Contact Us

Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog

<< Previous Month

-----


Quick Response to Tim C. Guthrie

03/31/2010 - Tur8infan

Over at the "SBC Today" blog, Tim C. Guthrie is expressing his strong negative emotions regarding the disclosures that are being made about Ergun Caner's autobiographical embellishments (link). Among a lot of other things, TCG wrote: "There is absolutely nothing new being brought to light concerning Dr. Ergun Caner." and "How sad is the person who thinks that by doing some internet research that is old news is now out of nowhere NEW?" and again "This is not a major issue accept for the fact that the history of the school has been questioned and Mr. White obviously fails to understand that Dr. Caner had to undergo a major screening to fill the position he now has."

Is TCG claiming that people, particularly the leadership of Liberty University, have known for years that Caner has been embellishing his autobiography? Such a claim would raise issues of integrity for the leadership of Liberty University, who I would otherwise assume are blameless. If TCG is correct, we would be right to ask why Liberty University's biography of Ergun Caner lists him as immigrating to the U.S. in 1979 when, in fact, he immigrated nearly a decade earlier than that? (link to biography - as of March 31, 2010, it states: "Ergun was born in Stockholm, Sweden to turkish parents and in 1979 immigrated to the United States with his parents, grandmother, and two brothers. Ergun became an American citizen in 1984 and currently resides in Lynchburg, VA with his wife and two sons.") I hope TCG is wrong, and that Liberty University's leadership was unaware of Ergun Caner's autobiographical embellishments. Either way, one can apparently check to see if Jerry Fallwell is turning over in his grave (link to Fallwell GraveCam - compare the Vatican's John Paul II GraveCam)

- TurretinFan

16:49:09 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -


-----


Amazing Things You Read on the Internet: Issue Bazillion and One

03/31/2010 - James White

I was directed to this article relating to my debates with Michael Brown on monergism and synergism. Now, I am glad this fellow is listening, but goodness, what is he hearing? We have a tremendous example here of tradition filtering out the majority of what the person just doesn't want to hear. Take this description for example:

My own reservation about Calvinism is that it requires that God create people who go to Hell. They go to Hell only because God chooses not to draw them to him. So there are people pre-destined to Hell for eternity who are not responsible since its God's choice where they are saved or not.


How many times have Reformed folks debunked just this kind of strawman understanding? It is not only inaccurate, it is downright dishonest, sadly. No one goes to hell "only because God chooses not to draw them to him." Men endure eternal punishment because of the holiness of God and their own sin. The very idea that God is under the slightest duty to provide mercy and grace to sinful men is part and parcel of humanistic religion, not biblical truth. And this kind of "sentimentality as theology" viewpoint has led, many times in recent history, directly into the quagmire of universalism. Next, if you want to see the wilderness into which Molinism leads you when it comes to exegesis, check this out:

I totally agree with Romans 9, where it says that God creates some people for destruction, and that those people cannot resist Gods will that they be created for destruction. But on my view, those people are people who would resist him in any time, in any place, even if he tried to save them. They cannot demand to be saved even though they resist God. They cannot say to their maker that they should not be created only to be damned, either, because being damned is their own fault. They dont have a right to demand that they be saved because they would freely choose not to respond to God in any set of circumstances that God might try to place them in in order to save them. So God is permitted to create vessels of wrath for his own glory but its their fault, not God's.


Remember when William Lane Craig told us how there are certain people God could never save, in any "possible universe"? There is one major difference between the biblical God and the God of man's imagination: the biblical God can save anyone He so chooses to save, freely, perfectly, and powerfully. When you have to come up with the idea that God cannot save who He chooses just to protect the creature's "free choice," you have truly exhibited your real motivations, and your real focus of devotion.



On a less theological, but just as tradition-bound note, I was directed to this kind, even-handed, truly brotherly blast from, from what I discern, is the Senior Pastor (!) of Arlington Baptist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, Tim Guthrie. You hardly even know where to begin when reading something like this--the number of factual errors, emotionally-driven logical crashes, and ad-hominems, is quite impressive for a relatively short article! It takes some work to cram all of that in there! Most of Pastor Guthrie's errors are plainly seen upon a first reading (yeah, I've never once talked about Columbia Evangelical Seminary, my work there, or anything else---despite having articles on the web since 1998 and doing entire programs on the topic! Nothing like doing your homework there Pastor Guthrie!), but what is completely lacking from this rant is the first bit of honesty in regards to the real issues behind the Caner saga. Check out this example of whistling a happy tune while walking through the graveyard: "There is absolutely nothing new being brought to light concerning Dr. Ergun Caner." Really? How can anyone say that (or, I guess, type it) with a straight face? Did Pastor Guthrie point out to Ergun Caner that he had not, in fact, debated Shabir Ally, when he had claimed to on multiple occasions? Did Pastor Guthrie recognize that Abdul Saleeb is a Christian name that no Muslim would ever bear? Did Pastor Guthrie recognize that Ergun Caner confused Surah Al-Fatiha with the Shahada? Did Pastor Guthrie point out that Ergun has claimed that Arabic was his first language, only to contradict himself later and admit otherwise? Did Pastor Guthrie detect the nearly decade-long "problem" in Ergun Caner's time-line, including his claim to have always lived in "majority Muslim countires" prior to coming to the US (Sweden is not a majority Muslim country, and Ergun has been living in the US since he was four years old, shivering through the Ohio winters just like all the rest of you!) and that he came here via Beirut and Cairo? I rather doubt it.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

15:22:14 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -


-----


Today on the DL: Ergun Caner's Biography Comes to Light, Your Phone Calls (Including Pierre!)

03/30/2010 - James White

   Started off reviewing this piece of investigative work that helps to shed a lot of light on Ergun Caner's claims relating to Arabic as his first language, living in only "majority Muslim countries" prior to coming to the US (must have been when he was two years of age), coming here via "Beirut and Cairo," all that time he spent as a three year old training in the madrassa in Turkey after being born in Istanbul (Sweden), etc. I would like to think this information would finally prompt the powers-that-be high up on Liberty Mountain to have a little talk with Dr. Caner and let the rest of us know what the real story is, but---we will see.
   Then I responded to a portion of the debate from last week about assurance of salvation, then we started taking our calls. Our first caller related an exchange with Dr. Brown on Genesis 50:20 that was most interesting (Aaron has been studying Hebrew for a number of years now), and then we chatted with Pierre, our LDS caller for a while. He wanted to comment on William Lane Craig's assertions that I played last week. A most interesting call! Then we finished off with a discussion of Genesis 4:7. Here's the program.
   Don't forget Thursday we start an hour early for the second half of the debate with Michael Brown! Be listening then!

14:12:21 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


Hebrews 6:1-6, PRBC PM Service, March 28, 2010

03/30/2010 - James White



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


-----


Hebrews 6:1-6, PRBC AM Service, March 28, 2010

03/29/2010 - James White



05:09:41 - Category: Exegesis - Link to this article -


-----


God Refutes a False Proverb: Ezekiel 18

03/28/2010 - James White



08:43:03 - Category: Exegesis - Link to this article -


-----


Hebrews 6 Sermon Notes

03/27/2010 - James White

   There is no possible way I will finish this in two services tomorrow. Hebrews 6 has vaulted way up in my "favorite chapters" list after preparing to preach on it at PRBC. Such promises! Such exhortations! Just awesome.


20:19:35 - Category: Godly Disciplines - Link to this article -


-----


Here's a Test: Spot the Baptist!

03/26/2010 - James White



   OK, that wasn't too tough. This is the picture of the speakers from the Greenville Theological Seminary's Spring Bible Conference, held just a few weeks ago. Dr. Pipa is third from the left, and that tall drink of water is Dr. Murray from Scotland. And yes, he said my Scottish accent sounded like I was from the eastern parts of Scotland. Take that, all you Scottish accent critics!

16:19:23 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -


-----


Thanks to Michael Brown

03/26/2010 - James White

   I've been pretty busy since yesterday's DL. Only had a small amount of time this morning to comment on Ephesians 1:11, and just got into the office. I fired up Michael Brown's program that he did just over 20 minutes after our mini-debate from yesterday. I could tell his voice wasn't doing too well---hard to do a program after the concentration it takes to do even a short debate like we did. Good ol' Johnny from California called in with his Melchizedek question (hey, at least I warned Michael it was coming!).
   His theme was having common ground with believers with whom you have disagreements. It was an interesting program to listen to. I'm sure many on both sides find the relationship Michael and I have been able to attempt to model during this process hard to understand. On my side, I know many of my Reformed brothers dismiss someone like Michael out of hand. It is bad enough he's a synergist, but a Charismatic synergist? How bad is that? And, of course, I well know how the synergists view me and the "great danger" of Calvinism. I have had many dismiss my profession of faith merely based upon eschatology or some other such standard of fellowship.
   I do not believe any honest-minded person can accuse me of compromising in my exchanges with Michael Brown--unless, that is, you define compromise as some do, that being a willingness to believe that inconsistency in theology means you are an unregenerate hypocrite, and that attitude leads rather quickly to the realm of real hyper-Calvinism (not the faux kind thrown about by certain Amyraldians and Arminians as a means to avoid dealing with the real issues). For some, if I say, "Michael Brown's work in defense of the deity of Christ and the Messiahship of Jesus is of great value," I have of necessity compromised my own beliefs about the sovereignty of God in salvation, for, in their minds, no one who would disagree with me on that topic could possibly do good work in any area of Christian theology or apologetics. It is this "all or nothing" kind of thinking that gets folks in trouble, since they fail to put proper thought into establishing when that is appropriate (you won't see me calling someone who denies the deity of Christ my "brother") and when it is not.
   I know this exchange is a bit uncomfortable for zealous folks on both sides of this issue. I'm glad it is. We need the discomfort. I may make it even worse by asking if Michael would join me to discuss some of the key prophetic texts relating to the person of Jesus, and maybe I could reprise my time on his show to discuss some topics like the reliability of the text of the New Testament, or key texts in the Qur'an Christians should know. In any case, I look forward to next Thursday, when you will hear--over and over again, "But Michael, you really, really need to allow the whole of Scripture to speak here, and to realize that since God has not chosen to reveal the identity of the elect, which even you must admit, given your view of foreknowledge, God possesses, then we must accept the distinction between the prescriptive will of God, found in His law, and the decretive will of God, which envisions the existence of evil, and all the corollaries that flow therefrom." Maybe I won't use those exact words, but you will hear that theme over and over again. But, what you won't hear, Lord willing, will be any caricaturing of the positions by either side, and hopefully, in so doing, we will encourage others who engage the topic to strive for a high standard in the effort.

15:32:27 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -


-----


Ephesians 1:11 and Bible Translation

03/26/2010 - James White

   Yesterday's encounter with Dr. Michael Brown was very interesting. My goal had been to provide an opportunity for the listeners to compare and contrast the exegesis of the text offered by both sides of this important issue. While that was accomplished to some extent, what ended up happening was more of a contrast of differing methods of exegesis itself, which surprised me. If we had been discussing, say, the resurrection, or the deity of Christ, I doubt there would be any difference at all in the approach. There is value, of course, in this observation, as I have always said that consistency is vital, and if your methodology differs from topic to topic, this is a sign of the intrusion of an extra-biblical tradition. I leave that to the listener to decide.
   In any case, the contrast was strongest in our discussion of John 6, followed by Romans 8-9, and was the least divergent in our discussion of Ephesians 1. But in each situation, an over-riding concept became the norm of interpretation, a concept I believe derived not from the contextual exegesis of the text itself. This was especially the case in reference to John 6, where I do not believe a contextual exegesis was offered by Dr. Brown. Likewise, the "corporate election" concept over-rode the direct words of Ephesians 1 as well, in my opinion.
   Next week will be even more problematic, for Dr. Brown has chosen texts that are not overly disputed on the exegetical level. What they mean is not really difficult to determine. The issue is the application of the text in a systematic way. And while such discussions are useful, it will not fulfill my specific goal for an explicitly exegetical discussion. Instead, we will have to move away from the specific texts to larger areas of interaction, which is pretty much what we did on Dr. Brown's show as well. So, when we talk about the "all" passages the question will not be "what does the text say" but "does 'all' always have a universal application," which it clearly does not, of course. Or if we talk about 1 John 2:2, the issue will not be "does this teach that Jesus' death is propitiatory" but "what does propitiation mean" and "does emphasis upon the extent of the atonement indicate it is intended to propitiate the wrath of God against every single human individual, past, present, and future?" Likewise, in dealing with Ezekiel 18 the question will not be "what does the text say" as much as "do we have warrant to take this text and extend it to a canon-wide concept that overthrows the plain teaching that God's decree will be accomplished and He will be glorified therein?"
   A few things caught my attention yesterday, though I did not comment on them at the time (we really had to focus given the time limits). One was Dr. Brown's comments on Ephesians 1:11. What struck me, and others, was his use of the Message and the New Living Translation as supports for his denial that this text encompasses the entirety of God's sovereign decree. Their "rendering" (I use the term loosely) of the text are as follows: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

09:26:40 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -


-----


Monergism vs. Synergism on the DL Today

03/25/2010 - James White

Today kicked off the two-part debate between myself and Michael Brown. I suppose it is the classical Calvinist/Arminian debate, but I prefer the monergism/synergism description myself. In any case, we covered John 6, Romans 8-9, and Ephesians 1 over the course of 90 minutes. It is fast paced with very little break in the action, that's for sure. Next week we do it again, this time with a set of verses Michael has chosen. Here's the program.

15:01:00 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


Don't Forget: Dividing Line Debate with Michael Brown at 10am PDT, 1pm EDT

03/25/2010 - James White

Don't forget the 90 minute exegetical debate today with Dr. Michael Brown, live on the Dividing Line, 10am PDT! That is an hour earlier than the normal Tuesday time slot. There will not be a later program at the regular Thursday slot. No, we will not have time for calls. We will be working hard to get everything into only half an hour on each of these great texts as it is!

08:47:06 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


Today on the Dividing Line

03/23/2010 - James White

   So, just who is Robert Price? Well, most of our listeners only know him as the guy Bart Ehrman dissed on the Infidel Guy show. I decided that needed to change, so, I played two portions of the 1999 debate between Price and William Lane Craig on the resurrection. I felt his opening statement, and his rapid-fire answering of at least a dozen questions offered in a row from the audience, gave a good idea of the challenge I face in May in Tampa. Here's the program.

19:27:22 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


Joel McDurmon's Allegation of Ad-Hominem Argumentation

03/23/2010 - James White

   Very shortly after my debate with Dr. Bart Ehrman in January of 2009, Joel McDurmon, who attended the debate, posted an article on the American Vision website criticizing my argumentation and claiming I had in essence claimed to "steamroll" Ehrman. He said the debate showed the limits of "evidentialist apologetics," which left me completely dumbfounded as well. In any case, I immediately responded to Mr. McDurmon here and here, and then had him on the Dividing Line for an entire hour. You can hear the program here.
   As far as I can recall, and as far as I can see from looking at my blog, I have not made any further comments regarding Joel McDurmon since early February of last year. I felt like I had clearly expressed my intentions in the debate, and explained what lay behind my questions and arguments. So I was more than a little surprised when a member of my church pointed me to comments he had just read in a brand new hard-back book published by American Vision, authored by Joel McDurmon, titled Biblical Logic in Theory & Practice. On pages 318 and 319 we read the following: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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


-----


Format for Thursday's Debate with Dr. Michael Brown

03/22/2010 - James White

   For those interested, we will be covering three texts of Scripture on Thursday: John 6, Romans 8/9, and Ephesians 1. Each will have 8 minutes to provide their exegesis of the text; then we will have four minutes of cross-ex each, then three minute conclusions before moving on to the next text. I know, not a lot of time, but that still covers 90 full minutes (we will not be taking any breaks at all).
   The following Thursday we will repeat the process, but this time covering Michael's chosen texts, Luke 13:34-35 (Deut 5:28-29) Ezek 18:21-32 (Jer 3:19-20; Ezek 22:30-31) I John 2:1-2 (2 Pet 2:1).
   Remember, to make room for Michael's program (which cannot, like the DL, be moved around at will), we will be starting at 10am our time (1pm EDT).

23:44:29 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -


-----


Will the VoM World Persecution Map Be Changing Soon?

03/22/2010 - James White

This article by Al Mohler is a must read. Once again the foundations of the society of the US are under attack by the secular radicals whose ultimate goal is the eradication of the public expression of the Christian faith. Not surprisingly, the 9th Circuit ruled to do just that (compare that ruling with their recent opinion that "In God We Trust" is not a theological statement---ponder that just a moment and you will realize that Athens has arrived in Washington, we now have a nation that serves an unknown God), and now that case is before the Supreme Court. All the future elections in the world will not change the fact that the judiciary has been radicalized through the law schools of our land. Long ago those who sought to fundamentally change the US realized the weaknesses in the system, the "back doors" for Trojan invaders, and they have now taken full advantage of them. Unless the Lord changes the hearts of this people, they will never learn the lessons of history, and will continue down the path toward final judgment at an ever-increasing pace. "Blessed is the nation whose God is Yahweh" the Scriptures say. But cursed is the nation that tramples upon His law, and persecutes His people. God will not be mocked.

07:22:59 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -


-----


Theology Matters: Again

03/22/2010 - James White

What happens when a monotheistic religion that rejects 1) the revelation of God in Christ and 2) lacks the heart-changing power of the gospel gains power over a culture? History gives us many examples. Today you can read about the atrocities of such combinations of false religion and political power on a daily basis, especially coming from the Islamic world. Here are two recent ones that illustrate the point:
A student has died after being beaten to death by pro-Taliban radicals at a Pakistani university.
The beating, which occurred earlier in the week, culminated in the death of Anan Khan, who attended the University of Engineering & Technology in Peshawar.
He was severely beaten with several other students at the university by members of a student wing of the hard-line Jamiat-e Islami party.
Witnesses have said the IJT attacked Adnan for playing music.
Members of the IJT have a record of breaking up music appreciation functions and dance parties on the campus.

And much worse:
Arshed Masih is fighting for his life after he was nearly burned to death by Muslim militant leaders backed by police, sources tell BosNewsLife.

RAWALPINDI, PAKISTAN - A Christian man was fighting for his life in Pakistan's Punjab province Saturday, March 20, after Muslim leaders backed by police burned him alive for refusing to convert to Islam, while his wife was raped by police officers, Christian and hospital sources familiar with the case told BosNewsLife.

My Muslim friends should consider well why it is that Islam produces this kind of behavior on the part of its most devoted followers prior to engaging in the knee-jerk reaction so often heard, "Yeah, well, look at the Inquisition!" The fact is that the more closely one follows the teachings of Jesus the farther away from this kind of behavior you will be; but such is not the case for the Muslim, who finds all sorts of basis in Muhammad's actions and teachings for this kind of hatred of the "kafir." Theology matters.

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


-----


What Really Matters

03/21/2010 - James White

Lo! th'incarnate God, ascended,
Pleads the merit of his blood;
Venture on him, venture wholly,
Let no other trust intrude:
None but Jesus,
None but Jesus,
None but Jesus
Can do helpless sinners good.

We sang this hymn this morning right before I led in the pastoral prayer (hymn #393 in the Baptist Edition of the Trinity Hymnal). I re-read it before praying. There is more theology in that single stanza than in many books lining the shelves of Christian bookstores today, to be certain.

21:57:44 - Category: Godly Disciplines - Link to this article -


-----


Review of Geisler's "Is Rome the True Church?"

03/21/2010 - Tur8infan

Is Rome the True Church? - a consideration of the Roman Catholic claim, by Norman Geisler and Joshua Bettancourt, explores a series of questions related to Rome's exclusive claim to be the true church. The book explores this topic by taking out several links in the chain of alleged authority. First, the book addresses the alleged primacy of the Apostle Peter. Next, the book addresses the alleged infallibility of Peter. Finally, the book examines the idea of Apostolic Succession or inheritance of the supposed primacy and infallibility of Peter. In the following review I've attempted to identify some of the strengths and weaknesses of the work, as well as to supply some errata, in case a second edition of the book is printed. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

14:51:33 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -


-----


Live at Nine Television Program from London

03/20/2010 - James White

For those who did not get to watch live, here is the program we did in London on the reliability of Scripture on Genesis-Revelation TV.



08:26:36 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -


-----


The Canon as Infallible Sacred Tradition

03/20/2010 - James Swan

"How do you know that the Holy Scripture is all you need? What tells you that? Might you need a God-led authority (like the Roman Catholic Church) to tell you that?" This was a question I recently came across from the depths of cyberspace. It's a question sharply aimed against sola scriptura, but it's a false question attacking an incorrect understanding of sola scriptura. Underlying this question is the assumption that the Sacred Scriptures are not enough to function as the sole rule of faith for the church. There must be something else a believer needs, like an infallible magisterium.

One part of this question is indeed true: if God's voice of special revelation is found somewhere else besides the Bible, Christians are obligated to seek out that voice, and follow it with their entire heart, soul, mind, and strength. Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture. The burden of proof then lies on those who claim God's infallible voice is somewhere else besides the Scriptures. If God's infallible voice is extant today somewhere else, sola scriptura is refuted. If God's voice is found in an infallible magisterium or unwritten traditions, sola scriptura is refuted.

This is why those of us defending sola scriptura constantly ask those attacking it to produce what they claim to have. If they have God's special revelation elsewhere, throw it on the table and let's get a good look at it. For those of you who've listened to Dr. White's debates on sola scriptura, this is his pen example. In his old debate with Patrick Madrid on sola scriptura, Dr. White held up his pen and said:
If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here and say that this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe, how would I go about proving it? Well, the only way I could prove the statement "there is no other pen like this in all the universe," is if I looked in all of your purses, and all of your shirt pockets, and in all the stores in the world that carry pens, and look through all the houses, and all over the planet Earth, and the Moon, and the planets in the Solar System, and in the entire universe, looking for another pen like this. And, of course, I could not do that. But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out, get a Cross Medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See! Another pen, just like yours!" and he's won the debate.

In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality, and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than depending upon an illogical demand; or, he must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen." That is, he must prove to us what the Council of Trent said was true. I quote, "It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were, from hand to hand."

An argument like this is pointed directly at what Romanism claims to have: God's voice elsewhere besides the Sacred Scriptures. Most often those defending Romanism claim to have God's voice in Sacred Tradition. Getting them to throw this Tradition up on the table to take a look at is the problem. Typically only one thing is thrown up on the table as Sacred Tradition, the canon of Sacred Scripture. The canon is said to be an example of God's voice of special revelation outside the Bible.

The first problem with this argument is that it goes to battle alone. If I quote a verse from the Bible, I can also have that verse joined by the entire text from which the verse is found. When someone uses the canon as an example of God's voice in Sacred Tradition, the entire contents of Sacred Tradition still hides back up in the hills. Roman Catholics can't produce what they claim to have. They aren't even unified as to whether Sacred Tradition is simply the same material as found in the Bible, or if it's information of another kind. One bucket of water in a desert is not proof that a large lake is just over the mountain. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

08:23:11 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -


-----


Yesterday on the Dividing Line

03/19/2010 - James White

   A two-part program with no phone calls---not because no one called (two folks did), but because I opened a second tab in Safari and forgot to switch back to the phone control tab, so I did not even see that there were callers! So much for my vaunted infallibility (as if I had ever claimed it!). Anyway, two portions to the program: first half a review of William Lane Craig and Kevin Harris talking about developments in Mormonism, and their view that you don't call Mormons to repent of following a false prophet and come to the true and living God. No, the approach you should use is to encourage them to be...a little less heretical. In fact, we were told that we should help them to find ways to "finesse" the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young so that, well, they can still be "Mormon" but be more "orthodox" in the process! An incredible discussion.
   Then I played the comments of Joseph M. Holden and Brian Brodersen regarding 1 John 5:1, 2:29, and 4:7, in their most concerted effort offered so far to defend their man-centered synergism. Here's the program.

13:51:49 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


Today on the DL: William Lane Craig, Kevin Harris, Joseph M. Holden

03/18/2010 - James White

   I have an ambitious schedule today as I want to play comments by William Lane Craig and Kevin Harris on the subject of Mormonism and the effort to help them become, well, "more orthodox." These comments came from the Reasonable Faith podcast of 2/16/2010. This is a classic example of abandoning a biblical paradigm, the apostolic example, and the use of a philosophically-oriented replacement, all the while painting those who would follow the biblical mandate as "anti-Mormons." Given that Alpha and Omega Ministries has been involved in this field of ministry years before these men, this is a must-do response. All those who work in evangelizing Mormons know how central these topics really are.
   Hopefully that will not take more than twenty-five minutes or so, so that I will have time to address the comments of Joseph M. Holden, M.Div., president of Veritas Seminary, as he attempted to respond to the 1 John 5:1/ordo salutis discussion that has come up on the Pastor's Perspective program a few times over the past month. These comments were offered on a program with Brian Brodersen just a few weeks ago. This is the most serious attempt they have made to actually respond to my argumentation, and as such, provide an important opportunity for serious thinkers to examine the claims of both sides. Should be a helpful program, Lord willing! So listen in live!
   Also, a quick word of correction (before we get the graphic fixed) about the upcoming Dividing Line episodes with Michael Brown. The dates are 3/25 and 4/1, as noted. However, 4/1 is a Thursday. Both will be an hour earlier than the normal Tuesday time so that Dr. Brown can do his own program at his regular time (we are much more flexible with webcasting than he can be with his network commitments), hence 10am PDT/1pm EDT. The program will run 90 minutes, no breaks, to get maximum presentation, discussion, and interaction. I have chosen three texts for us to discuss on one program (John 6:35-45, Romans 8:28-9:24, Eph. 1:1-14) and he gets to choose the texts for the other program (at the moment I only know the "all" passages will be included as a group). Our goal is to have a more textually oriented exchange, more focused than the programs we did before. I'm looking forward to them!

09:33:47 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


The Way Back Machine is Running

03/17/2010 - James White

For those interested, we are digitizing old Dividing Line programs from around 2000 and live-streaming them at the regular DL link. Some folks are really enjoying the look back, so feel free to join in! Here's the link.

10:36:48 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


Today on the Dividing Line: Ergun Caner Update, Robert Sungenis on Predestination, Calvary Chapel

03/16/2010 - James White

Did the DL live from Kansas today, covering a brief update on the Ergun Caner front, reading an e-mail sent to Robert Sungenis and his answer for most of the hour, and the closing with the caller who had called the Pastor's Perspective show and asked about Ezekiel 36 and the heart of stone and the heart of flesh (if you recall, he did not get even a pretended answer to his specific question). Here's the program.

13:43:27 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


Unbelievable Programs Posted/Sungenis Comments on DL Today

03/16/2010 - James White

First, both programs I did with Justin Brierley on the Unbelievable Radio Program in London have now aired and are available for download. The first program was with Adnan Rashid, the second with Sir Anthony Buzzard. I think most of our readers will find both to be quite interesting. I really wish to pursue a full public debate with Anthony Buzzard in the future. Justin's programs can be found here. If you wish to subscribe to the podcast (as I do!), you can do so here. The specific programs are found here: Adnan Rashid and Sir Anthony Buzzard.

Next, on a live Dividing Line today (via Skype from my current location in sunless, grey Leavenworth Kansas) I will be reading and responding to this fascinating example of straw-man argumentation provided by Robert Sungenis et al, then taking your calls. The DL will air today at its normal time, 11am MST (11am PDT, 2pm EDT).

To all concerned about sola scriptura, patristics, Roman Catholicism, and related subjects. TurretinFan has posted a must-read article here.

Please remember to pray for this ministry and our upcoming opportunities of ministry, especially the May debate with Robert Price. Your support is vital.

07:34:55 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -


-----


Monday Miscellaneous

03/15/2010 - James White

I am speaking in Kansas, but I believe I will be able to do the DL at its regular time on Tuesday via Skype. So ignore what I said on the last program!

I had to set my clock back last night. That is just so wrong. But, I get two hours back when I go home anyway...but it's all fiction! Why doesn't everyone see that?

I saw an article about Ergun Caner's opposition to the Camel Method (and, of course, I would agree 100% with him). Sadly, his opposition was noted along with the questions that will continue to swirl around him until he stands up and answers the real questions that so far he has refused to even acknowledge.

I have often commented on how joyous many Muslims are to read apostate Christians attacking the Christian faith. It is so sad to see them grabbing anything at all as a weapon without realizing that they are promoting a worldview that is just as acidic to their own beliefs as they are to Christianity. I saw another example just yesterday on the muslimmatters.org blog, in an article written by Youssef Chouhoud. Note his words:
Finally, this past Friday’s NPR broadcast of “Fresh Air” featured an interview with Bart Ehrman, a professor at UNC and author of the bestselling book, Misquoting Jesus. Though his research is in depth, the most striking points are the ones readily accessible to all readers of the Bible. For instance, the four gospels contain contradictions not only on “small” matters, but on the grandest as well. There is no consensus, for example, on the crucifixion nor is there, outside of the gospel of John, any mention of Jesus’ divinity (you’d think that’d be pretty important, huh?). The interview is a great listen and for those interested in furthering their knowledge, I recommend Dr. Ehrman’s course at The Teaching Company, History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament Canon.

No consensus on the crucifixion? No evidence of the deity of Christ outside of John? Amazing, for anyone who has read the New Testament for themselves, anyway. But it seems that many Muslims are just as willing to listen to an apostate Christian as Christians, sadly, are willing to believe almost anything they are told about Muslims as well. As servants of Christ, we should be very concerned about the truthfulness of what we believe, even when it is about others not "familiar" to our beliefs or experiences.

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


-----


A Quick Note from Gate A25

03/13/2010 - James White

On my way to Leavenworth, Kansas for this weekend's conference, but fired up the MacBook long enough to get my mail. Not only did another loving missive from Peter Lumpkins come through, but I was directed to what can only amount to his published response of my documentation of his false accusations. Personally, I think this speaks volumes about the level of "dialogue" amongst many when it comes to the substance of their argumentation against Reformed theology. Watch for yourself.

With that, I am...finished dealing with anything Peter Lumpkins has to say.

12:33:10 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -


-----


A Brief Response to Tony Byrne

03/13/2010 - James White

Tony Byrne has commented on my preceding post in the comments on a particular post at Peter Lumpkins' website. When I attempted a brief rejoinder, I found I cannot post there anymore (which is fine with me, I assure you). But since I took the time to write it prior to rushing off to the airport, I wanted to post it somewhere, and this seems to be the best place to do so.

Tony:

I have no interest in theological dialogue with you. You've proven yourself incapable of "hearing" anything outside your Amyraldian strictures. It doesn't matter what I say, you have it all figured out.

Secondly, it is hard for me to believe you were in channel as often as you once were (and, if I was so inclined, I could determine exactly how many days you were in channel over the past decade) and yet not understand how the channel works. What's more, you 1) remembered clearly that AOMin had sent you packing the last time you had been in channel, and that was 30 weeks prior; and 2) you gave clear indication of hiding your original nick. When you were asked if you had been in channel before, you did not offer ynottony when asked: you had to be asked specifically. You refused to offer your actual normal nick until someone else asked directly. I've run an IRC chat channel since 1996. I've seen that maneuver hundreds of times before, and always by ban evaders. It's classic. Also, we cleared the CStar banlist a few months ago due to a bad ban that was creating problems, hence your ability to get back in channel.

Next, I'm glad you admit the accuracy of the log despite your not remembering the comment (anyone in channel who was logging at the time could confirm the log---don't you keep logs?). However, shouldn't you have avoided the accusation inherent in your statement that it was certainly FALSE that you had mentioned Reymond? Why not say, "I have no recollection of making that statement about Reymond"? My memory isn't perfect, and I already sense the degradation of age, but even my enemies have to admit that when I debate, my memory is quite functional. It was your certainty that was latched onto by men who will believe anything, no matter how outlandish, as long as it could be used to cast negative light upon me.

With that, I am....thankful you admit the encounter, and hope others will finally do the right thing as well.

james

10:30:14 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -


-----


Ergun Caner Removes "Repentance" Statement

03/12/2010 - James White

   If you read my response to Ergun Caner's 2/25/2010 statement you will find a link to his website. If you click on that link you will now get a 404 screen, just like when you click on the Bio link at the top of the page. Simple site maintenance? Or retrenching in hope to ride out the storm? Let's hope someone in leadership realizes questions of truth always remain forefront for followers of Christ.

21:06:18 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -


-----


9 Hours (give or take an hour or so)

03/12/2010 - Jeff Downs

{Note: This entire entry is written tongue-in-cheek, the real point is to make you aware of the resources]

I want to take a moment and set a "story" straight. It is a story I heard a number of times this week and I simply want everyone to know the facts of the matter.

Back in August of 2004, Dr. White flew into Maryland where I picked him up from the airport and we drove to Middletown, PA (about an 1 hour and 45 minutes drive, give or take a minute or two). The reason Dr. White came to the beautiful state of Pennsylvania was to teach a class (conference) on apologetics, Aug. 20-21 and also to preach on the 22nd at Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

The topics Dr. White covered varied: Open Theism, Justification, Sufficiency of Scripture, etc. etc. We all know that in order to sufficiently cover these topics, one needs time to do so. After James finished with the class (conference) and preaching, we headed to Gettysburg (see Back from PA (this is prior to me holding to a stricter view of the Sabbath) :) You will notice in this blog post that Dr. White says he is "exhausted." From what, I do not know.

Interestingly enough, after about 6 years, I have finally posted the audio of Dr. White from that conference. But first, from the files of Archive.org, you can check out the facts by looking at the original schedule here. In the title of this blog, I say "give or take an hour or so" because I failed to record one of the sessions so I'm not sure the exact amount of time.

On thing is for sure, the story I kept hearing over the past couple of days has been consistent, from 2004 until now. For example, you may want to check out the statements made at the beginning of this audio, first.

You can check out the audio from the 2004 Apologetics Conference by going here.

So, if you ever wonder how Dr. White and I met, if someone tells you the story about how we met, simply bookmark this blog entry and refer back to it.

20:39:09 - Category: Testimonies - Link to this article -


-----


Peter Lumpkins: A Case Study

03/12/2010 - James White

Thursday was a busy day for me. I had to get packed and out of my hotel room early, and I gave the last presentation of the conference on the very difficult and challenging issue of Peter Enns. I did not get access to my e-mail until I was sitting at the gate in Charlotte waiting for my flight back to Phoenix at 8:10pm EST. The first e-mail that came through was from Peter Lumpkins. As I sat at the gate I could not but shake my head in amazement at the thought process that went into what he wrote. Here is an accusation that I had made up a single chat conversation from 2008 being paralleled to the public claims of Ergun Caner relating to doing debates in a dozen countries and forty states; debating Shabir Ally and Abdul Saleeb; being born in Istanbul, living in majority Muslim countries all his life before coming to the United States, Ramadan is forty days long, etc. and etc. How can men think like this? It truly leaves me without words. But, here's what I was sent:


Subject: So Now Who is is it Making up Conversations?
Dear Mr. White,

You need to be aware of a slight discrepancy apparently on your part. Tony Bryne recently logged on my site these words:

"p.s. With respect to his first video, I [Tony] have NEVER had a conversation with White about Robert Reymond at all; no, not even in his chat room. His claim that we discussed Reymond in his chat channel is totally false."

As a result, I queried David Hewitt--the 'reconciler' (self-appointed or other I do not know) between you and Byrne--with the following:

David,

The little p.s. Tony left on one level is hilarious and another is alarming. James White has ground Ergun Caner's name to dust insisting he made up a debate with a Muslim. According to Tony's insistence on not conversing with White about Reymond, James White apparently made up the conversation the two had. Unless, of course, Tony is now making this up (or forgotten, etc). So, if White did have the conversation, then he needs to produce the evidence--a DL phone call, a chat room thread, or other will do.

If White cannot produce the evidence, could you please explain why he should not release a public statement of repentance for making up exchanges with people he never had? Could you also explain why White should not include his own failures each and every time he names the alleged failures of Ergun Caner?

Or, better yet, James White could come here and straighten out the confusion.

With that, I am...
Peter

I'd be glad to see your evidence for the conversation between you and Tony, Mr. White. If you do not have such evidence, I suggest you read carefully the questions I gave to David.

With that, I am...

Peter Lumpkins

Now, of course, I have provided the logs demonstrating the conversation did, in fact, take place, as I will document below. But I wish my readers to ponder for a moment the mindset illustrated by Peter Lumpkins here. As some of you know, Mr. Lumpkins represents the "keep your Calvinism out of the Southern Baptist Convention" mindset. He is a gadfly on the Internet, and over the past few years has shown himself incapable of unbiased analysis of anything relating to Reformed theology, or yours truly (and a number of others). Recently he has rushed to the aid of Ergun Caner, not by providing any kind of rational or logical explanation for the wild claims Dr. Caner has made, and the many self-contradictions they have produced, but by engaging in "distract, cover, and impugn" tactics meant to keep the less thoughtful from considering the importance of the real issues.


We have here an example of the mindset that develops when "the tyranny of denominational traditionalism" sets in. Consider what Mr. Lumpkins has attempted to do here. The title of his e-mail says it all: without even asking first (remember I contacted Shabir Ally before I contacted Ergun Caner directly before I made any public posting on the matter), he impugns my character on the basis of...what? A single conversation noted in passing in a video that took place in a chat channel. This is not about claiming to have been born in, say, Geneva, or claiming to have debated Richard Dawkins and Zakir Naik and Pope Benedict the XVI and Captain Kirk (via time travel). This is about my recollection of a single conversation in a chat channel, and Mr. Lumpkins seriously wishes to make this a parallel to the consistent pattern of exaggeration and fabrication that has been demonstrated in the self-promotional claims of Ergun Caner. The rational mind is left wondering what Mr. Lumpkins was thinking. Let's say I could not produce the information below. Let's say the logs for that week were lost (it has happened in the past). Would there be some basis for any charge of personal sin on my part for recalling a chat channel conversation? Evidently, for Lumpkins and those who cannot see the facts and the truth due to devotion to denominational tradition, I am guilty until proven innocent (and Dr. Caner is innocent---period, no discussion allowed).


It is this amazing example of "let's try defending Dr. Caner by making every kind of incredibly ridiculous accusation we can against anyone who would dare question Caner" that is most important to see. What a shame this kind of thinking is not uncommon in certain circles.


But now to the rather easy, and I admit, enjoyable, demonstration of Mr. Lumpkin's error. A word of instruction to would-be accusers: every word you say is recorded in our chat channel. 24/7. It took less than five minutes to find the logs of the conversation I had referred to in the video.

Now, there is a chance that Polhill in the following log is not Tony Byrne. It is possible Polhill is former President George Bush, I suppose. But there is every reason to believe it is, in fact, Tony Byrne, which raises the question, why did Tony forget this conversation? Do a search on Tony's blog for Polhill. You will see he quotes Edward Polhill all the time. I found ten blog entries on Tony's blog using his name (probably more than on any other blog out there). That would be enough in and of itself, but, it is self-evident that the person posting under the nick Polhill claims to be Tony Byrne (on the technical level, we identified his IP as that of Tony Byrne, so it really isn't questionable). I will insert relevant links after his comments that demonstrate that if this is not Tony Byrne, then he has an impostor running about the the Internet who knows his own website like that back of his hand, claims to be him, and promotes his views. I suppose that is possible (I mean, who would not want to impersonate such a well known Amyraldian blogger?), but I think it is only a little more probable than our being assimilated by the Borg next year.


So here is the log. I start with when Polhill joined, and include all the relevant conversation up to the point where the exchange took place that I noted in the video, thusly refuting Peter Lumpkin's false charge against me:


...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

17:40:43 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -


-----


Creeds, Confession and Peter Enns

03/12/2010 - Jeff Downs

Dr. Pipa ask me to post on Sermon Audio, the last two lecture of the 2010 Spring Theology Conference presented by Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

Dr. Joseph Pipa spoke on the topic "Why Creeds if the Bible is the Sufficient and Final Rule of Authority", to listen click here

Dr. White spoke on Peter Enns and the general issues surrounding the authority of scripture. You can listen by clicking here.

The more people I speak with, the more I hear "I really enjoyed James White's presentations." So, I wanted to take the opportunity to thank Dr. White for coming to Greenville and speaking for our Spring Theology Conference. It was a real pleasure having you!

To order the other lectures from the conference contact GPTS.

17:30:34 - Category: Theology Matters - Link to this article -


-----


Mitch Pacwa's Series on the Reformation

03/12/2010 - James Swan

Scheduled to be released on the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's posting of the 95 theses is Mitch Pacwa's The Reformation Project video series. Pacwa was recently on Catholic Answers to discuss the project. He's looking to do a ten part series on the Reformation from a Roman Catholic perspective.

The host of the interview introduced Pacwa by noting the topic of the Reformation "always lurks in the background of Catholic Answers live." Indeed he's correct. Catholic Answers exists to call Protestants back to the Roman church. What they're doing is trying to undo the Reformation.

Pacwa is concerned that the popular media will hype the upcoming Reformation anniversary by presenting a false view of the Roman Catholic Church. His ten part series will be an attempt to show that the Roman church of the Reformation isn't quite as bad as is popularly portrayed. They weren't a powerful juggernaut, nor was there "universal corruption among the clergy" (mp3 clip). "Universal" corruption is a strong description. I would settle for widespread corruption. That can't be denied.

The most fascinating part of the interview was when a caller asked "In a nutshell, what did cause the Reformation?" (mp3 clip). Pacwa began his response by addressing Luther "the person" as a factor. Every time I've thought I've heard every calumny against Luther, all I have to do is listen to a Roman Catholic discuss Luther. Pacwa notes "Luther was racked with guilt." That's true enough. What was this guilt from? Pacwa explains "he apparently had killed somebody in a duel." To deal with the guilt of murder and "a legalism within his own personality" caused him to begin "looking at doctrine differently than it had been under the various Catholics prior." This lead to justification by faith alone by grace alone.

I've read many charges against Luther, but that he killed someone in a duel is one I don't recall, at all. Perhaps it's a new Reformation factoid I'm not aware of? For instance, a few months ago I read a news report that Luther didn't enter the monastery after a thunderstorm vow made to Saint Anne. Rather, he was trying to escape an arranged marriage (I've looked around for further information on this, and came up with nothing). But as to murder in a duel, that's news to me. It has been alleged that Luther's father was a murderer. It's also been asserted that a reason Luther entered the monastery was grief experienced by the sudden loss of a close friend. This friend was either stabbed in a quarrel or duel. Perhaps Pacwa meant this, or perhaps he'll argue Luther killed this friend. Well, Pacwa's got a few years to work all this out. If anyone can verify Pacwa's claim, please write me.

The other fascinating part of Pacwa's answer was that the Reformation was also caused by Luther's denial of free will. For those of us who are Reformed, this answer comes as no shock. Here, Pacwa has hit the nail on the head. If one begins with notion of total depravity, the means of grace will be far different from the system devised by Romanism. I'm hopeful that Pacwa will bring this point out with force. This is the reason why those who typically have the best answers to Roman Catholic claims are the Reformed.

I'm not sure if Pacwa's Reformation series will have any impact on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. Typically, the media doesn't go looking for documentaries produced from a religious perspective. His series will probably only impact Roman Catholics. My hope is that Mitch Pacwa doesn't repeat charges against Luther and the Reformation from hundred year old sources. He's an educated person, so the possibility of accuracy is well within his means.


07:49:15 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -


-----


God and Evil: The Trauma of Sovereignty

03/09/2010 - James Swan

I'm not particularly keen on reinventing wheels. Part of the fortunate heritage of the Reformed worldview is that much better minds than mine have studied the Biblical text, then formulated its information into concise doctrinal statements. Of course the statements are only as good as the verses they're based on. For instance, chapter three of the Westminster Confession of Faith states:
God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

1. Psa. 33:11: Eph. 1:11: Heb. 6:17
2. Psa. 5:4; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; see Hab. 1:13
3. Acts 2:23; 4:27-28: Matt. 17:12; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33

If one were going to dispute this statement, it shouldn't be by philosophic speculation, tradition, or an emotional feeling. It should be done by proving the Biblical texts used don't support the statement being made. Such though typically isn't the case. The counter charge often begins with the assertion that Reformed theology turns God into a puppet master and the author of evil. The ingredient said to be missing is free will. It's touted that by adding free willto a biblical summary statement, a completely different view of sovereignty emerges, one which absolves God of being the author of evil and provides humanity with true freedom. Some go as far to say that the God of Reformed theology is far from Biblical.
...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

19:55:38 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -


-----


Ergun Caner Materials

03/09/2010 - Tur8infan

Dr. White is traveling and asked me to post this here. One reason for having it here is so that folks can investigate the matter for themselves, rather than simply listening to commentary from critics. Indeed, some folks have suggested that Ergun Caner's critics are getting their material from a Muslim "hate site" - apparently suggesting that the sources involved aren't reliable. To those folks, I'd like to provide links to Ergun Caner himself speaking or writing, or to general or Baptist press reports of what he has said. I'm sure this is not an exhaustive list, but I've tried to make the list as comprehensive as I could.

Living With Joy Radio - "Ergun Caner: From Islam to Christianity"
Part 1 - November 2, 2009
Part 2 - November 3, 2009
Part 3 - November 4, 2009

Interview on "For Faith and Family" (August 27, 2007)

FRC Action Speech (September 2009)(you have to scroll almost to the bottom of the speakers to find Caner)

Discussion on Islam in Seattle (not sure the date)
Islam 101
Islam 201
Islam 301

Zola Levitt Appearances (dates are the first dates of airing - I don't know whether they aired live or were pre-recorded)

Episode: “Behind the Veil” with Ergun Caner
Part 1 - April 18, 2004
Part 2 - May 2, 2004

Episode: “Dr. Ergun Caner: An Arab-Christian”
Part 1 - June 23, 2002
Part 2 - June 30, 2002

Signs of the End 2001: “Now a Christian” (Ergun Caner)
November 4, 2001(this link seemed to be working previously, but recently seems to be broken)

Episode: “The Darkness That Nearly Engulfed Us”
October 21, 2007 (Portion of the episode with Caner begins about 19 minutes into the clip.)

Craig von Buseck Interview (at CBN)
Transcript

Pat Robertson Interview (on the 700 club) "Islam Unveiled"
Transcript

John Ankerberg Show
"Is Islam Opposed to Democracy and Christianity?" (May 30, 2004)
"Former Muslims Testify About Islam" (2003)

Undated/Unsourced Video of Caner (link) [Caution: some of the ads on the hosting site are unsavory.]

July 6, 2002, Associated Press Article

Baptist Press article regarding "What the Media Get Wrong About My People Every Time," by Ergun Caner (June 16, 2004)

Former Muslim Discuss Conflict In the (July 30, 2006)

When Worldviews Collide : ‘We either adapt or die’ (August 16, 2006)

How Muslims Become Christians - John Ankerberg Show (not sure what date)

What The Qur'an Says About Non Muslims? - John Ankerberg Show (not sure what date)

What Do Muslims Believe? (12 part series - not sure what date)

Caner's Old Biography Photo Page(apparently captured in 2004)

Caner's Old Biography Page (apparently captured in 2005) (Another version of Caner's Old biography)

WayBack Machine Archives for erguncaner.com main page (various times)

WayBack Machine Archives for all material at erguncaner.com (various times)

Caner's Glossary of Arabic Terms (apparently as of 2005)

Caner's Topical Index of the Koran (apparently as of 2007)

Caner's Article titled, "Dirty Little Secret" (apparently as of 2005)

Photo Allegedly of Ergun and his Father (retrieved 2004)

Photo Allegedly of Ergun in a Mosque with a Rifle (retrieved 2004)

Churchhouse To Jailhouse - Ergun Caner (part 1)(part 2)(part 3)(part 4)(audio set to a slideshow of still images)

The Threat of Radical Islam - Ergun Caner (part 1)(part 2)(part 3)(part 4)

- TurretinFan

19:25:24 - Category: Simply Silly - Link to this article -


-----


What a Shame

03/09/2010 - James White

   I do try to think the best of folks, and I had hoped that after the fallout from David Allen's false accusations against me at the failed John 3:16 Conference in November of 2008 that some clarity had been brought to the issue. I had hoped that despite his over-reliance upon Tony Byrne and others of his particular persuasion he would accept the correction that had been offered and stop trying to use the "hyper-Calvinist" label as a bludgeon, as so many in the SBC do. But when word started coming out of a book based upon that less-than-helpful gathering, I wondered what would happen. So much of the material had been so poorly presented, and so poorly thought out, that it seemed better to just leave it alone and hope its memory would gradually fade. But I began hearing that Dr. Allen had succumbed to the temptation to defend his false accusations in an extended footnote, and today I was able to verify this by reference to a Google Books preview of the book that will come out in a few days.
   The abuse of the term "hyper-Calvinist" should bother any truth-loving person for a simple reason: hyper-Calvinism is a tremendous error, just as hyper-Arminianism is. Evidently the idea has been promoted by certain sub-Calvinists (mainly Amyraldians) that any high Calvinist is, in fact, a hyper-Calvinist, thereby not only erasing important historical distinctions but likewise introducing confusion into a vitally important area. Instead of recognizing that hyper-Calvinism is a rationalistic position with a number of distinguishing features, these men have decided that any one element of belief will automatically place you in the hyper-Calvinist camp, even if, in fact, one does not hold to that position. It is a convenient way of black-balling people and shutting down meaningful exchange, especially on the part of those who know they could never survive a public examination of their own positions.
   Sadly, Dr. Allen's footnote is so false it is libelous. I suppose he could claim ignorance, but those who followed my responses to he and others in November/December of 2008 know that I posted the following videos:



   Sadly, Allen simply follows his own student in repeating the false accusation, now of me, that I reject that God desiring the salvation of the non-elect "in any sense" (italics in the original of the newly published book). The above video was posted in early December of 2008. David Allen has no excuses for including this glowingly false accusation in this newly published book despite the clarity I provided therein. This speaks loudly to the intentions of the editors and authors of this new book, a book, ironically titled upon a very commonly misunderstood phraseology that in and of itself speaks of the peculiarity of God's electing grace.
   Here are a few others relevant to the facts of the matter, the first being a repudiation of Allen's error long before he insisted upon putting it into print. I will happily allow the listener/viewer to decide if the men behind this new book have provided adequate response. Likewise, you can judge why it is those on the other side seek monologues, not dialogues, on these issues.





14:20:40 - Category: Reformed Baptist Issues - Link to this article -


-----


Tomorrow on Iron Sharpens Iron

03/08/2010 - James White

   I really wish I could listen live to Iron Sharpens Iron Tuesday, but I will be traveling. My dear friend Pastor Jim Handyside will be Chris Arnzen's guest tomorrow. Of course, I call him my dear friend despite the fact that no one has pierced me through more thoroughly than dear Jim. After preaching at his church in Anniesland (just outside of Glasgow) a few years ago, we went back to his home for some fellowship. While his dear wife made us our tradition cheese toast, we discussed the sermon, during which I had used, briefly anyway, my exemplary and polished Scottish accent. Brother Jim, with a twinkle in his eye, looked at me and said, in his own deep Scottish brogue (which you will get to hear on ISI tomorrow), "Brother, if I may say, your Scottish accents sounds to me like a mixture of Italian and Pakistani." Ah yes, the love of the brethren! So be sure to be listening Tuesday on Iron Sharpens Iron for Pastor Jim Handyside. I bet you won't even be able to tell the difference between his speech and my own Scottish accent! Well, ok, maybe you will, but it will be difficult!

18:22:22 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -


-----


Today on a Special Monday Edition of the Dividing Line

03/08/2010 - James White

   Couldn't let some folks have withdrawals for nearly two weeks (and I wanted to comment on a few things myself!) so we did a special Monday DL today. I started off looking at Ezekiel 36 and 37 and the beautiful presentation of God's work of regeneration in the New Covenant displayed therein. Then we listened, without interruption, to a nine minute clip from the 2/25/2010 Pastor's Perspective radio program with Brian Brodersen. A caller called in and asked about how they would understand God taking out the heart of stone and giving us a heart of flesh if their "free will" position was correct. I felt bad for the caller: he never got an answer. What he got was a classic example of mis-direction, eisegesis, and "our tradition says this, so the Bible could not possibly be saying that." Our one caller asked about another text in Ezekiel, and that finished out our time. But before taking that call, I played a section of another Ergun Caner sermon where he not only claimed that he had only lived in majority Muslim countries prior to coming to the United States (Sweden today is not a majority Muslim country, and it surely wasn't back then) but claimed Arabic was his language prior to English---a claim directly contradicted by his 2/25/2010 published statement on his website. Which is the truth? Only Dr. Caner knows. Here's the program.

18:16:33 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


An Amusing Textual Criticism Story

03/08/2010 - Alan Kurschner

Stephen Neill recalls:

It may be interesting to give an illustration of the practical use to which [the principles of textual criticism] can occasionally be put. Many years ago, when I was teaching in a high school in India, I had given my class some work to do in their own time, and had told them that they were not to get help from one another. When the papers came in, it was quite clear that collaboration had taken place. I decided to see whether, by close application of the methods of textual criticism, and particularly by noting the errors in the various texts, I could work out the process of this collaboration. It quickly became evident that the source of all the incriminated papers was the work of one clever boy. He had lent his paper to two boys, each of whom had lent his to others; and so it went on, As far as I remember, eleven boys were involved. I was able to write up on the blackboard a chart in the form of a family tree, showing exactly what had happened, and who had copied from whom. The boys were fain to admit that my chart was exact in every particular. To them this seemed little short of witchcraft, but then they had not had the advantage of studying the first principles of textual criticism. (The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861–1986, 2nd ed., 72)

15:24:11 - Category: Textual Issues - Link to this article -


-----


Egun Caner, Pat Robertson, and the Satanic Verses

03/08/2010 - James White

   I was looking over the transcript of an interview between Pat Robertson and Ergun Caner from April 2, 2002 (that is the posting date; evidently the program would have been recorded earlier, perhaps in 2001). I have been sent many links of late from folks who have been digging into the elephant-like memory of the Internet. I ran across the transcript of the interview and, given that it is relatively early in Ergun Caner's post-Butch era (it seems he went mainly by "Butch" until after 9/11, when his "former devout Muslim" persona began to become front and center) I found it particularly interesting. I had not remembered later claims that he was beaten up by the "Youth Jihad" when he announced his conversion at the mosque (one wonders if he had not heard about Sahih Al-Bukhari 9:57 as a devout Muslim youth?). Once again the chronology is all mixed up, as in this interview he claims that on the same day of his conversion his father disowned him "but both of my brothers accepted Christ." Given that elsewhere he puts a year in between these events, once again we can, at best, conclude Dr. Caner is not big on accuracy in his story telling. Then we have the following exchange. Now, note that Caner's anti-Reformed bias is deep, and early, and, as has been documented too many times to recount, inaccurate. But my real concern here is the discussion of the Satanic Verses. Here is a brief description I posted in 2007, and I highly recommend David Wood's debate with Adnan Rashid on this topic, found here.

   Pat Robertson: What about the concept of kismet? It is fate. Isn't that deeply involved in the Muslim religion?
   Ergun Caner: Absolutely. I always say to my students that Islam is hyper Calvinist. Islam believes that if you are a believer in Islam, a believer in Allah, great. If not, it is our job to kill you and send you to hell faster. If you kill us, we go to paradise. Its the only eternal security that a Muslim has.
   Pat Robertson: That's it? In other words, if you live your life and you die, you have no knowledge of where you are going to go eternally?
   Ergun Caner: Muhammad even said, 'I don't even know where I will go.' He said, 'Only Allah knows.' The founder of the faith in which I was raised had no assurance of his own salvation.
   Pat Robertson: What about the satanic verses? Salman Rushdie said that in the Koran Muhammad admitted that certain of it came from Satan. I have not read the Koran and certainly not in Arabic. Is that true?
   Ergun Caner: He started to have seizures at the age of 40 and his wife assured him it was from god and not demonic. What Salman Rushdie did was he switched it. He asked, What if the seizures and the visions that Muhammad received were from Satan? That's why it is called the 'Satanic Verses'.
   Pat Robertson: I was under the impression that Rushdie found something where Muhammad was questioning if it was from Satan.
   Ergun Caner: He did. Muhammad did question that. His wife said it was from god. She is the one who told him, 'God is trying to reveal something new to you.' Muslims who become Christians who speak Arabic, they don't even use the word Allah. When they speak of God, they call him 'Khoda,' a Persian word, because we are so terrified of confusing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with Allah, the false god that we served as Muslims.

   It is hard not to get the impression that Pat Robertson knew more about the real "Satanic Verses" incident than Ergun Caner did! Caner kept going back to the original experience of Muhammad in the cave, and Khadijah's response to it, rather than to the real "Satanic Verses" incident in reference to Surah 53. He did not seem (at this point in 2001/2 anyway) to be aware of the background. Now, of course, most Muslims don't know much about this incident, either. Few have read Ibn Ishaq or any other early source. But one would expect that given Caner's claims for himself, he would at least have a student's knowledge of the incident.
   Immediately after this transcript I read a Baptist Press story covering Caner's speaking at First Baptist of Dallas on September 24, 2001. Once again the story begins with how devout Caner was as a Muslim. Since this is a newspaper account, we cannot expect close attention to detail. However, some of the same problems appear here, such as the lack of specificity as to "Hadith 9:57" and the like. But what did catch my attention, all the way back in 2001, was this line: "Caner, who serves as assistant professor of theology and church history at Criswell College, has spoken in mosques and debated Muslim scholars." Evidently, this isn't a claim that grew over time, it was present from the start in his post 9/11 rise to stardom. Possibly the numbers grew over the years, but the claim to "debate Muslim scholars" (even in the context of a mosque!) is part and parcel of his personal claims for himself.

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


-----


A Monday DL...Early (10am MST)

03/07/2010 - James White

Since I will be traveling both Tuesday and Thursday, we will do a special, early edition of the DL tomorrow at 10am MST (9am PST, Noon EST). I did not get a chance to play the "quote the text, quickly move therefrom" response of the men on the Pastor's Perspective program when someone called in to ask about the heart of stone and the heart of flesh. That has to be heard to be believed. See you tomorrow morning!

17:53:05 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


The 2010 Scottish Invasion!

03/06/2010 - James White

My dear brother Pastor Jim Handyside of the Reformed Baptist Chuch at Anniesland (Glasgow area, Scotland) will be speaking in churches in the Florida/Georgia area over the next number of weeks. Let me tell you, there are few preachers who draw the line as straight and who cut to the heart of the matter the way brother Handyside does. If you are tired of smarmy "feel good" preaching, and you are anywhere near these locations, do yourself a favor and go hear him. Here is his itinerary:
Jim Handyside's 2010 US Itinerary
March 3-11 Williston, FL 352-528-2216
March 10 Jacksonville, FL 904-272-6483
March 11-19 Sebring, FL 863-385-3787
March 19-24 Sanford, FL 386-492-2218
March 24-27 St. Mary, GA 912-882-5704
Mar 27-Apr3 Macon, GA 770-631-3660
April 3-6 Atlanta, GA 404-484-7690
April 6-13 Woodstock, GA 678-880-1123


17:49:22 - Category: Reformed Baptist Issues - Link to this article -


-----


Greenville, South Carolina

03/06/2010 - Jeff Downs

This is where Dr. White will be this coming week for the 2010 Spring Theology Conference presented by Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary on the topic "The Nature and Sufficiency of Scripture."

The conference will be held at Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church in Simpsonville, SC. The conference runs from Tuesday, March 9 (1pm) - Thursday, March 11 (12:15pm). On Tuesday, there will be a prospective student luncheon at the Seminary (need to sign up for this, but I'm sure the seminary would love for you to visit; classes will be in session), and there will be tours of the new seminary building throughout the three days of the conference.

You can check out the schedule of the conference by clicking here. If you want to know Dr. White's schedule in particular, he will be speaking Wednesday, 1:45-3pm and Thursday 10:35-11:50am. Plus, there will be a number of Q&A sessions in which Dr. White will participate.

On Tuesday and Wednesday evening, 7-8:30pm EDT, Dr. David Murray will preach on the topic of scripture. It is my understanding that both of these sermons will be carried live on Sermon Audio. These two evening sessions are open to the public, so if you did not register and will not register, but you are in the area, come join us during these times.

I am also hoping to put together video of the conference (sshh, perhaps some questions for Dr. White) and will post those on the GPTS YouTube site.

Hope to see you on Tuesday. Don't forget to stop by the sound room to say "Hi." One of the selections we'll be singing at the conference is Ps. 98a. Click Here to listen to the conference attendees from 2006.

[btw: If you are looking for a seminary in which you will receive an excellent education, and affordable tuition ($150 per credit hour), Greenville Seminary may be the place for you. I would encourage you to look through the website. Or, you may want to check out the seminary video, which was one of things that captured my attention].

13:42:53 - Category: Resources - Link to this article -


-----


On Reading in Context and Questions for the LU Board of Trustees

03/05/2010 - James White

   I've been hearing rumblings on the net since I posted the "you don't do Muslim prayers in bathrooms" article that, "Oh, but you can!" It is truly amazing the lengths to which folks are willing to go. I have seen people saying you can do so in your prison cell, for example. Wonderful. Ergun Caner was not in prison (no matter how much high school may, at times, seem like that to some). Others have said that if you fear for your life you can pray in a bathroom. Wonderful. But again, by his own words, Dr. Caner was not in fear of his life. He was a zealous Muslim. He was purposefully, willfully wearing self-identifying Muslim garb to school (and, I note, to the church in which we was eventually converted). So this exception is likewise utterly irrelevant.
   Just as I learned a lot back in 2004 when I responded to Mark Seifrid on the topic of justification, I am learning a lot now, too. Evangelicalism is soaked in emotionally-driven, post-modern thinking that accepts, wholesale, the ever popular social dictum, "Of all the commandments, this is the greatest: never question someone who says Jesus three times fast." So once again I stand convicted of the grave sin of offense. "You are on a crusade!" "How dare you attack a Christian brother!" "Get off it, move on!" And so on. It doesn't seem to matter to these folks that there are matters of ministerial integrity on the table. Offend God? Offend the gospel? Offend the entire apologetic outreach to major world religions by demonstrating that Christians circle the wagons rather than seek consistency and honesty? Do those things really matter? It seems that to many, they do not. But for me, there is no choice in this matter: the question is now before the broader Christian community, and Liberty University in particular: which is more important? Integrity in the proclamation of the gospel, or popularity and enrollment? The tragedy of this situation is just this: the documented examples of either direct falsehood or gross exaggeration are almost always connected directly to vitally important truths of the gospel. It is as if the power of the message is not enough, it has to be "amplified" by adding the "Convert Exaggeration Syndrome" issues related to how pious and truly Muslim Caner was. And if it does not bother you that the proclamation of Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life has been directly connected to half-truths and exaggerations (and defended by many as well!), then you need to do some serious self-examination.
   Last evening someone in channel related what they claimed was a message from the head of Liberty University. He couldn't verify it, but what he posted said this:
Marcus, I saw your wall post. In fact, I recently read all of James White's accusations and I just returned home from our bi-annual LU Board of Trustees meeting. I brought this matter up and it was discussed in detail. The board will meet again tomorrow. Are you a seminary student? Jerry

   Let's say for the sake of discussion this FB wall post is genuine. If the Board of Trustees is aware of this situation, then I need to make sure they know what questions truly need to be answered. In the process, I can clarify some issues as well.
   First, I do not agree with Mr. Khan, the producer of the videos that have, in large part, raised these issues, when he concludes that Ergun Caner's entire story is a fabrication. I have never suggested this. But there are many serious problems with the Caner story, and for the sake of truth, and ministry to Muslims, these questions need to be answered. I have already raised a number of these issues personally. Mr. Khan and one of my bloggers, TurretinFan, have been exchanging posts on those, and other related issues. (Here is TurretinFan's most recent, which has links to all that went before). There is no question in my mind that Ergun Caner's father was a Muslim from Turkey, that at some point the family moved from Sweden to the United States, settling eventually in Ohio. I do not question that Ergun Caner was converted at some point in 1981 or 1982 or so, his two brothers at a later point, resulting in a complete disruption of their relationship with their father, who died as a Muslim. I don't believe these matters can be contested, though the fact that the published and spoken statements of both Ergun and Emir Caner provide wildly conflicting dates, resulting in as much as a ten year discrepancy in really figuring out when the family moved to the US, at what age Caner converted, etc. I believe Ergun Caner was a Muslim. However, that is where the story becomes muddled due to Caner's own statements. I currently believe, in light of the information I have examined (and given Ergun's unwillingness to openly address these issues, he leaves the rest to speculation), that he was not a devout Muslim at all. His knowledge of Islam is not that of a former devout Muslim, or his conversion was at a much younger age (I had once calculated it, on the basis of his own statements, at 13) than he now claims, which would also explain his ignorance of basic level liturgical/confessional terminology. While I am not a former Muslim, and have only been studying the religion to any depth since late 2005, I would not make the same errors Caner makes with regularity regarding the Shahada, Surah Al Fatiha, the proper names of the Pillars of Islam, etc. At this point in time I am convinced that Ergun Caner is guilty of exaggerating his connection to Islam for the purposes of self-promotion. Prior to 9/11 "Butch" Caner did not seem to be marketing himself as a celebrity convert from Islam. But given the general ignorance of the vast majority of Evangelicals, it seems he discovered he could get away with not only using highly questionable language about his ethnic heritage (though he is only half Turkish) but he could set himself apart from the "crowd" so to speak, eventually resulting in his landing high profile positions. And if he had just avoided putting his vaunted claims of apologetic activity on the web, along with his specific claims to have debated men like Shabir Ally, he'd probably have gotten away with it.
   For the leadership of Liberty University, the questions that need to be answered: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

19:36:11 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -


-----


Doing Salah in the Bathroom

03/04/2010 - James White

   It does not take a Muslim scholar to figure out that saying any of the daily prayers in a bathroom would be forbidden. When I mentioned the idea to my wife yesterday, she immediately said, "What? Surely that isn't allowed!" Given that my wife has never studied Islam, I can only assume it is a given that Islam would not allow Salah to be offered in an unclean place such as a bathroom.
   It is not surprising then that it is fairly easy to establish that from written sources. The Hadith of Al-Tirmidhi, 242, reads: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) prohibited the observance of prayers in seven places: on a dung hill, in a slaughterhouse, in a graveyard, in the middle of the road, in a bathroom, in the watering place where camels drink and sit, and upon the roof of the House of Allah. Likewise, we read in Fiqh-us-Sunnah 4.53a, "...they cite the Prophet's hadith: "The entire earth is a mosque except for a graveyard and a bathroom." Anyone even slightly familiar with the materials that make up the body of hadith literature knows that ritual purity, and especially issues in reference to urination and defecation, are prevalent in Muhammad's speech and thought.
   Why discuss something like this? I mentioned briefly at the beginning of the Dividing Line today that I had been informed that a clip would soon be posted wherein Dr. Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Theological Seminary, speaks of his conversion. And in the midst of this presentation he actually says he said his prayers in a bathroom at high school. About twenty minutes into the DL the YouTube video containing this clip was posted, and I was able to listen to it after the program. Here it is:


   My observations.
   1) To me the important element of this is the claim by Dr. Caner that he would take his prayer rug "and roll it out in the high school bathrooms." Why? You only roll out your prayer rug to...pray, of course. But, any Muslim knows you do not offer Salah in a bathroom! Was he hiding from the other kids? That makes no sense, because he claims to have worn the traditional garb, even saying in one of his testimonies that when the pastor opened his eyes while preaching he saw Ergun standing in front of him "wearing a dress" (i.e., Islamic garb). Who wears the Islamic dress to school and then hides in a bathroom to do the prayers, in direct contradiction to Islamic practice and law?
   Why is this important? Listen to the clip again. Hear the passion? The emotion? Hear the amens in the audience? He's wound up. He's on fire. Sweatin' and spittin and preachin' up a storm, he's headed for the invitation, and it's time to close the deal. This is when Caner gets in trouble. This is when he starts making things up on the fly. This is when it is dangerous to be a former anything. This is when Convert Exaggeration Syndrome strikes, and once it hits you, and you succumb to it, it gets easier and easier to just go with the flow. If you get away with it for years on end, your resistance to it disappears...until you are so caught up in a web of exaggerations you can't escape. Caner is trying to make a point: be diligent in witness, don't give up. Great point. He was making a point about the centrality of Christ's death to redemption when he decided to string together some Arabic sounding names, like, Shabir Ally, Abdul Saleeb, and Nadir Ahmed. All for a good cause, right? But truth is never adorned by the clothing of falsehood.
   2) His comment about roller skating in sand is meant to continue the "I'm from Turkey, we have lots of sand" persona. I think, however, they do, in fact, have some sand in Sweden...which is where he was born. I imagine there are some roller skates there, too. Snow is more of an issue than sand. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

21:32:07 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -


-----


Calls, Calls, and More Calls, on the DL

03/04/2010 - James White

   It was a caller-driven show today. I had cued up some Robert Price material, but the calls started early and kept coming. We even took some Skype calls for the first time (the sound quality is amazing!). Covered a very, very wide range of topics, from divorce and remarriage to preparing for apologetics, the meaning of true forgiveness, etc. Something for everyone! Here's the program.

20:13:58 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


What I Am Looking at During the DL

03/04/2010 - James White

   Thought I'd share with you what I'm looking at while doing the Dividing Line:



14:24:50 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


The Trinity on the Janet Mefferd Show

03/04/2010 - James White

   I had a great time on the Janet Mefferd Show yesterday, discussing the nature of the Trinity. Even had a Jewish apologist caller, which proved interesting. You can listen to Janet's show here.

11:40:39 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -


-----


Benedict XVI Agreeing (in part) with Luther and Pastor David King

03/04/2010 - Tur8infan

Benedict XVI (B16) has written a book called "Principles of Catholic Theology." It is something he published while a Cardinal and prefect of the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (the modern name of the Inquisition). This book raises several points of interest as to B16's view of Luther and his view of the church fathers. The following post combines some thoughts of James Swan with a few derivative thoughts of my own. The surprising conclusion is that B16 comes out remarkably in favor of things that both Luther and Pastor David King have said. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

08:40:27 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -


-----


Mortal and Venial Sins?

03/04/2010 - James White

   Pastor David King, co-author of the three-volume set titled Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith, has been spending a great deal of time in the years since the publication of that work continuing his work of cataloging patristic citations that are relevant to Rome's claims and dogmas. He just posted the following in our chat channel:
Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379): How are we to deal with those who avoid greater sins but commit small sins regarding them as venial sins? First of all we must know that in the New Testament it is impossible to observe this distinction. For one sentence is passed against all sins, that of the Lord Who said: Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin.
----W. K. L. Clarke, The Ascetic Works of Saint Basil, Translations of Christian Literature Series I, Greek Texts (London: S.P.C.K., 1925), The Shorter Rules, Question & Answer #293 (CCXCIII), pp. 342-343.

The question immediately rises, how could Basil have held to the Roman concept of purgatory if this was his view of sin, a view quite contrary to that expressed by Tim Staples in our recent on-air debate on purgatory.
   I hope our readers will note that there have been some excellent discussions of claims made by leading Roman Catholic apologists of late on this blog (and those of our contributors). And I need to point out that the other side has been deafeningly silent in response. The "big names" simply ignore counter-documentation, seemingly leaving that effort, if it takes place at all, to their "smaller brothers." The post refuting Steve Ray's statements on purgatory, for example, is devastatingly full. Do you think you will hear a single word from Ray in counter-argumentation? If you do, it will be filled with bluster and ad-hominem, not documentation. It is a fair and honest statement that when it comes to these topics, the Roman side seems downright defenseless. You will not hear that from their media outlets and the like, but the public persona they seek to create is truly a shallow facade.
   I might add to my observation that I have twice asked Tim Staples whether Catholic Answers will be making the recording of our debate on purgatory available to their listeners and supporters. Both e-mails have been ignored. No response at all. If you listen to CA Live, you know they heavily promoted his exchange with Steve Gregg, and they continue to promote the Bible Answer Man show (which they continue to call a "debate") with Jimmy Akin as well. But, so far, no one has said a word about hearing any advertising about the purgatory debate with Tim Staples. We can continue to hope, but at the moment, it is not looking very good.

07:42:58 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -


-----


When Islam Reigns Supreme

03/03/2010 - James White

Islamabad (AsiaNews) - A court in Kasur district, Punjab, convicted a Christian couple, Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi, to 25 years in prison. According to the Centre for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS), judge Ajmal Hussein convicted the couple for touching the Qur'an without washing their hands.
Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi were released on bail last January, but were re-arrested after the judge ruled against them. The husband was locked up in Kasur's district prison; the wife was sent to the women's prison in Multan. Both have started serving 25 years behind bars.


17:04:44 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -


-----


Today on the Dividing Line: The Southern Baptist Convention, Ergun Caner, and 1 John 5:1

03/02/2010 - James White

But not quite in that order, thankfully. A lengthy call took up most of the program, focused upon the Caner situation and the need for simple integrity in being honest about what you say in the field of apologetics. A caller at the end shifted the topic to 1 John 5:1. I'm a bit surprised at the responses I have received to the discussion of this text. There seems to be some very strong resistance to any concept of God being the one who raises dead sinners to life. Must have saving faith within the sphere of human capacity, or so it seems. I sure am glad I've joined the Lazarus club: those who are very thankful the Son of God is not dependent upon human cooperation to bring about the resurrection of dead sinners! In any case, here's the program.

18:00:42 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


For My Friends in the Kansas Area

03/02/2010 - James White




17:44:24 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -


-----


Present with the Lord ... in Purgatory?

03/02/2010 - Tur8infan

Over at Catholic Convert, pilgrimage peddler Steve Ray has a post arguing that a certain frequently cited Scripture does not dictate against Purgatory, that other Scripture does teach Purgatory, and that Purgatory involves being in the presence of the Lord (link to post). In the following analysis, we'll consider his arguments piece by piece: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

09:27:13 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -


-----


Ways to Contact Us on the DL Today

03/02/2010 - James White

I mentioned last evening that we are going to be doing some new things on the DL today. First, I will have Twitter up, so you can contact me with your questions at @DrOakley1689. Then, we will be trying to use Skype today as well. Here is the Skype address: dividing.line. That's how you can get in with your call. I hope this will increase the number of over-seas participants in the program. In fact, today, the one system that is most questionable due to technical issues is our phone system! But, we hope to have that working as well. Join us at 11am MST, 1pm EST!

07:39:45 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -


-----


A Busy Few Weeks Headed My Way!

03/01/2010 - James White

I really need to fire my secretary. Well, that's me, actually. I am home for barely a week before heading to Greenville, then home for only two days before heading to Leavenworth, Kansas! Talk about a busy start to March. In any case, I am looking ahead to the debate with Robert Price at the CRI National Conference in May in Florida. I have placed some needed resources on the Ministry Resource List, and trust some of our faithful supporters will assist me in my preparation for this debate.
Tomorrow on the DL we will be trying to incorporate a whole bunch of new technology...which probably means disaster. However, we are scheduled to be able to start taking Skype calls tomorrow! I think the Skype address is Dividing_Line. I think. I'll verify that at the beginning of the program, which we hope to start at its normal time, 11am MST.
It is a rather sad thing to observe all the wild-eyed chest-pounding going on on the blogosphere in a vain attempt to deflect attention from the unanswered questions facing Ergun Caner. All my dear brothers in the Lord have joined together to throw dust and dirt in the air rather than acknowledge that there are some serious issues to be faced by Liberty University in Lynchburg. The questions I posted last week, that have yet to be answered, will not be going away anytime soon, and they may only be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the "on the fly" creations Ergun Caner has been using to puff his resume for quite some time. I am thankful for those who have contacted me who understand the simple necessity of addressing Dr. Caner's claims---a necessity that flows from basic Christian standards of honesty and integrity, and a necessity that flows from the reality of apologetic ministry, not just among Muslims, but all who need to hear a reasoned defense of the faith. But it is very troubling to see especially the young people who have become so enamored with the image Dr. Caner projects that they will lash out at anyone who would question it. Hero worship is a shameful thing in the Christian church. Here is an e-mail that was forwarded to me this morning:
Mr. White,

As a Southern Baptist I am very angry with what you are doing right
now. Dr. Ergun Caner is an incredible scholar and man of God. Why do
you incessantly attack him all the time?

I have personally benefited from Dr. Caner's ministry and believe he
is an intellectual giant who is doing a great service to the SBC.

Please stop attacking fellow christians and stick to debating Mormons
and Muslims.

It is very sad to see this kind of thinking. Not only is the gentleman deceived ("incessantly attacking him all the time"), but he does not seemingly understand that to debate the Mormons and Muslims you need to be consistently truthful. Otherwise, you are not actually ministering to them in a Christian fashion. And this is all about truthfulness and honesty. No, none of those star-struck with Ergun Caner's persona have even attempted to address the actual substantive issues that are right out in the open. They do not seem to be concerned at all about such things. It's all about popularity and numbers, and if we haven't learned by now how dangerous that is in the church, we need to re-learn that lesson quickly.

19:29:53 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -


-----


Is 1 John 5:10 Relevant to the Ordo Salutis and 1 John 5:1/2:29, and 4:7?

03/01/2010 - James White

An evidently anti-Reformed textual critic has posted a brief criticism of using 1 John 5:1 as a text relevant to the ordo salutis and in particular to the relationship of saving faith and regeneration (though both terms appear in the text). Anyone who knows the identity of this blogger please let me know, I'd be interested in knowing. I have seen his material linked on the Evangelical Textual Criticism list. In any case, here is my response.



10:21:57 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -


<< Previous Month
© 2012 - Alpha & Omega Ministries