That is, God has been free in this matter of election from the very beginning. He is not limited by genetics and nationality, and never has been. The history of His dealings with Israel completely undercuts the objection of his Jewish opponents: their own history is a constant witness to God's freedom to act as He chooses. Paul will pile up illustration after illustration of this in what follows. Though Sippo does not begin where he needs to, he will eventually, after some meandering, recognize this over-arching theme, even if he does not make the proper application of it due to his very strong prejudice against the beliefs of "prots."

To what was Jacob elected? Was it to salvation? Or was it to the promise of Abraham? The two are not necessarily synonymous. In the Protestant religions where 'salvation' is equated with an arbitrary act of a capricious God who acts hedonistically solely for "his own good pleasure" salvation is an irrational and unmotivated act that has no logical connection to the qualities of the person being saved.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

11:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

A Shortened DL

07/19/2005 - James White

   We had some server problems that got us going a bit late, but we pressed on anyway with a discussion of Roman Catholic priests and a review of some comments on the Eucharist. Here's the slightly shorted (53 minute) program. [Just noted the file hasn't been uploaded yet: if that link points to a March program, well, Rich will get to uploading the new one when he recovers from heat exhaustion.]

09:18:32 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Galatians 5:4, Falling from Grace

07/19/2005 - James White

Gal 5:4... you have fallen from grace. - This shows that you can receive God's grace and then fall.

   Quite true: but what kind of grace, and in what context? These words are addressed to a particular group, as the context shows:

Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

   So in what way had those seeking to be justified by law "fallen from grace"? The correspondent assumes, but does not prove, that to fall from grace proves that you once received saving grace; evidently, the same assumption would follow that one who is severed from Christ was once joined to Him savingly. Aside from the contradictions such a position creates with the plain assertions of Scripture elsewhere, the fact of the matter is Paul is addressing those who were seeking to add to faith in Christ the single act of obedience encompassed in circumcision--clearly the Judaizers were not saying you did not have to believe in Christ, nor were they importing the entirety of the law of Moses (Paul argues their inconsistency at this point as part of his refutation of them); instead, they were adding a select list of things one had to do in addition to faith to be right before God. Paul has already laid out the stark contrast between the path marked by law-keeping obedience and that marked by grace-inspired faith in Christ. One cannot go down both paths. These men were still seeking their justification, unlike true believers who look back upon theirs (Romans 5:1). They had not yet found peace with God by faith in Christ Jesus alone, and Paul says they will never find it going down the path they are going. They have been severed from Christ not in the sense that they had been salvifically united to Him and now He was failing to save them, but that by seeking to be made justified by something other than faith alone, they were severed from the only true source of life in Christ; they have fallen from grace not that they had been salvifically regenerated and justified and sanctified by grace already, and were now destroying that grace by their beliefs, but that they have fallen away or failed of grace (th/j ca,ritoj evxepe,sate) by proceeding down a path grace has never, and will never, mark out, that path of human cooperation and works righteousness that is so much the desire of the unregenerate heart.
   To prove that God's sovereign electing grace can fail to save the elect would require a text far more to the point than one addressing false teachers who are perverting the gospel and thus cutting themselves off from salvation.

06:00:00 - Category: Mail Bag - Link to this article -

More from the MailBag

07/19/2005 - James White

1 John 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. - Anointing is done with oil and the laying on of hands. Only in confirmation have I seen this come to pass. This is a physical transferance of a grace promised by God,
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. - Same comment affirmed with the phrase "from Him", ensuring the reader knows who was the power behind the anointing.

   Here our Roman Catholic correspondent indicates that the anointing from the Holy One referenced in the Bible in 1 John is actually a reference to the Roman Catholic sacrament of confirmation, and that it indicates a "physical transference of a grace promised by God." However, the sacrament of confirmation was unknown in the primitive church. As Roman Catholic sources themselves admit, it is the result of "development" over time, and that before Tertullian not explicit mention of it as a sacrament separate from baptism is to be found. But beyond this, the texts in question do not refer to a physical act involving oil: the anointing is the Holy Spirit Himself. As Smalley notes in the Word Biblical Commentary, 106:

But, accepting this symbolic meaning of “anointing,” might John’s term cri/sma have had its origin in a ritual source, for example baptism? It is true that in v 27 the gift of cri/sma is linked to a particular moment (o] evla,bete, “which you received,” aorist); and that in Acts the gift of the Spirit is associated with baptism (2:38; cf. 8:16–17; 10:44–48). However, although ritual anointing became part of the Christian baptismal liturgy in due course (cf. Tertullian, de Baptismo 7), and was eventually popular among gnostic sects (see de la Potterie, “Anointing,” 80 n.4), there is no evidence that this practice was current, in either orthodox or heretical circles, during the first century (see further Marshall, 153–54; but on the other side see Nauck, Tradition, 94–95, 147–82). There are strong reasons, moreover, for interpreting cri/sma in a spiritual sense, rather than connecting its derivation with baptism. (a) The context of v 18–29 demands it; (b) the further use of the term in v 27 (twice) concerns the reception of (doctrinal, spiritual) truth; (c) the image of God’s seed “remaining” in the Christian at 3:9 perhaps forms a parallel to the notion in this v of God’s indwelling Spirit acting as teacher and guide in all matters of truth.

01:00:00 - Category: Mail Bag - Link to this article -

Nailed by the Monsoon

07/18/2005 - James White

   Well, we will be mopping up in the morning. A monsoon storm came through and ripped the roof off of the room where we fill our orders last night. Thankfully, it didn't rain, but we were only able to get plywood laid down without anything else before nightfall tonight. And the image to the right shows the radar of a monsoon thunderstorm that hit us about 10:45pm tonight (we are pretty much in the middle of the yellow stuff). While we managed to get most of our important stuff under plastic, we have buckets everywhere, and portions of the room have standing water in them. Pray for Rich and Dave as they try to keep up with requests and orders and get the room cleaned up and the roof repaired! If there is a slight delay in getting some things out, please extend us some understanding. Thanks.

23:09:11 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Another Mail-Bag Question

07/18/2005 - James White

In support of Roman Catholicism, we read,

1 John 2: 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. - Propitiation connotes an ongoing event, and that event started and finished on the cross. The only way I can make sense of this apparent contradiction is through the Eternal Sacrifice, the sacrifice of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Only outside of time can this make sense.

A number of things immediately come to mind in reference to this assertion.
   1) Propitiation, (i`lasmo,j / hilasmos) is a noun, not a verb in 1 John 2:2. Upon what basis is the assertion made, "Propitiation connotes an ongoing event"? We are not told. While it is true the elect of God experience this over time (of necessity, since the elect, joined to Christ in His death, experience this over the centuries as they are born, live, experience regeneration, forgiveness, justification, sanctification, etc., and then enter into His presence in death), this is not the point of the writer.
   2) As this argument is meant to support the Roman Catholic dogma of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, I truly wonder if the correspondent realizes that the citation of this text is actually counter his intentions? The Mass limits the effect of the allegedly propitiatory sacrifice based upon the intention and disposition of the person attending Mass. That is why one can come to Mass repeatedly without being perfected thereby. This presents both a limited concept of propitiation (counter, I believe, the biblical usage of the term) as well as one that is limited in scope to those who approach God through the Eucharistic sacrifice. The text in 1 John 2:2 refers to "the whole world," which does not mean every single human being, but has the same referrent as that given by the same author in Revelation 5:9, where there the Lamb's sacrifice purchases for God with His blood "men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation," i.e., the elect of God, Jew and Gentile (John 11:51-52, 1 Cor. 1:24). None of these considerations at all assist the Roman Catholic in the establishment of a non-perfecting, limited sacrifice of Christ mediated through the Mass.

11:48:41 - Category: Mail Bag - Link to this article -

A Court of Judges?

07/18/2005 - James White

   Continuing with the argumentation presented regarding the characteristics of a Davidic king, we have seen that thus far the characteristics chosen have been rather random: none, thus far, have actually defined David's rule, the incidents/persons referred to taking place or living after David's reign was over. We have likewise seen no foundation offered for why these particular offices/incidents/people are to be considered central to a fulfillment of the Davidic line in Christ, nor have we seen any inspired utterance supporting such a concept in the New Testament. So we come to the last of the alleged parallels, that of a "court of judges" selected by God.
   The reference given by my correspondent is Deuteronomy 17:8-13. However, one is immediately struck by the following facts upon a review of this passage:
   a) The "place which the LORD your God chooses" would be the Tabernacle and then the Temple, not a Davidic king.
   b) The passage refers to "the Levitical priest or the judge who is in office in those days."
   c) It was this very legal arrangement that Israel rebelled against in rejecting the system of judges and asking for a king.
   Hence, one would have to demonstrate the continued existence of this system of justice as part and parcel of the Davidic kingdom, which my correspondent did not attempt to do.
   Of course, one would also have to attempt to make the connection between the use of priests/judges prior to the establishment of the monarchy in Israel and the order commanded by the Apostles in the New Testament Church. No such attempt is made by my correspondent.
   So I return to the list of arguments provided initially, returning now to point number five.
   5) Christ is the fulfillment of the type of David, but this does not provide a ground for someone to randomly pick incidents out of the entirety of the Old Testament, both before David and after him, and insist that these are characteristics that must be followed through into the fulfillment in Christ. The argument is without merit, especially since it lacks any New Testament grounding.
   6) Hence the conclusion fails for lack of foundation. What is also interesting to note is that the argument would only hold for modern Roman Catholicism. That is, the modern Papacy is a result of a long process of evolution and change; the Marian dogmas likewise; so too the alleged infallibility of the Magisterium. Hence, this kind of argumentation, even if it were biblically valid, would not apply to the earliest centuries of the Church. Would this not refute the argument as well? I believe it would.
   I am sure my correspondent is well-meaning, but this kind of argumentation, as popular as it might be, is not at all compelling to the person who takes the Scriptures, exegesis, and history, seriously. And remember, the position being argued for is not just a "matter of opinion." Rome makes grand, sweeping claims of ultimate authority. One would think that such claims of authority by a religious group would be able to be supported by considerably more compelling arguments.

11:35:26 - Category: Mail Bag - Link to this article -

Quick Note: On Issues Etc. Today at 2pm PDT

07/18/2005 - James White

   I will be on Issues Etc. today to discuss my current CRI article on Bible Translations. You can listen live at www.kfuo.org, assuming we are actually doing this live and not taping it.

01:00:00 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

More on a Roman Catholic Argument

07/17/2005 - James White

   Next, our Catholic correspondent referred to the "Queen Mother" in the Davidic kingdom. Of course, there was no "Queen Mother" in David's kingdom. Instead, early on in Solomon's reign, his mother came to him to make a request of him. The story is found here:

1 Kings 2:19-20 So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king arose to meet her, bowed before her, and sat on his throne; then he had a throne set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right. Then she said, "I am making one small request of you; do not refuse me." And the king said to her, "Ask, my mother, for I will not refuse you."

   Now, notice immediately that Solomon had to have a throne set for his mother: one was not already there, showing that this is not some established Davidic position. What is more, if you read the rest of the story, not only did Solomon refuse Bathsheba's request, but he had the man who made the request through her executed! Hardly an auspicious start to this alleged defining characteristic of the Davidic king.
   Next, our correspondent makes reference to the "giberah," the queen mother. A quick study of this term likewise does not lead one to thinking that the Church of Jesus Christ needs a giberah. For example, this term appears in 1 Kings 15:13: "He also removed Maacah his mother from [being] queen mother, because she had made a horrid image as an Asherah; and Asa cut down her horrid image and burned [it] at the brook Kidron." Seems the giberah was a force for evil here. Shall we attempt to parallel this to something in the church? Surely not.
   Indeed, there is no reason, whatsoever, to think the "queen mother" is definitional of a Davidic king at all; there is likewise no reason to think that the New Testament writers viewed any relationship at all between the ancient queen mothers and the church of Jesus Christ.
   Next we will look at the idea of a "court of judges" as a characteristic of a Davidic king.

23:27:33 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Some More Odds and Ends

07/17/2005 - James White

   PBS actually had a short segment on the Emergent Church movement with both McLaren and Carson being interviewed. Anyone who has read almost anything on the movement won't find anything new here, but it was actually handled rather fairly, which surprised me a good bit. Here's the link to the web version of the story, which includes streaming video of the segment they aired. McLaren's obvious discomfort at the term "certainty" is both educational, and sad. Luke 1:4, ESV: "that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." I guess Luke, and the other NT writers, and the Holy Spirit Himself, failed? Possibly if we would read more medieval philosophy we'd be able to figure it out.
   Lakewood Church moved into the old home of the Houston Rockets today. I can't imagine the size. But the one thing that caught my attention was that they played greetings and congratulations from various high-profile folks. Like T.D. Jakes.
   John Calvin won an online survey about the greatest theologian ever. Online surveys are so meaningful, aren't they? But this one is in fact interesting, since they asked William Lane Craig about Calvin's win, and his response was quite consistent for the leading promoter of Molinism today:

   Dr. William Lane Craig, research professor at Talbot School of Theology at La Miranda, Calif., doesn’t agree.
   “I think he just made too many missteps to say that he is the greatest theologian,” said Craig. “Presumably, the greatest would be someone whose system of thought is largely true and I don’t think that’s the case with Calvin.”

   I would love to get a list of his "missteps" from Craig's perspective.

16:58:28 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

More on the Davidic Kingdom and Rome

07/17/2005 - James White

4) First, it is a very long stretch to identify the position of Shebna/Eliakim as a definitional characteristic of the Davidic kingdom. The reference is post-Davidic to begin with: can something that cannot be traced to David be definitional of the Davidic kingdom? Next, there is no indication that this is a divine institution. Further, not only is Shebna removed from it, but it seems even Eliakim fails (22:25). We do not see it continuing after this point in any meaningful fashion, and surely the NT writers do not make any reference to the position as having relevance to the Messiah's mission or that of the church.
   I might digress here for a moment to tell the story of the first time I encountered this argument. Back in the late 1980s Scott Hahn and Gerry Matatics were promoting the Isaiah 22:22/Matthew 16:19 connection in their writings and debates. So when I debated Matatics at the City of the Lord Catholic Community in Tempe, Arizona in December of 1990, I had to be prepared for its presentation. I had read the article that was being distributed by Scott Hahn, had listened to his tape that presented the argument, and had heard Matatics use it as well, as I recall. So as I was reading the text I did a simple search and discovered something that I had never heard Hahn or Matatics say or write about: Isaiah 22:22 is quoted in the New Testament alright: just not at Matthew 16:19. It is quoted, directly, by the Lord Jesus of Himself at Revelation 3:7: ""And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this." Here, directly quoting from the LXX text, Jesus, after Peter has died, applies these words to himself. Odd, if, in fact, this refers not to the King, but to the King's "prime minister" in the person of the not yet existing bishop of Rome. In any case, I was evidently the first person to offer such a response to Matatics, and he was quite flustered by it. Even three years later in another debate on the topic he had not materially improved his presentation on the topic.
   One may note that there is a difference between the "key of David" and the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." I had noted in a debate with Robert Sungenis and Scott Butler that the singular "key of David" is Messianic in nature, while the keys of the kingdom of heaven, being plural, has a much different referent (specifically, to the proclamation of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins thereby). My recollection is that at one point Sungenis, in responding to my pointing out this rather important difference, said, "Singular, plural, it doesn't matter...."
   In any case, the fact that the Lord Jesus cites this text of Himself post-resurrection clearly indicates that the attempted use of the passage by Roman Catholic apologists (a use unknown, to my knowledge, in at least the first 1000 years of church history) stands against the New Testament's own understanding and teaching. This particular "characteristic" of the Davidic king, as alleged, is shown to not only be non-Davidic, but a misuse of the text in the first place.
   In our next installment we will look at the "Queen Mother" and see if there is any merit to this argument.

10:00:00 - Category: Mail Bag - Link to this article -

On Personal Correspondence and Time

07/16/2005 - James White

   I remember more than a decade ago how I could invest tons of time in personal correspondence, and enjoyed doing so. But as I look at my writing and speaking and debating schedule, I am left with the clear conclusion that those days are long past. And yet the correspondence keeps coming. So about the only way to "redeem the time" (Eph. 5:16) is to try to answer some of the questions sent my way here on the blog so that more than just one person can benefit thereby. So, a correspondent put forward the following form of argumentation:

1) All of Scripture points to Christ
2) Jesus was a Davidic King
3) Davidic kingdoms have certain characteristics, and we must know these characteristics or they are merely frivolous details.
4) Specifically, a Davidic Kingdom has a Prime Minister (Isaiah 22), a Queen Mother (1 Kings 2:19), and a "court of judges" (Deut. 17:8-13).
5) Christ's kingdom is a Davidic kingdom.
6) The Davidic nature of the kingdom should be seen in the church, and these evidences are seen only in Rome, with a Prime Minister (Matt. 16:19/Isaiah 22:22), the Queen Mother (Rev. 12), and the cournt of interpreters (Matt 18:18/Deut. 17:8-13). "No one else makes these claims, and no one else can."

   I have replied to the use of Isaiah 22:22 in debates starting as early as December, 1990 (vs. Matatics), and in The Roman Catholic Controversy (p. 249). I do not recall if the oft-misused reference to Bathsheba from 1 Kings came up in any of the Marian debates we have done or not. I have some recollection of it at one point. In any case, this is a common form of argument. It is similar in many respects to the kind of extended argumentation used in reference to the Papacy as well, so demonstrating that these dogmatic teachings of Rome do not have logical or biblical basis will be useful to all who seek to present the truths of the gospel to Roman Catholics.
   1) There is much truth in the fact that in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and that the summary testimony of Scripture is to Him. However, it does not follow that passages such as the following have to be interpreted Christologically: "At the Parbar on the west [there were] four at the highway and two at the Parbar" (1 Chr. 26:18). Nor does it make this a "frivolous detail" unless it is somehow made Christological. Establishing historical contexts, etc., is part and parcel of the biblical record.
   2) Jesus is a Davidic king, in that He is a king from the line of David, to be sure. But that does not mean that His kingdom is modeled after David: David's imperfect, sinful, often failing kingdom was a poor shadow of a much greater kingdom to be found in Christ. There is no basis for assuming that every aspect of David's kingdom has to find a direct corresponding aspect in Christ's; there is much reason to believe Christ's will be far greater, far fuller, than David's.
   3) The "Davidic Kingdom," at least as envisioned in this argument, cannot be limited to David's time, as the argument not only draws from Mosaic elements (the judges from Deuteronomy), but it likewise draws the majority of its materials from post-Davidic incidents: David is dead when Solomon has a throne brought for Bathsheba (1 Kings 2:10-11), and the Shebna/Eliakim incident was long after the days of David as well. Hence, we have a rather free selection of any number of possible "characteristics" that we could demand to find in Christ's Church. The argument assumes the points enumerated must be paralleled in the Church or they are "frivolous." There are many problems with such an idea. Who gets to pick these elements? Why is the Shebna/Eliakim office, which is not Davidic or even Solomonic, a key characteristic? Why isn't the divided kingdom a characteristic? Solomon's many wives and concubines? Any number of other such incidents in the history of Israel and Judah? The argument would force us to find parallels for dozens and dozens of events/actions in the history of the kings of Israel and Judah that would have no meaningful connection at all to Christ's Church. Such is simply not a worthwhile form of argumentation, nor does it render the historical account of God's working with Israel and Judah "frivolous." [more tomorrow]

19:47:23 - Category: Mail Bag - Link to this article -

Odds and Ends

07/16/2005 - James White

   It sure has been hot in Phoenix lately, and now the humidity is starting to inch upward, indicating the beginning of the monsoon flow. The humidity has increased four-fold this week. I know, in comparison with places like New Orleans, we are still as dry as a bone, but 115 feels a lot worse with four times the humidity, believe me.
   The increase in the "icky factor" will be curtailing the miles I will be able to continue to rack up...on my bike. Yes, for those who know my history and know that from May of 1993 to September of 1998 I was a hard-core "roadie" (yes, I have continued following Le Tour), racking up 29,500 miles during that time, you also know I got off the bike in late 1998 and hit the weights. Well, I'm back on the bike, and am headed back down the weight scale--not as fast as I'd like, but I've already seen major aerobic improvement (decreased resting heart rate, body fat percentage, increased aerobic capacity, etc.), and with the ride I hope to get in this morning (planning on 31 to 33 miles), will rack up a second week above 100 miles ridden. Lord willing, I will pass the 30,000 miles mark late this coming week. It feels great to be back on the road. They have improved a lot of cycling gear over the past seven years, that's for sure, and with mp3 technology I can also help to redeem the time on the bike by studying for upcoming duties/teaching/debating/writing.
   I mentioned a really exciting book project a few weeks ago, and all I can say right now is that it is a "go," I just can't really go into any details. As soon as I can say more, I will.
   For those in the Chicago area: I have been invited to speak in the chapel at Moody Bible Institute September 21 and 22 of this year. I may get to speak in a few other venues there at MBI as well. I am really looking forward to meeting the fine folks there. I've never been to MBI, but I've always felt a connection, since my father graduated from MBI in 1953, and my parents met while he was a student there (married shortly after his graduation). I have arranged for my father to come with me, as he has not had the opportunity of returning to his alma mater since his graduation fifty two years ago! So, it will be quite a trip for both of us, Lord willing.
   Finally, I am putting together an article for the blog in response to a brief discussion of Romans 9 by Catholic apologist Art Sippo. It is so rare to get these folks onto proper ground for real examination, but here we are given a chance to test the exegetical capacities of a faithful servant of Rome. There is even a point where Dr. Sippo ventures into Greek grammar. I hope to get the series up next week.

01:00:00 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

A Southern Baptist Take on Johnny Hunt's Sermon

07/15/2005 - James White

   A few weeks ago I commented on Johnny Hunt's sermon prior to the Southern Baptist Convention regarding election. Here's an SBC take on the same sermon, replete with links and pictures.

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

A Little Expansion on Wednesday's Prayer Meeting Devotional

07/14/2005 - James White

Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. (Col. 3:1-3, NASB)

   Wednesday night I used this passage as a basis for exhorting the flock to remember to view themselves, each and every day, as people who have undergone a radical change in their lives. We have died with Christ; our life is hidden with Christ in God; we have been raised up with Christ. These are radical, transforming truths that should define us every day. How we think, act, plan, respond, should all be based upon the deep-seated realization that we have died and been raised with Christ. And Paul uses these high doctrines as a basis for a very practical, very "every day/every man" exhortation, "set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on the earth." Isn't the balance and perfection of the Word wonderful? And isn't it so utterly sad that many today have wrapped the Word in such a mass of philosophical mumbo-jumbo that they have convinced themselves no one can really understand what Paul meant in such passages?

17:49:30 - Category: Pastoral Theology - Link to this article -

Today on the Dividing Line

07/14/2005 - James White

   First 2/3 of the program I played clips of Tim Staples on various subjects and commented thereon; last 1/3 were calls on the Trinity and ecumenism. Another eclectic DL! Here's the program.

17:22:18 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Emergent Church Apologetics?

07/14/2005 - James White

   Jeff Downs sent over this link to a brief reply to "Emergent Church Apologetics." Post-modernism in all its forms is battery-acid to apologetics, and truly leaves the believer without any foundation to fulfill the commandment of God to give an answer.

17:14:08 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

In the Current Modern Reformation Issue

07/14/2005 - James White

   My copy of the July/August 2005 Modern Reformation magazine came today. It is on the Emergent Church movement. I was thumbing through it and ran across a "bullet" quote that struck me:

The Emergent movement has discovered something I think that the prior generation has forgotten. There needs to be a connection between doctrine and practice.

   One can well wonder how the Emergent movement can speak of "doctrine" in a meaningful fashion, but, leaving that aside, it seems that possibly some in the Emergent movement are responding against "dead orthodoxy." But if that is the case, why paint with this kind of broad brush? I preached last evening on the close, intimate, necessary connection between the highest forms of doctrine and the practical, every-day application in Colossians 3:1-3. Anyone who has read the Puritans knows this was their emphasis as well.
   Ironically, I just got my copy of John Broadus' Jesus of Nazareth: His Character, His Teachings and His Supernatural Works from Solid Ground. I just happend to flip it open and my eyes fell on this paragraph:

We all condemn the fanatics who would make religion sufficient without ethics. Some teachings of this sort are absurd, and some disgusting. But on the other hand, shall we think it wise to regard ethics as sufficient without religion? Is it not true that he who would divorce religion and morality is an enemy to religion, and at best only a mistaken friend to morality? (p. 40)

   The Emergent movement is just another example of the pendulum principle: over-reacting to the fact that because we live in a fallen world we will see imbalances and failures in the church. "I feel like my church was obsessed with sound doctrine but I didn't feel loved, therefore, sound doctrine is irrelevant and is up for grabs." No, the failure is in not seeing that sound doctrine leads to sound attitudes and sound behavior!

14:22:31 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

A Great Commentary Set from SGCB

07/13/2005 - James White

   Richard Barcellos is a Reformed Baptist pastor in Southern California, a fairly regular visitor to our chat channel, an all-around good guy, and the main driving force behind The Reformed Baptist Theological Review (www.rbtr.org). We were chatting in channel recently and the subject of a new offering from Solid Ground Christian Books came up, that being the commentaries of John Eadie on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and II Thessalonians. Richard was ecstatic in recommending the volumes. In fact, I tracked down his written commendation:

I am very excited to see Eadie's commentaries back in print through SGCB! Over the years, in preparation for preaching, I have worked my way through Eadie's Colossians and Ephesians, and am now almost finished with chapter one of Philippians. I also read several contemporary commentaries at the same time. I am astounded at the fact that almost without fail, Eadie discusses all the relevant syntactical and theological issues of the text with a freshness that penetrates into today's theological and ecclesiastical scene. When someone asks me about commentaries on Paul's epistles, without hesitation, I recommend Eadie first. His commentaries are both academically and spiritually stimulating and enriching. They have a heavenly scent about them while yet dealing with the technical issues of the Greek text. Get Eadie now if you don't have him. Richard Barcellos, Pastor

   That's enough for me! Pre-pub price is only $65 for the set ($135 regular price), through July 31st. If you are tired of wading through endless and mind-numbing commentary about all the modern theories of this person or that, and wish to have a sound commentary that gives you access to the original languages and then makes godly application, time to head on over to SGCB and grab Eadie before the publication date.

10:05:55 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Three Days of Enloe

07/12/2005 - James White

   There is much I could say about what I am about to post, but to be honest, I think just letting the words speak for themselves is more than enough. Any honest person who knows my work will "hear," and everyone else I just can't worry about. The following all appeared in the space of three days on the Envoy forums, written by a single man, an undergraduate student at New St. Andrews in Moscow, Idaho, a member of the church pastored by Peter Leithart, a man I once would have identified as a friend. You will search this site in vain for anything 1/1000th like what you are about to read from Timothy Enloe. I hope someday someone can get through to him. It surely won't be me.

• I think he is a person who has very serious difficulty comprehending anything outside of the "clear" contents of the insides of his own brain

• his serious lack of critical thinking ability

• doesn't have very much understanding of what he's reading

• their entirely anti-historical and extremely unsophisticated understanding of sola Scriptura relative to other sources of authority

• prominent self-defined apologists

• because I am tired of men like White getting away with these historically and theologically farcical misrepresentations of the Reformation and Catholicism. I'll wager that every Catholic here well understands White's radical distortions of Catholic beliefs, but as I myself am engaged these days in significant theological and historical reevaluation of many typical Protestant conceptions about Catholicism which I now consider to be false

• when you encounter a man like James White who is clearly simply out of his league in historical analysis of Catholicism, begin to reflect on the possibility that he is also out of his league in terms of historical analysis of the Reformation--the very thing he claims to be defending-- since he himself is a member of a tradition which openly dissents from some of the most significant utterances of the Reformers themselves about the authority of the Church and her tradition

• the rather unbiblically-expansive category he calls "works" is just a lot of late-breaking Americanized baptistic hyper-spirituality and not at all "the plain meaning" of the Apostle Paul.

• he doesn't even comprehend the questions that are being asked of his position

• ridiculous baptistic arguments similar to White's but written by Eric Svendsen. If you want to see the poverty of these men's worldview and the absolute ridiculousness of their assertions to be defending the Reformation

• men such as James White are not to be trusted. By his own words he is condemned

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

21:24:18 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Brief Note Regarding an Earlier Series

07/12/2005 - James White

   I had noted that Mr. Latar had begun replying as soon as I posted my review of his position against sola scriptura and that this would result in a rejoinder from me. Upon reading his attempt, I see no reason to do so. There is no meaningful exegetical position put forward, no refutation of what I have said, with which to interact. Mr. Latar simply repeats his assertions, ignores the challenges presented by the exegesis of the text, and argues in a very tight circle that he is warranted to reject sola scriptura even if he can't provide you with the first bit of historical or biblical evidence of the existence of the kind of "oral tradition" he would have to have to "defeat" sola scriptura. No reason to invest space and time repeating what was already posted.

15:22:49 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Today on the DL

07/12/2005 - James White

   Discussed the new Matatics stand on the Mass and ordination, took a call on elders, and then finished up with another half hour of discussion of Adrian Rogers' "hyper Calvinism" talk. Here's the program.

12:16:21 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Check Out the Current CRI Journal

07/11/2005 - James White

   Just got my copies of the current CRI Journal, and the cover article is my own two-part series on Bible translations: "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." I'm sure I'll take some heat on this series, but mainly for not being as mean and nasty as my alleged reputation. When it comes to Bible translation, I have found that 90% of the heat is generated by tradition, and 10% by really important linguistic and translational issues. So if you are expecting a series where I recommend only one or two translations and bash all the others, you will be disappointed (and possibly shocked). Instead, I seek to explain the translational issues and recommend two really radical concepts: 1) English speaking Christians should know about how they got their Bible and should be able to understand and recognize the difference between a formal and a functional translation, and 2) (this gets really, really radical) Bible translation and interpretation should be done within in the context of the church, that is, I recommend the use of more formal translations for the preaching ministry with the more functional interpretations taking place in the pulpit, handled by trained elders whose focus it is to do that very kind of thing (I told you it was radical). That should get some interesting response.

17:42:58 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Those Who Are Perishing (Updated: Links Added)

07/10/2005 - James White

   Preaching again in 1 Corinthians 1 today [AM listen/save | PM listen/save], following the concept of "those who are perishing" from 1 Corinthians 1:18:

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

   Note the parallels to:

But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life (2 Cor 2:14-16)

   As well as to:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Cor 4:3-4)

   And likewise, outside the Corinthian correspondence, we have this from Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians:

and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved (2 Thess 2:10)

   Each of these passages sheds light upon Paul's stark (and very unpopular, at least in today's inclusivistic, post-modern context) delineation of those "perishing" and those who are "being saved." Indeed, in light of his usage, one cannot help but see the wrath of God and His activity in both groups, i.e., if He is the one behind those who are being saved, then likewise it is His wrath being poured out upon those who are perishing (being destroyed). And how a person responds to the "message of the Cross" (1 Cor 1:18), the gospel (2 Cor 4:3-4), to those who preach that message (2 Cor 2:14-15), the truth itself (2 Thess 2:10--terminology almost foreign anymore to some who were once Reformed in their proclamation), is indicative of one's spiritual state. To those who are being saved, the word of the cross is the power of God, a sweet aroma of life unto life, the light of the glory of Christ, and they remain steadfast, unmovable in their love of the truth. But for those under the wrath of God, the message of the cross is silly. It is the stench of death itself, and hence repulsive. It is hidden from them: they see no glory in the great truths of God's work of redemption in Christ Jesus, and they refuse to love the truth of what God has done in His Son.
   These strong words from the Apostle make no sense at all outside of his doctrine of election. Those who wish to sweep that great truth under the carpet and refuse to give God glory for it cannot make heads or tails of such passages. "Well, the gospel is a stench to some, but they can choose to change and embrace it on their own." Will those who find the cross foolishness all of a sudden change their own wicked and rebellious hearts so that it becomes to them the wisdom of God? Is this not why Paul says at the end of 1 Corinthians 1 that it "is by His doing that you are in Christ Jesus" (1:30)? And can we not see that if we do not embrace the fullness of these divine truths, we lay ourselves open to the temptation to modify the "message of the cross" so as to pacify the natural man? The message of the cross is offensive to him, foolishness, a stench. But we want the natural man to like us and to find us acceptable, so, why not just remove those elements of the gospel that offend him, at least at first (you can always sneak them in the back door, right?). And is that not what we see around us in our post-evangelical world? Most assuredly we do.
   Please be warned! It is impossible to work through these texts without talking about "truth," how truth is known, can be communicated, defined, lived out, etc. This will undoubtedly offend certain folks. Which is a good thing.

15:53:17 - Category: Exegesis - Link to this article -

And We Struggle to Get Folks to Memorize Scripture...

07/09/2005 - James White

TOKYO - A Japanese psychiatric counselor has recited pi to 83,431 decimal places from memory, breaking his own personal best of 54,000 digits and setting an unofficial world record, a media report said Saturday. Here's the story.

18:25:01 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Homosexual Super Rights Movement Presses On

07/08/2005 - James White

   Every day it is thrown in your face. A small minority group--extremely small, maybe 3% of the popoulation en toto, demanding that you not only allow for their sexual perversion, but, more so, that you abandon any way of thinking--- religious, moral, social---that would say that their perversion is anything but good and moral. Out of the half dozen examples of this in the news and e-mail this morning, I present my experience last night in going home and flipping on the TV while setting up my bike for a run on my trainer this morning. It happened to come on to the local NBC affiliate, and the very popular, long-running show "ER" was on. I've seen a number of episodes (I was a biology major in college, so I find it interesting), and know that one of the main characters is a lesbian. Over the years I have seen them openly promoting the justice of her "cause," but last night they went so far overboard, were so blatant in their bigotry against Christianity and in favor of homosexuality, that you would think they would have to pay for the time as a special interest group! The plot was that this doctor had been adopted, and that she finds her birth mother, who happens to be a conservative Christian (sings in a choir that is performing at a Baptist Church). She quotes the Bible frequently. Of course, by the end of the episode, the doctor informs her that she is a lesbian. Toward the very end the doctor confronts her mother. At one point (and I was not writing this down, of course, so I am approximating the quotes) the doctor says, "Don't you see that your problem is that your faith is not wide enough to accept me" or something along those lines, directly insisting that her mother must change the substance of her faith. Since the terminology was normally "your faith, my faith" (rather than the faith, i.e., God's truth revealed in Scripture), then changing the "faith" is just a matter of choosing to do so.
   Then, in the most amazing proclamation of the "in your face" demand for super-rights that marks the anti-Christian character of the homosexual movement, the mother says, "I will always love you." And the homosexual character replies, "If I don't have your acceptance, I don't want your love." There you go! "You must change your faith. I reject Christianity, I reject the Bible, and if I know that anywhere in your thinking you still believe that what I do is sinful, then I want nothing to do with you!" And she was portrayed as the victim, the open-minded, loving hero, as the program ended with her walking away from her mother's hotel room, sad, but unbowed in her homosexuality! It was truly an amazing display of the fact that homosexuality is not interested in equal rights. The movement wants uber-rights, supremacy, the suppression of anyone who would openly identify their behavior as a perversion of God's created norms. And Hollywood is their willing ally in their cause.

08:57:39 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

Millet and McConkie, 1985 (#3)

07/08/2005 - James White

   I just finished a little project that did not take long. I sat down with the McConkie/Millet work, Sustaining and Defending the Faith and tested a little theory. See, old-time Mormons did not strive to look like, and sound like, evangelicals. In fact, they worked hard to differentiate themselves, being members of the one true Church. So, given that this book was not meant to convince outsiders at all, but is a book meant to protect LDS readers from outside "attacks" upon Mormonism (a phrase that has become unpopular amongst LDS today, but one which these BYU professors gladly used in a self-descriptive fashion many times without any hint of difficulty), what would I find with reference to the term "Christian?" Would it be a term used self-descriptively by these LDS writers? Would they defend the use of the term, even though they were not writing for an outside audience? If the term was in wide circulation and use amongst the Mormons themselves, this is what we would expect. But if not, we would expect to find other terminology in use, and the term Christian would not come in for great emphasis.
   My quick analysis proved that the normal terminology used by the authors for themselves and their fellow Mormons was "members of the Church" or "Latter-day Saints," and not once did the authors identify themselves as Christians. The uses of the term Christian by them broke down into neutral uses (adjectival, as in "Christian Bible," or descriptive of the earliest believers after the time of Christ) and negative, never positive. One example of the negative use would be, "Similarly, what of those today who refuse Joseph Smith a fair hearing, having read all they need to know, as they say, from material supplied by the local Christian bookstore, material that is unfactual and deliberately misleading?" This was mainly true of the citations they offered as well, with one very notable exception. Toward the very end of the book one single writer used the term "Christian" in reference to Mormonism, even using the phrase "a Mormon Christian." And guess who that was? Gordon Hinckley, at that time future president and prophet of the LDS Church. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

Today on the Dividing Line

07/07/2005 - James White

   An eclectic show today! Played a clip from John Dominic Crossan the first fifteen minutes, then began about a half hour response to Dr. Art Sippo's post, "Pseudopodeo's PseudoChristianity" from over on the Envoy boards, and followed that up with a quick review of Timothy Enloe's "I said this is a discussion of sola scriptura and how it works but actually it is just a veiled attack on my former compatriots and it really offers you nothing at all that is positive and is actually just a way of confirming you in your rejection of the doctrine" posts on his blog (that was in answer to a question on Envoy's site). Here's the program.

17:29:37 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Apolonio Latar and Sola Scriptura II of II

07/07/2005 - James White

   In our first installment we came to the point in Mr. Latar's presentation where he made the rather amazing claim that 2 Thes. 2:15 presents us with two infallible rules of faith, one written, and one oral, and that this disproves sola scriptura. As I have pointed out, Rome does not tell us a single word Paul ever said to the Thessalonians that is not found in Scripture. Not a syllable. And one could never cobble together any meaningful discussion of his oral preaching to the Thessalonians from any source not dependent upon Scripture. Hence, this is a completely theoretical argument that cannot even begin the task of demonstrating itself historically, and, of course, it flies in the face of the exegesis offered (and not rebutted by Mr. Latar). But he does at least make an effort to do so in the rest of his comments.

Again, Protestant commentators will say that this passage is not talking about any other infallible rule of faith. They may try to say that the "oral traditions" spoken in this verse is the same message as that of the written word (more specifically to 1 Thess.). But to say that oral traditions are the "same message" is ambigious.

   Ambiguous? How is the recognition of the singularity of the body of tradition, its relationship to the gospel, and the fact that there is no basis whatsoever for the assumption that what is referred to in Paul's preaching would differ at all in substance from what he wrote in his letters, at all "ambiguous"? Let us remember that Mr. Latar is here laying the foundation for the ultimate claims of infallible, supreme religious authority in the magisterium of Rome. Surely such a tremendous claim can find much more significantly compelling argumentation than this? ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

13:33:13 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Our Prayers for our Brothers and Sisters in London

07/07/2005 - James White

   I've been trying to get hold of some friends in London, but so far, no success. I'll try again soon. Hopefully the furor will die down and the phone lines will open up. [Update: patience is a virtue, got through, all is well with them]. But our prayers are with our brothers and sisters in London, some of whom I have come to count as dear, dear friends. Once again we see the depths to which men will go out of devotion to false religion in this series of despicable, cowardly terrorist acts.

10:15:15 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

More from Millet/McConkie, 1985 (#2)

07/06/2005 - James White

   A few days ago we noted the words of BYU professors Millet and McConkie in a chapter titled "The Bible Fraud" in a book titled Sustaining and Defending the Faith. The chapter began with some incredible statements, including:

After the death of the Apostles the Bible was taught by the authority of the whip and the sword. To the Reformers it became the source of priesthood authority and the final will and testament of their mute God.

   One truly wonders how anyone can say the Bible was being "taught" by the authority of the whip and the sword. In what context? To what do the authors refer? How can one actually teach the Bible, instead of a perversion thereof, in such a fashion? Is it the Bible's fault if someone misuses it? And to what do the authors refer when they speak of "priesthood authority"? Knowing how Mormons interpret the concept of "priesthood" one is still left wondering how the Reformers did anything more than point out the biblical doctrine of the priesthood (which is so very far removed from the LDS perspective). And if the Bible is, as Jesus taught, God speaking (Matthew 22:31), how could God ever be mute at all? Here we see "orthodox Mormonism" in full bloom, for to the old-style Mormon, "modern revelation" is required for God to be able to "speak." Millet and McConkie continue, ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

Crossan 101

07/05/2005 - James White

   Today on the DL we did "Crossan 101," an introduction, mainly in his own words, to the thought of John Dominic Crossan. Using clips from previous debates I sought to explain the presuppositions upon which he functions, and how our debate in August is going to be just a tad bit on the challenging side. Here's the program.

12:14:43 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

OK, I Confess, I'm Caught Up in the Frenzy

07/05/2005 - James White

   I'm bummed he has chosen to leave his wife and bum around with Cheryl Crow, and oh I wish he would come to see Who it is who has blessed him with such talent...and I confess, I had hoped he'd retire after #6 and go out on top. I was uncertain he would have the "eye of the tiger" so as to win #7. But I confess, despite all that, as Le Tour has begun, I can't keep myself from rooting for Team Discovery and Lance Armstrong. He sure put the whole field on notice, at age 33, that he's still the man to beat, coming in second in record time in the first individual time trial, and even lapping Jan Ulrich and beating him by 1:06! Just amazing. There is simply no athletic challenge like Le Tour. If you've ever ridden a hard century ride, you know what those men are doing for three weeks. The intensity is simply beyond imagination.
   I just happened to notice, however, on the Oakley website, that when he came down with cancer, Oakley stuck with him, hiring him and putting him on their insurance policy when his other sponsors dumped him. I thought that was awesome. Way to go Oakley. Makes me like my Oakleys all the more.
   So, go Lance go. It's hammertime.
Quick Update: Lance has the yellow jersey! Discovery Team won the team time trial today! I don't know if Lance has ever taken the yellow jersey this early in the race before (4th stage), but I know they specifically designed Le Tour this year to be as anti-Lance as possible, so this may all be according to plan.

06:00:00 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

Apolonio Latar and Sola Scriptura I of II

07/05/2005 - James White

   Apolonio Latar's article on sola scriptura was cited on the Catholic Answers web board recently, so I thought I would, once again, go over ground that has been covered many, many times. However, in light of the fact that most Roman Catholics are unwilling to read, at least in print, the responses to their own position, it is incumbant upon us to repeat the truth as often as necessary. Therefore, we read from Mr. Latar's keyboard these words:

Mr. White has admitted in his debate with Gerry Matatics on Sola Scriptura that Jesus, the apostles, and the Christians before John's (the last apostle) death did not practice Sola Scriptura. Mr. White says that "its normative function only after the canon is completed." To be fair, when Mr. White speaks of the canon being completed, he does not mean when the Church compiled the Scriptures. By the canon being completed, as I understand it, he means when the last scripture was written and the last apostle died, since it would mean that revelation ceased. This is what it seems like he was saying in his debate with Gerry Matatics and that is what he has tried to defend.

   This is the section of the debate that Mr. Latar has posted on the web...a tiny little clip that is touted by many as some great "admission" on my part. To the serious minded reader, it is obvious that there is no "admission" when you are simply operating on a standard definition of the issue under debate, in this case, sola scriptura. I refer to the fact that sola scriptura has both epistemological concerns as well as ecclesiological: not only does it refer to the nature of Scripture and its God intended function, but it likewise is a church doctrine. It refers to the sole infallible rule of faith for the church, hence, it speaks to the normative state of the church today and in the past. Since the doctrine says that it is that which is inspired, the Word, that is the sole infallible rule of faith, the issue of inspiration itself obviously touches upon the topic.
   Roman Catholics and Protestants historically have agreed on the reality that special revelation itself has ceased. We agree that new Scripture is not being written. Since this is so, logically, that means we agree there was a time, a miraculous and special time, often referred to as that period of "enscripturation," when that process was taking place, so that the Scriptures themselves were coming into existence under the providential direction of God Himself, for His purposes. Roman Catholic apologists often make reference to these periods when the Word of God was orally preached, such as in the ministry of Isaiah, as evidence of the falsehood of sola scriptura. And yet, given that they agree we no longer live in that context, is it not obvious and clear that the question of what is in fact an infallible authority today differs from asking the same question during periods of enscripturation? What true use is there to say "Isaiah said more than what we have in the book of Isaiah" when 1) no one today is speaking on that level of inspiration and 2) Rome, which claims access to, and authority over, "tradition" has never given us a single word Isaiah said that is not itself found in Scripture? ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

The Dumbest Story I've Seen in a Long Time

07/04/2005 - James White

   OK, what happens when the judges and legislatures of the land simply lose their collective minds? This:

A man who grabbed a 14-year-old girl's arm to chastise her after she walked in front of his car, causing him to swerve to avoid hitting her, must register as a "sex offender," the Appellate Court of Illinois has ruled.

Read the story here. Chastise a jay-walker who almost got herself killed, and your life is ruined, you are stigmatized, and all because judges and legislators can't think anymore. Unreal. Simply unreal.

21:58:51 - Category: Simply Silly - Link to this article -

Islamic Apologetics and New Testament Transmission (#22)

07/04/2005 - James White

   It has been way too long since I continued this series, and I apologize for that. One of our regulars in channel, DeoVolente, (Alan Kurschner) asked me to remember to do so, and I said, "Hey, feel free." So, he did! And so, here's the twenty-second in the series in response to our Islamic apologists and their comments on the New Testament.
   Islam and the Quran are no doubt becoming more popular in the United States particularly with the younger generation in the universities. What does this mean for the Christian who loves God's Word and believes in the trustworthiness and authority of the Scriptures? One of the most common attacks to undermine the Christian faith by Muslims is to assert that we posses an unreliable, corrupt Bible because there are thousands of manuscripts that do not agree perfectly with each other. Our consistent response has been simply to point out that it is precisely that reason that allows us to have the confidence to determine with reliable certainty the original biblical text via standard principles of textual criticism. We are in a privileged position---unlike the defender of the Quran---to be able to compare the numerous manuscripts available to us.
   In previous articles in the series on Islamic Apologetics and New Testament Transmission, Dr. White has demonstrated numerous logical, historical, and textual errors on the part of Muslim authors Saifullah & Azmy; and as a result, he has highlighted some of the essential textual principles in which gives us a window into understanding the method of determining the original text. The following discussion is an example of properly handling a textual variant with the purpose of equipping the Christian to defend the preservation and reliability of the Biblical Scriptures. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

20:30:12 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

A July 4th Thought

07/04/2005 - James White

Blessed is the nation whose God is Jehovah,
The people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. (Psalm 33:12)
Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a disgrace to [any] people. (Pro. 14:34)
The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men. (Psalm 12:8)

11:02:56 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

Odds and Ends

07/04/2005 - James White

   On the positive side: preached on 1 Cor. 1:17/1 Cor. 2:1-5 last evening at PRBC (listen/download).
   On the positive side: rode 27.6 miles this morning, first time on the major roads (because it's a holiday!). Felt great to climb Thunderbird hill again (top end of 59th Ave. for those who know the area). Hadn't seen that heart rate in a while.
   On the negative side, the United Church of Christ, that bastion of liberal unbelief and heresy that should abandon the use of the name of Christ as soon as possible, voted today to approve a resolution endorsing same-sex marriage. Wow, that's a shock.

10:45:57 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Crimson Catholic on Soteriological and Trinitarian Issues II of II

07/03/2005 - James White

   I had written:

And I cannot help but contrast such a statement with Jesus' own words, which again so strongly illustrate the contrast between the anthropocentric mind-set of Roman Catholicism (God wants to save, tries to save, but fails to save so often because He is dependent upon the cooperation of man's will--and yes, I know, that's Arminianism as well) and the theocentric mindset of inspired Scripture taken as a whole.

Prejean replies:

I can't believe that you haven't managed to grasp the distinction between Arminians and Catholics in fifteen years of debating.

   And I can't believe someone can think that the identification of a parallel regarding the views of Arminians and Roman Catholics on the nature of grace and the will of man means I conflate the two views or do not recognize their differences. This kind of rhetoric works great on the Envoy boards where no meaningful interaction can ever take place, but in a debate, that kind of statement would collapse in the blink of an eye. No one who seriously reads my works on either subject would ever, ever even suggest that I say the two are identical or that I do not recognize the differences between them. But at the same time, on the key issues of the grace of God and the will of man, Rome and modern Arminians do, in fact, share wide swaths of agreement in direct and shared opposition to Reformed theology. This is not even a debatable proposition, which is why Prejean has to create a straw man before knocking it down, another tactic designed only to impress the home court audience, but one that would evaporate in real debate.

God is not dependent on the cooperation of man's will in Catholic soteriology; we believe in election and predestination, unlike Arminians, who believe that God responds to foreseen actions. The entire discrepancy between Calvinists and Catholics is over the philosophical problem of how to reconcile God's providence with free will, and Calvinism is simply a singularly poor attempt to do so based on a fatalistic Greek notion of cause and effect that isn't even logically necessary. You're the one saying that God is so feeble that he can't ordain the outcome of systems with voluntary causes, not us.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

Still A Kid at Heart

07/02/2005 - James White

   As a kid I loved to build and fly model rockets...and still do. Hardly ever get a chance to do it anymore, and many years go by without a single launch, but I went out today to try out a gift given to me, an Estes Oracle video rocket. I may link to some video it took when I get permission from the web geek to do so, as I was able to save it in mpeg4 format (Apple Quick Time), and it is only 175k in size. Anyway, here's a neat shot, small, of course (this is a blog after all), of one of RocketMan's launches (appropriate channel nick I'd say) of a 2-stage beauty he built. All my launches were successful, no damage, not even a popped fin today. RocketMan lost the body on one (rip chord failure), and another did the "lets not deploy our shute or even pop the nose cone" dive that makes the really neat "swoosh" sound as it accelerates ever faster right before going THUD. Very minor damage, amazingly. It was 96 by the time we wrapped up at 9:30 in the morning. That is so much more enjoyable in November. :-)

17:50:56 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

An Incredible Example of Eloquent Double Standards

07/02/2005 - James White

   What is the best way to hide the fact that you have been guilty of engaging in consistent ad hominem argumentation and are not, in fact, capable of a meaningful defense of your position? Of course! Accuse the other guy of everything you have done! If he says someone who is in error is "confused," don't look at that as a nice way of pointing out error, instead, make it a glowing example of how mean and nasty and stupid he is! Jonathan Prejean's utter melt-down in the use of double-standards, and his obvious emotionalism in the face of calm refutation of his false accusations, is a thing to behold. It does not even require response for any semi-reasonable person who is not ready to jump on their horse and head off to the Crusades. Read it here, if you need another example of how Roman Catholic apologists can face the reality of history and the Scriptures and still affirm their dogmatic beliefs. When you can twist anything someone says the way Prejean does, you can do the same to the Scriptures, the early Christian writers---anything. And one last "application note": realize that it makes no difference the level of education or erudition; the very same emotionalism that produces the wild-eyed flames of john6jmj produces this far more eloquently stated, but no less hypocritical and emotionally-driven rhetoric of Prejean.

12:09:01 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Millet and McConkie from 1985

07/02/2005 - James White

   You may recall a few weeks ago I pointed out the publication by Eerdmans of a book by Robert Millet, A Different Jesus? Today a friend from Salt Lake reminded me of a book I have had on my shelf since 1991, but I had forgotten that it was co-authored by Millet. For some reason I had associated the book in my memory only with Joseph Fielding McConkie. In any case, Sustaining and Defending the Faith is a wonderful example of Mormonism in 1985, which, of course, was the Mormonism I was responding to in Letters to a Mormon Elder, my first book on Mormonism.
   I think a lot of folks would be just a bit uncomfortable having one of the co-authors of this book writing for Eerdmans, unless, of course, Millet has come out and repudiated this work. In any case, the contrast between the statements in this work and those found in A Different Jesus? is startling to say the least. I will be posting material from the chapter called "The Bible Fraud." In this chapter McConkie and Millet refer to those who believe in the infallibility of the Bible as "Bible cultists." Some of the sub-titles in this one chapter include, "The Bible Is Not Infallible," "Not All Scripture Is Equal," "Bible Prophets Were Not Infallible," and "The Bible Does Not Have All the Answers." I would encourage the reader to compare this unvarnished work with what is being produced by BYU today and ask a question: have these men repudiated their former works, or, do they still believe the same things, but they are more careful in how they express themselves?
   Here is the first paragraph. I really wonder if Richard Mouw ever read this stuff before he apologized on our behalf?

The Bible is the most misused and misunderstood book ever written. It has been used to justify all manner of impropriety, wickedness, and falsehood. Every spiritual fraud ever perpetrated in the history of Judaism or Christianity has claimed support from the Bible. On the authority of the Bible the Jews crucified Christ, stoned Stephen, and imprisoned and beat the Apostles. With the Bible as justification Paul persecuted Christians unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women (Acts 22:4). After the death of the Apostles the Bible was taught by the authority of the whip and the sword. To the Reformers it became the source of priesthood authority and the final will and testament of their mute God.

   Yes, you read it right. Amazing, no? The reasoning in this book is consistently very poor, the arguments easily refuted (the Jews did not crucify Jesus, of course, the Romans did; they did seek His crucifixion, and they did so out of dedication not to "the Bible," but to their traditions, that the Lord said nullified the Scriptures--just an example of how easily this kind of argumentation is refuted). But note as well the description of the Bible as the "last will and testament of their (the Reformers') mute God." To call this a low view of Scripture is an understatement, of course, and it shows that McConkie and Millet have never considered what Christ, Paul, and Peter, taught about the nature of Scripture. But, they do attempt to provide replies to certain passages, and as time allows, it will be very useful to review these statements from two BYU professors.

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

Geron Davis and Kindred Souls Sing at Southern Baptist Convention

07/01/2005 - James White

   Just got a note from someone pointing out that the group that "ministered in music" after the Johnny Hunt sermon in the Pastor's Conference prior to the opening of the full Southern Baptist Convention was Geron Davis and Kindred Souls (verified here). I was asked if Geron Davis was not a Oneness Pentecostal. I honestly had no idea, so I did a little looking around. Their website indicates that their home church is Christ Church, Nashville. A little bit of digging around here clearly shows they are not UPC. Instead, they seem to be a semi-Emergent, post-UPC conglomoration of beliefs. The church denies being modalistic, but leaves the nature of the godhead undefined! They do practice baptism in Jesus' name (a practice with clearly modalistic connections). This article on "one God" is a fascinating read. It starts with clear modalistic language, "WE BELIEVE IN ONE GOD WHO EXISTS AS FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT." It then discusses the issue of "persons," and then honestly states, "In the Pentecostal movement, where many Christ Church leaders have their roots, it was felt by some that the word person created a serious misunderstanding of the very essence of the Godhead. These Pentecostal pioneers wanted to return to what they considered New Testament doctrine and practice. They truly believed that the word person could lead the Church toward a polytheistic concept of God." Evidently the Emergent element of this church kicks in here, allowing for ecumenism even on the level of the nature of God. They say "We are not modalists" but then they say "We are not likely to settle the issue in this century. We are finally left confessing the inadequacy of human language, indeed of human thought itself, to fully express 'the mystery of Godliness.'" There is surely no positive confession of the Trinity in this statement. Assuming the beliefs of Christ Church represent those of Geron Davis and Kindred Souls, this is troubling.
   I'm sure I will get myself in another pile of trouble by saying this, but having watched portions of that evening's program, I truly doubt the doctrinal accuracy of Geron Davis and Kindred Souls was ever considered in putting together the "ministry in music." If it has a beat and it gets toes to tap, what's the problem? Ironic, isn't it, that right after Johnny Hunt says "God has elected everyone," a possibly non-Trinitarian group "ministers in music." Ponder that one a while.

11:02:19 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

Crimson Catholic on Soteriological and Trinitarian Issues I of II

07/01/2005 - James White

   Part of the reason I even responded to the assertions of Patty Bonds last evening was because I knew, in light of the current spate of "Hate White" posts following the Great Debate X, one of those, probably on Envoy, who are so highly impressed with themselves, would seek to jump all over it. That would give me the opportunity to 1) at least address a meaningful topic (the gospel, not how "lifeless" and heartless and mean-spirited I am), 2) within a meaningful context (Scripture), and 3) illustrate the massive explosion of pure hypocrisy in the RC apologetics community (at least as it is represented by Envoy and a large portion of posters on the CA forums) that has (whether they know it or not) shocked many who have observed it. I will not even honor those who have provided some of the most glaring examples of "hatred in the service of my own ego" of late--they don't deserve it. But one thing is for sure: there is nothing I can say, no matter how clearly, no matter how obvious the context, that cannot be twisted into an insult in service of Mother Church. And the double-standards embraced by entire communities (Envoy esp.) have simply been beyond belief.
   "Crimson Catholic" is Jonathan Prejean, who called the Dividing Line a while back and apologized for his own part in the use of ad hominem argumentation. He has engaged Eric Svendsen in discussions, and is currently going back and forth with Steve Hays as well. Unfortunately, the repentance in reference to me did not last long, as the recent week has demonstrated. In any case, he has commented on my brief response to the assertion that one of the greatest truths of God's self-glorification in salvation, that being the perfection of the work of the Son in the salvation of the elect, is "the single most dangerous teaching being spread in the name of Christianity." Now, in light of all of the heresies that exist today--inclusivism, open theism, the denial of the deity of Christ or the resurrection, etc.,--the statement is highly suspect on its face, of course. But I did not even address that aspect. I wanted to provide a brief comparison, a fair comparison, knowing that folks like Mr. Prejean, if they followed the line of non-reasoning that has swept over the Envoy web forum of late, would leap upon it with glee, and I was not disappointed. Prejean begins: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives