The Q&A section of the John 3:16 Conference was mildly interesting. Thankfully, at least one Calvinist asked a direct, clear question. Noting that David Allen had chosen to spend the vast majority of his time repeating the arguments of Ponter and Byrne (rather than dealing with biblical materials), the question was asked if he would do more than the "read my paper on such and such a website" response and comment on Owen's argument for the atonement, which they referred to as the "double payment argument." Finally some serious argumentation to interact with.

On behalf of E610 Ministries International, our deepest thanks and praise for the work God has led you to continue for twenty-five years now. Even more today I personally am benefiting from the web site as the Lord has recently asked me to serve Him by moving to Brazil where I am doing long term mission work while also working to complete my M.Div at CES. Not only are the dividing lines encouraging and edifying, they also connect me to apologetics happening real time at home in the good ole US of A.

Prior to moving in to full time Missions, E610 relied on your video tapes and CD series extensively for training with our street evangelists who remain at work back in the USA today for His glory. We have links to your site at our believers area at E610 and continue to support the work you are doing in prayer and petition to our risen King, that He might continue, protect, and bless the work you continue this and each day.

Thank you – to you and Rich, to your family, who make sacrifices in order for you to take time to devote to your work with AOMIN and please know how important each installment is that you make. Keep the tape rolling and know you are all loved and appreciated deeply across the world. I never imaged years ago when I began following AOMIN I would be listening from the mission field. Praise God for His provision to us all.

If you lay very quietly...very still...and listen intently, with this Lockman NASB not too far away...you will be able to hear it...moo. Yes indeed, the Uber Bible, the single best leather bound Bible I have ever owned, is back in stock! Rich just got it back in the bookstore today, here. This is a preacher's Bible. It lays open. It hangs over your hand. The leather is the softest, smoothest, most awesome feeling stuff you'll ever happily carry in your hand. I love my copy, and you'll love yours! It was out of stock for a good year or so, but now it is back! Had to let you know as soon as possible!

In a matter of weeks I will be engaging Bart Ehrman on whether textual variation precludes the possibility of inspiration. It will be a vitally important debate, one that I hope will be of tremendous benefit to the entire body of Christ. And though I have no reason to think Dr. Ehrman is spending a lot of time focusing upon my position, I surely am focusing upon his. Hence, I have extensive reading and studying to do over the next number of weeks. I trust our regular blog readers will keep this in mind, and pray for me as I prepare for this vital encounter. [By the way, there is still room for you to join us for the debate, and even the cruise!].

I will continue my response to David Allen on Tuesday of next week. I must admit I am grieved by this whole situation. I know there are some who live for "blog conflict" and the like. I am not one of them. When I engage in controversy I try to do it for the sake of the furtherance of the truth of the gospel and the edification of God's people. I must admit, I am sick and tired of those who seem utterly intent upon promoting a narrow agenda, one-string banjo players who seem to have little else to do in life but to pluck their very limited number of notes.

In any case, this entire "he's an X" "no, you're a Y!" childishness makes me ill. Evidently, for a whole group of folks, the idea is this: hyper-Calvinism is dangerous (it is). Therefore, anyone with a higher Calvinism (one that seeks internal consistency in theology and exegesis, and does not find a lot of comfort in "antinomy" and "mystery") than these folks is to be stigmatized as a "hyper-Calvinist," even if they have shown, demonstrated, and proved their balance as a churchman, evangelist, preacher, theologian, or apologist. In the process, men of old who said and taught great things are harangued and attacked without the slightest effort to distinguish between the good and the bad in their writings and teachings. It is even to the point that if you interpret particular texts in a particular way, you are "hyper," even when those using these terms are utterly incapable of even attempting to prove you have mishandled the texts. It is amazing, and it is sad.

It was mentioned in my chat channel yesterday that, ironically, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) addressed this sixty years ago. Evidently, they did not have to identify those who disagreed with Murray as "hyper-Calvinists" back then. Too bad their maturity is not possessed by all today. (Click here for the article).

I guess the best way to refute the false accusations against me is not by playing the "my expert defines it this way" game. It is by simply living a balanced Christian life, demonstrating that the accusations are vacuous, and those making them little more than troublers of the body of Christ. Let the reader mark them out now and ask a simple question: what will they have accomplished ten years from now? Let time attend to the witness chair.

In any case, I did wish to briefly comment on the abuse of the historical sources that David Allen utilized. He claims to have a huge Puritan library, and I don't doubt that he does. He chided folks for not reading original sources. Yet, it seems to me that his presentation was massively dependent upon...secondary sources, in particular, as he himself stated, Tony Bryne and David Ponter. This comes out especially in his attempt to enlist Jonathan Edwards in the cause of denying particular redemption. It seems highly likely to me that Allen pulled the single citation he read on the topic directly from Tony Bryne's blog, where it appeared back in May of this year. It is a single citation from The Freedom of the Will.

From these things it will inevitably follow, that however Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole world, by his death; yet there must be something particular in the design of his death, with respect to such as he intended should actually be saved thereby. As appears by what has been now shown, God has the actual salvation or redemption of a certain number in his proper absolute design, and of a certain number only; and therefore such a design only can be prosecuted in any thing God does, in order to the salvation of men. God pursues a proper design of the salvation of the elect in giving Christ to die, and prosecutes such a design with respect to no other, most strictly speaking; for it is impossible, that God should prosecute any other design than only such as he has: he certainly does not, in the highest propriety and strictness of speech, pursue a design that he has not. And, indeed, such a particularity and limitation of redemption will as infallibly follow, from the doctrine of God's foreknowledge, as from that of the decree. For it is as impossible, in strictness of speech, that God should prosecute a design, or aim at a thing, which he at the same time most perfectly knows will not be accomplished, as that he should use endeavours for that which is beside his decree.

Please don't ask me how anyone can read this and find universal atonement in it. I truly do not understand it, for it is clearly Edwards' intention to emphasize the specific purpose of God in the salvation of the elect. But this is not the first time I've encountered folks who can read phrases like "a particularity and limitation of redemption" and think it is actually saying the opposite. Traditions die hard. I would direct anyone to read the conclusion of Edwards' treatise (from which the above comes: in the eye-strain edition of Edwards' works, it is page 88 of volume 1) and see if it was his intention to give aid and comfort to the viewpoints of David Allen.

I wrote to a published Edwards scholar and inquired as to his opinion. He responded that it is very obvious that Edwards held to particular redemption, and noted in passing two texts indicating this.

This is certain, that God did not intend to save those by the death of Christ, that he certainly knew from all eternity he should not save by his death. Wherefore, it is certain that if he intended to save any by the death of Christ, he intended to save those whom he certainly knew he should save by his death. This is all that was ever pleaded for. (Works of JE, Vol 13, Yale UP, 1994, 211).

"Now can we suppose that Christ came down from heaven and went through all this upon uncertainties, not knowing what purchase he should get, how great or how small? Did he die only upon probabilities, without absolute certainty who, or how many, or whether any should be redeemed by what he did and suffered?" (ibid, 212).

Now, Dr. Allen seemed to want to fault modern Calvinists for not reading original sources. He also assumed we would all be shocked at what he was saying. I found that more than a little condescending, to be perfectly honest with you. It seemed hard to avoid the conclusion that he was accusing Sproul and Piper and MacArthur and Dever of being either ignorant or dishonest...or both. And though he had the temerity of accusing me of being a hyper-Calvinist, he didn't show the slightest familiarity with The Potter's Freedom, let alone the arguments it presents regarding particular redemption. In any case, it seems to me that Allen pulled his assertion about Edwards (which he presented with great flair and showmanship) directly from Byrne, and that without examining the context. Which seems to be the very thing he was busily faulting the rest of us for doing.

Well, as always, such situations as this one give us an opportunity to grow and learn. As such, we should be thankful for them.

The Pyromaniac himself has weighed in on the John 3:16 Conference allegations that if you don't believe God is eternally bummed about failing to save those He desires to save you are a hyper-Calvinist. You can read his always well-written blog entry here. Hopefully by now you have gotten to the heart of the issue on this matter: Dr. Allen, and most of those who oppose Reformed theology (but who likewise seem utterly unwilling to engage the topic when the other side will be equally represented), find the term "hyper-Calvinism" a useful pejorative. Useful in the sense that it helps them to try to insulate their followers from actually hearing what the other side has to say. Hence, when I seek to be fully consistent in my beliefs, and as a result, refuse to portray God as having eternally decreed His own unhappiness, I am labeled a "hyper-Calvinist" (despite the fact that it is painfully obvious Calvin surely agreed). I see no evidence that God will be standing upon the parapets of hell weeping for eternity because of His failure to accomplish His will. I can proclaim God's command to repent and believe to all men, and I can do so with passion, not because I pretend to look into God's heart and mind, but because I know the reality of God's wrath, the sin of man, and I believe implicitly the promise of God that anyone who turns in faith to Christ will be saved. And as I noted on the DL yesterday, while the synergists get a lot of mileage out of preaching "Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life if you will only let him into your heart" the absolutely necessary counterpoint to their feel-good proclamation is "however, I can never tell you He can truly save you perfectly and completely because, after all, my entire point is that He is helpless aside from your cooperation." Do they consistently follow through on that point? Of course not. Most embrace the "I have my ticket punched and I'm on my way to heaven, don't bother me about consistency or the work of the Spirit in my life" viewpoint. Makes not a lick of sense, but since they almost never put themselves in a position where they can be challenged on the topic (I was a part of an SBC mega church once: I know the culture, and if "Pastor" says it, you better believe it, brother) the incoherence of their systematic theology is rarely highlighted.

I am thankful Phil can put up with my slightly "stiffer" form of Calvinism. I would be more on the Reymond side than the Murray side, for example, and I am for a pretty obvious reason, I hope. How many of my Reformed compatriots are taking their soteriology into the contexts I do? Not many. When I have Roman Catholics and Mormons and JW's and Oneness Pentecostals and liberals and Muslims and atheists picking apart every book I write and every article I publish, well, the result is to be expected. I'm a bit focused on consistency. Sorta comes with the territory. If I can't back it up with sound and consistent exegesis, well, I'm not likely to find that position amenable to my faith. That's why I take the position I do regarding 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4: I simply have not found any counter-exegesis that makes any sense of the passages. And I am not one for doing the, "Well, Super Theologian X held a different view" routine.

I note also a very fascinating exchange taking place in the comments on Tom Ascol's last blog entry, found here. Malcom Yarnell scares me. Evidently, if I find my Presbyeterian brothers to be co-laborers in the kingdom, firm believers in the gospel of grace, compatriots in the battle against the powers of darkness and brothers in their passion for the freedom of God in salvation and the glory of Christ as Savior and Mediator, I'm just not quite "Baptist" enough for him. Of course, I also ran across this comment from him that made my head spin: "In response, please note that I consider the Roman Catholic church in the same way I do Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, although I do prefer the latter’s doctrines in some ways: the churches hold to innovations that countermand the New Testament, and thus may be classified as sub-New Testament." - Malcolm." "Prefer the latter's doctrines in some ways"???? I am simply left without words at such a statement. Amazing, just amazing.

   David Allen is a Dean of the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He spoke at the John 3:16 Conference recently--the "lets circle the wagons and warn everyone about the Calvinists" get-together that was lacking the one thing that truth demands: serious interaction with the other side. Well, serious exegesis likewise was nowhere to be found, too. But in any case, I was quickly notified after his talk that he accused me of hyper-Calvinism, and after reading some reports from those in attendance, briefly commented on the absurdity of the charge. [He has written in defense of his accusation here]. I noted with some humor that the likes of Hunt and Patterson and Vines and Allen were safely ensconced in the friendly environs of a super-church in Georgia while I was standing before audiences of Muslims and Christians in London proclaiming the glory of the person of Christ and calling all those who could hear me to faith in Jesus Christ. In case Dr. Allen is unaware of this, hyper-Calvinists do not call all men to faith in Christ. That is why they don't like me and attack me at every opportunity. Obviously, my unwillingness to ascribe incoherence and inconsistency to the will of God does not mean I do not freely and openly call all men to faith in Christ. I put together some examples from my trip to London (and the debate at Duke). I think they speak for themselves. What hyper-Calvinist speaks as I do here?

I will play David Allen's comments on the DL tomorrow and interact with them. Till then, I simply point out that he seems to wish to establish a definition that forces one to somehow confess what God desires without providing any biblical basis for how we as creatures are to know this. Does God command repentance? Of course. Of all? Yes, of all. Do you proclaim the gospel to all? Yes, to all. Do you say it is the duty of all to believe? Surely, of course. Do you believe the proclamation of the gospel is the means by which God's Spirit draws the elect unto Christ? Most assuredly. So what is the single basis of Allen's accustion of "hyper-Calvinism"? My refusal to believe God decreed His eternal disappointment. I find nothing in Scripture or in the LBCF1689 that forces me to believe that God chose to create in such a fashion as to create His own unhappiness, His own lack of fulfillment. I see no reason to believe that God desires to do something He does not will to accomplish. It is only man's limited nature that even raises the issue, for we know that the proclamation of God's law reveals God's prescriptive will, i.e., do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not lie, etc. Hence we ascribe to God the concept of "desire" and say God does not "desire" that man do these things. Yet, we likewise know that texts like Genesis 50:20 tell us that God has willed that such events take place, and that, in fact, He uses them to accomplish His own purposes, His own glory. The problem is in trying to read into God's will our own self-limitations. I can freely offer the gospel to all, not because I reject election, nor because I ascribe to God a human-oriented desire that runs directly counter to His own self-revelation and consistency, but because I do not know the identity of the elect, and I have the full promise of Scripture that no man, no woman, no child, will ever, ever turn in faith to Jesus Christ and yet be rejected by Him. ALL who believe will be saved. Will any man believe outside of God's grace, God's granting of repentance and faith? Surely not, but again, I do not possess knowledge of the identity of the elect. Hence, I can freely and properly proclaim the duty to repent and believe to all, knowing that those who do so will be those God has drawn to Himself. I find myself completely consistent with the Apostle who likewise said he endured all the trials and tribulations of the ministry "for the sake of the elect" (2 Timothy 2:10).

   "Ladies and Gentlemen, James White is a hyper-Calvinist." So accuses David Allen. Ladies and gentlemen, David Allen is making false accusations. I repudiate the false accusation, and assert that my confession of faith, and twenty five years of ministry and evangelism, expose the accusation for what it is. But who I am is irrelevant: I challenge David Allen to stand before the students and faculty of the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and engage me on one battleground only: the inspired, inerrant, living text of the sacred Scriptures, the Bible. Do what was not done in Georgia: go to the text consistently and in depth and deal with John 6, John 10, Ephesians 1, Romans 8 and 9, and do so without hiding from the challenge of those on the other side. I have proven my ability to engage in such debate fairly and with honor and respect. I do not have to accuse David Allen of anything. I don't have to try to scare people away from listening to him. Go ahead! Listen! Examine! Study! But unlike those at the John 3:16 Conference, I have proven my ability to engage the best they have to offer, directly, without hiding. There would be no greater opportunity for the students of SWBTS to see the exposure of one their own leaders have identified as a "hyper-Calvinist" than in such an encounter! Will that happen? I doubt it, since the facts are clear. I'm not a hyper-Calvinist, and the last thing the leadership wants is both sides to be presented with fairness and clarity. And that, my friends, speaks volumes, does it not?

"[I]f you desire to believe rightly and to possess Christ truly, then you must reject all works that you intend to place before and in the way of God. They are only stumbling blocks, leading you away from Christ and from God. Before God no works are acceptable but Christ's own works. Let these plead for you before God, and do no other work before him than to believe that Christ is doing his works for you and is placing them before God in your behalf."

And it is because of this, the Bishop of Rome continued, that Luther's expression "by faith alone" is true "if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love."
   "Paul knows," he added, "that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love."

"St. Paul teaches everywhere that justification does not result from works but from faith alone, that it does not come in installments but all at once. For the 'testament' comprises everything: justification, salvation, the inheritance, and our most prized possession. Through faith it is enjoyed all at once, in order to make it perfectly clear that no work but faith alone affords such blessings of God as justification and salvation, and that faith makes us children and heirs at once and not in piecemeal manner, as good works must be performed. As children and heirs we then freely perform all manner of good works without anything of that menial spirit which presumes to become pious and meritorious by such service. Merit is unnecessary. Faith gives everything gratuitously, gives more indeed than anyone can merit" [What Luther Says, Volume II (St Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1959) p. 710].

I want to praise God for what he has done through you guys. My introduction to your ministry came through The King James Only Controversy. Then as I was learning about the doctrines of grace you were again very helpful in both my understanding and defense of those truths. From Mormonism to Jehovah's Witness to now Islam, your ministry has been a huge blessing in my life.
---BH

I was a KJV-Only proponent for seven years. I taught Bible studies on the superiority of the KJV and embraced the circular arguing and double-standards upon which this divisive teaching depends. I read James' King James Only Controversy at least three times and the Lord used it to open my eyes and mind. I am deeply grateful for his work and the skillful and well-researched writing he presents.

Don't ever let anyone dissuade you from your work due to the false argument, "no one ever changes their minds on deeply held traditions." That isn't true. You have changed mine and my whole family is grateful.
---BJ

Brothers James & Rich…

I can’t begin to even tell you what kind of blessing AOMIN has been in my Christian walk over the last 9 years. I was a new believer when I found www.aomin.org. Your books, tapes, and videos really helped me through the “cage-stage” years! I thank God for raising up men like you. I admire your love for the local church and the emphasis you always put on it.

May the Lord Bless and keep you and AOMIN going strong for another 25 years (if not more!).
I love you guys in the Lord and thank you (and your families) from all my heart for your hard work and sacrifice.
---ADeK

According to Mr. White, God was seized of his knowledge, seized of his power, seized of his independence, seized of his sovereignty and seized in essence became Godless! If a Christian first ponders on the implications of God becoming a human then it will be evident enough that God seized to become God.
Did you guys notice how Mr. White tried to avoid the entire dilemma of the Trinity by attacking Islam and the Quran? James White and other Christian apologetics are hypocrites. David (the guy who wears glasses) is another example.
James white has a big ego because after these debates he always makes his own little rebbutle videos and then posts them on Youtube.

notice how James White keeps throwing in words such as "essence", "nature", "person" etc. this is a clever strategy. he thinks his point is proved just because he phrases his statements using certain words. but when you examine carefully, it just doesn't stand to logic.

i mean, James White says that Jesus was fully God and fully man. and he expects us to believe in that nonsense! lol well, i say James White is fully human and fully monkey.

no brother, you are wrong! you have given too much credit to james white.

a monkey can spend his whole life, grow old and die with the assurance of having hair on his head, while james can only give that assurance to others to not cause any accidents to people who might get blinded by the reflection of the light bouncing from his shiny head

sorry james, just thought you should know it is unfair for the monkey to be put on the same plate with you.

Today I did a DL from Durham, North Carolina. I played a section from the Shabir Ally debate on Monday and discussed the upcoming ministry here in North Carolina. Here's the program (free/high quality).

"For 1500 years, the Church always understood that nobody has the authority... just as Saint Peter tells us...of private interpretation.... to think that you or I can run around and interpret the Bible however we want and start our own church and that sorta thing that we see in Protestantism... that is completely alien to the Christian Church for the first 1500 years of the Christian era..."

Naturally, he refused. I didn’t expect otherwise. I encourage everyone, before they read this article to listen to the November 4, 2008, edition of the Dividing Line (link). Mr. Albrecht called into the show and discussion ensued between him and Dr. White.

With that background, I proceed to address a video by Albrecht. I’ve provided a full transcript in seven segments from the following video source (source). Albrecht doesn’t have the clearest enunciation of his words, so in some places I have been forced to make an educated guess as to what he was trying to say. Also, I have tried to eliminate unintentional stutters and/or filler (“umm” etc.) in the interest of simply providing what Albrecht was trying to say.

For those unwilling to read the entire 5,000 word article, here is the summary. The video was long on rhetoric short on substance. The few matters of substance raised are easily dismantled, because Albrecht’s methodology is (apparently) to simply insult and denigrate those who disagree with him, rather to present a cogent and coherent argument. Finally, a lie on Albrecht’s part with respect to the historical facts of the Dividing Line (DL) is exposed.
...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

12:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Why My Trip to London Was So Enjoyable

11/18/2008 - James White

Two words: Roger and Doug. Roger Brazier and his family and the Edmonton Baptist Chapel (left of the picture) and Doug McMasters and his family and the Trinity Road Chapel. My dear brothers standing with me at the debate with Shabir Ally last evening. My most profound thanks to these two men for all they did for me in London!

02:12:10 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

A Missing Verse!

11/17/2008 - James White

05:35:09 - Category: Pastoral Theology - Link to this article -

Is it Prideful to Claim the Book of Judith has Historical Errors?

11/17/2008 - James Swan

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

Closing Statements, Prophet or Divine Son of God Debate

11/15/2008 - James White

15:36:28 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Apologetics Without Apology

11/15/2008 - James White

15:25:31 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

A Deep and Abiding Love of the Deep Truths of God

11/15/2008 - James White

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

A Friday DL

11/14/2008 - James White

12:52:44 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Popes Testify that Catholicism and Islam Worship the Same God

11/14/2008 - Tur8infan

06:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Former Open Theist

11/14/2008 - James White

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

Just a Quick Picture

11/13/2008 - James White

Too late to do much more than post this picture of the debate at Trinity Road Chapel in London. The debate this evening was with Sami Zaatari. Mr. Zaatari was...vintage Sami, claiming victory before I even spoke, often talking about how I "failed" to do this or how he "refuted" me there, without providing any substantive scholarship. That aspect of the debate was unpleasant, but once again, that is "the Muslim street." Demonstrating the double standards, and pressing home the clear words of Scripture, is always a joy and a privilege. More as time allows.

18:38:01 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Another "Out of Africa" Note

11/13/2008 - James White

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

Another Important Addition to Your Apologetics Library

11/12/2008 - James White

14:36:31 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Has God Removed His Hand of Restraint Even More?

11/12/2008 - James White

12:53:45 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

Woops, Sorry

11/12/2008 - James White

11:23:44 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

A Dividing Line Today from London: Debate Report

11/12/2008 - James White

   I intend to do another DL today from here in London. Would like to report on my debate in London last evening with Adnan Rashid (I don't know why Adnan wasn't smiling in this picture, as he has a wonderful smile!). We had a great and blessed time, and a good group turned out as well. I will discuss the topic, our exchanges, and take your calls as well. Unless something changes, I plan on doing the program at 8pm here in London, which would be 1pm in Phoenix, 3pm East Coast time. If my plans are forced to change I will try to announce that as soon as possible, but, of course, when traveling, I can't always control such things. Here is a short clip from the audience q/a portion of the debate.

03:58:28 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Coming To Your Place of Worship!

11/12/2008 - James White

   Is this some completely misguided group of Islamic radicals who got a misprinted version of Al-Bukhari that included the term "pink" in the description of appropriate facial coverings? No, these are tolerant, open-minded liberal criminals from Michigan who last Sunday stormed a church in Lansing, disrupting the service and in general seeking to create mayhem and blasphemy. Why that church? Well, read the article. Another fulfillment of a Scriptural truth: "The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men" (Psalm 12:8).

03:50:54 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

A Greatly Encouraging Note from Indonesia

11/12/2008 - James White

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

A Review of Cultural Events and a Refutation of False Accusations on the DL from London

11/11/2008 - James White

05:51:16 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

A Trophy of Grace

11/11/2008 - James White

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

A Dividing Line Today!

11/10/2008 - James White

11:56:16 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Grounded in the Scriptures

11/10/2008 - James White

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

Striking a Chord

11/08/2008 - James White

15:57:55 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

Hitchens/Wilson Debate

11/08/2008 - Jeff Downs

12:46:00 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

Update from the PyroManiac/John 3:16 Conference

11/08/2008 - James White

05:19:25 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

From a Former Mormon

11/08/2008 - James White

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

A Quick Refutation of Dr. Allen from London

11/07/2008 - James White

13:14:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

James White - Debates in London

11/07/2008 - Micah Burke

02:13:11 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Eight Years of Blessing

11/07/2008 - James White

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

Charges of Mariolatry Clarified

11/06/2008 - Tur8infan

06:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Honor the Word of God

11/06/2008 - James White

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

Thoughts on the Day After an Historic Election

11/05/2008 - James White

12:53:44 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -

We Still Want to Hear from You!

11/05/2008 - James White

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

William Albrecht on the DL

11/04/2008 - James White

19:26:46 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

The Works of Thomas Manton, Alpha and Omega Ministries, and You

11/03/2008 - James White

   The works of Thomas Manton, highly recommended by Spurgeon and others who know sound theology, are back in print. I know many who frequent this blog know the name, and know the wealth of sound biblical writing this set represents. And now, you can obtain this set, at a tremendous price, and help support Alpha and Omega Ministries, all at the same time.
   We know that our small cadre of readers and supporters are a unique group. How else could it be, given that I have pretty much offended every religious group imaginable as I have sought to "walk straight in accordance with the gospel" over the past twenty five years? We do not seek the popular road. Consistency in handling the Word of God and in the proclamation of the Lordship of Christ keeps us from appealing to a wide range of today's churchianity, to be sure. So when I mention resources I have found useful or edifying, many of those who support us are interested in obtaining them. So, given the current economic situation and the many efforts we are making to promote the claims of Christ (London, Ehrman in January, just a few weeks later debates in Connecticut), why not provide another way folks can be blessed, get great materials to assist them in their Christian walk, and support the ministry as well?
   So you will see a quickly expanding list of materials available from A&O, starting with the set above. Can you get these elsewhere? Sure, but when you get them from us, you not only get a great price, you help to keep the Dividing Line on the web. I wish I could link to another resource (I just obtained for myself in fact) that I'm excited about, but that will come a bit later.
   So keep an eye out for these new items. I will try to introduce them as best I can here on the blog, but you can find them in the bookstore too. When you obtain these items from us, you are helping to keep the ministry moving forward.

19:16:04 - Category: Pastoral Theology - Link to this article -

Dividing Line Time Tomorrow Changed!

11/03/2008 - James White

12:37:33 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

God Defines Good - Not Man

11/02/2008 - Tur8infan

06:00:00 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

Back in the Days of Cassette Tapes (Hey, That Wasn't That Long Ago!)

11/02/2008 - James White

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

Another One Who Didn't Like Me! :-)

11/01/2008 - James White

18:30:00 - Category: Testimonies - Link to this article -