There are some topics that really do not require much effort in the way of argumentation. Frank Beckwith’s recent “pet peeve” article about the use of such terms as “Roman church” and “Roman Catholic church” is so easily refuted from Rome’s own official documents that it is amazing the discussion is still going around the net. I was directed to an article by Scott Windsor commenting on the topic, and ironically, Beckwith commented as well. But let’s start with a simple experiment. Open up www.papalencyclicals.net and use the search function. Let’s just search for “Roman,” shall we? And lets just look at, say, Vatican I, given that this was the Council that proclaimed Papal Infallibility (over against the witness of history itself). Did the Council share Dr. Beckwith’s “pet peeve”? Do we find them sticking solely with the term “Catholic”? Let’s see:

I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses, namely:

I acknowledge the

   * holy,

   * catholic,

   * apostolic and

   * Roman

church, the mother and mistress of all the churches.

The holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God,  

Mohler said it far better than I could. "The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men" (Psalm 12:8).

God is the source of life. The heart and soul open to His guidance and light will be a heart full of life. I think of pictures I've seen of those who suffer for the testimony of Christ, and the life that you see in their eyes despite their pain is a testimony to us all. And you look at the truth-starved, worldlings in Hollywood, and under all the plastic and make-up is a shallow deadness that speaks directly to the result of love for the things of the world.

But nothing sucks the life out of someone like atheism. Especially when you are living every day to promote your hatred of God. In the case of Richard Dawkins, it must be particularly galling to be the smartest man in the world (in your own estimation) and have to constantly speak down to the mindless gnomes who continue to choose to remain in the darkness of theism. I mean really, shouldn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster illustration be enough to rid anyone of such a foolish belief?

When Paul said that those who are suppressing the knowledge of God twist the Creator/creature relationship, and as a result profess themselves to be wise, yet, in the most important realm of human knowledge, that of the Creator, are fools, he could not have hoped for a clearer fulfillment of his words than Richard Dawkins. And here is an example straight from the professor's mouth. I found this via Mark Shea, who really detests me, but I have a feeling there won't be much that I wrote above that he would take issue with.

I listened to a "debate" of sorts between Tim Staples and Mike Gendron recently. I do not know when it took place, but it could not have been too long ago. In any case, it was very, very brief. Tim Staples has a pretty much set presentation in those situations, and he does the rapid-fire "carpet bombing" routine of using isolated texts to create the illusion that Rome's gospel is truly biblical. And while you can't really provide much in the way of contextual exegesis in a brief radio "debate," the fact is that if you slow it down and look at each text, Staples' house of cards collapses in a heap. I took the first 50 minutes of the program to go through his presentation on the gospel verse by verse, and then took one call on what questions I would ask William Lane Craig if I had the opportunity. Here's the program.

What I am suggesting in Return to Rome is that the Nicean orthodoxy offered by the Puritan divines was only possible because they had the benefit of a Spirit-directed Magisterium that had secured this orthodoxy as normative over 12 centuries prior to the Westminster Confession of Faith. (reference)

Converts (or in this case, reverts) to Roman Catholicism tend to adopt a view of history that is rosey at best, and grossly anachronistic at worst. High language about the "Spirit-directed Magisterium" sounds great in academic circles, as long as it never has to deal with the harsh, messy facts of history. But we surely have the right to ask, "just how did this Spirit-directed Magisterium produce Nicene orthodoxy?" There is this little problem of history in the way: Rome was not in charge at Nicea. In fact, Rome had next to nothing to do with the Nicene definition, and in fact, it was Alexandria, in the following decades, even in the face of Roman capitulation to the rise of Arianism, that stood firm for the Nicene formulation, and that against the entire weight of the "formal" church of that day. Did the Spirit-directed Magisterium move to Alexandria for a few decades in the middle of the fourth century? And if this Spirit-directed Magisterium is not to be equated with Rome itself at that time, why should it be today?

Of course, if Rome gets to take credit for Nicea, does she take credit for Nicea II and its incredible mishandling of Scripture? For the many errors of the medieval period, or the promotion of the Malleus Maleficarum? How about the theology behind the Inquisition? Was that part of the Spirit-guided Magisterium, too?

From Christianity Today:

"The gaping divide between evangelicals and Catholics is ecclesiology and authority, not justification and salvation, as important as that debate remains," George said. "There is enough commonality that evangelicals and Catholics with a living faith can recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ with a common Lord and common grace that brought them together. The hard issues are questions related to the church, such as the Petrine office [the papacy] and the Eucharist. Those discussions will occupy us for the next 100 years."

Bulletin flash: "the Eucharist" is about as central as you can get to salvation on either side of the divide. Even a good Catholic should shake their head in disbelief at such a statement. The siren call of compromise seems to be sounding ever louder in this day of apostasy.

See? The Gospel doesn't need to divide anymore. Whether you think Jesus died once for all or the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice that perfects no one, and whether you have priests and purgatory and all the rest...it matters not! Read for yourself.

Steve Hays had a great insight in responding to Frank Beckwith's offense at the term "Roman Catholic" (which, ironically, seems odd being posted on a blog with the title "Return to Rome"):

I can’t help noticing that the church of Rome only discovered the virtues of courtesy and charity rather late in the day. If, for example, you read the text of Exsurge Domine (available online), the language and countermeasures proposed by Pope Leo X to describe and suppress the nascent Protestant movement doesn’t strike me as overly charitable or courteous.
I also can’t help but notice that this discovery seems to time with the church of Rome’s loss of temporal power. And therein lies a moral: the true test of charity is not to be charitable when you have to be, but to be charitable when you don’t have to be.
Once his denomination no longer had state sponsorship to back its brass knuckle policies, then it suddenly discovered the virtues of tolerance. Funny how those in power are quick to advocate tolerance the moment they fall from power. But I’m sure that’s purely coincidental.

I know people will say this isn't meant seriously...believe me, it is. CT is a well known figure on the net. I ran into this person on the PuritanBoard originally, defending the Comma Johanneum. Since then there have been various odd encounters here and there, but never anything like this. Click and read.

Yes, friends, not only is yours truly a "liberal academic" with a "womanishly tone" (wha?), but our intrepid blogger is able to find demons appearing in the flames of a burning NIV! Yes indeed, this is one I have to post myself. Few things illustrate the mindset of the wildest extremes of the KJV Only crowd than the picture of CT going frame by frame through a YouTube video of a burning NIV looking for faces of demons! Now, that's actually Aslan, of course, but hey, I don't want to disrupt CT's visions!

Meanwhile, tomorrow I will be on Iron Sharpens Iron with Chris Arnzen to discuss the planned book burning at the 14-member Amazing Grace Baptist Church KJV on October 31st. Chris invited Pastor Marc Grizzard to be on the program (seen here) but he pointed out that "debate" is a bad thing (citing Romans 1:29, KJV, where ἔριδος is translated as "debate" but in modern translations is more accurately rendered "strife"---if Grizzard was consistent, he'd have to condemn the Apostle Paul for engaging in public debate in such places as Acts 17) and besides, James White is a "liberal, compromiser, and a heretic" as far as he is concerned. It is so great to be loved! I wonder if any of my books will get torched Saturday night? Sadly, I wasn't on the list, but maybe now I will be!

I had a real "Stack-O-Stuff" to get through today, so I felt like I was moving at warp speed as I covered the past weekend in Southern California, and a failed Arminian attempt to refute my criticism of Middle Knowledge from last week's DL. Then we dealt with Patrick Madrid's significantly less than "in depth" comments on 2 Timothy 3 and our debate from 1993 on Marcus Grodi's "Deep in Scripture." Then I started responding to an article by anti-Trinitarian Anthony Buzzard, when in the middle of reading the article TurretinFan posted a link in channel that caught my eye. He posted a link where "Servetus the Evangelical" responded to some of the brief comments I have made on my blog. The nature of the commentary offered gives you a good insight into the mindset of this individual, and why his long-refuted arguments against the deity of Christ are hardly worthy of re-examination. I then finished up on the Buzzard topic (including noting that Dan Corner wrote an entire article attacking Calvin for Buzzard's most recent newsletter---and I thought Corner was at least a Trinitarian!) and took one call on the doctrines of grace and one fast call on inerrancy. Quite a range once again! Here's the program.

Frank Beckwith recently wrote:

One of my pet peeves is the intentional overuse of "Rome," "Roman," "Romanist," etc. by Protestant critics of Catholic theology. Here's why: the Catholic Church is a collection of many churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It's catechism--The Catechism of the Catholic Church--is that of all these churches that are in communion with one another and with the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI. The theology found in that text, therefore, is not Roman Catholic theology. It is Catholic theology. That's the way the Church understands itself. Common courtesy suggests that those who are critical of that theology summon the respect to refer to it as such.

Please note what was said: all these churches "in communion with" whom? "The Bishop of Rome." Not the bishop of Constantinople, Naples, London, or Milwaukee. Rome. A local church that did not even have a monarchical episcopate until the middle of the second century. A single local church that has been, through a long process of political development elevated to the point of claiming infallibility for her teachings. A church that claims for herself any number of grossly unbiblical titles, privileges and powers. It is the Roman Church that makes these claims.

What happens when you drop the delimiter "Roman"? You are left with exactly what Rome claims for herself: universal sovereignty. The "catholic" church is not centered in Rome. Its theology and beliefs are not defined by Rome. And in fact, she can never defect from the gospel truth, no matter how hard Rome may press her to do so (and she has surely done so in the past). This is the very goal Rome has, the acknowledgement of her as universal sovereign, the Mother of all Churches, the Catholic Church. But the fact is, Rome is none of these things, and she is surely not truly "catholic."

So may I suggest that "common courtesy" would restrain the Roman Pontiffs from making the wild, extravagant claims they have made for themselves and their man-made office? May I suggest it is the follower of Rome who should summon the respect to refrain from arrogantly claiming sovereignty for his church over those who refuse to bow the knee to the Roman see?

Here is the second portion of the Bible Conference from Trinity Reformed Baptist Church, La Mirada, October 23, 2009, specifically on William Lane Craig's presentation of Middle Knowledge from his book, The Only Wise God. A Reformed and, I pray, biblical response.

Here is the first portion of last night's Bible Conference in La Mirada at the Trinity Reformed Baptist Church. The second portion is already uploaded and can be seen on my YouTube page. I will have it post here Sunday morning.

While I started out with a brief discussion of Frank Beckwith's claims about the Council of Trent, I spent the vast majority of the hour (even skipping the break) presenting William Lane Craig's understanding of Middle Knowledge from his book, The Only Wise God, and interacting with it from a biblical perspective. I haven't taken the time to do this to this depth in the past, so I hope this will be useful for folks. Here's the program.

There are few things more disgusting to me than unwillingness to be honest and forthright in your faith. If you believe X, then confess X, and don't be ashamed of X. So when I was directed today to an "interview" that "Servetus the Evangelical" did recently about his apostasy and self-promotion, I was almost made ill by the fact that they used electronic means to mask his voice! Amazing, just amazing. Whoever this fellow is, one thing is for sure: he has a credibility rating of absolute zero, and has now begun digging downward into the negative numbers. Once again, if there is, in fact, anyone in the "evangelical" community who knows the identity of this apostate who is seeking to convince others to follow him in his denial of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, I implore you by all that is good and decent, expose this man for the sake of the fellowship of faith.

We were thrown another curve on the exact participant from the Muslim side for the "Jesus in the Qur'an and the Bible" encounter on November 7th, but I have some other details to share with my friends in the New York/Long Island area.

Sunday morning November 8th I will be at the Lynnbrook Baptist Church, 225 Earle Avenue, Lynnbrook, NY for the morning services. Sunday evening I will be at Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Merrick, 36 Smith Street, Merrick.

Monday afternoon, 3PM, I will be giving my NT Reliability presentation (my most popular) at the Transformation Life Center located at 395 Floyd Ackert Road, West Park, NY. Then on Wednesday I will be giving the same presentation at 7:30pm at the New Hyde Park Baptist Church, 635 New Hyde Park Rd., New Hyde Park, NY. It is a relatively short trip, so that's it. I will be meeting with a man who is doing a film on conversion to Roman Catholicism on Tuesday who would like at least one voice "from the other side." Pray the Lord gives me clarity of thought and speech in that situation to speak a word of truth.

Sorry, but that seems to be the way to identify it. I noted last night the 2009 National Conference on Apologetics, and how the one thing clearly not open for discussion would be...the Gospel. Why? Because Rome's gospel, evidently, is to be viewed as "acceptable" by those heading up the conference, since they are inviting Roman Catholics to speak and debate (not be debated). I asked last night how this works, since it of necessity dismisses the Gospel as being central to the apologetic task (let alone definitional of how you go about doing apologetics!). Well, Frank Beckwith, who is surely definitional of one who promotes the "Mere Christianity" model, just noted on his blog:

What a wonderful example of Christians working together to offer a reason for the hope that lies within us! I am talking about the upcoming apologetics conference in Charlotte, North Carolina, the 2009 National Conference on Christian Apologetics. Participants include many of my friends, including Protestants Gregory P. Koukl, William Lane Craig, Gary R. Habermas, and Hank Hanegraaff as well as Catholics Benjamin Wiker, Peter Kreeft, and Dinesh D'Souza.

Well, add Benjamin Wiker to the list of Roman Catholics speaking at the Conference. Think with me for a moment: "Christians working together to offer a reason for the hope that lies within us" must mean that a constituent part of the hope that is within us is not the Gospel, since we do not share a common Gospel. Or do we? I would have to ask those who will be speaking at the conference, including some I respect as sound apologists, do you share the same hope as Peter Kreeft? Dinesh D'Souza? Or am I the last odd-ball left who thinks Christianity without the Gospel is an empty religious system?

...you might want to help it keep going! We've managed to do the DL on a shoestring for a very long time. Thanks to volunteers who know a great deal about computers and the net, and to the Lord's blessing of our equipment, we have almost never missed doing the program due to technical difficulties. But the reality is, we do the program for almost nothing with a minimum of equipment and cost.

Now, here is our current webcasting computer setup (that's me back there doing the DL). These two units have been crunching along for ages (in computer time), and every time I hear them fire up I can tell the Day of Disaster is not far away. Check out that box on the right---that's a 3.5 inch floppy drive! We've coaxed these two ancient boxes to perform beyond their capacities for quite some time now, and wisdom says it is time to replace them with a single computer capable of handling the entire task without melting down. So if you enjoy the DL, please consider helping us make sure we can keep it going without interruption. You can contribute toward the new DL computer unit here. Thanks for considering us in your stewardship!

I just took a look at the roster of speakers/presenters at the big apologetics conference in Charlotte next month. A few leave me scratching my head a bit (Kay Arthur?), but I was particularly troubled to see that they are going to have a debate with Christopher Hitchens. Nothing wrong with that, I'd jump at the opportunity myself---but who are they having debate him but Roman Catholic Dinesh D'Souza!?! For a review of D'Souza's apologetic methodology and its unbiblical nature, see this edition of The Dividing Line. Also speaking...Roman Catholic Peter Kreeft.

No, I wasn't invited, mainly because anyone in charge would know I would only come to debate half the people they are inviting as their presenters! But one can hardly be surprised to see William Lane Craig speaking at a conference replete with Roman Catholic speakers: the dividing line between Biblical, Reformed apologetics and the "Mere Christianity" apologetic of so much of today's evangelical church fits perfectly with his "modified Trent" version of the gospel.

First, take a moment to read this short blog article by Frank Turk from July of 2008. Then note Frank Beckwith's description of him as a "rabid anti-Catholic blogger" here.

Note this section:

I had no idea that Mr. Turk was so gifted in the clairvoyant arts, able to not only jump the space-time continuum to observe my teenage years but to pierce the veil of cognitive and spiritual privacy in order to extract from my soul the reflections, contemplations, and judgments that were instrumental in my journey back to Catholicism. Given his unusual interest in comic book aesthetics, perhaps he possesses powers not unlike the mutants that populate the imaginary world to which he seems so drawn (pardon the pun). Or perhaps he is just ill-mannered and presumptuous.

Greetings from Great Falls, Montana! I really wish the wind was whipping and it was like 20 degrees, but alas, it is a gorgeous day in the 60s. Oh well!

So while traveling yesterday I started a little firestorm by asking a simple question: why does Ergun Caner claim to be a leading apologetic figure when he doesn't do apologetics? More to the point, if you make particular claims about what you have done in the field, shouldn't you be willing to back up what you claim about yourself? Seems pretty obvious to me, and I'd think everyone in the Christian community would agree that there needs to be some level of transparency on the part of folks in leadership, and whether you like it or not, Caner is the President of Liberty Seminary. I'm sorry folks don't like it, but when you claim to head up a program of "Global Apologetics," seek to get folks to study under you, etc., then you should be able to back up your self-promoting claims, should you not?

Folks, over the years I have gotten myself into a lot of trouble by seeking to be consistent. It would be easy to play the "everything is wrong on your side of the fence, but nothing is wrong on mine" game. Lots of people do it, and that is how you "get along." I could have ignored Dave Hunt's ignorance of Reformed theology and gotten a lot more invitations to churches as a result. I could have ignored Norm Geisler's Chosen but Free, and I could have ignored Chuck Smith's attacks just recently, too. But when I stand in front of a group of Muslims, or Catholics, or whoever, I want to have a clean conscience. If I say to a Catholic debater, "You are wrong because of your inconsistent exegesis of the text, and here is why," I don't want him to be able to come back, "Yeah, well what about all the folks on your side of things who do the same things? Why don't you ever point that out?" I do point that out, which is why I am rarely invited to the "Big Circuit" of conferences and get-togethers.

So when I first responded to Dr. Caner on "Reformation" of doctrine vs. "Revolution" in soul winning, I was simply addressing an important problem in synergistic evangelicalism today (and Caner, if he's anything, is a synergist). But when I saw his own self-promotion on his website, I simply had to ask a basic question: where's the proof? And when I asked Dr. Caner directly via Twitter, things went silent. Then I found out why. When you ask him to show you all these debates, in forty states, eleven countries, with leaders of all these religions (especially Muslims), this is what you get in response:

Given that the last tweet shown here, "Pray for bitter Christians but do NOT get infected by them. Remember: Mules cannot kick & pull at the same time" was the first one posted after my questioning of him, some have assumed that is all the answer I will get, and that, together with the action he took to block my following his tweets, would seem to indicate that this is the case.

Which leaves us with Dr. Caner's claims. I was just directed to a newspaper article on Caner in which it is reported that he claims to have done 61 debates with Muslims (this was in early 2006). That is very impressive. Since Dr. Caner will not answer the question for some odd reason, could the Muslims who have debated Dr. Caner contact me and provide me with details as to how I can obtain these debates? I know a large portion of the currently active Islamic apologists in the US, and not a one of them has ever mentioned debating Ergun Caner. In fact, I could not help but chuckle this morning as I watched a video link that was sent to me wherein Dr. Caner was giving his testimony as a former Muslim (who converted, it seems as a young teenager). The person who created the video was not fair to Dr. Caner, that is for certain. But, he did point out numerous mistakes in Caner's presentation (including confusing the opening lines of Surah Al-Fatiha with the Shahada), and right at the end Caner referred to one of "our leaders," Shabir Ally, "before he died." Shabir Ally isn't dead---if he is, someone is writing e-mails in his name since I've been in correspondence with him over the past month. Clearly, Caner was confusing Shabir Ally with Ahmed Deedat.

Now, the fact remains that Ergun Caner claims to have done many, many debates--at least 61 with Muslims alone--but when asked to provide any of these debates, what do we get? A smattering of "interviews" (none of which were with Muslims), and a few folks insisting that "debate" is a very vague word anyway, so that maybe he is just including every discussion he has ever had with a Muslim (if that is so, who goes around keeping track of exactly how many times they said "Howdy" to a Muslim?).

So why should anyone care about this? Well, let me tell you why I care. I labor in this field. I invest my life in apologetics, and I am working very hard to be a good student of Islam, and a good representative of the Christian faith to Muslims. So I have to be consistent. If there is someone running about the apologetic landscape making claims about his activities that simply do not stand scrutiny, then someone needs to speak up about it. The things that Ergun Caner says in his interviews and videos are often intended to create outrage. Speaking of "towel heads" and using the other kind of mocking language he does is hardly helpful. But here's the simple conclusion of it all: I have no reason to believe Ergun Caner has ever engaged in a formal, meaningful debate with any leading Islamic apologists, and I'll be perfectly honest with you: I hope he doesn't. I do not believe it would be beneficial. But at least I can look a Muslim in the eye and honestly say, "I have called for Dr. Caner to be open and above board about his actual history in debating your representatives, and he has flatly turned my requests for information on that topic down. I do not believe anyone should claim to have done such things when they cannot back up their claims, or when they have to so alter the meanings of words that every conversation they have ever had on a plane somewhere becomes a debate."

So, for all those who think that I'm a terrible, horrible, mean, nasty man for daring to challenge Ergun Caner to back up his own PR, you go right ahead and think that way. I happen to believe that it is far more important to be transparently honest in seeking to give a sound, consistent reason for the hope that is within us to the Muslim people than it is to cover over a professing Christian's as yet unsubstantiated claims.

Greetings from the Denver airport. OK, while I've been traveling today someone sent in a link to Dr. Caner's debates. Well, sorta. Here's the link. It is a total of eight "interviews." One with "Mormons," two with a female Christian scientist, two with a Bahai representative, two with Mel White (homosexual), and one with a representative of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Is that really it? Surely there has to be more than that! I mean, it's great to "interview" folks, but...when did an "interview" become "He has debated leaders in Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Bahai, Taoism, and many cult leaders in forty states and eleven countries"? Forgive my leaden literality, but, if you speak of "forty states and eleven countries," wouldn't that necessitate at least...54 debates? What does it mean to use language in this fashion? And if an interview is a debate, then, are reporters debaters?

This just can't be all there is. Words have meanings. I happen to know what a debate is. I have engaged in them all over the US. I've done a few in England, and a few in Australia. But you see, when I say I've done these debates, well, I provide a list (here), and you can listen to almost all of them. Watch a large number of them, too.

So I'm just going to have to ask Ergun Caner directly via Twitter: where are all these debates from forty states and eleven countries? What are the names of these leaders in Islam you have debated? How can the rest of us learn from your debates if we can't find them? Inquiring minds want to know.

He has debated leaders in Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Bahai, Taoism, and many cult leaders in forty states and eleven countries.

I have been informed that some students think I am "lying" about Ergun Caner's comment that I posted last night from Twitter. I'm not sure how you "lie" about someone when you quote their entire comment. Surely, a "tweet" has little context, but I think I know Caner's context (here's proof). But as I have read the argument (which, ironically, is coming from someone in the law school, who should know better), they disagree with how I am reading Caner's meaning (based upon our previous interactions) and are equating disagreement on that level with dishonesty and misrepresentation. This kind of muddled thinking is commonplace in our society today. We think with our hearts and emotions, not with our heads. Ask any teacher who happens to teach logic these days. Hard to find students. And even if a person studies the subject, one may know the formal means of reasoning without applying those in every day life.

Ergun Caner said we don't need a Reformation of doctrine. I disagree. Man's traditions have eviscerated the powerful gospel of Christ that presents a mighty and glorious Savior who commands men everywhere to repent. Man-centeredness has turned God's law into God's mild suggestions, so that those who love their sin feel no shame when they flaunt that sin in public. The wrath of God has become the slight annoyance of God (but He'll get over it). And once you come up with a gospel that is really not even "gospel lite," you can hardly be surprised that it doesn't change the hearts of men, since the only heart that is ever truly changed is changed by the Spirit of God in concert with the Gospel of Christ. And hence why I concluded with that line, "What you win them with is what you win them to." Reformation of doctrine is necessary for there to be a "Revolution of soul winning." The Spirit is the Soul Winner, and He uses the gospel He has enscripturated in Holy Writ to accomplish His task. Think about it.

Conservative churches do not need Reformation of doctrine. We believe...We need a Revolution of soul winning.

What you win them with is what you win them to.

But I want to come now to theology and doctrine. We should learn here that no one should place his trust in men, even if he is in an estate ordained by God. But if we are not to believe nor to put our trust in Annas and Caiaphas, how are we to believe or trust the devil, the pope in Rome, the monks in monasteries, or the godless bishops? God so thoroughly forbids putting trust in any man that one should not even trust in those who are in the highest, best, and most secure estates. For no estate on earth has been so gloriously confirmed as was the estate of Annas and Caiaphas. If Annas and Caiaphas became scoundrels in their order and estate, even though it was the most exalted on earth, then you should learn from this not to esteem any man on the basis of his estate or see. The papal jurists exalted their pope and said, "Non est praesumendum, quod tantae altitudinis apex possit errare"- "It is not to be presumed that the pope in such a lofty station can err." Against this claim I set the following: Annas and Caiaphas occupy a loftier position and sit on a greater throne than do the pope and the emperor. Yet they not only err but also are scoundrels and knaves-the worst scoundrels and knaves ever to have lived on earth, for they crucified the Son of God. We know this from the wicked things they did to Christ, so that we hold them in scorn whenever we speak their names. But we should recognize that they were the most exalted people according to Gods ordinance, and their estate was the holiest and highest that ever was. Therefore, I should not hesitate to pull off [anyone else's] mask and say, "I must not put my trust here, even if it is what the pope or a cardinal or the emperor says,for even the most exalted of men can err and go astray."

But if you now say, "Whom, then, are we to trust and believe?" read the First Commandment: "I the Lord your God am a jealous God"[Exod. 20:5]. There it is clearly written whom you are to trust: namely, the Lord God alone. So now if the pope says something, I am not obligated to hold to it unless,to be sure, he brings God's Word. For God says that we are to fear and trust Him only, even if He speaks to us through a donkey [cf. Num. 22:28-30]. For this reason you should say: "Dear pope, you are high, holy, learned. But that you cannot err on that account-that I don't believe." If, indeed, they say, "Do you think the councils can err?" answer them this: "Haven't you read about two men, Annas and Caiaphas by name, who were scoundrels? Now if such eminent people, in such a high, holy estate, ordained and instituted by God, have fallen away even to the point of crucifying God's Son, it follows that other men can also fall and err." Annas and Caiaphas were much more learned and wise, and the obedience due them was much greater than that due the pope. This is evident in that though everyone else among the Jews heard Christ's preaching and saw His miracles, no one dared acknowledge or follow Him publicly [John 12:42]; and when Christ was taken captive, no one dared to make himself known, so great were the respect and obedience accorded the high priest by the whole people.

So note well John's words: "Caiaphas was high priest for the year." And yet that same high priest may be such a scoundrel and knave that he crucifies the Son of God. The office of high priest was, indeed, the highest office and the most glorious title, and yet the worst scoundrels held this office and title. Now, since the high priests have done such things, we should not henceforth believe any man unless he brings with him God's clear, pure Word. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4[:2], "Nothing is more requisite of stewards than that they be found faithful." You should pay close attention to whether such a one is faithful, for all kinds of shortcomings in a preacher or bishop can be tolerated, but unfaithfulness cannot and should not be tolerated in them.... Is it possible for the pope not to err when these two, Annas and Caiaphas, who were instituted in office by God much more gloriously than any pope, not only erred but lapsed so shamefully that they condemned the Son of God to death?

This was the glory of the high priests: that the people had been commanded to accept everything they said [Deut. 17:12].133 The pope does not possess such a glory. Now, if you conclude from this as follows: "The high priest's judgment must be accepted; Annas and Caiaphas are the high priests of the people, and they judge and decide that Christ must be slain; therefore, one must accept this judgment of the high priests"-then you have been deceived already! Therefore, the Holy Spirit put this here to teach the contrary-that Annas and Caiaphas were high priests at the time, and yet Christ was condemned to death by their judgment?so that no one would put his confidence in any human being, no matter how high and holy he may be.

Bishops, cardinals, and the entire papal clergy rest on this foundation: "The Christian Church cannot err; therefore, the pope likewise cannot err since he is the head of the Church." But you, forearm yourself against this and say: "Pope this, pope that! If Caiaphas could err, so also can the pope." And he proves this with his deeds as well. For the pope denies Christ and kills Him, just as those high priests denied Christ and sentenced Him to death. We would not have expected to read that the high priests Annas and Caiaphas crucified Christ. Rather, it should say, "Barabbas crucified Christ." But the evangelist says 'that Christ was led bound, first to Annas, and then to Caiaphas, who was the high priest for the year, in order to indicate this extraordinary and astonishing fact: that the highest and holiest of people on earth are often God's worst enemies. For this reason we should not put our trust in any human being, even if he occupies a high office and a position of great glory.

Message: Dr. White,

I thought I'd send you a quick note to ask if you've considered
getting therapy for your obvious emotional breakdown?

I also wanted to thank you for playing a portion of my debate with
Turretinfan on your program yesterday (10/8/09) and making sure that
it was made available in its entirety on your end so more people can
hear it. And also for doing a little promoting for my upcoming book.

It's funny how a man like yourself who calls himself a Christian, who
is suppose to be an example to others, can go out of his way and mock
a highly respected fellow Christian like Dr. Caner (who you felt so
worthy to debate 2 years ago). I'm wondering how your listeners feel
about your behavior (not that you care)? But more importantly, I
wonder how Jesus feels about it? My prayer is that you won't find out
the hard way. You really do need to repent.

It must be nice to hide behind a microphone in your quaint little
office sending your subordinates out to get embarassed instead of
going out yourself and taking some of the heat. Then again, if you're
ignorant to the point of thinking that Turretinfan won that debate,
perhaps you'd be safer staying at home. Hey, what about the word
"REFUSE" in Ex 8:2 and Ex 10:3 do Reformers not understand? Oh and by
the way, when Turretinfan said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart by
taking away his common sense, I almost fell off my chair. Did he get
that stuff from you, or did he make that one up on his own?

Anyway, have a great day!

Sincerely,
Louis Ruggiero

Oh and by the way, when Turretinfan said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart by taking away his common sense, I almost fell off my chair. Did he get that stuff from you, or did he make that one up on his own?

God may be said to harden and blind, by denying them that grace which can only cure them of their hardness and blindness, and which he, of his free favour, gives to his chosen ones, (Ezek. 36:26, 27) but is not obliged to give it to any; and because he gives it not, he is said to hide, as he determined to hide, the things of his grace from the wise and prudent, even because it so seemed good in his sight, (Matthew 11:25, 26).

Thus it was with each of us whilst in a state of nature. Sin blinds and hardens, and naught but Divine grace can illumine and soften. Nothing short of the power of the Almighty can pierce the calloused conscience or break the sin-petrified heart.

Again: it is said, Scriptures teach, that the sin of the non–elect was not the ground of their preterition. "In John 10:26, continued unbelief is the consequence, and therefore not the ground of the Pharisees preterition" (Matt. 11:25; Rom. 9:11 18). "God’s will," they say, "and not the non-sin, is the ground of His purpose to harden." And "Esau was rejected as much without regard to his evil, as Jacob was elected without regard to his good deeds." To the first of these points I reply, that the withholding of God’s grace is but the negative occasion of a sinner’s unbelief, just as the absence of the physician from a sick man is the occasion, and not the cause, of His death.

The inspired writers teach us, very explicitly, that after a time, God ceases to strive with sinners, and to afford them the assistance of his grace. He gives them up to a blinded mind, a seared conscience, and a hard heart.

3. Ancient writers sometimes manifest a superstitious dread of making a simple confession of the truth in this matter, from a fear of furnishing impiety with a handle for speaking irreverently of the works of God. While I embrace such soberness with all my heart, I cannot see the least danger in simply holding what Scripture delivers. when Augustine was not always free from this superstition, as when he says, that blinding and hardening have respect not to the operation of God, but to prescience (Lib. de Predestina. et Gratia). But this subtilty is repudiated by many passages of Scriptures which clearly show that the divine interference amounts to something more than prescience. And Augustine himself, in his book against Julian, [The French adds, “se retractant de l’autre sentence;” retracting the other sentiment.] contends at length that sins are manifestations not merely of divine permission or patience, but also of divine power, that thus former sins may be punished. In like manner, what is said of permission is too weak to stand. God is very often said to blind and harden the reprobate, to turn their hearts, to incline and impel them, as I have elsewhere fully explained (Book 1 c. 18). The extent of this agency can never be explained by having recourse to prescience or permission. We, therefore, hold that there are two methods in which God may so act. When his light is taken away, nothing remains but blindness and darkness: when his Spirit is taken away, our hearts become hard as stones: when his guidance is withdrawn, we immediately turn from the right path: and hence he is properly said to incline, harden, and blind those whom he deprives of the faculty of seeing, obeying, and rightly executing. The second method, which comes much nearer to the exact meaning of the words, is when executing his judgments by Satan as the minister of his anger, God both directs men’s counsels, and excites their wills, and regulates their efforts as he pleases. Thus when Moses relates that Simon, king of the Amorites, did not give the Israelites a passage, because the Lord 268“had hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate,” he immediately adds the purpose which God had in view—viz. that he might deliver him into their hand (Deut. 2:30). As God had resolved to destroy him, the hardening of his heart was the divine preparation for his ruin.

4. In accordance with the former methods it seems to be said,174174 Ezek. 7:26; Psalm 107:40; Job 12:20, 24; Isiah 63:17; Exod. 4:21; 7:3; 10:1; 3:19. “The law shall perish from the priests and counsel from the ancients.” “He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness, where there is no way.” Again “O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear?” These passages rather indicate what men become when God deserts them, than what the nature of his agency is when he works in them. But there are other passages which go farther, such as those concerning the hardening of Pharaoh: “I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.” The same thing is afterwards repeated in stronger terms. Did he harden his heart by not softening it? This is, indeed, true; but he did something more: he gave it in charge to Satan to confirm him in his obstinacy. Hence he had previously said, “I am sure he will not let you go.” The people come out of Egypt, and the inhabitants of a hostile region come forth against them. How were they instigated? Moses certainly declares of Sihon, that it was the Lord who “had hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate,” (Deut. 2:30). The Psalmists relating the same history says, “He turned their hearts to hate his people,” (Psalm 105:25). You cannot now say that they stumbled merely because they were deprived of divine counsel. For if they are hardened and turned, they are purposely bent to the very end in view. Moreover, whenever God saw it meet to punish the people for their transgression, in what way did he accomplish his purpose by the reprobate? In such a way as shows that the efficacy of the action was in him, and that they were only ministers. At one time he declares, “that he will lift an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth;” at another, that he will take a net to ensnare them; and at another, that he will be like a hammer to strike them. But he specially declared that he was not inactive among theme when he called Sennacherib an axe, which was formed and destined to be wielded by his own hand.175175 Isa. 5:26; 7:18; Ezek. 12:13; 17:20; Jer. 2:.23; Isa. 10:15. Augustine is not far from the mark when he states the matter thus, That men sin, is attributable to themselves: that in sinning they produce this or that result, is owing to the mighty power of God, who divides the darkness as he pleases (August. de Prædest. Sanct).

5. Moreover, that the ministry of Satan is employed to instigate the reprobate, whenever the Lord, in the course of his providence, has any purpose to accomplish in them, will sufficiently appear from 269a single passage. It is repeatedly said in the First Book of Samuel, that an evil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul, and troubled him (1 Sam. 16:14; 18:10; 19:9). It were impious to apply this to the Holy Spirit. An impure spirit must therefore be called a spirit from the Lord, because completely subservient to his purpose, being more an instrument in acting than a proper agent. We should also add what Paul says, “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth,” (2 Thess. 2:11, 12). But in the same transaction there is always a wide difference between what the Lord does, and what Satan and the ungodly design to do. The wicked instruments which he has under his hand and can turn as he pleases, he makes subservient to his own justice. They, as they are wicked, give effect to the iniquity conceived in their wicked minds. Every thing necessary to vindicate the majesty of God from calumny, and cut off any subterfuge on the part of the ungodly, has already been expounded in the Chapters on Providence (Book 1 Chapter 16–18). Here I only meant to show, in a few words, how Satan reigns in the reprobate, and how God works in both.

VI. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous judge, for former sins, doth blind and harden; from them he not only withholdeth his grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had; and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan; whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others.

"...to deal with two major points in this paper. One is the necessity of membership in the visible church. The second is the priority of election in the visible church. The two are quite related. The first develops the need for membership in the visible church and the second addresses the status of members in the visible church. The first point argues against the modern disdain for the visible church and the second answers the question of presumptive regeneration and the purists’ notions of the visible church. One group seems to say that you don’t need the church at all to be a faithful Christian while another group seems to argue that you know you are a Christian because you are in the visible church. Both of these positions, we believe, are wrong."

Thank you for your lengthy note. Your response to the events in Newberg strike me as tremendously non-reflective. You do not seem willing, or capable, of giving serious consideration to your own positions, and your own actions. You do not seem to see the obvious, and evidently, this is due to what might be called the apostasy syndrome. It came out when you made a passing comment to me in Illinois: when I noted to you that I had rehearsed your arguments to a campus group earlier that day, you replied that this made no difference, since they are "good arguments." Then you made the telling comment. Why are they good arguments? "They are the arguments that made me an atheist."

It seems that due to the fact that you have invested your entire life, your entire personhood, to your apostasy and your new religion (and surely you must realize it functions that way for you: you speak of doing atheistic "outreach," you have "tracts" promoting atheism, even your outrageous behavior in the debate, praying for the microphone, etc., all speak of the fact that you have simply changed religions, you have not ceased to be a fundamentalist in your thinking), that you cannot even begin to reflect upon those arguments that are your primary bulwark against the inherent reality of God's existence. If you were to seriously examine your arguments for coherence and consistency, you seem to know the result would be disastrous for your position. And so on the one hand you speak of rationality and care in thought, while on the other you engage in the most egregious violations thereof

I will take a few moments here to address, one last time, your allegations.

1) In making my opening presentation I made the egregious mistake of accurately representing the arguments of my opponent, arguments he had been making, in published works, and in public presentations across the United States (and possibly beyond: I have not invested the time in checking your past travel schedules!). I followed the rules of debate that do not require the second person to engage in mind-reading. You have been arguing that my opening statement should be limited to the arguments you presented in your opening, arguments other than those you were still promoting in your book, for sale in the foyer of the church where the debate was taking place. How I could possibly know what arguments you were going to present outside of taking the time to purchase, read, and study your own books, I cannot begin to figure out. But, the very idea that my opening is limited to rebuttal is without merit. You have produced nothing but your own predilections as a basis for this assertion. You have cited nothing from published works on debate that would indicate that a person's opening statement should not be focused upon his opponents published and established position on the very issue of the debate! And no matter how much dust is thrown in the air here, Mr. Barker, all reasonable, rational people can see that not only did I accurately represent your work, but I did, in fact, focus upon the issue of the debate itself.

2) I believe you are embarrassed by the exposure of the level of argumentation you have been presenting for seventeen years in your published works. There is good reason for this. Your arguments were shallow and showed no familiarity at all with published refutations of them. In other words, they demonstrated tremendous bias on your part, and this goes to your credibility as a writer, thinker, and lecturer. Unlike your raising issues about my own educational background (which includes teaching in these areas since 1991), I have consistently let the facts illustrate the problems with your argumentation. The one time I mentioned your undergraduate work, I did so by quoting...you! So the issue here seems to be that you were well aware of the problems in your argumentation and use of sources, but, you refused to raise these issues prior to the debate, choosing instead to raise this smokescreen of a controversy to allow you to save face as well as continue to sell your books without appropriate emendation and admission of fundamental error.

3) You likewise seem to think that I am somehow attacking you, personally, as an individual. I do not believe this vitally important issue is about individuals. Who I am, or who you are, is irrelevant. I have never made myself a component of my argumentation. When I have challenged you on your studies I have done so not by saying, "Oh, look, I went to Fuller Seminary" or the like, I have challenged you on the much more fundamental basis: when you say "the Greek says" you have no basis for substantiating your claims and, in fact, have made documentable errors in the field. So when you admit you had only in the past ten years come to know about the Comma Johanneum, I think that is quite relevant to a person's appraisal of your over-arching claims regarding biblical accuracy and reliability. I would gladly allow anyone to compare Godless with my works, such as Scripture Alone, The King James Only Controversy, etc., and come to their own conclusions. So, Mr. Barker, this isn't a personal matter on my side.

However, as anyone who has taken the time to listen carefully to your story knows (and that is one of the issues here: I took that time, I listened to your story, multiple times, to your university lectures, to your debates, before we first debated: you were not even sure who I was in Illinois, and had not, it seemed, even taken the time to google my name, which put you at a self-imposed disadvantage from the start), you, sir, are the one who has made Dan Barker an issue. You market yourself as a former preacher. You speak of your knowledge of the Bible. I can provide many, many examples of this, of course. Just listen to yourself in your debate recently with Kyle Butts. You claimed a high level of literacy of the Bible, and even of Greek, in that debate. So when anyone refutes your arguments, since you have made your own apostasy from Christianity the main selling point you are promoting, they cannot help but cast doubt upon your claims. It is impossible to do otherwise. So when you then complain that you are being "attacked," I suggest, sir, that you have made it impossible to completely separate the issues from the man. But that is a self-inflicted wound, Mr. Barker.

4) You object to my saying you abandoned the argumentation in your book. It is self-evident that you did. In fact, in just this point we see how truly irrational your stance in this matter has become. Anyone can listen to your initial objection. It was not rational. You said that you had not come to debate your book, as if my citation of your book changed the topic of the debate from your allegation that Jesus is a myth to your book. Your book contains an entire chapter on the topic of the debate. As I pointed out, you did not pursue the main line of argumentation in your book. You had eight possible naturalistic explanations for the "Jesus myth" in your book. How many of them did you present and defend in the debate, Mr. Barker? If you did not present them, how can any rational person object to the statement that you abandoned the arguments in your book, unless, of course, you wish to ignore the context of that statement (the context being the debate itself, and the specific arguments on Jesus as a myth contained in a specific chapter), and I fear you might well do that, in light of the fact that you continue to defend your misuse of Justin, though, I note, you cannot provide any contextual evidence for your abuse of his words.

I note as well that you have come up with a truly ingenious way of getting around the fact that you did not use the argumentation in your book in the debate: that you found "exciting and fresh" material to use instead. This ignores a major problem of fact and logic: you admitted in the debate that Richard Carrier warned you about the Walker material. Was it "exciting and fresh" news when Carrier informed you that the longest section of citation in your book on this topic was filled with holes, Mr. Barker? You admitted in the debate that during your preparation you had encountered this information. Is this not a clear admission that the reason you made the presentation you did was because you do not feel the material in Godless is actually defensible? And may I again point out what all of this means? You have now added a whole string of new (and, I would say, no more meaningful) "naturalistic explanations" to your presentation. That means you now present at least a dozen, probably more, possibilities all of which contradict the others! You have dropped the probability of any one of them being correct down to less than 10%, and yet do not even blink to promote more than one as being "compelling"! You may not see how this reveals an incredibly cavalier attitude toward history, but I truly believe the objective reviewer does.

5) I believe you are playing fast and loose with language in accusing me of putting words in your mouth. You refused to defend Walker's outrageous material, reproduced by you for seventeen years in print. Yet, if I call that "jettisoning" her arguments, you say I am putting words in your mouth. I will allow any rational person to examine the video and see for themselves what you did. Saying you are going to put her scholarship on a "lower level" is a nice, meaningless phrase. Either what she said is ridiculously anachronistic and false, or it isn't. Which is it, Mr. Barker? And just how clear and compelling was your comment, offered more than once, "Well, I might have changed my mind!" Classic avoidance answer. Those in the audience that day, and those who have watched the debate, well know that you rivaled Barney Frank trying to answer questions about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac in your soft-shoe attempt to avoid admitting error. You seem to want to be able to avoid defending your own use of her material while at the same time accusing me of putting words in your mouth. It is the classic cake/no cake situation again.

6) You likewise keep saying I have been wrong in saying you did not want me to quote you in the debate. Again, the video recording is unambiguous. As soon as I began quoting you, you objected! You did not want me quoting Godless on the very topic of the debate, all based upon your insistence that I only get to rebut, not make a presentation based upon my opponent's published works. You did not want me quoting Godless and you made that very plain. I leave it to any honest person to watch the debate and decide for themselves.

And so I invite you to post your article. Make your arguments. For those who are not interested in clear, consistent thought, nothing I have to say is going to change their minds. But I truly believe, Mr. Barker, that you have no basis for objection whatsoever to anything I said in the debate, or anything I have posted since then. Please feel free to defend your use of Justin: I believe anyone who compares my presentation with your own will see the truth of the matter. Please go ahead and give us another explanation of what you were really objecting too: the cameras were on, the recordings taking place.

It has always been my contention, Mr. Barker, that atheists are creatures denying their Creator. This involves a fundamental twisting of reality, and the more you attempt to re-make very recent, video-recorded history, the more you are demonstrating the correctness of my observation.

Finally, as to any future debates: as I have said, I will not pursue such, but if a third party wished to arrange a debate on your list of alleged contradictions in the Bible, I would have to say: would I get to quote you then? I think this is an excellent example of just how irrational your objection originally was. Let's say we debate again and the topic is your famous list of alleged contradictions, such as you presented in Illinois (chapter 13, p. 222 of Godless), and let's say we throw in your attempted response to me on Acts 9/22. You go first, making your case against the Bible. But if we follow your line of thinking, I would not be allowed to create a presentation based upon your published list of contradictions found in your books, since, as you say, "I might have changed my mind"! Or, let's say you realize that you cannot really defend your attack on Acts 9/22 against someone who has actually taught the original languages of the Bible. By your own position I would not be allowed to even include a discussion of your published response to me unless you first raise it in your own positive presentation! Do you not see how your position destroys any meaningful debate over any important issue? And let me add one other item while I am at it, Mr. Barker. I read an e-mail from you that you wrote after your debate with Doug Wilson (a debate you think you won---a debate I do not believe was even close, mainly because you have yet to allow yourself to actually "hear" what Doug, or I, am saying) in which you rather smugly spoke of having been fully aware of Wilson's serving on a capital crime jury in Idaho, and how you tried to use this information to your advantage (though, again, I think Doug handled that very poor attempt at the creation of an alleged "contradiction" very well). In fact, here is the letter, and I think it is useful to quote your own words:

The debate was great! All of the freethinkers in the audience agreed that I
nailed Wilson on many points.

I think he was surprised that I was ready for him.

I actually was able to use his jury experience against him, and he fell
right into it. He doesn't know that I knew the story because I framed it
hypothetically and he volunteered that he was foreman of that jury, so I
just asked "innocent" questions. He eagerly stated that he would have
recommended the death penalty for the convicted murderer.

Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.