If we can grasp these possibilities or at least be willing to explore these tiny cracks leading to a different way of thinking about God, and if the Holy God can be understood not as a person, but as the depth and ground of life itself, then the ethical task of the Church becomes quite different. Christian ethics are not found in a system of behavior control. They are rather found in a call to the fullness of life. The business of the Church is, therefore, not to judge life, but to enhance consciousness, to ex-pose ignorance and prejudice, and to remove the barriers to life in all of its fullness. The Church's task is to assist its people in plumbing the depths of their own humanity, where transcendence, mystery, being, and even love are discovered, and to bring those qualities found in the center of life into the world. I name that center of life God.
   This God is not a parent who will reward or punish me for my virtues or shortcomings. This God is rather a power, a presence that calls me into responsibility, into adulthood, into self-reliance, into living for others, and into contributing to the well-being of all humanity. This Infinite Beyond in the midst of my life invites me again and again to abandon my fears, to enter infinity, and to walk into the timelessness of God. So I worship at this shrine, and at the same time I take responsibility for my life and, to the degree that I am able, for the life of this world. That is where ethics emerge. So long as I possess life, I will live it deeply, richly, and fully. I will expect no reward for my commitment to these ethical principles save the reward of a life well lived. I will not blame my failures or my shortcomings on some external God, for God is part of who I am. Is that so novel an idea as to be unacceptable? Not to me it isn't, for I have entered the exile. The theistic God whose will constituted the ethics of the past is dead. So my search for the basis of ethics to guide me beyond the exile drives me back to the same arena where a non-theistic God was found and where Christ was redefined. My journey through the exile is beginning to take shape.
   WILL THIS NONTHEISTIC VIEW of God, the promise of a new spirituality based upon the building of a life that is full, free, and whole, motivate human beings to a journey into the transcending mystery of God in the future? Will pilgrims in the exile seek God in the ground and depth of their own being if there is no perceived and obvious reward? Is it enough to suggest that a life lived fully, marked with an expansive love, called into a new being is its own reward? Is there hope for life beyond this world apart from the images of our theistic past? (Emphasis mine).

   Time, America’s foremost news magazine, ran a recent cover story on heaven, entitled “Does Heaven Exist?” That question itself is one that our ancient forebears would never have raised. Interestingly enough, Time’s reporters sought in vain to find any robust conviction about heaven, even among traditional believers. “It is a boring place or a silly myth or something people in-vent or all of the above,”Time quoted theologian Jeffrey Burton Russell as saying. Even David Wells, a conservative theologian from the faculty of the evangelical Gordon-Conwell Seminary in Massachusetts, had this to say about heaven: “We would ex-pect to hear of it in the evangelical churches, but I don’t hear it at all. I don't think heaven is even a blip on the Christian screen from one end of the denominational spectrum to the other. The more perplexing question is, "What explains this?"
   A contemporary evangelical professor thus admits to being mystified by this phenomenon. The fact is that his evangelical credentials mean that he could not possibly embrace the answer for which his own question yearns. The demise of heaven is a direct result of the death of the theistic image of God on which the evangelical tradition, with its personalistic view of heaven, rests. People who understand heaven as the reward given for a life of faith and work must also understand God as a personal deity who hands out rewards and punishments based on person-al deservings. Such a God is a thinly disguised parent figure who controls the child’s behavior with a series of threats and promises. This God was perceived as keeping intimate and copi-ous notes on human behavior. He—and the theistic God was almost always a he—was not unlike another supernatural figure that we allow to enter our consciousness every December. Does it not occur to us to see the similarities between this theistic God image and Santa Claus?

Svendsen is correct in noticing that I do not list the heirs of the Radical Reformation among the congregations of Christ’s visible Catholic Church on earth. Svendsen and his evangelical brethren do indeed have a noble tradition of their own, stemming backwards in time to Smith Wigglesworth, Billy Sunday and Charles Finney, and further still to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Fausto Socinus, Michael Servetus, Caspar Schwenckfeld, Menno Simons, Conrad Grebel, Balthasar Hubmaier and the Zwickau Prophets, and yet beyond to the Montanists, Novatians, Donatists and various Gnostic sects of the early centuries of the Church. But it is a trajectory of figures and movements of varying doctrinal orthodoxy outside the Catholic Church (though of course containing many faithful believers in Jesus within their ranks).

Dr. White,
   Hello James. I enjoyed the read of Spurgeon but I'm sure you noticed a few inconsistencies in his sermon. Yes, he rightly rejects the "love less" view and he also notes that divine hatred here is a statment of Esau's non-elect status (Rom 9:13). He also notes rightly that this chapter deals with individual not national election. This is a profitable area of the sermon. But, I think Spurgeon gets off track on the Esau issue. Romans 9 says God hated [did not elect] Esau "even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling.)" (NET Bible). Thus we would hold Paul teaches that God elects eternally and unconditionally, that is, based on absolutely no merit actual or forseen in an individual but purely out of his own good pleasure where he arbitrarily chooses some and passes over others. That God chooses any for salvation is pure grace. The flip side of this act of choosing is not choosing others thereby guaranteeing that those unchosen will be damned. Thus by the one act of eternal and unconditional election, God predestines both the elect to salvation by positively securing their salvation in the atonement and the non-elect to damnation by negatively passing over them in election (reprobation) and not providing salvation for them. This is double-predestination. Those who say that double-predestination elects some to damnation seriously misrepresent the position. No one is elected to damnation; they are predestined to damnation by not being elected to salvation, and justly so.
   But when Spurgeon goes into the life of Esau, he attempts to point out issues in the OT narrative that would bring God's derserved hatred. See the problem? This is after Esau is born and based on works precisely the opposite of what Paul says. Finally, Spurgeon fails outright to understand (or at least appreciate) the issue of double-predestination. As a pastor, I can see why he avoids this but as an exegete this is inexcusable. He translates the Greek perfect participle as middle and not passive in Rom 9:22 (passive: "the objects of wrath prepared for destruction" [NET Bible].). Instead, he says, "But it does not say anything about fitting men for destruction; they fitted themselves. They did that: God had nothing to do with it. But when men are saved, God fits them for that. All the glory to God in salvation; all the blame to men in damnation." Romans 9 says the very thing Spurgeon denies: the non-elect individual is "fitted [by God] for destruction." The passive voice is divine and thus he is prepared by God. How God does this is via preterition (passing over the non-elect) unto reprobation. So double-predestination is asymmetrical for sure, that is, God does not elect to salvation and elect to damnation but rather he elects some to salvation and passes over the rest to certain damnation---hence asymmetrical double-predestination. But there is no doubt in Romans 9 of the double in double-predestination. Spurgeon's middle voice interpretation ("they fitted themselves") is easily refuted when given the context of the potter and the clay as well as upon examining the lexical issue. Does clay form itself? No. This sermon, however, is a good example of a five-point Calvinist that shys away from the harsher elements of biblical theology, exegetical precision, and consistent theism. But it is this kind of inconsistency that gives non-Calvinists a foot in the door in a manner of speaking.
   One final matter. That hell was created for the devil and his angels supposedly rules out this double-predestination interpretation. But all that the text may be said to imply about preparing hell for angels and not man is that hell was created before man fell; not that certain men were not ordained to eternal punishment or as Paul says here, "destruction." Again, one could wish Spurgeon was more consistent here given the fact that he is indeed a five-point Calvinist.
All the best,
Don Hartley, Ph.D.

   White disputed the notion that the debate was cancelled over a small amount of time, saying the cross-examination time “was being diminished to the point of being irrelevant.” He also objected to the Caners’ insistence that the affirmative be given the first and last word.
   On his website, White questioned the Caners’ intentions, writing, “Upon what basis could anyone trust that the debate would go forward as promised even if we agreed, yet again, to another modified format?”

The definition of revisionist history is often as simple as someone wanting it to be true.

As I have the entire Reformed community up in arms over my statement concerning the debate, I would simply like to put an end to the speculation.

On Friday as I was flying to a speaking engagement I was informed by my office that Drs. White and Ascol (either one or both of them) objected to the rules established by the moderator, Brett O'Donnell.

I am standing right here.
I am ready for the debate.
Just because JW has a problem with authority, and cannot manipulate the situation, he backs out.
Sad.
Anyone who holds to predestination to hell, and the possibility of infant damnation, even in theory, is a hyper Calvinist.
He is hyper Calvinist. Now everyone knows it.
ergun

I have taken the liberty to go back over Ergun's email from May 11 and have tried to adjust times to fit into a 3-hour allotment. Following are the results. Please let me know if this is acceptable or if we need to make further adjustments. If this is acceptable then we can all begin making preparations accordingly. If it is not, please make adjustments as soon as possible. Thanks!

Thanks, Emir. I will plan accordingly.
-tom

Calvinist Debate Cancelled by Hyper-calvinist
James White backs out of the debate. Refused to submit to moderator rules. Details will follow tonight.

   Eisegesis. The reading into a text, in this case, an ancient text of the Bible, of a meaning that is not supported by the grammar, syntax, lexical meanings, and over-all context, of the original. It is the opposite of exegesis, where you read outof the text its original meaning by careful attention to the same things, grammar, syntax, the lexical meanings of the words used by the author (as they were used in his day and in his area), and the over-all context of the document. As common as it is, it should be something the Christian minister finds abhorrent, for when you stop and think about it, eisegesis muffles the voice of God. If the text of Scripture is in fact God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) and if God speaks in the entirety of the Bible (Matt. 22:31) then eisegesis would involve silencing that divine voice and replacing it with the thoughts, intents, and most often, traditions, of the one doing the interpretation. In fact, in my experience, eisegetical mishandling of the inspired text is the single most common source of heresy, division, disunity, and a lack of clarity in the proclamation of the gospel. The man of God is commended when he handles Gods truth aright (2 Tim. 2:15), and it should be his highest honor to be privileged to do so. Exegesis, then, apart from being a skill honed over years of practice, is an absolutely necessary means of honoring the Lord a minister claims to serve. For some today, exegesis and all the attendant study that goes into it robs one of the Spirit. The fact is, there is no greater spiritual service the minister can render to the Lord and to the flock entrusted to his care than to allow Gods voice to speak with the clarity that only sound exegetical practice can provide.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have spoken truthfully about Jehovah’s knowledge. But more can be said to define and defend what they have taught. The “Reformers” and those who have followed in their footsteps have not spoken truthfully about God’s knowledge. More must be said to undo the damage that they have done. They have also not spoken truthfully about man and his standing before God.

Thus, I agree with and will defend Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view of the salvation of mankind through a living faith and their belief in the existence of human free will, a will that must turn to God who will accept us and have mercy upon us all:

It is time to crush the “Reformers” view of God and their misleading and even false teachings respecting his nature and his knowledge....As I said, John Calvin was a murderer and a false prophet, a rotten tree who produced rotten fruit. I pray that Jehovah crushes Calvinism. I pray that he gives me a part in crushing it along with any of the variety of fruit it has produced.

Gentlemen:
   Thank you for finally writing, Dr. Caner. I believe a quicker reply would have saved us all a lot of trouble, but that is water under the bridge.
   In essence, Emir, you have just said that while you worked with Tom to arrive at an agreement, you are willing to renege, less than two weeks prior to that debate, on the agreement, throwing out the very heart of the requests Tom brought to you in good faith, all because Dr. O'Donnell does not like them? Sir, could I please ask you how we can trust anything that is said to us when your word can be changed by someone with an allegedly "higher" authority? What if someone decides that the debate needs to be two hours, and that on Monday night the 16th of October? Will that then be what happens?
   Further, Emir, if Dr. O'Donnell is to be given ultimate, final, and complete authority over the debate (something that was never requested, let alone granted, by us), why did you come to us and ask what we would have to do to make this work? Why not have Dr. O'Donnell do this, since, if you are being consistent now, you did not have the authority to negotiate anyway? If you were negotiating in good faith then, how can you renege on that negotiation now? If you were not negotiating in good faith then, what was your purpose? I cannot begin to understand this behavior on your part.
   I have to ask you all. If this is not breach of contract, at least in the realm of one's word and honor, what would, in fact, constitute this?
   Well, this saga will certainly go down in history. It will do so because I will continue to arrange meaningful, scholarly debates with leading proponents of other viewpoints, just as I will be debating John Shelby Spong in November, and we will continue to demonstrate the highest standards in honestly seeking to fairly and openly defend the Christian faith in those situations. And if Dr. Ergun Caner would like to arrange a one-on-one debate at a neutral location in the future, I would dearly love to do so. But as it stands now, you have reneged upon our agreement unilaterally; you refuse to allow for sufficient time for a four-man debate and for the agreed to cross-examination; you likewise have claimed, through O'Donnell's actions, the advantage of speaking first and last despite the thesis statement not requiring that advantage to the affirmative side. Since the video taping rights issue likewise has not been completely settled, and given that Dr. O'Donnell has disqualified himself by his demeanor and behavior from moderating, it is obvious that there is no good faith being exercised by your side in this event. The ability to trust that the others will do what they say they will do is necessary to have a meaningful event.
   Therefore, in light of the knowing and unilateral abandonment of the settled agreement on the part of Brett O'Donnell, and your support of this, there will be no debate on October 16th in Lynchburg, Virginia. Immediately before your e-mail arrived Dr. Ascol called me from Sao Paulo, Brazil, and I confirmed with him that we would not accept the unilateral rejection of our agreement. Then, I sent this e-mail to him for his approval, and he managed to get an internet connection from the airport, and he stands with me. There can be no debate without debaters, and the behavior of your side in openly reneging upon your word has made any further attempts to make this work, despite months of struggle, worthless. My personal challenge to Ergun Caner stands for a one-on-one debate, but now with the stipulation that it take place in a neutral location with a neutral moderator.
   Any suggestions or assertions that this debate ended for any other reason than the truth, i.e., that twelve days prior to the debate the agreement upon which it was based was unilaterally thrown out by Brett O'Donnell with the support of Emir Caner, will be met with full and complete documentation of the facts. It is bad enough that this has happened. Please, do not add to this with any campaign to make it look like we pulled out of this. Everyone in this group knows otherwise.
   James White

   White’s work is not remotely near their orbit in terms of careful interaction with church history, as well as their pastoral sensitivity. It would be like comparing A.W. Pink with Eichrodt, or Charles Ryrie with Vos.
   Baptist errors and/or heresies re the “ordinances as acts of man” vs. the Reformed confession of “sacraments as acts of God on behalf of man” underscore the former’s fundamentally subjective and rationalistic articulation of the Christian faith, which articulation must be strenously rejected by orthodox Christians, and thus NOT deemed as some kind of intramural/fraternal divergence.
   The leaven of religious pluralism has led to a most unfortunate toleration of Baptist distinctives by otherwise noble Reformed men and church communions. But it must be purged out of the church’s thinking, if she is to advance along the Kuyperian lines of extending the kingship of Christ over all spheres of life and thought.
   As long as “Reformed” Baptists have as their chief apologetical organ the writings/ramblings of James White, or various pamphlets published by ARBCA, we can be grateful that their tribe will likely continue to decrease.

The Root or A Root?
   Another favorite passage of KJV Only adherents is found in Pauls first letter to Timothy:

1 Timothy 6:10	1 Timothy 6:10	1 Timothy 6:10
KJV	NASB	NIV
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.	For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang.	For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

   Two issues are readily seen by comparing these translations. First, is the love of money the root of evil, or a root of evil? Secondly, is it a root of all evil, or of all kinds of evil? Once again we encounter a situation in which something can be said for each translation. The word for root in the Greek does not have the article before it, hence the more literal translation in this case would be a root, not the definite the root. The text is not saying that the love of money is the only origin or source of evil, but that it is one of great importance. And is it all evil, or all kinds of evil? Literally the Greek reads, of all the evils, the terms being plural. The modern translations see this as referring to all kindsof evil, while the KJV takes all evil as a whole concept. The KJV translation is a possibility grammatically speaking, but it seems to miss Paul's point. The love of money gives rise to all sortsof evil things, but there are, obviously, evils in the world that have nothing to do with the love of money. A minister friend of mine pointed out with reference to this passage that it is difficult to see how rape, for example, can be blamed on the love of money. Such is surely a good question for a person who would insist upon the KJV rendering. In any case, the modern translations are certainly faithful to the text of Scripture and adequate in their translation of the passage.

An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money (1 Timothy 3:2-3).

For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs (1 Timothy 6:10).