Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
Today on a Jumbo Dividing Line
08/30/2011 - James White"It seems to me that what Dr. Silverman ought to do tonight is he ought to become a Christian who doesn't believe in Biblical inerrancy. That would be a perfectly consistent conclusion for him to draw as a result of tonight's debate. That God exists, that He has revealed Himself in Christ, but he's not ready yet to believe in Biblical inerrancy. I would be thrilled if he made a decision like that tonight." [wild applause] These are the words of Dr. William Lane Craig in a recent debate that we reviewed briefly on the Dividing Line today. I had a few questions for Dr. Craig as a result of these final words in this recent debate. Then we went back to our review of the Reeves/Perkins debate, then the Kunde/Green debate, finishing off with the Fernandes/Comis debate. We may actually finish that last debate in the very near future! Here's the program.
And don't forget the WayBack Machine, streaming Dividing Lines from 1998 onward 24/7! You can listen on the Flash Player found here.
Also, please note that Thursday's Dividing Line will begin at 10:30 AM.
Today's Sermons from Hebrews 10
08/28/2011 - James White
A Few Thoughts on the Geisler/Licona Conflict
08/27/2011 - James WhiteNorman Geisler has written two open letters to Mike Licona regarding some assertions Licona makes in his massive tome “On the Resurrection of Jesus”. Specifically, why Licona seems to take Matthew 27:52–53 as ahistorical, seeing it as “poetic” or “legend.” While I have Licona's new book, it is not at the top of my priority reading list at the moment, so I cannot comment on the accuracy of Dr. Geisler's recitation of Licona's position. If, in point of fact, Mike Licona has taken a position that this small fragment of text is non-historical and legendary, that would be very troubling. In fact, I would agree with almost everything Norman Geisler has said in his two open letters.
Let me comment briefly on this text from Matthew chapter 27:
“The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.” (52-53)
This brief text has been the object of much scorn and ridicule, both by religious writers as well as atheists. It is surely easy to understand why naturalistic materialists would have a problem with this text, but of course, they have a problem with all texts that contain explicit supernaturalism. The question is why a believing Christian would have a problem with this particular text. Some have asked why it is that Matthew alone records this particular event. Of course, there is no overriding necessity for each of the synoptic Gospel writers to include everything that is found in the tradition from which they were deriving their narrative. Only those who think that Matthew is slavishly following after Mark and has no access to anything outside of the alleged “Q” and Mark would have a foundation for questioning Matthew’s singular recording of this particular event.
The fact is, many in the “academy” are embarrassed by text like this. Such stark claims of supernatural activity cause many who are seeking to be accepted by those entrapped in worldly wisdom to cringe. I saw this attitude many times when I was in seminary, and continue to see it to this very day.
The fact is, this is not all that difficult of a text. Surely, we do not have a lot of information about the event that Matthew narrates for us. There are all sorts of questions we cannot answer about the specifics of this event. Matthew does not intend to provide some kind of exhaustive accounting of all of the events that took place at the time of, and immediately following, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But we should be fair with what he does say. First of all, this was not a general resurrection of all the Old Testament saints. We are told that “many bodies” were involved. How many? We are not told specifically, but I have always been amazed that one of the key elements of this text gets missed by even the brightest interpreters. What I mean is this: When these resurrected saints entered into Jerusalem they appeared “to many” how did those individuals know who they were? This was not the zombie apocalypse. They were not walking around in their grave clothes. They had to be recognized by the inhabitants of Jerusalem. That means they had died in the recent past. If they had died two hundred years earlier, how would anyone recognize who they were? Instead, I think we have here a parallel to the situation with Lazarus. Lazarus had died, but only in the recent past, hence, his resurrection could function as a clear demonstration of Jesus’ power over death. In the same way, these select saints, who had died in the recent past, when they appear in Jerusalem are recognized by those who knew them in life. Since we are told that they came out of the tombs “after his resurrection,” clearly it is the intention of Matthew to communicate that in the resurrection Jesus has inaugurated a new era. Death has been conquered, and evidence has been provided from multiple sources. We have no reason to believe that these individuals continued on beyond a particular period of time. That is, just as Lazarus experienced a second physical death and does not continue to live somewhere in hiding to this day, (unlike the three Nephite apostles according to Mormonism!) so these individuals would live for another period of time and then pass away. We also should not miss the fact that these were righteous people. They are called saints. Hence, this blessing upon them, no matter how long it lasted, would allow them to testify of God's goodness, and his justice. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
Did Thomas Aquinas Eventually Believe in the Immaculate Conception?
08/27/2011 - Tur8infanIt ought to be well-known that Rome's dogma of the Immaculate Conception was denied by her leading medieval saint, Thomas Aquinas (as outlined here). This has been something of a thorn in the side of those contending that Mary was immaculately conceived. They have tried to explain Aquinas' position away in various ways - such as by arguing that Aquinas didn't believe that life begins at conception (which is true, but not particularly helpful to their case). Another theory sometimes set forth (recently, for example, by Taylor Marshall) is that Aquinas came to hold to the dogma of the immaculate conception late in life, even after writing the portion of the Summa Theologica that denies it.
Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. is (or, I suppose I should say, "was") one of the leading Thomist theologians of the 20th century. In his Discourse II on Mary's Immaculate Conception, published in "The Mother of the Savior" (1948), Garrigou-Lagrange wrote:
In the final period of his career, when writing the Exposito super salutatione angelica----which is certainly authentic -----in 1272 or 1273, St. Thomas expressed himself thus: 'For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure in the matter of fault (quantum ad culpam) and incurred neither Original nor mental nor venial sin.'The problem is this:
The "neither original" in that quotation is an interpolation. Gibbings pointed that out long ago in his "Roman forgeries and falsifications" but you can see for yourself if you get a modern critical text of the work.
The Latin actually says "Ipsa enim purissima fuit et quantum ad culpam, quia ipsa virgo nec mortale nec veniale peccatum incurrit." ("For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure because the Virgin herself incurred neither mortal nor venial sin.")
What is especially shameful about this lie (perhaps I should be reluctant to call it a lie when Garrigou-Lagrange may simply have been working from a corrupted text, but it is hard to attribute ignorance of Thomas to a Thomist of his stature) is that the same work earlier explained:
"Sed Christus excellit beatam virginem in hoc quod sine originali conceptus et natus est. Beata autem virgo in originali est concepta, sed non nata." ("But Christ excels the Blessed Virgin in this, because he was conceived and born without original [sin]. Therefore, the Blessed Virgina was conceived in original [sin] but not born in it].")
No, Aquinas died believing that Mary was conceived in original sin. Garrigou-Lagrange is to be blamed for perpetuating a falsehood about Thomas and Taylor Marshall is to be blamed (much less, of course) for perpetuating Garrigou-Lagrange's error. Does that make Thomas a modern Protestant? Of course not. He disagreed with us on many matters, even about Mary.
How can you cash out this fact? Well, Rome insists today that you must believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. The immaculate conception of Mary is not taught in Scripture and it was not taught by any father prior to Augustine. It was denied by numerous men who were or became bishops of Rome. Even Garrigou-Lagrange states (a little above his attempt to resuscitate Thomas for the immaculatist position):
The Council of Trent (Denz., 792) declares, when speaking of Original Sin which infects all men, that it does not intend to include the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary. In 1567 Baius is condemned for having taught the contrary (Denz., 1073). In 1661 Alexander VII affirmed the privilege, saying that almost all Catholics held it, though it had not yet been defined (Denz., 1100). Finally, on December 8th, 1854, we have the promulgation of the solemn definition (Denz., 1641).Thomas and the others help to show that Rome's demand that we believe in Mary's immaculate conception is really a demand for us to have implicit faith in the church of Rome. The dogma cannot be established from Scripture, it cannot be established from the fathers of the first three centuries, and it is opposed to the testimony of folks like Thomas Aquinas, who could hardly have been unaware of an apostolic tradition of an immaculate conception, if one existed.
It must be admitted that in the 12th and 13th centuries certain great doctors, as, for example, St. Bernard,  St. Anselm,  Peter Lombard,  Hugh of St. Victor,  St. Albert the Great,  St. Bonaventure,  and St. Thomas Aquinas appear to have been disinclined to admit the privilege.
29. Epist. ad canonicos Lugdunenses.
30. De conceptione virginali.
31. In III Sent., dist. 3.
32. Super Missus est.
33. Item Super Missus est.
34. In III Sent., dist. 3, q. 27.
Therefore, Rome is claiming the ability to simply define dogma that cannot be proven from Scripture or Tradition (History) and make that dogma so central to the faith that to deny is to - well - hear for yourself:
Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.(Ineffabilis Deus - 1854)
That is sola ecclesia for you. If you implicitly trust Rome, the testimony of about 10 bishops of Rome and about half a dozen doctors of the church (Gregory the Great, Albert, Bernard, Aquinas, Anselm, and Bonaventure) will not matter. Yet, if you will critically consider Rome's claims, perhaps this issue of the Immaculate Conception can help you to see that Rome's claims about itself are false. She had no right to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and no good reason to think it true. She cannot establish it from Scripture and it is not an apostolic tradition.
Five Hours of Dividing Line Broadcasting This Week! (Link Fixed)
08/26/2011 - James WhiteDon't think I can keep this pace up, but I hope it is helpful! Played the entirety of the Perkins/Reeves debate on the Godhead on the stream, and then did a 90 minute DL yesterday afternoon. Started out the first half hour finishing up reviewing each of the references to me and my work by Micah Coate in his horrific new book, endorsed by a long list of people who either should have known better, or who just don't care, A Cultish Side of Calvinism. Then we went back to the Fernandes/Comis debate, then to the Abdullah Kunde/Samuel Green debate on the Trinity and Tawheed, and finished up with some more rebuttal of Roger Perkins. Here's the program.
And don't forget the WayBack Machine, streaming Dividing Lines from 1998 onward 24/7! You can listen on the Flash Player found here.
Today on an Unusual Wednesday Jumbo Edition of The Dividing Line
08/24/2011 - James WhiteAnother 90 minute jumbo addition of the program today, with the first hour spent reviewing Abdullah Kunde's opening statement in a debate with Samuel Green. Then we opened the phones...well, I guess, took Skype calls, mainly, on the TNIV, George Bryson's dishonesty, and the size of Pope Urban the V's right ring finger---OK, not quite, it was about some issues relating to Oneness Theology, but we like to give Johnny a hard time. Here's the program.
Don't forget! Tomorrow at 11am we will live stream the entirety of the Reeves/Perkins debate, which will end one minute before we start the last DL of the week, a jumbo edition, beginning at 3:30pm MST. Join us then!
Upcoming Oneness Debate in Brisbane, Australia
08/23/2011 - James White
Today on a Mega-Sized Dividing Line
08/23/2011 - James WhiteWent for two hours today, having planned to cover four topics at 30 minutes each---and failing that plan miserably. I took way too much time responding to Micah Coate's attempt to get around Romans 9 by chopping it up into disparate, disconnected parts and ignoring the flow of thought and argumentation. I have been told that in this he is simply following some of the rather radical proponents of "anti-Lordship salvation" under whom he has studied at Phoenix Seminary. In any case, we were not able to get back to our study of the Fernandes/Comis debate. Instead, we went back to responding to Roger Perkins, but we did so by looking at his debate with Bruce Reeves. I gave up on the Slick/Perkins debate mainly due to its lack of audio quality. In other ways the Reeves/Perkins debate is superior anyway, especially for our purposes in responding to this form of theology. But then in the last portion of the program we managed to finally get back to where I should be in my thinking and studying, that being the area of Islam. I began reviewing Abdullah Kunde's debate with Samuel Green on the subject of the Trinity versus Tawheed. This is directly relevant to the subjects will be debating in Sydney in October. Here's the program.
We will be doing two more Dividing Lines this week. Tomorrow, beginning at 1 PM Mountain standard Time we will do a jumbo sized program of 90 min. In the first hour I will continue my review of the Kunde/Green debate. Then, we will open the phones for the last half-hour for all of you who've been complaining that I have not been taking any live calls for quite a while. That includes our beloved Johnny, who undoubtedly has a question about the personal views of a medieval Pope that I would never be able to answer. :-) So if you have been calling in wanting to get a question aired, tomorrow at 2 PM will be your chance.
Finally, on Thursday, we will get started at 3:30 PM for a jumbo sized program (90 minutes) continuing our examination of each of the debates we have started.
Now, we will be offering something special on the Way Back Machine on Thursday. I mentioned today on the program that I would contact Bruce Reeves and ask him if we could have his permission to play the debate he did with Roger Perkins on our stream. That way people could get the full context of the materials I will be reviewing over the next couple of weeks. He immediately responded in the positive. So, starting at 11 AM on Thursday we will begin streaming the 4 1/2 hours of debate that took place between Reeves and Perkins on the subject of the Trinity. Even those who are not directly involved in doing apologetics with reference to Oneness Theology will find this exchange interesting. It will certainly increase your appreciation of the comments that I make as I respond to Roger Perkins.
Also, I have noted a few people asking about when we are going to finish the Bob Coy sermon. We aren't. There really wasn't anything more to do with that particular presentation, as the only unique part of it had already been covered. I mentioned that when we moved our attention over to the Fernandes/Comis debate.
The Dark Side of Anti-Calvinism
08/21/2011 - James WhiteOne of the primary lessons I have been attempting to bring forward over the past week in my exposure of the inane nature of so much of the popular anti-Calvinism found in the writings of Geisler, Hunt, Vance, and Bryson (repeated without the slightest bit of concern by Coate) is the contrast between the biblically-based presentations of Reformed writers and our concern for accuracy in even representing those who disagree with us (and who attack us personally) and the methodology of "anything goes as long as it is opposed to Calvinism" of the other side. Bryson and Coate provided the best example ever with The Absurdity, the "let's grab something from the Internet which was actually never said in reality and skewer White with it since we really have nothing more substantive to say" example we have documented over the past few days.
Yesterday I noted comments by "george" on TurretinFan's blog, and though Mr. Bryson is playing cat and mouse in e-mail, it does seem that the follow up comments do indeed confirm that this is George Bryson doing the Bryson thing---commenting in comboxes and doing his best to obfuscate the issues. Let's lay out the facts briefly:
1) Bryson was in the studio for the Bible Answer Man broadcast, therefore, he has no excuses for misrepresenting what was said.
2) Bryson has access to the recordings of the Bible Answer Man broadcast, therefore, he has no excuses for misrepresenting what was said.
3) Bryson quoted a sarcastic summary statement from an Internet combox.
4) Bryson never said the words attributed to him in that summary, specifically, "Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyranically (sic) damns people for no good reason and causes babies to be raped." [Note: since Bryson never said these words, it follows inevitably that I could not "confess" or "agree" with words that were never spoken!]
5) Bryson repeated words I never said, for I never replied to a non-existent statement with "Yes, and here is why I believe THAT…." with the "that" referring to a mythical statement.
6) Bryson then said I had given an "admission" that bothers even other Calvinists. What "admission" can be found in a mythical, sarcastic paraphrase? When we actually listen to the exchange I am careful to define my terms (something Bryson simply will not allow, as caricaturization and equivocation is the heart and soul of his anti-Calvinist campaign) and to "admit" to nothing more than what we find in the London Baptist Confession of Faith:
God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
How shocking that an elder at a Reformed Baptist Church would confess one of the main statements of the confession of faith of that church! Amazing. Of course, Bryson rejects most of what is said there, and only wants people to "hear" the first portion, and ignore the part about second causes and the like. But the full statement makes it very clear that I affirmed the use of secondary causes, placed my answer in the context of biblical categories (Genesis 50, Acts 4), affirmed the active will of man and denied the absurd caricature that George Bryson is constantly guilty of promoting.
7) This amazing mythical "paraphrase" replete with utterly false "admission" charge attached was picked up uncritically by Micah Coate and repeated in his new book, proving, without question, what Bryson's intention was in publishing this material in his own book. Bryson endorsed Coate's book with the even more absurd "admission" statements attached to it.
These are the facts. They are not disputable. The only possible response of an honest man to being faced with these facts would be apology and retraction. What has George Bryson done? Spin, of course, and do anything he can to avoid having to answer for his statements. Over the course of the past 24 hours Bryson has given us a lesson in the dark side of anti-Calvinism. Though this is a simple matter of truthfulness, for Bryson, admitting his error here seems to him to amount to an admission that Calvinism is true, and that he will not do. So, he buries himself in equivocation in the hopes of distracting from the real issue, just as he does theologically in his writings against the Reformed faith. I provide his statements as they have appeared on TurretinFan's blog:
Ok-time for everyone to take a deep breath. The only time I mentioned anything about James admitting something I said: I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THE ADMISSION OF WHITE IS SO DISTURBING TO CALVINISTS. IN HIS DEFENSE, HOWEVER, WHITE IS ONLY ADMITTING WHAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ALL CALVINISTS. If you look in my book or on this thread you will see that James answered "yes" to the question I asked him. He answered "yes" several times but I kept pressing him on it because I wanted to make sure there was no "wiggle room" in his "yes" answer. James obliged me with by repeating "yes". In different ways James. My legitimate use of the "loose paraphrase" material only supported my contention that not all Calvinist agreed that he should have provided a "yes" answer. In fact, some of the critical comments made about His answer of "yes" to my question served to further support the point the I made. A number of Calvinist clearly interpreted his "yes" answer as a mistake on his part as well as a departure. I thought that the loose paraphrase supported my view that the "yes" answer was an admission and I think a lot of Calvinists would agree with me on that much. Let us all just get a grip and move on. There is nothing libelous in what I said about James or in what I say he admitted (which is "yes" to my question). I know that I am not going to get a lot of sympathy among the Reformed and I am not looking for any. But I refuse to believe that the Calvinists on this site think that the "yes" that he provided to my question and repeated under some prodding, makes me libelous or even dishonest. Perhaps I have misjudged some of you. In Christ, your non-Reformed brother in Christ.
SUNDAY, AUGUST 21, 2011 9:11:00 AM,
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
Atheists on the Run from William Lane Craig
08/20/2011 - James WhiteIt is pretty amazing when a story like this makes it to Fox News. Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Is Ready to Debate, but Finds Few Challengers. I have been watching the coverage of the upcoming UK tour of WLC and the fact that Richard Dawkins, like most atheists I've met, is far more comfortable with monologues than dialogues. They tend to be very brave amongst their own, or behind a keyboard, but they are significantly less excited about serious challenges to their worldview and their rhetoric. Dawkins, in particular, is so far out of his element (and way beyond his depth) in dealing with philosophy or theology or history---and he well knows it---that he knows a meaningful debate with a prepared opponent would diminish his following (and his readership). Dawkins' comments are the classic self-defensive actions of someone who knows he is in trouble: "I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion." Yes, Dawkins could never be accused of self-promotion. The humor is not even lost on the Brits!
I found it particularly ironic that the Fox News story interviewed David Silverman, the current President of American Atheists (he was VP when I debated him on Long Island). He is quoted as saying,
But David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, believes the reason behind the cancellation is much simpler.
"The fact is some people get tired of debating Christians because of the same arguments over and over again. And sometimes it’s a lot like arguing with a wall," he said.
Yes, I am sure that is why Mr. Silverman expressed interest in debating me on the topic of whether Jesus was a made up story, drawn from pagan sources? I think anyone watching our debate would conclude that Mr. Silverman was not arguing with a wall. If so, that wall sure seemed to stump him multiple times.
I think it is quite proper for Christians, especially those in the UK, to point to the cowardice of many of the leading atheists in the face of challenges. If this opens up possibilities for dialogue in that very secular nation, that's wonderful. But there is another aspect to this particular situation that I find interesting.
There are many atheists who refuse to debate William Lane Craig. He is definitely skilled at self-control, remaining on-target, etc. But, I wonder if those who are so excited about Craig's prowess realize that he has been challenged to debate a number of issues by men with just as much experience as he has in debate, but he has declined?
I have often commented on how useful a debate between myself and Dr. Craig would be on many issues. I have often played portions of Craig's studies, talks, and debates, and have challenged his statements. I have challenged his evidentialism, and a debate on whether we are called to proclaim the "greater probability of the existence of a god" or to proclaim the certainty of the existence of the God that men know exists would be very useful to our generation. I have challenged his Molinism, even lecturing on the topic at a Reformed Baptist Church right next to the Talbot/Biola campus in Southern California. I do not believe Molinism is at all consistent with biblical truth, and would love to challenge him to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the same God he describes as having "actuated" this world on the basis of middle knowledge, etc. And, of course, in light of his response to Christopher Hitchens, wherein the only "false" Christian faith he could come up with was not Romanism or any of the fundamentally sub- and anti-Christian movements of our day, but Calvinism, would not the students at Biola/Talbot find a full-orbed series of debates, right there on campus, on the doctrines of grace, to be an exceptionally useful addition to their education?
Dr. Craig is well aware of our desire to engage these subjects. Though we have never met, we know many of the same people, and I have been told, "through channels," that "Dr. Craig does not debate Christians." This is the same response you will get from Norman Geisler as well, when the topic comes up as to why he has declined a dozen such challenges over the past decade. I have never been given an explanation of why this is. We are both debaters. We have both debated many of the same people. We have just done so in very different ways, and it would be greatly edifying for the Christian community as a whole to understand the why's and wherefore's of those differences. We have both shown that we can debate fairly, fully, and respectfully. So I see absolutely no reason why Dr. Craig will not accept our challenge to engage these topics. We certainly stand ready, and given that the atheists are running for the hills with their hair on fire, it seems Dr. Craig would have plenty of extra time to join us in exploring, via debate, these important apologetic issues.
Is the Point that Difficult to Understand?
08/20/2011 - James WhiteI do not know if this comment was left by George Bryson or not. The nature of Internet comboxes is such that pseudepigraphy is encouraged and would be difficult to detect. But someone identifying themselves directly as George Bryson left the following comment on Turretinfan's blog, attached to an article documenting Bryson's dishonesty in what I am calling "The Absurdity" (see the immediately preceding blog entry for all the sordid details). Here is the comment:
I am a amazed that years after I quoted John Rabe, using what he said in my book has created such a stir. It seems to me that Rabe had a right to be honest about how he felt (at the time) about the exchange he heard on BAM. I am told (by Mr. White) that Mr. Rabe now regrets what he said and has apologized to Mr. White. I feel he has a right to regret and apologize for what he wrote but I honestly fail to see what he has to regret and apologize for. It is not like he agreed with me or anything I said. For a man that has earned the reputation of being an MMA apologetic cage fighter and a Reformed pit bull, Mr. White seems to have very thin skin. Your non-Reformed brother in Christ, George
Now, I surely hope that this is not a comment, in fact, by George Bryson, for the person making it doesn't get the point. And if it is George, well, that would speak volumes. [I have written to George asking if he made the comment, and should he choose to respond, I will update this entry in light of his reply. So far, however, to this point, neither Mr. Bryson nor Mr. Coate have responded to any of my emails.] Just in case this is actually George Bryson, let's restate the point for the sake of clarity.
George Bryson never said the words attributed to him in the “paraphrase.” I never said the words attributed to me in the “paraphrase.” The whole reason it was called a paraphrase is because it was a summary statement of what the person heard listening on the Internet. We have posted the audio of the exchange, and any honest person who listens to it can tell what was going on. I was attempting to bring forth a biblically-based discussion of the relationship of God, evil, man's will, and time. Mr. Bryson was doing everything in his power to stay away from the biblical text. Nowhere in the actual comments do I in any way, shape, or form confess to believe in an evil God who tyrannically condemns people to hell, forces them to commit sins, and causes little babies to be raped. In fact, the original statement attributed in the paraphrase to George Bryson was clearly sarcastic.
So here's the real problem. To take a sarcastic summary statement like this found somewhere on the Internet, and to use it as a basis for saying that I worship a God like this, is the height of dishonesty and absurdity. No person who honors truth could ever say such a thing. No person with integrity could utter such a statement. It is simply a bald-faced lie. So this isn't about the accuracy of the rather sarcastic summary statement at all. It is about the absurdity of taking that and making it representative of what Calvinists allegedly believe about God.
One of the real tragedies about this particular situation is this: this is a vitally important issue with wide reaching pastoral implications. We live in an evil world. We see it all around us. Having worked as a hospital chaplain myself I am well aware of how difficult it can be to attempt to give answers to the questions that come up about evil and suffering in our world. I had one good friend contact me just over the past few days about the fact that working in the medical field he encounters pediatric rape cases. To turn this vitally important issue into a football whereby one side seeks to misrepresent and attack the other is despicable. Let's put the situation out on the table. Mr. Bryson pretends to believe in a God who has exhaustive knowledge of the future. He will not explain how God has exhaustive knowledge of the future. When I asked him this during our discussion on the Bible Answer Man broadcast he could not give me anything more than, "Well, God just does." Bryson is more than willing to attack Calvinists for seeking to give a biblical answer to questions he refuses to directly address. But since he denied being an open theist, he has to confess that when God created he knew what was going to happen in that creation. He had perfect knowledge of every act of evil that would take place as a result of his choice to create. That means that either God had good and sufficient reasons, grounded in his own good will, expressed in his sovereign decree, for the existence of every single act of evil, or, he simply did not. That would render every act of evil foreknown to God meaningless in the final analysis. No one could ever look in the eyes of a believing Christian parent who has lost a child and confess that the judge of all the earth does right. No one could quote Romans 8:28 with a straight face and expect to be taken seriously.
Mr. Bryson wants to use the worst forms of human evil as a means of expressing his deep distrust of a truly sovereign God. He cannot trust that God actually has a purpose in all that takes place. He has to remove that power of ultimate choice from the hand of God and place it in the shaking, uncertain hand of the creature. Of course, he simply refuses to allow his own positive position on these matters to be brought into the light of biblical examination. That came out clearly in all of our encounters. But I, for one, refuse to allow him to hide the results of his sub-biblical theology from public view.
Our writer then brings up the issue of my allegedly having a “thin skin.” What an amazingly facile means of attempting to deflect attention from the dishonesty of the statements made by George Bryson and Micah Coate. Of course I am offended by being lied about. But everyone should be offended by the actions of Bryson and Coate in that they have injected into what should be a serious and Bible-based debate a level of absurdity, caricaturization, and simple dishonesty that should never be found in the writings of a Christian person. Both men are guilty of showing tremendous disrespect toward the audiences of their own books. Whether they are willing to understand this, and make changes, is another matter.
08/20/2011 - James White
Today on a Jumbo Friday Dividing Line
08/19/2011 - James WhiteWe started out tracing the genesis of the incredibly absurd misrepresentation promoted by George Bryson and Micah Coate in their books against Calvinism. We tracked down the original source, and then compared the reality of what was said on the Bible Answer Man broadcast with what has been reported by Bryson and Coate. The contrast is stark. Then we took half an hour to go over the comments by Dirk Jongkind about Bart Ehrman and the subject of New Testament textual criticism. We finished off with half an hour of the Perkins/Slick debate. Here's the program.
And don't forget the WayBack Machine, streaming Dividing Lines from 1998 onward 24/7! You can listen on the Flash Player found here.
Today on a Mega Sized Radio Free Geneva
08/18/2011 - James WhiteI do not know if we have ever done a two hour DL before. Possibly. In any case, I did not even get through half of what I wanted to cover. So, we will do another DL, though not a two hour one, tomorrow. Might go for a jumbo, we will see. In any case, today I dedicated the program to responding to the outrageous statements made by Tucson area youth pastor Micah Coate, a 32 year old gentleman who just put out a candidate for "The Worst Book Ever Written Against Calvinism," yet a book that carries the endorsements of such men as Paige Patterson, George Bryson, Jerry Vines and Tim LaHaye. It is a classic example of "anti-Calvinism Derangement Syndrome," as I documented today, and will continue tomorrow (along with some other items) in a special Friday morning edition of the DL (11 am MST). Here's the program.
Right now I have two items to get to on tomorrow's program: first, I will go through the saga we discovered this afternoon (thanks to TurretinFan, SirBrass, and AOMin, along with others, for digging the info out of the net) concerning how this utterly absurd and libelous section ended up in George Bryson's book, (cue scary music) The Dark Side of Calvinism, p. 372:
Even more pointed, in comments found on the Internet in a section called “Whilin’ Away the Hours,” the Calvinist John Rabe offers what he calls: “A loose paraphrase from the James White and George Bryson debate on the Bible Answer Man:
“BRYSON: Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people for no good reason and
causes babies to be raped.
“WHITE: Yes, and here’s why I believe that. Genesis 50 says ...
“Yikes! With friends like this who needs enemies?”
Remember what the apostle James says:
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. (James 1:17)
If the Calvinist is right, then James could and perhaps should also have said:
Every good and bad gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights and darkness.
I can understand why the admission of White is so disturbing to Calvinists. In his defense, however, White is only admitting what should be obvious to all Calvinists.
Micah Coate, doing due diligence to check his sources and strive for accuracy, simply took Bryson at face value, did a little editing, and came up with this whopper in his book:
In debating George Bryson, leading Calvinist James White admitted to Calvinism’s view of God. The following is a loose paraphrase from this debate:
BRYSON: Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people and for no good reason causes babies to be raped.
WHITE: Yes, and here’s why I believe that. Genesis 50 says . . .
BRYSON: Yikes! With friends like this who needs enemies?
While White’s response is shocking, I deeply appreciate his honesty in acknowledging the “sovereign” attributes of his god. Because Calvinist theology has misinterpreted certain verses of the Bible for 400 years, they have essentially created a totally new and totally foreign god. (p. 285, Kindle Edition).
We have tracked down the audio clip. Listen for yourself:
I just love the contrast in the methodology and research of the two sides of this issue. Compare and contrast the care I took in tracking down sources in writing The Potter's Freedom; paying people to scan through Chosen But Free looking for Scripture references to make sure I was accurately representing the source (it had a horrible Scripture index and I did not have an electronic version back then), etc., all in an effort to make sure the presentation was not marred by error and straw-man argumentation. And what do we have here? A blog article quoted by a second source in a combox on a website gets picked up by Bryson who was surfing the web trying to find things to put in the new edition of his book to save face over how badly he did in our 2001 debate. Even though George was right there in the studio, and could have checked the recordings for himself, he grabs this absurd little paraphrase, puts it in his book, and then makes an absurd conclusion that he completely knows is utterly false and contradictory to my actual position. Finally, Micah Coate takes Bryson at face value, not knowing he is now putting something out that is about fourth hand and has changed each step of the way that in no way, shape, or form, represents anything even slightly close to the truth, and adds his own incredible "conclusion" at the end as well. A lesson to be learned about the kind of "research" that is acceptable amongst the Hyper Anti-Calvinist crowd, and that gets endorsed by the likes of Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines.
And the second item I want to get to tomorrow is the clip of Dirk Jongkind refuting a key element of Bart Ehrman's textual argumentation. I hope to get to it, we will see.
Last Tuesday on a Regular Sized DL!
08/18/2011 - James WhiteEvidently I forgot to blog the DL from Tuesday. We continued both debates we have been reviewing. Just for the few folks who do not subscribe to the DL via iTunes, when I forget to blog it, it is still very easy to obtain. Just use the date of the show. Hence, Tuesday's program, since it aired on August 16, would be:
And today's, which I will blog in a moment, would be:
Keep that simple format in mind and you will never be left behind! :-)
A Mega Radio Free Geneva Today Starting One Hour Early!
08/18/2011 - James WhiteWhat is a Mega Radio Free Geneva? It's one that lasts for two hours! Yes indeed, three to five PM this afternoon. Why such a long RFG? Well, when you read a book endorsed by Paige Patterson, George Bryson, C. Gordon Olson, Tim LaHaye, Earl Radmacher, and Jerry Vines (there had been an endorsement earlier by that shining example of thought and exegesis, Joseph Chambers), that identifies you as a Scripture twisting cultist like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons, well, you might just want to respond to it! And that is what I will be doing this afternoon. Yes, folks, we have a new contender for the "Worst Book by an Anti-Calvinistic Zealot" award, and it is by 32 year old Tucson youth pastor Micah Coate, A Cultish Side of Calvinism. Did you know James White changes the Bible just like Jehovah's Witnesses have in the New World Translation? Did you know James White actually agreed in a debate that his "god" (no capitalization for Mr. Coate there) is "an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people and for no good reason causes babies to be raped"? Did you know Mormons have their book, The Book of Mormon, and Calvinists have theirs, too, called The Institutes of the Christian Religion, that they take more seriously than the Bible itself? And can you believe that men like Paige Patterson actually endorsed this kind of drivel? Amazing indeed.
A Case Study in Blinding Theological Bigotry today on a Mega Sized (yet still low in calories and guaranteed to contain no saturated fats!) Radio Free Geneva!
What Color is the Sky in Your World?
08/17/2011 - James WhiteThe immortal words of Dr. Frasier Crane which dance through my head often when encountering zealots and promoters of various isms and schisms. Clarity of thought, reason, logic---all things those who follow Him who claimed to be the Truth should strive for and honor---seems lost on a large portion of today's Western culture.
Rich just posted the comments someone made in reference to last week's amazing encounter with Will Kinney. If you have forgotten, here is the video of Will Kinney's complete implosion when faced with facts:
In case you do not want to listen to the whole thing again (it is hard on some folks, I understand, to listen to someone who simply cannot follow a logical chain of reasoning), Mr. Kinney could not grasp the fact that the three Greek texts he was citing were written AFTER Erasmus published his first edition in 1516, and were, in fact, handwritten copies of the printed text in all likelihood, and hence were irrelevant on a textual critical level. I had made the statement that the TR's reading lacks Greek manuscript support, and, of course, logically, any honest or rational person would understand that the Greek manuscripts to which I would be referring would have to PRE-EXIST the first appearance of the published work. Mr. Kinney cannot grasp this simple concept, and on that basis continues to accuse me of being a liar. Behold the thought process of the King James Onlyist.
So one is left without words to express the following conclusions drawn from the same encounter, written by one "Kenny Cheek" on FaceBook:
Will, I want to echo what Lynn Culver posted. Your posts are always excellent and it's good to see someone finally hold James White's feet to the fire. Once he gets control of a conversation or debate it's usually all over for his opponent (is he a lawyer?) but you don't let that happen and I enjoy hearing it. He's been the darling of the pseuo-intellectual crowd for years but I've always known that someone with the right ammunition could stop him in his tracks. You do it very well. And thanks for sharing with the rest of us!
The Dan Wallace V. Bart Ehrman Debate: Round 2
08/16/2011 - James WhiteIt has been a little over three years since Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman debated on the subject of the text of the New Testament in New Orleans. I was very thankful to have his exchange with Bart to listen to in preparation for my own debate with Ehrman. A second debate has now been scheduled for October 1, 2011. I am really looking forward to hearing this one as well. There are many aspects of Ehrman's presentation that need to be challenged, and challenged strongly. I hope and pray Dan Wallace will bring those challenges out with great clarity, with the Lord's help.
The debate sold out in a matter of days. So they have moved to a larger facility. If you are anywhere near the location of this debate, I'm sure you will find it to be most stimulating. I would love to go myself, but finances are finances. I do hope to get the chance to debate Bart Ehrman again in the future.
Islam A To Z in New Orleans
08/15/2011 - James White
08/15/2011 - James WhiteWell, let's start out with something positive, shall we? Here is the view from about Central Avenue and Carefree Highway (yes, I know, Central doesn't go through, I'm estimating where it would). I did the "Big Loop" this morning, a wide arc taking me up the Lake Pleasant Parkway past the new 303 interchange (I did not know they had opened it up yet) out to the Carefree Highway, across the Valley to Cave Creek Road (construction at the corner is rough!), and back down toward home. Turned out to be an almost exact metric century, coming in at 62.33 miles. It is still way too warm to be very comfortable while riding, which is why the ride started at 3:50 AM. But that is the price we pay at this time of year so that we can have those beautiful winter rides.
I was just reminded by Rich Pierce that I have yet to blog last Thursday's DL. Okay well here it is. It was really long, and I talked about theological stuff. Actually, I continued my review of the Matt Slick/Roger Perkins debate, and, of course, the Comis/Fernandes debate. I also answered a number of e-mail questions, and reviewed some comments by William Lane Craig on the subject of Molinism. Here's the program.
Okay, back to this morning's ride. As normal, I was listening to my iPod. This morning I listened, for the 2nd time, to a 3 1/2 hour seminar recorded in Scotland, I believe, in Edinburgh. The presenters (the audio file did a horrible job and explaining who was who) were Peter J. Williams, Dirk Jongkind, and Simon Gathercole. I just found a link, thankfully, here. I would highly recommend this series for everyone. The presentations are lively, well done, and very understandable. I have benefited from them greatly. In particular, Peter J. Williams' presentation was very useful. Here is a video of a similar presentation Dr. Williams gave. I likewise truly enjoyed Dirk Jongkind's dismantling of a particularly troubling section of Ehrman's work. I would love to hear Bart's response in a one-on-one discussion.
Next, there has been a lot of chatter about this particular new book. Evidently it is coming out next month. I contacted Micah Coate back in April of this year and offered to review his manuscript. He declined to send it to me, but was quite nice in his correspondence. My assumption, drawn from looking at the list of endorsers, is that we will have here another Calvary Chapel attack upon Calvinism. Whether there will be anything new in this remains to be seen. Obviously, Radio Free Geneva stands ready.
Next, I made some comments about the Darrell Bock versus Bart Ehrman debate on the Unbelievable Radio Broadcast that was just posted last week. I did so in the Sunday school at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. Here are my comments for those who might find them to be helpful.
Also, my fellow elder Don Fry preached an excellent sermon out of Romans chapter 4 on the Lord's day. Here it is.
Finally, I am planning on doing a regular sized Dividing Line tomorrow. The primary reason for that is that I'm not feeling all that well today (started coming on five miles from home on the ride). If a good night's rest helps out, who knows what may happen!
P. S. Most of this blog article was dictated using DragonDictate for Mac. I must confess, it takes a little getting used to. But voice recognition software has come a long way in the past decade. It is difficult to teach an old dog new tricks, as they say, but this might be a very useful tool if I can just break my old habits.
Will Kinney's Call and the Following Discussion
08/09/2011 - James White
An Amazing Jumbo DL
08/09/2011 - James WhiteWell, Will Kinney got his 15 minutes of fame today...ok, 12 minutes, 19 seconds to be exact. I started off the program, explained the situation relating to Erasmus' problems in accurately obtaining the text of the book of Revelation, went over what The King James Only Controversy says on the issue (including the footnotes containing relevant information), and then played Mr. Kinney's comments from the video linked below. Then I brought Mr. Kinney on, and...well, you just have to listen for yourself. Only rarely do you encounter this level of religiously induced irrationality. I have seen it often in Muslims (Osama Abdullah, Nadir Ahmed, Ehteshaam Gulam), Mormons (Stan Barker, Louis Midgley, Kerry Shirts), Roman Catholics (Art Sippo) and yes, even atheists (atheism can become tremendously religious in nature). But KJV Onlyism seems to attract these kinds of folks. Just look at the likes of Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, Sam Gipp, Steve Anderson and now Will Kinney. An amazing exchange with a man who simply refuses to acknowledge facts and logic. A sad insight into the strange, circular world of cultic King James Onlyism.
After we had enough of Mr. Kinney's wild circular thinking we moved on to continuing our response to Phil Fernandes' opening statement, and then in the last half hour continued our response to Roger Perkins in his debate with Matt Slick. Another 90 minute jumbo edition of the DL! I will post a video of the first hour later today (for those who wish to watch that first exchange, at least from one side of it!). Here's the program.
Nicaea Was Local Council, Arianism Not Settled Controversy, Implies Shea
08/09/2011 - Tur8infanI admit that I've never had a high view of Mark Shea's scholarship, yet a mixture of surprise and amusement washed over me as I took in Shea's breathtakingly ignorant response to a reader's question regarding Augustine and Sola Scriptura. A reader had pointed out to Shea that Augustine, in responding to the Arian heretic Maximinus, had sounded exactly like a Sola Scriptura Christian.
Augustine (354-430 AD):
The Father and the Son are, then, of one and the same substance. This is the meaning of that “homoousios” that was confirmed against the Arian heretics in the Council of Nicaea by the Catholic fathers with the authority of the truth and the truth of authority. Afterward, in the Council of Ariminum it was understood less than it should have been because of the novelty of the word, even though the ancient faith had given rise to it. There the impiety of the heretics under the heretical Emperor Constantius tried to weaken its force, when many were deceived by the fraudulence of a few. But not long after that, the freedom of the Catholic faith prevailed, and after the meaning of the word was understood as it should be, that “homoousios” was defended far and wide by the soundness of the Catholic faith. After all, what does “homoousios” mean but “of one and the same substance”? What does “homoousios” mean, I ask, but the Father and I are one (Jn 10:30)? I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicaea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicaea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witnesses for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason.John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., Answer to Maximinus, Book II, XIV - On the Sameness of Substance in the Trinity, Section 3 (New York: New City Press, 1995), pp. 281-82.
Shea responded: "What Augustine is doing is appealing to a common authority in a dispute where the Church Universal has not yet arrived at a consensus."
Perhaps a little background would be helpful here. Maximinus was an Arian. The question was whether the Father and the Son are consubstantial. This is a matter that was directly addressed by the Council of Nicaea. We can agree with Shea in a limited way, namely that the Council of Nicaea was not ecumenical in the sense of speaking for every person who professed to be a part of the Christian faith: after all, it condemned the Arians. By that standard, there have not been any ecumenical councils, ever. If that's Shea's position, he's at loggerheads with Rome.
Judging Nicaea by modern Roman standards, though, Nicaea did not just "arrive at a consensus" but actually defined dogma that must be accepted de fide. That's obviously not how Augustine judged Nicaea, but that's because Augustine didn't share the epistemology of modern Rome.
Shea continued: "The councils he is referring to are local synods."
Augustine refers to two councils: Ariminum and Nicaea. Neither was a "local synod." Ariminum and Nicaea were both massive councils involving hundreds of bishops. Nicaea is typically identified by Rome as the "First Ecumenical Council." The Arians viewed Ariminum as having similar weight, given its similar size in terms of number of bishops. Perhaps Shea would not want to call Ariminum an "ecumenical council," but he must at a minimum acknowledge it to be a regional council. On the other hand, it is only out of ignorance that Shea can claim that Nicaea is a "local synod." Nicaea was dominated by Eastern bishops, to be sure, but again it is minimally a regional synod, and Shea's own church declares it to be an ecumenical synod.
Shea again: "He regards himself as bound by the teaching and discipline of the synod whose jurisdiction is over his local geographic region, and the person he is writing to likewise feels bound by his local synod."
Maximinus was the Arian bishop of Hippo (see Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature). Augustine was the orthodox ("catholic" but not "Catholic") bishop of Hippo, as everyone knows. Even if the two councils mentioned were "local" councils, or even regional councils, both Augustine and Maximinus were in the same locale and region. Thus, this is the sort of impossible explanation for Augustine's words that can only come out of gross ignorance of the people involved in the dispute.
Shea again: "With Augustine’s particular question the issue is this, lacking a verdict from the Church universal, and faced with differing rulings from different local councils, he is attempting to come to concensus [sic] by appeal to Scripture, since it is an authority appealed to by both him and his correspondent."
This is basically the same debunked theory we've already addressed above.
Shea once more: "But (getting back to your question) the point is this: Augustine is attempting “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” in a particular discussion centering different juridical differences between two local councils."
Leaving aside Shea's continued nonsense about these councils being "local," who knows what Shea is trying to say with his garbled phrasing, " ... in a particular discussion centering different juridical differences ... ." Perhaps "different" should be "on." But the issue in question is whether Father and Son are consubstantial. That can hardly be characterized as primarily a juridical question.
Shea continues: "Since the Church universal has not addressed the matter via either an ecumenical council, nor via the Holy Father, he appeals to the authority that both he and his correspondent hold in common: Scripture."
This can only be true if no bishop of Rome had weighed in on the Arian controversy, and if Nicaea is not an ecumenical council. Surely Shea would not be so brash as to try to assert those things. So, actually, what Shea is saying is really more a reflection on the fact that Augustine does not consider the bishop of Rome's comments or the comments of Nicaea to be of equal authority with Scripture, or even to be binding on the Arian bishop with whom he's dealing.
Shea again: "He is not trying to make any point at all about sola but is, instead, assuming a thoroughly Catholic backdrop to the whole discussion."
So now Arianism is "thoroughly Catholic" and so is Maximinus' rejection of Nicaea!?! Of course, that conclusion would assume that Shea actually had the foggiest clue about what Augustine and Maximinus were discussing. He doesn't. Instead, he offers his comment from the foundation of dogmatic affirmation of whatever Rome says and ignorance of the fathers.
Shea once more: "Be careful of importing post-Reformation categories into patristic arguments."
That's actually good advice. It's not particularly relevant advice, but it is good advice. We should be on guard against anachronism. But in this case, it is clear where the anachronism lies: it lies on the one trying to turn Augustine into a modern Roman Catholic.
While it might be instructive to consider in detail the absurdity of comparing the Arian controversy (as Shea does - see his post) to the controversy over when to celebrate Easter or the question of whether to fast on Saturdays in Milan and in Rome, I'll simply let the reader decide whether even by modern Roman standards those issues would be deemed disciplinary or dogmatic.
To sum up, no, Mr. Shea, Nicaea wasn't a local council. Nevertheless, Augustine did not view Nicaea as binding on Arian bishops such as Maximinus, but nevertheless appealed to the Scriptures as the alone Rule of Faith by which to settle the Arian controversy in Hippo.
Tomorrow on Yes, You Guessed it, ANOTHER Jumbo DL!
08/08/2011 - James WhiteI am going to press on with the Fernandes/Comis debate, and the Slick/Perkins debate, of course, but...I wanted to respond to some recently posted attacks (they are not critiques---when you call someone a liar, and engage in constant ad-hominem argumentation, that is not a critique) by King James Only advocate Will Kinney. Specifically, I will be responding to the following video, and demonstrating that it is Mr. Kinney who is woefully lacking in his understanding of the issues, his grasp of history and theology, and his command of the facts regarding the transmission of the text of the New Testament.
So, we will be going long, to be sure! I have invited Mr. Kinney to call in, and he has indicated he might do so.
The Intention and Result of Christ's Sacrifice: Hebrews 10
08/07/2011 - James White
Help! I'm Trapped into Doing Jumbo DL's!
08/04/2011 - James WhiteI can't stop! Well, OK, I can, just haven't chosen to do so. Did another 90 minute version today because I had some e-mail questions I wanted to get to, so did that in the first half hour, then got back to Slick/Perkins, then on to Fernandes/Comis. Didn't get very far in either debate, but again, hopefully useful information and exegesis. Here's the program.
08/03/2011 - Jeff DownsMany of the AOMin Blog readers are members of churches, whether Baptist, Presbyterian or non-denominational denominations. But have you ever reflected on what it means to be a member of a church? Have you ever reflected on vows you may have taken? Well, Dr. C. N. Willborn spent eight weeks addressing this issue and the sermons for this series are now located here. Willborn is the pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church located in Oak Ridge, TN and is Adjunct Professor of Church History at Greenville Seminary. I would highly recommend this church, and if you ever have the opportunity to sit under Dr. Willborn's teaching, take it.
One of Willborn's articles appeared in Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O.P. Robertson, and he is also a contributing editor of The Confessional Presbyterian.
New Twitter Stuff
08/03/2011 - Rich PierceGet Wayback and general ministry update tweets on Twitter and follow AominOrg here.
Today on Yet ANOTHER Jumbo DL!
08/02/2011 - James WhiteNo, this isn't going to become routine. I don't think. I will definitely do a "regular" DL on Thursday, for example. But, did another 90 minute version today. Thirty minutes on the Fernandes/Comis debate (well, sorta...snuck too much in about other items), thirty minutes on the Slick/Perkins debate, and then thirty minutes of open phones, with calls on apologetic methodology, naturalism, predominating. Here's the program.
Tomorrow on Another Jumbo (90 Minute) DL
08/01/2011 - James WhiteWe will dedicate thirty minutes to the Fernandes/Comis debate, thirty minutes to the Perkins/Slick debate, and thirty minutes to your phone calls on another Jumbo DL tomorrow!