FIRST, you'll receive Jimmy Akin's "Bible Answer Man Debate" audio series. From non-Catholic misinterpretation of the Reverence due Mary to the Protestant notion of justification by faith alone, the central differences between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians are tackled in this three CD-series of debates between Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers director of apologetics and evangelization, and James White, director of the Fundamentalist apologetics organization Alpha and Omega Ministries.

26 June 2006
Dear Dr Ascol:
   Well, for the first time in this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that posting private correspondence, which usually takes place between Christian gentlemen behind the scenes, might be helpful if posted. This is one e-mail that I believe should be posted, but I doubt if you will do it. This will stay private, or scrubbed, much like Brad Reynolds exchanges:
   1. For the record, your quote of my words at the SBC was correct. I did use the word “pimped.”
   2. I do love the fact that Dr. Falwell is willing to give this debate as big a stage as possible.
   3. He believes, as we do, that this is a vital issue in the SBC, and MUST be confronted to as large a crowd as possible.
   4. Of course, since no one is making any money on this debate (as Emir and I stipulated- no tickets and no “entry fees”) your concern over being “prostituted” is not really valid.
   5. HOWEVER, before you storm off...please do not feel too superior. Would it change the equation if we were offering to pay you for doing a CRUISE to teach?
   6. Yes, Dr. Ascol, we understand your desire not to be pimped. Does that extend to traveling on a cruise with Dr. White...along with others...for free...as the advertised speaker? Apparently I am not as accomplished at this “pimping” thing...
   I am sorry you feel the way you do, Dr. Ascol.
emc

Later as I heard him destroy Romans 9 in a sermon at Thomas Road Baptist Church, I simply wrote him off as an angry, yipping puppy. His rhetoric and vitrolic verbage doesn't interest me in the least and it makes him look like a jr. high punk....The longer I read the interaction between Drs White and Caner though, I struggle to see the difference. The more they dialogue the more they are beginning to look like each other....Dr. White... Give it up already. Who cares what they (the Caner ilk) think of you... those who respect you and enjoy your ministry are beginning to think ill of you. It won't make you look any better and it certainly doesn't reflect well on your testimony of Christ's work when you end up looking as bad as they do! Be the bigger man and let the little boys have their fun... it doesn't reflect on you at all but when you join them at their tired ploys... it does.

23 June 2006
Dear Dr White:
   Once again, for those who are not revising history, I have decided to respond. As a Christian and a gentleman, I do want all to know that I shall copy this e-mail to others, and will more than likely post it on all websites, as soon as I get time. Unlike others, I do not have time to spend every waking moment cyberstalking.
   Emir, I will handle this one, and then I shall leave this alone. October is the time for this- not four months prior. If Dr White wants to actually debate on level ground without stomping his feet and whining, then we shall have a debate, on the topic to which we all agreed.
   1. You stated that the topic has been “demonstrated to be incoherent.” Actually, the moderator, who has won almost twenty national debate championships, has noted the topic was valid. The large number of encouraging e-mails we have received have seen this as coherent. Apparently the only people who imagine the topic as incoherent are those who simply do not want to debate God’s omnibenevolence. So, if you and your people do not want to debate, simply say so. We want to debate the topic. Just because you do not LIKE the topic does not mean it is invalid. You want us to define our terms before the debate, which is illogical. Defining terms is part of the purpose of debate. I see no reason to play my cards now. The debate is in October. Not now.
   2. You continue to use man-made terms that you and those of your ilk want to revise (monergism and synergism, hyper Calvinism, etc.). You continue to prove our point- MOST evangelicals, including the millions who support Dr. Falwell, do not adhere to a 16th century movement , or 17th century Dortian parameters. We use biblical terms, in the biblical context.
   3. As for your continued reference to my Esau statement, please continue to do so. The full biblical context of Esau, and others that you can cite, is clearly in OUR court.
   4. As a matter of fact, this is a perfect illustration of the debate. In our brief history:
A. You called for the debate, speaking to your minions on your internet show.
B. We had no desire to debate you, since Dr Geisler had already adequately answered you.
C. You e-mailed that Dr. Geisler had NOT adequately answered you, which either illustrates your lack of clarity or blind adherence to your philosophical system of Augustinian predeterminism.
D. Finally, I agreed, but only if you were not allowed to narrow the debate. That is your manipulation of which we are all so fond.
E. The topic was resolved.
F. Then you whined about the time. Even though presidential debates are shorter, you somehow believed you deserve a bigger stage.
G. We offered the site. LU shall swallow the costs of taping. You are still not satisfied.
H. You want to narrow the topic, to fit your liking, and lengthen the time. That is not going to happen. Debate on a level surface.
   Let me quickly add that I have not seen Dr. Ascol in this same light. Even though he and I would disagree vehemently on the topic, I have found him a calm Christian gentleman. I do believe we will be able to debate fairly, across the spectrum of Calvinism and Baptist theology.
   Dr. White, in Oct 1960, Nikita Khrushchev banged his shoe on the desk of the UN. He screamed “we will bury you!” His boorish behavior was followed by interrupting speakers, and loudly proclaiming his victory. I see parallels. Apparently, you believe this is all for show. That would be backed up by the fact that you cannot sneeze without posting it on your site.
   James, you claim that we do not understand doctrines? Well, if that is the case, we stand in the stream of the vast majority of evangelicals who will not accept your doctrines of reprobation. In truth, we clearly understand, and we do not buy into it. We refuse to be categorized as Calvinism or Arminianism, Augustinianism or Pelagianism. I am a biblicist and a Baptist.
   And neither will we be manipulated (my students call it being “punked”) into a limited debate topic, or a protracted debate time.
   Either come, or don’t. Either debate the topic or admit you do not want to. In either case, Emir and I, and our respective schools, shall be there, on Monday, October 16, 2006, to debate the Omnibenevolence of God.
   Until then, I shall just smile, every time I receive some e-mail. Every single e-mail proves our point. Neo-Calvinists cannot answer our points, so you attack us. Classic ad hominem. If our system of theology has brought disrepute to Christian theology, because we do not believe in neo-Calvinism, then we will gladly stand in that stream. From Norman Geisler and C.S. Lewis all the way back, we have church history, and logical biblical thought on our side.
   I hope to see you October 16, 2006. And please, find your own URLs. You seem to have much more time than I do to do these things.
emc

   Well, Dr. Caner, though I had, in my worst moments, considered that this was indeed your mindset and your purpose, I had never expected to receive written confirmation of it. But you have provided it anyway. I am simply amazed.
   OK, evidently, you are saying the following:

      1. This is our house. We will do what we please.
      2. We choose the format. Tough if you don't like it. Tough if nobody uses it in theological debates. Tough if it doesn't allow for meaningful and extensive cross-examination like you do with others. We don't want that anyway.
      3. We choose the thesis statement. We will not answer your questions about it. We will not respond to the fact that it could just as easily be used by a universalist. Tough. We like ambiguity. Live with it.
      4. We would rather behave like this in private, please.
      5. If you don't like it, go away. Otherwise, show up. It's not important to us. We are part of the biggest university around and you are no more important than spam anyway.
   Seems like a fairly good summary to me.

James:
   Dr. White, as one who debates so often, you should know- attempting to change the topic of debate is a concession of defeat. I am thrilled you have posted your response. We have apparently found one of the many topics that are the hyper Calvinist’s weakness.
   And thank you for proving my thesis concerning manipulation.
   We shall be there, Oct 16, to debate the stated topic.
   Emir, please make sure we post these interchanges as well. I keep getting e-mails from his own camp, confused by his stance.
emc

Dear Dr. Caner:
   Yes, changing the topic normally is such an indication. Of course, what confuses me, and anyone else, is how you could possibly read what I sent to you and think that I am changing the topic. Your thesis statement has been demonstrated to be incoherent. You have refused to respond to any of the criticisms I have offered of it. Given that you have had plenty of time to do so, I can only conclude that you do not, in fact, have the ability to respond to the questions asked of you regarding your statement.
   Next, I have offered a plain, clear statement that directly addresses the difference between your synergistic system wherein God tries, but fails, to save each and every human being, and my monergistic stance wherein God "works all things in accordance with the counsel of His will" and saves every single one of those the Father gives to the Son through the perfect work of the Son on Calvary and the perfect work of the Spirit who brings spiritual life to those who are spiritually dead at the exact time the divine Trinity determines. Everyone knows this is the issue, and to say that focusing upon whether God seeks to save every individual equally or whether He has an elect people chosen solely by His good pleasure is changing the topic of a debate on Calvinism only shows, once again, sir, that you have no idea what you've been preaching against all along.
   Finally, as it has been proven, repeatedly, your dishonest use of the term "hyper-Calvinism" is a canard, and to be honest, much more of an indication of "defeat" than an accurate representation of the difference between monergism and synergism. I am once again left simply speechless by such a retort. Given that you are the man who stood before thousands of people and television cameras and turned Romans 9:11-13 on its head, preaching the most incredible example of eisegesis I think I've ever heard, I truly wonder if you have applied the same kind of eisegetical reading skills on the e-mail you received (and to which, evidently, you have no meaningful response?).

And thank you for proving my thesis concerning manipulation.

   Given that you do not offer any foundation for your statement, I will have to take this as an indication that you cannot provide evidence of "manipulation," and admit such.

We shall be there, Oct 16, to debate the stated topic.

   Whatever it means. :-) I.e., "We demand this thesis statement. We will not explain it. We will not defend its awkward phrasing, its ambiguity, the fact that it could actually be used by heretics. It is our thesis statement. We demand you use it, or we will claim you lose!" Sorry, I can do nothing more at this point but smile. What else can be said?

Emir, please make sure we post these interchanges as well. I keep getting e-mails from his own camp, confused by his stance.

   Yes, please do post them. All of them. In completeness, as you yourself requested, Dr. Caner, initially. And please send me the URLs. I'd like to have reference to them. All of mine can be found listed on my blog at www.aomin.org.

James>>>

I'm a reformed baptist, and thus I am to a certain degree a fan of James White. I do have to say though, that whilst he appears to be a reasonable sort of fellow on the Dividing Line etc, to try and have a sensible interaction with either him or the rest of his cohort, whether the others at aomin, or his group in the Phoenix church, is near impossible. To even raise questions to him/them about other points of view gets a very antagonistic attitude. To try and get even a semi-intelligent response from them on IRC is impossible too. Sorry James, I'm torn. In some ways I like the work you are doing. In other ways I think you've become very insular.

Dear Sir...I'm writing to inform you that, first off, you're a liar. Perhaps that is too strong a word. Maybe you are just too stupid to check your facts before publishing something so blatantly wrong and misdirected. Let me first correct you by saying Geron Davis & Kindred Souls were not the group that led in worship at the event you refer to in your article published on your website on 7/1/05. You say "after watching portions of that program..." referring to the Pastor's Conference at the SBC last June in Nashville, TN. Not real sure who you saw, but I can tell you it was not GD&KS. Their name was on the program (as you VERIFIED) but they were not at this event. I would like to say and think that had you actually seen Geron Davis & Kindred Souls lead in worship you MIGHT have been blessed. I'm not sure, however. After spending some time this evening perusing your website and your "beliefs" it seems that you have a veil over your eyes Mr. White. Let me tell you what I DO know. I DO know that Geron Davis is a man who loves the Lord and loves people. He is a man who is full of unconditional love for people from every walk of life. I've never known anyone who knows as many people as Geron Davis and no one who is loved by more people than he is. He has, personally, been an example to me of what it means to love people with the love of Christ. His ministry is a viable ministry that touches the lives and souls of people around this country. I work for his minsitry and happen to know of the countless people who have come to know the Lord, experienced miraculous healing, prodicals who have returned home, & lives restored to Christ through what he and Kindred Souls do on a weekly basis. I also KNOW that Geron Davis and Kindred Souls are good friends...and in good standing...with many Southern Baptist constituents around the country. Another thing I DO know is the Bible talks about those who cause dissention among the brethren...that those are men who lend themselves to the work of the devil. I've thought about what the purpose would be to publish something that is just, first...wrong and then why you would want to try and discredit someone's ministry? I can't wrap my mind around anything other than just evilness. What exactly is it you do Mr. White to promote the Kingdom of God? To help those who do not know Christ, come to know Him? To lend a hand of support to those in need of a spiritual boost? Honestly WHAT does your ministry do to glorify God? Fighting? Arguing? Stirring up dissension? Bullying? Lying? Where is THAT in the scripture? Mr. White, you clearly are knowledgeable about the Word of God, but it seems you lack wisdom and revelation about how to apply it to your life. I pray that you might consider a different approach in your ministry. Maybe consider taking a path that doesn't include attacking those in ministry that ARE making a difference for the Kingdom of God. Hey..I got it...go into any Lifeway Christian store and pick up some of Geron Davis and Kindred Souls music. You know...those are the ones affiliated with the SBC!!! If anything...at least you'll know what they LOOK LIKE!!!

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).(source)

   Aha, I just noticed that James White is a Reformed Protestant, believing in the Calvinist doctrine that God predestined some people for hell; in fact, that God CREATED some people KNOWING that they would go to hell and spend their eternal existance in utter torment.
   If he can worship such a god, I know I can't. That's what drove me away from Protestantism in the first place.
   But if he does believe in "preservation of the saints," then James White can rest easy when it comes to MY soul, because I did "accept Jesus as my savior" in a Protestant church. According to Calvinism, I could now engage in witchcraft or become a mass murderer with no repentenance to the very end, and I would still enter heaven. Makes converting to Catholicism look rather innocent by comparison!

Notice that he's begun with an ad hominem. My post was titled "Korban & Sola Scriptura," because I was interested in talking about an issue rather than an individual, but for White the headline--the first thing he wants his readers to see in introducing the matter--is to say something nasty about me.

I was informed today that Jimmy Akin had made some comments regarding sola scriptura, the Corban rule, and my comments on the subject.

   Actually, the third point was a piece of misinformation: I did not comment on White's comments. I deliberately avoided doing so.

James White has periodically complained about certain Catholic apologists not wanting to interact with him, and this week I was reminded of why.

The argument is plain: Jewish tradition about the Corban rule made it a tradition that had a divine pedigree, though passed down outside of Scripture. Jesus specifically subjugated it to Scripture, hence, to follow His lead, we, too, would have to test all traditions by the higher standard of Scripture.

   "To follow His lead" is another way of saying "to follow his example," so here Mr. White acknowledges that he is appealing to Mark 7 as a passage in which Jesus is teaching by example, and thus he must be able to find in this passage a "plain teaching" that "we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of [Scripture]."
   A difficulty for this claim is the one faced by all instances of trying to derive "plain teaching" from teaching by example: The extent to which the example is to be followed is often not clear.
   It is too easy to improperly minimize or maximize the extent to which the example applies.

   Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

Calvinism is the only Gospel. Simply put, when a person holds this narrow view, they become exclusivists. They believe that Calvinism, and only Calvinism, is the preaching of the Gospel. One historian wrote, "Calvinism is just another name for Christianity."1 If that is true, what does that say about the myriad of preachers throughout Church history who were not Calvinists? Were they even saved?

And I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering, love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having believed. Such a gospel I abhor. The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that (2/11/1855).

They may believe in the "Doctrines of Grace" for themselves, but they hold to the "Doctrines of Damnation" for most people, unless they view the damnation of souls to hell as a work of grace.

Traditions and the Scriptures
Another vital passage that deals with the doctrine of sola scriptura is found in Matthew 15:1-9:

Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH. "But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God," he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’"

   Here we find the Lord providing us with the example that we must follow. The Jewish leaders objected to the fact that the disciples did not follow the rigorous hand-washing rituals of the Pharisees. They identified this as a breaking of the "tradition of the elders." They firmly believed that this body of tradition was authoritative, and some even believed that it had been passed down from Moses himself, though this is surely without warrant. But does Jesus accept this claim of authority?
   Not at all! Instead, He launches a counter-attack against these leaders by pointing out how they nullify the command of God through the following of their own traditions, specifically in this case, with reference to the corban rule, whereby a man could dedicate his belongings to the Temple and hence not support his parents in their old age. The Lord Jesus holds this traditional teaching up to the light of Scripture, and finds it wanting.
   It is vital to realize that the Jews viewed the corban rule as part of the 'tradition of the elders.' This was, to them, a divine tradition with divine authority. They did not simply view it as a mere "tradition of men," but as a concept revealed by God and passed down into the body of such teachings entrusted to the "elders" of the faith.
   The parallels to the Roman claim regarding Sacred Tradition are many. While Rome may claim divine authority for her supposedly sacred traditions, and even subjugate Scripture so as to make it a part of "Sacred Tradition," needing other aspects such as the supposedly apostolic, unwritten traditions, and the authority of the magisterium of the Church, the person who wishes to follow the example of Christ will hold such traditions up to the light of Scripture, knowing how fearful it is to be found guilty of nullifying the word of God for the sake of merely human traditions. The Lord Jesus subjugated even this allegedly "divine tradition" to the higher and hence supreme authority, the Scriptures. This is most important, for the most common response to the citation of this passage with reference to Roman tradition is, "Well, the passage refers to testing human traditions, not divine traditions." Yet, when it comes to authority, any tradition, no matter what it’s alleged pedigree, is to be tested by the known standard, the Holy Scriptures. (pp. 68-69)

Double Predestination. Simply put, they believe that a small group of people are predestined, even before the Creation, for heaven, and that the vast majority of the world is predestined, even created for, hell.

   I have come to view this concept of preaching as one of the greatest signs of the decay of modern evangelicalism in Western culture today. It is so blatantly unbiblical, in fact, so patently absurd in light of even the briefest scripturally-inspired reflection, that it must be a sign of God's judgment that so many can so easily imbibe such a perversion of God's truth. Do these words strike you as harsh, even unwise? I fully understand. We live in an age where right and wrong, truth and error, have become matters of opinion and dispute. The language of the New Testament crashes upon the modern ear with offense, leading many to consider the Lord Jesus, His Apostles, and those who seek to emulate them down through history to our very day, harsh and out of step with our enlightened, if yet obviously confused, age. Error and falsehood today are excused as artifacts of our coming to understand that truth is not really knowable, and that we are arrogant if we dare forget our creatureliness long enough to say "what I am saying is right, and what that man is saying is wrong." "Yeah, hath God said?" (Genesis 3:1) has become the watchword of the modern mindset that has been taught to disbelieve God's ability to reveal Himself to His own creatures, and sadly, this way of thinking has infected major portions of what is widely identified as "Christianity" as well. Believing that God is the Creator is foundational to any kind of Christian worldview; but the corollary that if God is the Creator then we as His creatures can communicate only because He is the origin and source of that ability is forced upon us by logical necessity. A Christian world view that does not look to Scripture for its lifeblood is a pretense.

   2 Timothy 2:2 2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
   The foundation of Christian education is in the church. Obviously, Timothy had to 1) know what was truly Pauline/apostolic 2) know the men well enough and long enough and observe their lives so as to know that they are faithful and that they have the ability to teach, and 3) know how to entrust these things, teach these things, to these faithful men. Sound theology is something that is precious and must be entrusted to the next generation.
   2 Timothy 4:1-4 2 Timothy 4:1 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
   Solemnly (tie in Acts 20). That is one's primary attitude toward the ministry of preaching. Solemnity. First priority: preach the word. At all times. Not just at convenient times. Reprove, though no one likes to do so. Rebuke, because it is necessary. Exhort, because there will always be those who are faint-hearted. With patience and instruction, since it takes repetition and teaching. Things won't get easier. Sinful men hate the consistency of sound doctrine. Men will allow their desires, their emotions, to determine who they will and will not listen to. They will accumulate to themselves, like people hording up treasure, teachers who will tell them exactly what they want to hear. They will purposefully turn their ears from truth, since they know what the truth is, and they will turn aside to myths. Truth, or myth. No middle ground. The apostle knew nothing of the modern state of confusion that reigns in academic circles and trickles down to the pulpit.