 |
 |
Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
|
|
Nuisance Suits Now, But Fifteen, Twenty Years from Now?
07/09/2008 - James White
Lawsuit against Zondervan complains about Bible statements on homosexualityCASCADE TOWNSHIP -- A Canton man is suing Zondervan Publishing and a Tennessee-based publisher, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and has caused him emotional pain and mental instability.The hatred of rebels expressed against God's law knows no bounds, and it is a manifest sign of God's judgment when "the wicked strut about."
Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, is seeking $60 million from Zondervan, based in Cascade Township, and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in the lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Fowler filed the suit against Zondervan on Monday, the same day U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused to appoint an attorney to represent him in his case against Thomas Nelson, a Tennessee publisher. Fowler filed a suit against Thomas Nelson in June. He is representing himself in both claims.
"The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims," the judge wrote.
Fowler alleges Zondervan's Bibles referring to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."
The intent of the publisher was to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder," Fowler wrote.
Fowler's suit claims Zondervan's text revisions include and then delete the reference to homosexuality without informing the public of the changes.
The other suit, against Thomas Nelson and its New King James Bible, mirrors the allegations made against Zondervan for "manipulating" Scripture.
18:01:36 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
Homosexuality, Rick Warren, and the Pope!
12/23/2008 - James White
I love when I come up with a title that requires you to listen to figure it out! (Here's the program.22:01:57 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -
When Liberals Attack Debate!
02/14/2007 - James White
It was one of the most humorous occurrences in my debates. The context was anything but humorous. I was debating noted liberal Barry Lynn on the subject, "Is Homosexuality Compatible with Biblical Christianity" on Long Island. This is the debate Lynn tried to suppress, threatening legal action if we distributed the tapes. During the cross-examination, as is so often the case, the wheels fell off my opponent's wagon. I was pressing him on his utterly untenable reading of Romans 1 and finally, he had to give in. See, Rev. Lynn (ordained minister in the United Church of Christ) had come to a debate on whether homosexuality is compatible with biblical Christianity without his biblical. Err, his Bible. So...he had to borrow mine. Unfortunately for him, I had the little shirt-pocket sized NASB, "the eye strain edition." The result is memorable.The DVD of this debate is available here (#521). We had some major sound problems toward the beginning of the debate, but it is still usable, and clears up before the cross-examination.
And by the way, it seems all liberals find the Bible an expendable asset at a debate on...the Bible. Here's an image of John Shelby Spong at the debate on the very same topic in November in Orlando. The only book on the table is my book on homosexuality that I gave him during the break. Absent is...the Bible. I suppose it could just mean that liberals have the Bible memorized. But, maybe not.
11:11:25 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -
Homosexual Super Rights Movement Presses On
07/08/2005 - James White
Every day it is thrown in your face. A small minority group--extremely small, maybe 3% of the popoulation en toto, demanding that you not only allow for their sexual perversion, but, more so, that you abandon any way of thinking--- religious, moral, social---that would say that their perversion is anything but good and moral. Out of the half dozen examples of this in the news and e-mail this morning, I present my experience last night in going home and flipping on the TV while setting up my bike for a run on my trainer this morning. It happened to come on to the local NBC affiliate, and the very popular, long-running show "ER" was on. I've seen a number of episodes (I was a biology major in college, so I find it interesting), and know that one of the main characters is a lesbian. Over the years I have seen them openly promoting the justice of her "cause," but last night they went so far overboard, were so blatant in their bigotry against Christianity and in favor of homosexuality, that you would think they would have to pay for the time as a special interest group! The plot was that this doctor had been adopted, and that she finds her birth mother, who happens to be a conservative Christian (sings in a choir that is performing at a Baptist Church). She quotes the Bible frequently. Of course, by the end of the episode, the doctor informs her that she is a lesbian. Toward the very end the doctor confronts her mother. At one point (and I was not writing this down, of course, so I am approximating the quotes) the doctor says, "Don't you see that your problem is that your faith is not wide enough to accept me" or something along those lines, directly insisting that her mother must change the substance of her faith. Since the terminology was normally "your faith, my faith" (rather than the faith, i.e., God's truth revealed in Scripture), then changing the "faith" is just a matter of choosing to do so.Then, in the most amazing proclamation of the "in your face" demand for super-rights that marks the anti-Christian character of the homosexual movement, the mother says, "I will always love you." And the homosexual character replies, "If I don't have your acceptance, I don't want your love." There you go! "You must change your faith. I reject Christianity, I reject the Bible, and if I know that anywhere in your thinking you still believe that what I do is sinful, then I want nothing to do with you!" And she was portrayed as the victim, the open-minded, loving hero, as the program ended with her walking away from her mother's hotel room, sad, but unbowed in her homosexuality! It was truly an amazing display of the fact that homosexuality is not interested in equal rights. The movement wants uber-rights, supremacy, the suppression of anyone who would openly identify their behavior as a perversion of God's created norms. And Hollywood is their willing ally in their cause.
08:57:39 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
Another Heart, Mind, and Body Set Free
07/05/2007 - Mike Porter
A passage that is very familiar to those of us who strongly emphasize the depravity of man and the gravity of sin is Romans 1:18: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."That word "suppress" is intriguing, for it presumes knowledge of the truth in order to suppress the truth. It is deliberate to the degree that the truth wishes to make itself known, or rather, as the passage indicates, is being made known, but the man does whatever is in his power to push it down. I have often likened this struggle with that of my son who has some toys that he tries to keep from floating to the top of the water when he swims. If he loses focus and stops keeping it under it begins to surface and he is forced to work even harder to keep the toy suppressed under the water. If he changes his position, his arms tire, or his Dad comes by and taps it a little (Dad can be a meany!) all is lost and it comes up anyway. The truth is revealed, but men seek to suppress the truth by any means necessary.
Recently, I read an article of a man who gives a testimony that he has been freed from homosexuality. But, this is not an ordinary man. He was a leader within the gay rights movement, founder of a homosexual magazine that targeted teens and young people, and was called upon to speak and defend homosexual lifestyles. As I read this article, I was impressed as to how many times he commented about how often he had to push the truth down so it would not reveal itself. He stated:
Homosexuality allows us to avoid digging deeper, through superficiality and lust-inspired attractions – at least, as long as it remains "accepted" by law. As a result, countless miss out on their truest self, their God-given Christ-self.and
God is regarded as an enemy by many in the grip of homosexuality or other lustful behavior, because He reminds them of who and what they truly are meant to be. People caught in the act would rather stay "blissfully ignorant" by silencing truth and those who speak it, through antagonism, condemnation and calling them words like "racist," "insensitive," "evil" and "discriminatory."Not only did he train himself to ignore God and even hate him, but he and others also trained their guns against others who objected to that lifestyle. Again, it is amazing how accurate the Scriptures are in describing the nature and power of sin for those who are mightily in love with it. They not only approve, but give hearty approval of the same.
Michael Glatze gives credit to God continuing to pursue him despite all that he had done and that finally he is freed from the slavery of homosexuality. And, with no uncertain terms he makes it clear that his entire lifestyle was a choice he made and gave no credence to the idea that he was biologically designed to sin in that fashion.
I cannot speak of his affiliation with church or any such thing, but taking his testimony at face value, it would be easy to conclude that Mr. Glatze is an example of what I have recently written about: The King subdues his subjects.
Claiming that it was God, Mr. Glatze rejoices in his liberation. I will take joy in that and I will remind myself the lesson here is that we may share the faith and preach the Gospel and feel we have failed to budge an ant hill. But it is the work of the Holy Spirit to move mountains.
01:00:00 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
More on the Depravity of Western Culture
08/04/2010 - James White
It's a packing day…headed to New York for a weekend of ministry. I look forward to seeing the saints there, and I hope and pray my efforts will be useful to their edification.I almost wrote an article about the Proposition 8 case last night, but held off, knowing that it was most likely that a Federal Judge in San Francisco, of all places, would not uphold basic morality or a worldview that has any godliness to it. I wasn't disappointed, as the decision just came down. Of course, it will be appealed…to the 9th Circuit (oi vey), and then, obviously, to the Supreme Court. This is just one step in a long process of overthrowing our Christian heritage and setting our culture on an inevitable collision course with the wrath of a holy God. It will be hard to bear the rejoicing of the ungodly over this decision, but we should realize that we see the signs of the degradation of the West all around us.
I read with sadness this article last week. Once again the maxim that corrupt judges are part of God's wrath is seen with clarity. But what is more, these corrupt legal decisions flow from an even more corrupted cultural core, a core that seeks to express its hatred of the holiness of God, and especially His revealed law. The dogma of the West is now firmly opposed to any God-centered morality, and if you wish to possess the affirmation of the culture in the form of an educational degree, you need to bow to the supreme authority of the secular worldview, especially as it touches key elements, such as the moral goodness of homosexuality (in the perversity of this view). We have known for a long time that you cannot obtain the world's approbation for your work in certain fields of science without bowing to its holiest dogma (naturalistic materialism), and the same is becoming the case in other areas. These cases are becoming more and more frequent, and once legal precedent is established, we will need to have even more serious discussions concerning the role we must bear in nations and a culture under the judgment of God. Time to dust off that Old Testament and start looking at the "remnant" passages.
14:05:15 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
John Shelby Spong on Scholarship
04/05/2006 - James White
One of the issues that will take center stage in Orlando will be the nature of modern scholarship. As those of you know who have read The Same Sex Controversy, an entire body of "scholarship" has arisen over the past few decades in support of any number of competing (and often self-contradictory) theories regarding what the Bible "really teaches" about homosexuality. You can always cite "Dr. So-and-so" who says "this word doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality." And unless one can engage those assertions in the text itself (as Jeff Niell and I did, and as many others have done in other fine works on the subject) all you can do is trade barbs about your favorite scholars. And so today in a commentary Spong wrote,Neither evangelicals nor fundamentalists have yet discovered the critical biblical scholarship that has graced the western world for at least the last 200 years. When I last was on a television program with Albert Mohler, it was painfully obvious that he was not in touch with any of the contemporary biblical scholarship of the past century....Evangelicals and fundamentalists like to call themselves conservative Christians, as if there is something called conservative or liberal scholarship. There isn't. There is just competent and incompetent scholarship.
Now, I can assure Bishop Spong that Al Mohler is quite familiar with "contemporary biblical scholarship." In fact, I would be willing to bet Mohler knows a hundred fold more about Spong's favorite contemporary writers than Spong does about Mohler's. In fact, unless I'm just completely misreading his own statements, I can't imagine Spong investing much time reading anyone he would consider a "conservative" at all. His disdain for anything that remotely smacks of his "fundamentalist" upbringing is just too strong. But in any case, the only way we will be able to determine what is competent and non-competent scholarship in the debate will be simple: who can engage the texts consistently without overthrowing the entirety of the worldview of the authors themselves?
At the end of his article Spong writes, "I do not believe that any prepositional statement about God can be literally true." Something tells me we have spell-check theology here: I think he probably meant "propositional." If so, could a propositional statement about the impossibility of propositionally true statements about God be itself true? You truly wonder at times.
17:08:12 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
UCC Can't Figure Out if Jesus is Lord
06/18/2005 - James White
The United Church of Christ, the denomination in which Barry Lynn is a minister (the same Barry Lynn I debated on the issue of homosexuality a few years ago), is currently debating, and will probably reject, a resolution simply stating that Jesus is the Lord. Here's a quick summary. There should be some means of burying the corpses of former Christian denominations, but there doesn't seem to be any truly effective means of doing so. Write "Ichabod" over the door and lock it up.09:50:45 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
I've Been Saying This for Years Now...
05/02/2007 - James White
Homosexuals are suppressing the truth of God in their lives. It is a difficult thing to wrestle constantly with your conscience, to put out so much effort into convincing yourself that your sin is good, to call light darkness and darkness light. It is toilsome. Because of their state, homosexuals are particularly angered by anyone who would say "homosexuality is unnatural; it is directly opposed to God's creative order, it is sinful, life-destroying, and God demands you repent from it." And so, they are willing to lend their considerable financial (and hence politically powerful) support to any politician who will help them to suppress such speech, or to put it bluntly, to give them super-rights. They wish to be able to say, and do, anything at all: but, at the same time, they are willing to see the rights of others, especially their free-speech rights, denied.Now that the party that is most in support of homosexuality and its agenda is in (slight) control of the legislative branch of the US government, the laws that are being used to suppress the open and honest preaching of the Christian faith in Europe, Canada, and Australia, are being promoted here. Under the guise of "hate crimes legislation," HR-1592 is making its way through Congress, the next major step in criminalizing Christianity in the West. Robert Gagnon has the story here.
Our society's hatred of God's law is so deep, so pervasive, that I honestly see this not as something that will bring God's wrath--we are well beyond that point--but as evidence of God's wrath. If my generation passes away without facing the very same seizure of our property, denial of free speech rights, and even imprisonment, faced by our brothers and sisters at the hands of Muslims, Hindus, and Communists around the world, surely the next generation will face such hardships. May God grant us strength and insight to use our current freedoms to form for the next generations a solid foundation upon which they can stand against the fierce storm of the world's hatred.
12:08:06 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -
Greetings from London
07/05/2006 - James White
A quick "hello" from downtown London. I'm actually finished speaking at the School of Theology, though there is one day left to go. Got caught in a downpour yesterday, got back to the Tabernacle only 15 minutes before speaking, looking like I swam in. But the Lord was merciful and I was able to put that out of my mind as I spoke on the fact that many evangelical churches today are functionally non-trinitarian. The fellowship has been wonderful with all of God's people here in the UK.For those in the Glasgow area I will be speaking on the issue of homosexuality Friday night there in Anniesland. I do not know how much longer we will be able to advertise such meetings here in the UK. Amazing developments in granting super-rights to the homosexual community, and don't be deceived, that is exactly what they want in the US as well.
23:53:01 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -
Quick Note
07/01/2006 - James White
With the morning Bible Study and both services tomorrow, followed by a morning flight out, through Charlotte, to London, basically wiping Monday out, getting me in only hours before I speak at the School of Theology on Tuesday, I have a feeling I won't be blogging for a while. Lord willing I may--and I emphasize may--get a chance to put something up after my presentation on the deity of Christ on Wednesday, but we will see. For those in the Glasgow area, I'm speaking on the issue of homosexuality on Friday night in Anniesland, 7:30pm, Reformed Baptist Church, Herschell Street. I will also be speaking Sunday morning at the Edmonton Baptist Chapel as well. This will be a fairly quick trip, in comparison to those in the past, but I look forward to meeting with all my brothers and sisters who are able to make it to the School of Theology or wherever we may meet.16:25:03 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -
Excellent Insights
12/30/2005 - James White
This article by David Kupelian (hat tip: Nina) touches on some very important issues regarding the shameless propoganda coming out of Hollywood in the form of Brokeback Mountain. It is well worth the read. Add to this well written and insightful article the fact that most "evangelicals" could not explain the why of the Bible's prohibition of homosexuality (let alone the outrageous concept of "gay marriage" which is in and of itself as coherent a term as "dark light") and you can see we have a lot of hard work to do in the future. The day is coming when even this brief note I am posting right now will be considered "hate speech" and will be censured. Mark it down, it will happen---unless God grants repentance, or brings such utter judgment there is not enough left of the culture to worry about such arcane things as "free speech" to begin with.00:01:00 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
A World of Hypocrisy
07/29/2007 - Mike Porter
If defiling the "holy book" Qu'ran merits not only the charge of "Hate Crime" as well as an arrest as Dr. White mentioned earlier, then I wonder when Sir Ian McKellen will be under investigation for ripping sections of Leviticus that address homosexuality out of the Gideon Bibles in hotels he stays at."It's tricky for McKellen - ever the diplomat, yet on this issue fiercely passionate (he even rips Leviticus out of every Gideon bible in every hotel room he stays in)."
16:55:13 - Category: Simply Silly - Link to this article -
Today on The Dividing Line
03/13/2007 - James White
Spent the first fifteen minutes discussing the big story in the news today, the utter audacity of a leading military general in the United States---he has morals! We watch those who would deny us the right to say "homosexuality is wrong" writhing in anguish at the continued existence (by God's grace) of men and women in our society who still hold a biblically-grounded morality. We then played, and reviewed, the two video clips below from the tomb movie, took a call from Jeff (who had heard Karen King speak recently), and transitioned toward the end of the hour into a bit more of George Bryson. Here's the program (free/high quality).13:48:02 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -
Quick Note
07/30/2006 - James White
Preached on the view of God's Word regarding homosexuality and the pro-homosexual movement at PRBC both services Sunday. When the sermons are posted, they will be here.Pray for the safety of our offices. Someone smashed out my wife's passenger side window Thursday evening when she was here, right out in the parking lot. Left a six inch knife in her passenger seat. The police don't even bother showing up for that kind of thing anymore around here. We are looking at trying to obtain some security equipment to keep an eye on the parking lot.
Shamgar gave me this link in channel today, and it truly amazes me the power CAIR wields in our land. Truth lies wounded in the streets indeed. Western civilization seems completely intent upon self-destruction. Perhaps someone will finally start talking about the wrath of God?
21:15:31 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -
Big Announcements Made: Now to Work!
12/22/2005 - James White
We made both our big announcements today, filling folks in on the upcoming debate with Shabir Ally in May at Biola (date and specific thesis under discussion at the moment) and then spending a good bit of time laying out the November conference, cruise, and debate (see the information in the right hand column). Then we finally got around to ending the suspense and announcing that I will be debating the issue of homosexuality with the retired bishop of Newark in the Episcopalian Church, John Shelby Spong. This should be a very interesting debate, for the obvious reason that we have both written books on the subject, and this time, I expect my opponent will take the time to read what I've written (unlike Barry Lynn), and I can assure you, I've already obtained his materials on the subject. So the cross-examination should be in-depth and to the point.After making the announcement I moved on to deal some more with Bart Ehrman's NPR program. Here's today's DL.
19:09:36 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -
Spong on the Apostle Paul
06/04/2007 - James White
I have often said that seeing folks saying these things has a different impact on us than just hearing it. So I am so thankful that the DVD of the debate with John Shelby Spong on homosexuality is now available. I posted a clip a few days ago, and here is a second. You can see how frustrating it was to try to get Spong to engage in meaningful cross-examination on the topic at hand, but I kept trying. Here Spong opines on the topic of the Apostle Paul. You could tell he did not want to go here, but since I was quoting his own writings, he did not have any choice. Of course, he hadn't read anything I had written on the topic, so he had no recourse.00:01:00 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -
Last Word from the UK
07/09/2006 - James White
Heading home tomorrow morning (Lord willing, as with all air travel). Spoke at the Edmonton Baptist Chapel this morning, then had a little adventure trying to get downtown. We were providentially hindered from making it. Back last evening from Glasgow, where I spoke on homosexuality at the Reformed Baptist Church, pastor Jim Handyside. And yes, I ordered my kilt while I was there! Had a great time with Jim and his wife, despite his assertion that my Scottish accent sounds like a mixture of Pakistani and Italian.
Mr. Compston was kind enough to give me some clearer shots from the School of Theology. Since many have never seen the inside of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, I thought I'd provide this shot which gives you a much better perspective on how it is laid out. The barely visible orange you see in the tie there is the MacGregor Hunting tartan. Lord willing we will do the Dividing Line at its regular time on Tuesday, 11am MST, 2pm EDT. I cannot guarantee that I will be overly lively, I confess, but I leave that to the Lord.
09:02:58 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -
President Obama's Promotion of Homosexuality on Today's Dividing Line and Iron Sharpens Iron
10/13/2009 - James White
I will be addressing clips from Barack Obama's Saturday speech to the Human Rights Campaign, a radical group promoting super rights based upon sexual behavior, on both the Dividing Line and then immediately afterward, Iron Sharpens Iron. I will share here the one line that, as I listened to the speech on Saturday evening, caused me to stop the recording and roll it back to make sure I heard it correctly. And though it has gotten next to no commentary (Dr. Mohler likewise saw it as the most important statement), it is without a doubt the most important part of the speech:You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. (Applause.) --- President Barack Obama, October 10, 2009
To which I respond:
The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men. (Psalm 12:8, God)
08:55:42 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
A Picture of Child Abuse
06/30/2008 - James White
I was directed to this article about "Gay Marriages" (marriage, being defined by God, cannot be redefined by man, hence, these are not marriages at all, but celebrations of rebellion) and as I scanned down the page I encountered the picture found here. The AP picture by Tony Avelar carries the following caption:Jennifer Kozumplik, left, and her partner of 17 years Nicole Webber, right, from Sacramento, Calif., hold their 18 month-old daughter Sophie as they pose for a photo after receiving their marriage license on the first day of same sex marriages at City Hall in San Francisco.As I stared at the picture I could not help but see only one thing: the selfish, self-centered abuse of a beautiful little child by two people committed to the fulfillment of their own desires. I once again immediately thought of the comments of Rosie O'Donnell. She was asked about her "son," and she said he has asked about where his daddy is. O'Donnell's response is the very essence of self-centeredness: "I tell him Mommy only likes other Mommies."
It is a measure of the decay of Western culture that self-deception is the activity of the day. We constantly cry, "for the children, for the children!" while abusing them to no end in the service of ourselves. It is purposefully abusive of a child to consciously deny to them a mother and a father. It is even worse to warp them, from the start, by providing two mothers or two fathers, neither of which is actually a mother or a father, since, by definition, those terms are defined by the other. None of these abused children actually have a true father or a true mother. A father is a man who heads the household and loves his wife as himself; a mother is a female who bears the children and nurtures them, honoring and loving her husband. These role models are never perfect even in the best situations, but the fact that there is failure in true marriage is no excuse for the creation of faux-marriages.
A further measure of the decay of our culture is the fact that men like myself will not long be allowed to deny the validity of these unions born of rebellion against God. Oh, I know, for the moment we are assured that we will not be forced to acknowledge these abominations before God, but let's be serious. Look north. Look at Canada. Look to Europe. Homosexual activists, and the foolish politicians who pander to them, are not content with "equality." They want uber-rights. They want to silence any reminder of their sin and rebellion. They will not stop until we are silenced or, in God's grace, repentance comes to a nation, bringing His law back into the consciousness of the populace, resulting in homosexuality once again being seen for what it is: a shameful distortion and perversion of human sexuality. Of course, God may not grant repentance to that nation: He may well replace that nation with one that will hear His law. But in any case, anyone who trusts in the promises of the politicians that the "religious" will not be forced to acknowledge these "unions" should consider buying stock in companies catering to the Y2K problem.
But while I still have the freedom to say it, I will, and clearly: it is nothing short of child abuse to subject a little one to constant exposure to homosexuality and its perversion of human relationships. Homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally, of course, so they must do so through the perversion of the minds and morals of others. And they have found willing allies in politicians of all kinds who are willing to trade their souls for cash and votes. May God have mercy and bring true repentance!
18:48:08 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
Steve Ray on Tony Blair
04/08/2009 - James White
As Tur8inFan noted a clear example of Ray's double standards earlier today, I just ran across another example here. Ray notes that Tony Blair, who converted to Rome in 2007, has criticized Rome's teachings on homosexuality. He opines, "We want more Protest-ants to convert and join us, but not if they bring their 'protest' with them. Leave it behind or go back where it is welcome!"But wait! Isn't this the same Steve Ray who has assured us that the source of disagreement and dispute is sola scriptura? This is the same Steve Ray who, even after full documentation of the dishonesty of the "33,000 denominations produced by sola scriptura" fraud, continued to defend it? So, how can Tony Blair, a Roman Catholic, not be in perfect harmony with Rome's teachings? Is it possible that despite the clarity of Rome's position on the topic, he still chooses to disagree? But wait, that would render Rome's entire magisterium invalid on Ray's own principles, for he has said it is sola scriptura that is to blame for all those differences amongst Protestants! Of course, that won't work, and what you will get will be the "We have one standard in support of Mother Church, and another for...the rest of you" defense. Ah, the glory of Rome!
21:08:31 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Has God Removed His Hand of Restraint Even More?
11/12/2008 - James White
Hatred toward the Christian faith is growing in response to the elections of November 4th. Here is an incredible video that shows you the mindless hatred of the supporters of homosexuality toward a little Christian woman. Watch toward the end as the stomp on the cross they have ripped out of her hands. Remind you of Romans 1? It should. You can't tell me these people are not God haters. It is written across their faces.
Also, did you notice the chant, "Shame on you!" What incredible hypocrisy! Those proposing the overthrow of morality, the violation of marriage, the destruction of a divine institution, have the audacity to speak thusly? Surely it has come true:
12:53:45 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
Dembski and the Book of Daniel
01/07/2006 - James White
William Dembski posted this parody on his blog. I found it very fitting on the morning after seeing the second hour of The Book of Daniel last night. I had not intended to watch it, though I had heard all about the furor over it. I simply do not watch a lot of television. But someone in channel mentioned that the Suns were tromping all over the Heat, so I turned it on, and it happened to be on NBC, so, since I was doing the "Please, please, let me get this Bluetooth stuff installed" thing anyway, I kept it on. It was pretty much what I expected. Though I refuse to poison my mind with the graphic scenes in Brokeback Mountain, in reading in-depth reviews I gather Hollywood has invested its best in creating a focused apologetic for homosexuality--one that keeps your attention tightly centered on the emotional hot-buttons they are using to keep you from either seeing the big picture or thinking clearly about all the other relationships being destroyed by the perverted selfishness of two individuals. So I was hardly surprised to find Daniel well written, well paced, and witty. Of course, the Jesus figure in the show is simply laughable, but accurately portrays the 1960s style hippy Jesus the left can be comfortble with: nothing divine, nothing sovereign, nothing challenging about this bearded, effeminate figure standing across the room practicing his golf swing (yes, that's what they had him doing in one scene). But the rest of the cast is perfectly suited to the task of promoting an empty-headed religiosity to a postmodern culture. Immorality runs rampant with every form of homosexuality, adultery and fornication, theft, dishonesty---it's just your regular ol' American story, or so someone wants us to believe. The male homosexual character is soon to graduate as a doctor--he isn't the kind of homosexual you see in gay pride marches dancing down the road in a thong. No, Hollywood knows better than that.Just one glaring example of the "overwhelm the emotions, end critical thinking, create lasting (if irrational) impact in muddled postmodern minds" methodology against which most are utterly without defense these days: the minister's father, a bishop, is blissfully unaware that his grandson has chosen to be a homosexual. The bishop's wife has Alzheimers. With the best of the videographer's skills, you are drawn into the tragedy of Alzheimers as you see her for a moment knowing who he is, and the next slapping him for touching her. If you are human, you are drawn into his pain. Then...a few moments later...he is putting on his shirt after committing adultery with a woman from the leadership of the church---and they stand there talking about how tragic her condition is, and how he should not feel guilty. You feel for him---so, right as that emotion sets in, *smack* show him committing adultery and excusing himself in the process. See, it isn't that bad! Covenants mean nothing! Gotta get your gratification you know, even in your mid sixties! He has needs! Those needs obviously outweigh solemn vows! I mean, it is obvious his whole church mocks the idea of marriage to begin with--it is just a convenience, so why worry about it? Probably one of the saddest things about the presentation is that it is so accurate to so much of modern Episcopalianism.
And so returning to the parody Dembski posted above...the man is saying, "I need a belief system that serves my needs right away." Bingo. Exactly. Man-centered religion. A Jesus without power, authority, purpose, or truth. That's The Book of Daniel and that is the face of the modern "mainstream" denominations that continue to morph into whatever a God-hating society wants them to be. Thankfully, God is still in the business of changing hearts of stone into hearts of flesh, opening blind eyes, and drawing His people unto Himself. And so we press on, seeking to be faithful.
10:29:32 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
Cultural Collapse Report from Denver
05/03/2010 - James White
Greetings from the Mile High City. About to grab a ride with some brothers here in the area, and as I'm preparing I have had the Today Show on. Two items from the media, and one other story that has been sent to me a number of times that illustrates how twisted Western Culture is becoming in its hatred of godliness.First, Today had a report on the "runaway mom," Tiffany Tehan (I'm sorry, but "mom" is a title she no longer deserves). Tehan abandoned her husband and baby daughter, faked her own abduction, and allowed volunteers to invest thousands of hours searching for her while she ran off with her new lover in an adulterous relationship. But if you listen to the language, no one can even utter words like evil, sin, or shame, let alone "adultery" or the like.
Next, they interviewed Michael Douglas on his son's conviction for drug dealing. The ever present "he has a disease" excuse was everywhere. The man was a drug dealer. He made money from destroying the lives of others. No shame, no guilt, no sin. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Finally, everyone needs to read this article. When you give to the government the power to regulate, well, everything, this is what eventually happens. As British Society becomes ever more deeply infected with the mutating virus of humanistic naturalism and its inevitable secularism, the mere public expression of godly convictions must be punished. There is only one solution: repentance, and only one source: God's Spirit.
07:26:16 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
Odds and Ends
09/06/2006 - James White
First, an "I told you so" that is not much of one. I have said many times that homosexual activists cannot allow freedom of speech or expression. Their ultimate goal is to silence anyone who would even whisper God's standards. They do not want equal rights, they want super-rights, all based upon sexual behavior. And as long as they have deep pockets and politicians can "use" them and be used by them, they will continue racking up success in their campaign. So I have repeatedly said the days are coming, and indeed, are here, where open and honest discussion of what the Bible itself says about homosexuality will be limited and in fact will put one in danger of the authorities. Here is a story illustrating this very thing from the UK. Note that this special "police unit" exists not to protect British citizens from criminals, but instead is there to support homosexuals! And note especially the admission that the arrest was based simply upon the leaflets containing relevant biblical citations! You have to wonder where all the proponents of "free speech" are hiding these days. Hat tip to PC.Next, I have been informed by eyewitnesses that Jerry Falwell, in announcing the upcoming debate at the Thomas Road Baptist Church, referred to myself and Tom Ascol as "hyper Calvinists." This is most disappointing. For one thing, I'm sure the real hypers are truly upset that we are taking over their turf and illegitimately at that! They sure know we are anything but hyper-Calvinists. But I had hoped for better from Dr. Falwell, who should know that there are historical definitions of these terms and that it is inaccurate to use the phrase of myself or Dr. Ascol. I will have to write and correct his misapprehension. We wouldn't want too many flaming straw men in that fine new sanctuary! The fire marshal would not like it!
11:41:23 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -
Romans 1:26-27 and Homosexuality
05/17/2005 - James White
[26] For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
[27] and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
These verses form a single sentence, connected directly to the preceding words by for this reason. Paul does not depart from his theme at this point. These verses are not some separated, a-contextual leap into another subject. The theme continues without a break. But here Paul teaches that because of the idolatry of mankind God gives men over to degrading passions (NASB), shameful lusts (NIV), vile passions (NKJV). However the phrase is translated, it is obviously referring to desires and passions that are dishonorable and indicative of Gods judgmentupon those who indulge in selfish, lustful behavior.
Paul then gives a particularly fitting example of these degrading passions, one that illustrates twistednessat the very core of human identity. He first mentions lesbianism, describing, clearly, adult, mutual lesbian activity. This is seen in the description given in both verses 26 and 27, for verse 27 begins with and in the same way,indicating that the description of male homosexual activity in that verse is parallel to the lesbian activity in verse 26. Hence, the description of lesbianism as against naturein verse 26 would apply to male homosexuality as well, and the description of mutuality and indecent acts in verse 27 would apply to lesbian activity as well.
There is a note of sadness in Pauls words, "for even their women...." The female, as a result of the twistedness of sin, exchanges the natural sexual function (the most basic meaning of the words Paul uses) for that which is against nature. This is a voluntary act. These women exchangethe natural function for that which is against nature. There is choice involved here, a choice that expresses the twistedness of the rebellion against the Creator that Paul is illustrating. The natural sexual functionis still known to these women, but they choose to exchange it. Paul uses the very same term he had used in the preceding verse, "exchanging the truth of God for the lie," so obviously this exchange carries the same negative character: the exchange of Gods truth for a lie is the same as exchanging the natural sexual use for the unnatural. The choice is purposeful in the first, and it is in the second as well. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
02:00:00 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
The State vs. Christians: Canada Joins those Nations that Prohibit Free Speech and Gospel Preaching
06/09/2008 - James White
The speed at which the governments of the secular West are turning on the Christians living within their borders is a sure sign of the judgment of God coming upon this culture. It truly has come to the point where I question the wisdom of my ever going north of the border again, given that it is without a question true that I could be charged with a "hate crime" in Canada this very day. My debates with Lynn and Spong, my book on the topic, my preaching, would all now expose me---and more importantly, all believing Christians in Canada today---to the rebuke of the "law" in Canada. Free speech? Forget it! Homosexuals now have super-rights! You can't even express opposition to their sexual deviancy!I am referring to the decision handed down by the Alberta Human Rights Commission Friday against pastor Stephen Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. I will not repeat an overview of the case, as it is found here and here, only to note that this has to do with the outrageous action of Boissoin in sending a letter to the newspaper that was published voicing opposition to homosexuality and its impact on society. Here is a sample of the terrible things Boissoin said:
Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.This basic expression of a logical, rational, perfectly consistent and Christian viewpoint is now officially illegal in Canada. Dr. Darren Lund, a homosexual activist, filed a complaint, and now gets $5,000 for the "suffering" he has experienced by the bare expression of Boissoin's words! Sound completely impossible? It isn't. Free speech is gone in Canada, and the secularists have taken over the key positions in government so that from those positions they can do exactly what they are now doing: silence Christians and the proclamation of the Gospel.
I downloaded the pdf of the "decision" of these anti-Christian secularists. Note the following:
14. The Panel finds, and the Panel orders as follows:Now keep in mind, the entirety of the Christian proclamation is "offensive" to many, hence, "disparaging remarks" can be, well, anything. So, this is a legal demand that Pastor Boissoin cease saying anything in any forum whatsoever about homosexuality. Period. Shut up. And since I am sure the preaching of the Bible constitutes "in public speeches" in Canada, this is an open unadulterated attack upon Christianity by a legal governmental agency. To call it anything else is to have one's head way, way too far down in the sand.
a. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund's witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.
The entire document is simply frightening in its mindless secularism. Boissoin is told he must apologize publicly for holding the historical Christian position! What an audacious demand! Can you imagine! Orwell was off by only 24 years, to be sure. But what is truly sickening is the fact that the decision is plainly intended to function as a chilling influence upon all other Christians. By prosecuting this one pastor the intended effect is to silence all Christians in general. I quote:
8. The Panel agrees also with Dr. Lund's submission that hate propaganda remedies should have a symbolic and educational value as stated in the Citron case:Do you see that? "We will come after you and we will prosecute you if you dare give voice to Christian beliefs on homosexuality in Canada." I cannot possibly see how the Bible itself can long remain on the shelf in Canada in light of such judicial activism and anti-Christian bigotry. The irony is, this kind of decision is purposefully designed to inculcate--hatred of the Christian faith. And never forget it.
Any remedy awarded by this, or any Tribunal, will inevitably serve a number of purposes: prevention and elimination of discriminatory practices is only one of the outcomes flowing from an Order issued as a consequence of these proceedings. There is also a significant symbolic value in the public denunciation of the actions that are the subject of this complaint. Similarly, there is the potential educative and ultimately larger preventative benefit that can be achieved by open discussion of the principles enunciated in this or any Tribunal decision."
Boissoin endured six years of persecution at the hands of the High Priests of Secularism in Canada. You cannot debate these people: they know they cannot win in that venue. They seek to silence the other side by force of "law." The militant jihadi does the same thing. Both have the same goal in mind: silencing those who would dare to point out that their arguments are without merit. Their methods are quite different, but their ends are the same: the suppression of truth.
Should you watch these things and experience temptation to fear and distrust, remember: many have been the nations and cultures that have passed from the scene over the centuries due to their hatred of God's law. Justice will be done in the end, thankfully. Unrighteous judges should read the many warnings directed to them in Scripture. Meanwhile, Christians must pray for strength to stand firm in the face of those who would instruct them to be silent about the Gospel. "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20).
18:54:21 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
An Unwitting Admission
08/12/2006 - James White
I was looking over the August, 2006 "Soulforce Alert" which was reporting on the "1000 Watt March, Vigil and Concert" up in Colorado protesting Focus on the Family. One interesting paragraph I read said:In interviews with the two activists, one difference stood out. Chad Allen [who was chosen to play a lead role in End of the Spear even though he is a pro-homosexual activist] believes GLBT [Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender] people and anti-gay Christians can find common ground if they focus on their humanness. Judy Shepard does not believe that it's possible to find common ground with folks like Dobson. "Their view is askew, so I don't believe it's possible. A lot of this is about power and money. It will take many brave ministers to say it's okay to be Gay and Christian---and these ministers have jobs, pensions, and families to think about...they have a lot to lose. So we must talk to the people in congregations and humanize what's happening."
Did you catch that? While the two pro-homosexual activists disagree in one aspect, in reality, in a way the writer surely could not comprehend, they actually agree. What is the way for "unity" for Chad Allen? Focusing on our "humanness." And for Shepard? To "humanize" what is happening. See, they really agree! What has to be lost is the supernatural element of Christianity. God cannot be Creator. We cannot be created. That means God gets to define human sexuality and define its proper bounds. He even gets to define certain behaviors as sinful. And, of course, that is the very statement these folks want to preclude anyone from even thinking, let alone stating out loud. So the only way around that is to turn Christianity into a human social club and nothing more. Shepard wants to by-pass the God-ordained structure and seek to create rebellion in the ranks. Neither of them want to obey God's Word.
Over the past two Lord's days I've spoken on the subject of the Bible's teaching on homosexuality. You can find those sermons listed here under the topic "Pulpit Crimes."
03:00:00 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
Greetings from Grand Cayman
11/06/2006 - James White
Yeah, I'm the world traveler alright. Most everyone is off the ship right now doing...what you do at places like this. I have a load of laundry going, Beethoven playing on my iPod, and I'm playing chess against...my computer. Yeah, I am truly the party animal!
Now, for those of you who wondered if I would indeed do what I promised to do, and in fact, had been looking forward to do, well, here is photographic proof. Since everyone in my group was grabbing cameras last night and saying they were going to post the pics on line, I figure I might as well beat them all to the punch, since I happen to be proud of my Scottish heritage. Here is my lovely wife and I after the formal dinner on board last night. My thanks to Pastor Brazier and Mrs. Handyside! Look out, Jim! The pictures are being taken! (A little inside stuff there). So far I have spoken on the "Clobber Passages" (as soon as we got on ship), I did a theology talk wherein I basically went back over the Spong debate but also discussed parallels to my previous debates on other subjects, and then yesterday afternoon spoke on "What is at Stake," taken mainly from the chapter of the same name in Pulpit Crimes. This morning I had the pleasure of listening to one of our group witnessing to an elderly Roman Catholic man in the Lido restaurant. It was a real blessing to get to hear someone else bearing witness!
I was truly struck by something else that took place during the debate Friday night. During the audience questions Spong kept responding to my statement by saying, "I keep hearing guilt and judgment in what Dr. White is saying." To which I replied, "Yes, Bishop Spong does hear guilt and judgment, because without judgment of sin there is no need for a Savior! As a guilty sinner, I need a perfect Savior!" The contrast could not have been any stronger.
Also, I wanted to once again thank all of those who worked so diligently at the conference for all their hard work, and especially wish to thank Rich Pierce for making it all possible. Here is a shot of our book table the night of the debate. I think I saw some of Bishop Spong's supporters picking up my book on homosexuality (oh that he had bothered to read it himself before the debate!), so pray that the materials distributed will be of assistance to those who obtained them.
08:28:35 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -
More Hatred of Christianity
10/10/2007 - James White
I have added a new category here on the blog: persecution. We all know that our brothers and sisters are persecuted around the world by repressive regimes, whether they be atheistic/communistic (North Korea, for example), or religious (Islamic, Hindu). But it is no longer any secret at all that secularists want to silence Christians, whether they be of the dogmatic Darwinist sort (Dawkins) or others, such as the homosexual lobby.We saw just recently that the Council of Europe (part of the EU) put forward document 11375 (17/9/2007 -- in European date order, which makes more sense, in this case, than the standard US format) titled "The dangers of creationism in education." The document can be found here. There is no room for debate, no room for discussion or dispute, as the document begins with its summary, "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes." Well there you go! That settles it! Just as Rome attempted to silence criticism of its own misunderstandings centuries ago in Europe, no one seems to have learned a thing during the intervening centuries. While once it was religious bigotry that stifled the very ability of man to speak and debate and argue and disagree, now the secularist bigots have taken control, and they are just as intent upon stifling free speech and the expression of opposing viewpoints as ever their religious ancestors did. Dogmatically committed to Darwinism with a fervor of faith beyond almost anything known today in European "Christianity," the Secular Kingdom of Europe has firmly established its credentials as hating God's law, hating God's Word, and hating God's truth. You will love homosexuality, abortion, and everything else that eats at the soul of man, or you will be an outcast, and feel the brunt of the heel of the kingdom's boot. Of course, secularist Europe cannot withstand the onslaught of Islam, for the secularist is concerned only about himself or herself, and hence simply does not reproduce. So this monument to man's hatred of God will be washed away in short order by the natural reproduction rates of the immigrant Islamic populations, and the work of persecuting Christians, begun by the secularist regimes, will fall to those with far more experience in that field.
There are so many contradictions and absurdities in the Council of Europe document that it takes one's breath away. It is a monument to dogmatic secularistic fundamentalism. It does not even show a passing familiarity with the key issues in the debate, but, how could it? Darwinists do not want their theory debated. They want it obeyed. Period.
So today I was pointed to another indication of the incessant bent of the Western Rebel toward hatred of God. Here is another move to shut the mouths of those who would speak God's Word in the UK. I have documented numerous times on this blog the push to establish "gay super rights." Homosexuals, constantly suppressing the voice of conscience, want no one adding to that monumental effort by speaking the truth they are working so hard to suppress. So they seek to silence those who would say homosexuality is a life-destroying, culture damaging addiction by force of law. "Hate crimes" legislation is nothing more than a means of giving the government the right to peer into the hearts and minds on the basis of its own prejudice. It is a mechanism to suppress expression of "politically incorrect" views. We watched the old Soviet Union use these kinds of laws for decades as a basis for its brutal suppression of free thought, and now the West is mimicking its vanquished foe. While it will take longer for these laws to come to full effect in the US, the process has already begun. Free speech is now only for those who wish to promote godlessness thereby.
In a wonderful display of irony, I paged down to find one Dan from Sheffield making a comment on the news story. He concluded his comments with, "laws against incitement to hatred allready exist for other things, this just extends that legal standard, and shoudl extend equally , to everyone, whatever sky pixie they happen to belive in." Why shouldn't Dan's description of my God as a "sky pixie" fall under the very same prohibitions of "hate speech"? No one can answer that question, since logic and reason are not relevant to those who promote this kind of mindless "political correctness."
The days of our freedom to speak are numbered in the West, my friends. We must take advantage of them while we can! It will not be long before "counting the cost" will finally have meaning for those of us who have been blessed with unlimited freedom for a very long time.
00:01:00 - Category: Persecution - Link to this article -
Yearly Presidential Proclamation of National Shame
06/02/2010 - James White
I noted last year that the White House under President Barack Hussein Obama had designated June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month." This resulted in TurretinFan doing an entire month's worth of blog articles on the subject on his blog. Once again President Obama has added to our national shame by using the powers of his office to promote godlessness in the nation by designating June as a month of pride in sexual deviancy and sinfulness, just as he did last year. And yes, once again, Christians are offended and Christianity mocked in that the proclamation is dated replete with "the year of our Lord." Jesus is not your Lord when you spitefully reject His own law.But I noticed one significant change in the wording of the proclamation. In 2009 it read, "I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists." But the 2010 proclamation reads, "I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists."
Mr. President, I will not observe a month of pride in that which is fundamentally, unalterably, and unquestionably anti-Christian, ungodly, and life-destroying. And I am deeply offended that you would promote a worldview that identifies as "prejudice and discrimination" the settled Christian conviction that God not only has the right to determine the proper bounds of human sexual expression (being our Creator), but that He has likewise made known, with clarity, His will on the matter.
How this can be construed as anything less than anti-Christian rhetoric being written under the seal of the President of the United States, I do not know. But one thing is for certain: any culture that knowingly promotes and revels in the ungodliness of homosexuality will, inevitably and without question, outside of national repentance and confession, experience the wrath of God. There is no way to hold the Scriptures in one's hand, profess loyalty to them, and belief in their inspiration, and yet come to any other conclusion than this.
14:57:29 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
Top Ten "Christian" Stories of 2007
12/31/2007 - James White
I was looking over the top ten stories in the "Christian" world according to CT. Some were probably not even noticed by most in post-evangelicalism, such as the civil war in the Anglican communion over homosexuality. The Robinson ordination was big news, but the resultant fully appropriate reaction by Christians in the denomination hasn't gotten quite as much notice. Persecution is noted in a couple of stories, but not nearly as much as it really should be. I personally don't find the political stories at all relevant from an eternal viewpoint.But of course what brought me to the list was the 8th story:
8. Francis Beckwith returns to CatholicismI at least agree with the use of the term "returns," for in the weeks that followed one of the main issues that cropped up, at least in my reading and listening, was his repeated assertion that when it came to natural law, grace, the will of man, etc., Beckwith had never left. And so some---ok, very few, but some---have hopefully seen the important lesson in the Beckwith saga: there is a foundational context to the doctrines of the Reformation, a bedrock level of beliefs we might say, that, if missing, leaves one's profession of these doctrines empty and shallow, and more easily abandoned. Combining Rome's doctrines of revelation, grace, and the will of man, with the Reformation's sola gratia and sola fide results in an (all too common) hybrid faith that is internally inconsistent and incapable of serious examination. In other words, again, "Theology matters." When one then surveys the post-evangelical landscape and realizes that a majority of those contained within that huge category have no clue what the real issues were at the Reformation, let alone how those issues remain front and center today, the state of that conglomeration of humanity is all the more clearly seen.
No doubt many Protestants convert to the Roman Catholic Church every day. But most aren't serving as president of the Evangelical Theological Society, as Beckwith was when he returned to the faith in which he was raised.
One story that surely did not make the top ten, and deservedly so, was that I preached both services, and the adult Bible Study class, at PRBC yesterday; AM Bible Study on John 6, moving into the section so grossly abused by Roman Catholics (mentioned Steve Ray's doing so in passing); Sunday AM sermon was on having as our ambition to be pleasing to the Lord, and the evening service was a survey of 2 Thessalonians 1:3-12, all found here.
10:01:26 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -
Steve Ray and Magisterial Double Standards
04/08/2009 - Tur8infan
Mr. Steve Ray, whom you'll remember from Dr. White's video in the immediately preceding blog post, despite supposedly "fasting from blogging and blog reading for Lent," has provided two recent blog posts in which he illustrates the fact that Roman Catholic apologetics can impair one's ability to think straight:a) According to Ray, Warren flip-flopped on homosexuality because he lacks a Magisterium (link);
b) According to Ray, the Roman Catholic senators who voted against a conscience exception amendment in abortion cases did so because they are "stupid" and "wicked" (link).
Does anyone else notice the double-standard?
When a single "Protestant" does something bad (and I in no way endorse Rick Warren's flip-flop), it is proof of the failure of Sola Scriptura, but when 16 Roman Catholic senators do something bad (and only 9 do the right thing) it is because they are individually wicked and/or stupid. Do you see the problem with Ray's thought process? The bias there should be evident to even the most simple of readers.
Finally, while we have Mr. Ray on the hook, let's take a quick peek at the argument he uses against Warren. Ray writes:
Beauty of NOT having a Magisterium ... ... is that you don't have to have any solid positions, morals, or theology. You can waffle and change your mind. God has no opinion (obviously, or so think many) so you don’t have to worry about what He might think.(see first link above, double-ellipsis in original)
a) Remember the Crusades? Seemed like a good idea to the "magisterium" of the day. Not so much these days. Is Mr. Ray willing to concede that the Roman church does not have any solid positions, morals, or theology? Of course not. Mr. Ray would never concede such a thing. But he's quite willing to throw stones at Mr. Warren's error.
b) This comment of Ray's is part of a larger propaganda campaign within Catholicism to suggest that the two choices are their magisterium or moral relativism. This false dichotomy is not just illogical it is absurd. There is a "What We Believe" page at Rick Warren's church's website. Among a number of articles, that site says:
The Bible is God’s word to all men. It was written by human authors, under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the supreme source of truth for Christian beliefs and living. Because it is inspired by God, it is truth without any mixture of error.(source)
Now, (out of wickedness, stupidity, fear of men, an overly soft heart, or whatever) Mr. Warren may not faithfully follow his own statement of beliefs, but there they are. He claims that the Bible is truth without any mixture of error, and that God speaks through it to all men. God's opinion does matter, even though Mr. Warren gets things wrong, for whatever reason he does.
I know that may burst Mr. Ray's polemical bubble, but Mr. Ray needs to be spurred on to a balanced and honest polemic and away from his double-standards and irrational propaganda.
-TurretinFan
13:31:24 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Cancellation Official
10/08/2006 - James White
Dr. O'Donnell has verified with Dr. Falwell that there will be no debate on Monday the 16th. Dr. O'Donnell wrote, "Given that the two sides cannot agree on the terms of the debate in a spirit of compromise he concurs that the debate should not occur and therefore there will not be a debate on October 16 agreeing with the decision that was announced on Friday by Dr. White." As Tom Ascol immediately pointed out on the Founder's blog, that was not, in fact, the reason. The reason was that we had a signed agreement for a three hour debate; the debate had X amount of cross examination; the debate was fair in that it began with one side, ended with the other (neither side had the first/last speaking advantage). But twelve days out Brett O'Donnell of Liberty University assumed what can only be called dictatorial powers over the entirety of the situation. He unilaterally dismissed the agreement reached primarily through the interaction of Tom Ascol and Emir Caner, removing each of the very items that we had requested to get things "back on track" back in July. But the "deal breaker" was not even that, to be honest. The deal breaker was when Emir Caner capitulated to O'Donnell's actions rather than standing firm behind his own name sent on an e-mail confirming the format agreed upon. That was the "deal breaker," for you see, even if we had then worked out something with O'Donnell yet again (making the debate format negotiations the longest in modern history, extending from March to October!), there would be no reason to believe the agreement reached would be honored up to and through the time of the debate. Once Emir Caner reneged on his word (and for a few months now he has represented their side in all negotiations, so I truly doubt he was acting outside of Ergun Caner's knowledge) the debate was over, at least for anyone who believes a debate of this kind requires that everyone involved keep their word.There are two situations in our past that I would like to mention that throw some light on our demand that people keep their word in debate negotiation. First, in 2000, we had written agreement from St. Joseph's Communications that any video taping would be shared with both sides. They put up a video tape camera (we had been told they would not) but after the debate, they would not provide a copy of the tape. Here's the story. In any case, we have refused to have anything to do with St. Joseph's since then due to their behavior.
The other instance took place during the debate with Patrick Madrid on Long Island regarding the veneration of saints and angels. Rich Pierce did not make the trip, and at that time, we were shipping a large amount of equipment so as to hand our opponents a master tape with titling at the end of the debate. A noble attempt (we managed it with Mitch Pacwa in 1999 in San Diego) but one also that over-reached, in hindsight, what you should attempt to do on-location. In any case, during a portion of Madrid's presentation the screens went blank. Warren Smith, who was running the equipment, in consultation with Rich Pierce back in Phoenix by phone, had to reset the character generator. When it came back up, it did so in default mode, going back to the last character sets it was generating. Unfortunately, it had last been editing the debate with Barry Lynn on homosexuality, hence, the only video of that moment has the title of that debate, "Homosexuality," plastered across Patrick's face.
...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
16:52:54 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -
What To Look For This Friday
10/30/2006 - James White
This Friday evening I will be debating the retired Episcopalian bishop of Newark, John Shelby Spong. Spong is one of the favorites of the ultra-left, so you have probably seen or heard him on PBS, seen his books being promoted heavily in the media, or heard him being interviewed for a "progressive Christian" viewpoint on this or that. I can tell you right now the debate will be more on whether there is such a thing as "biblical Christianity" or not, for one thing is certain, Bishop Spong does not believe so. In fact, Spong is not even a classical theist. And so the debate will probably not focus upon the specific meanings of biblical texts (though Spong says it is relatively easy to refute the mistaken understandings of the texts relating to homosexuality) but upon whether there is such a thing as divine truth at all, especially in the realm of human sexual ethics. Just to give you an idea of how far outside the realm of Christian faith is Bishop Spong's confession, note his own words from his book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die, pp.166-167, 200:If we can grasp these possibilities or at least be willing to explore these tiny cracks leading to a different way of thinking about God, and if the Holy God can be understood not as a person, but as the depth and ground of life itself, then the ethical task of the Church becomes quite different. Christian ethics are not found in a system of behavior control. They are rather found in a call to the fullness of life. The business of the Church is, therefore, not to judge life, but to enhance consciousness, to ex-pose ignorance and prejudice, and to remove the barriers to life in all of its fullness. The Church's task is to assist its people in plumbing the depths of their own humanity, where transcendence, mystery, being, and even love are discovered, and to bring those qualities found in the center of life into the world. I name that center of life God.It will be interesting to get to cross-examine someone who speaks of a "non-theistic God" and who calls himself a Christian while defining the Trinity as "Life is good" (Father), "Life is loved" (Son), "be all you can be" (Spirit, though, I confess, it is hard for me to hear that phrase without thinking of the Army Reserve). You can certainly see why he supports homosexuality as a valid expression of human activity. In any case, Bishop Spong's antipathy to anything even remotely biblical or conservative literally oozes from his writings and talks (I honestly doubt he even notices it, it is so ubiquitous). Note, for example, his comments about David Wells from the same book, pp. 202-203:
This God is not a parent who will reward or punish me for my virtues or shortcomings. This God is rather a power, a presence that calls me into responsibility, into adulthood, into self-reliance, into living for others, and into contributing to the well-being of all humanity. This Infinite Beyond in the midst of my life invites me again and again to abandon my fears, to enter infinity, and to walk into the timelessness of God. So I worship at this shrine, and at the same time I take responsibility for my life and, to the degree that I am able, for the life of this world. That is where ethics emerge. So long as I possess life, I will live it deeply, richly, and fully. I will expect no reward for my commitment to these ethical principles save the reward of a life well lived. I will not blame my failures or my shortcomings on some external God, for God is part of who I am. Is that so novel an idea as to be unacceptable? Not to me it isn't, for I have entered the exile. The theistic God whose will constituted the ethics of the past is dead. So my search for the basis of ethics to guide me beyond the exile drives me back to the same arena where a non-theistic God was found and where Christ was redefined. My journey through the exile is beginning to take shape.
WILL THIS NONTHEISTIC VIEW of God, the promise of a new spirituality based upon the building of a life that is full, free, and whole, motivate human beings to a journey into the transcending mystery of God in the future? Will pilgrims in the exile seek God in the ground and depth of their own being if there is no perceived and obvious reward? Is it enough to suggest that a life lived fully, marked with an expansive love, called into a new being is its own reward? Is there hope for life beyond this world apart from the images of our theistic past? (Emphasis mine).
Time, America’s foremost news magazine, ran a recent cover story on heaven, entitled “Does Heaven Exist?” That question itself is one that our ancient forebears would never have raised. Interestingly enough, Time’s reporters sought in vain to find any robust conviction about heaven, even among traditional believers. “It is a boring place or a silly myth or something people in-vent or all of the above,”Time quoted theologian Jeffrey Burton Russell as saying. Even David Wells, a conservative theologian from the faculty of the evangelical Gordon-Conwell Seminary in Massachusetts, had this to say about heaven: “We would ex-pect to hear of it in the evangelical churches, but I don’t hear it at all. I don't think heaven is even a blip on the Christian screen from one end of the denominational spectrum to the other. The more perplexing question is, "What explains this?"In any case, the challenge is going to be compounded by the reality of a large gay/lesbian component to the audience as well. Hence, I would request your prayers once again for the debate; the conference that comes before it, and the cruise thereafter.
A contemporary evangelical professor thus admits to being mystified by this phenomenon. The fact is that his evangelical credentials mean that he could not possibly embrace the answer for which his own question yearns. The demise of heaven is a direct result of the death of the theistic image of God on which the evangelical tradition, with its personalistic view of heaven, rests. People who understand heaven as the reward given for a life of faith and work must also understand God as a personal deity who hands out rewards and punishments based on person-al deservings. Such a God is a thinly disguised parent figure who controls the child’s behavior with a series of threats and promises. This God was perceived as keeping intimate and copi-ous notes on human behavior. He—and the theistic God was almost always a he—was not unlike another supernatural figure that we allow to enter our consciousness every December. Does it not occur to us to see the similarities between this theistic God image and Santa Claus?
Also, a quick note for our supporters: we discovered just this week that the thieves who broke into our offices at the end of August stole our camera tripods. Those of you who have higher-end video cameras know what that means, cost wise. I also discovered more fraud being perpetuated because of what they stole from me as well. The problems from that single incident continue. This period of weeks is by far the most intensive of my entire year, and I truly desire to see both the Shishko debate and the Spong debate made available as quickly as possible. With Pulpit Crimes coming out this Thursday and everything else that is going on, please remember us before the Lord, and remember that we are a small ministry that is supported by folks like you. We need your assistance at this time.
00:01:00 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -
Don't Talk About Us!
08/27/2008 - James White
Back on June 30th I posted a short note regarding the abuse inherent in depriving a little child of a father and a mother that comes from "same sex unions." I made reference to a picture, posted on the Internet, in a major news source (MSNBC) as a glowing example of just how self-centered "same sex unions" have to be by nature. Here is the article I posted.
I was contacted by "jennifer kozumplik/nicole webber" (name provided on the contact page) and told to remove the image, found in the above linked article. I have done so pending my getting legal advice on the matter. You will find the image on the following websites, and something tells me "jennifer kozumplik/nicole webber" haven't contacted USA Today, MSNBC, etc., demanding that the picture be removed. As I have said many times, and as more and more people are discovering, homosexuals do not ask for equal rights: they want super-rights, including the ability to shut down all expression of belief that reminds them of the moral evil by which they have chosen to identify themselves. This is a glaring example. Note the use of this picture by such national online sources as MSNBC and USA Today. Google will provide you with lots of examples, such as this one.
The two individuals have likewise posted similar pictures on Facebook; even those without a Facebook account (such as yours truly) can see them.
Even Flickr has them as well.
I wonder if they wrote to The Ledger as well? That one even provides the very same image they have demanded I remove in a zoomable form.
Clearly, these two individuals are not camera shy, and they surely did not grant "rights" to all of these sources to post their pictures. No, the reason for this is clear: homosexuals use the cover of "tolerance" as a demand for "silence" on the part of those of us who still identify moral evil as moral evil. These individuals are glorying in their rebellion against God's moral law, and they are damaging not only themselves in their rebellion, but others too young to even understand what is being done to them. But they are intent upon making sure that no one reminds them of these facts that they know all too well.
I have been asking those "in the know," and since the picture is an AP picture, all one needs is an account with AP to post it. These individuals do not have the right to selectively determine which sites post the pictures and which do not---they lost that right when they allowed the pictures to be taken in the first place. But their demands cannot change the reality of their actions, and the actions of all of those rushing off to California so that they can pretend that marriage is a term humans get to define (instead of an institution God Himself ordained) before common sense returns to that state (Lord willing) in November. My original post only used their picture as an illustration of a general moral evil that is being promoted in our day. They are not alone in putting their own sexual desires before the good even of themselves, let alone of a little child. It is the very essence of homosexuality, and the very essence of man-centered Western culture.
13:07:00 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
From the Local High School Newspaper
02/26/2006 - James White
The tagline for the new movie Brokeback Mountain, starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, is “love is a force of nature.” Unfortunately it is never explained what kind of love they are referring to. I am robbed of space to explain the entire story here. However, because of all the buzz around the Venice film festival movie, most of us know the main idea. Two cowboys working for the summer in the mountains fall madly “in love.” The rest of the movie is spent spanning a twenty year time period in which the two marry women, build families and rendezvous with each other under the guise of ‘fishing trips.’All the talk surrounding the film is mainly in regards to the fact that is the most publicized homosexual movie to date. In light of political conflict dealing with the issue of homosexual marriage, a movie of this subject matter would hardly go unnoticed. Gay rights groups are absolutely ecstatic about the attention the film is getting. However, my biggest beef with this movie is not the homosexuality that it sells. No, I don’t agree with it, but what I find especially disturbing about the film is that it does not deal with the pain that the two men’s adultery causes to the families they chose to build.
The film is labeled “real love is a painful burden, ” but it is made quite clear that neither know the true meaning of the word love. Love is an action, a commitment. Love takes work, effort, patience and self-sacrifice. Nowhere in the movie, other than on the behalf of the wives, are any of those characteristics practiced. The two men engage in adultery, lie to their wives and are often violent and cruel to their families. How is it that men of such dishonest and uncaring characters are lauded and adored and can be made the heroes of a socially significant film? What is so socially significant? Is it not deathly clear that the lesson being taught is that being homosexual gives you super rights? As long as you are committing adultery with someone of the same sex it’s ok? It seems that the tagline of this movie should be edited. “Lust is a force of nature” would seem to be more fitting.
Love does not compromise, love does not fail; the version of love sold in this movie does both. It compromises their health, their jobs, the well being of the ones they are supposed to be most interested in. The devastation of their own lives becomes apparent when their unhealthy attachment hold them both in a deep depression for the rest of their lives. Sorry to ruin the movie for you, but they aren’t together in the end.
Gay rights groups rallying for equal rights would unjustly be able to rally behind Brokeback Mountain. The move does not sell equal rights: it sells super rights. Most groups an any sexual orientation would not encourage cruelty or adultery but this movie promotes both while hiding under a pro-homosexual banner and no one seems to be speaking out against it. The zeal to promote the gay society is blinding society to what else this movie is selling. The idea of equal rights stops dead at t his point. The boundary is crossed and the heterosexual group is put in its place. While most adulterous husbands in the majority of films are portrayed as the antagonist and not put upon a pedestal, the characters that Ledger and Gyllenhaal play are being given applause and marked as “important cultural and social advocates.” The hypocrisy is astounding.
---Summer M. White, Junior, Cortez High School
08:30:20 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
You Just Gotta Love Liberals
09/14/2009 - James White
Some of you who are new to Alpha and Omega Ministries might not know that a number of years ago I had the privilege of debating Barry Lynn, ACLU attorney and head of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Lynn is an ordained minister in one of the most liberal denominations in the world. We debated whether homosexuality is compatible with biblical Christianity, and, like John Shelby Spong a few years later, Lynn showed up to such a debate without a Bible. Here is a sample of the exchange:After the debate (which, in his closing statement, Lynn admitted he had lost), Lynn informed us that he would not allow the videos to be distributed. When we began to do so, he sent us a cease and desist letter, threatening to file suit in the 9th Circuit (where else?). With the help of the Alliance Defense Fund, we filed suit first, in Virginia, the proper location where copyright issues should be decided, and the location which also had jurisdiction over the place of the original debate (New York). The day before our attorneys were to start taking depositions, Lynn gave in. We found it ironic, of course, that someone who would speak so highly of free speech rights would attempt to use litigation to attempt to suppress the record of a public debate, but, what I learned then was this: free speech is only for those on the left, not anyone else. And we surely see that on every hand today as well.
In any case, you might find the entire debate very useful to watch. You can obtain it here.
I have found it interesting to follow Lynn's public escapades since then, and this morning a truly stellar persona, the great and incomparable Mylo Hatzenbuhler himself, pointed me to an article about Lynn. I had no idea the Obama administration had given Lynn a position, though, of course, given Lynn's radical views, that is hardly surprising. Radicalism is the new orthodoxy in Washington. But given how strongly Lynn had criticized the very office he is now a part of, listening to his tortured reasoning in defense of his hypocrisy is, well, educational:
Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was a vocal critic of Mr. Bush's faith-based office. Now, under Mr. Obama, he serves on the advisory council's task force to improve the functioning of the office. Explaining his turnaround, he said he doesn't view Mr. Obama's office as partisan -- the way Mr. Bush's was. But acknowledging that there was no substantive difference between the offices yet, Mr. Lynn said: "We have a guarded optimism that when the advisory council, Justice and the White House act and get down to the nitty gritty, they will make this a constitutionally protected program. However, we have no proof of that and no guarantee."
09:15:03 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -
It Is Good to be Home / A Request
07/11/2006 - James White
Well, eight hours from Gatwick, another five from Philadelphia. Makes for a long trip, to be sure! But nothing spectacular to report. I did see "Eight Below" twice though. Yeah, I teared up when the guy found Maya and thought she was dead. I'm a softie, really.
Once again, my deepest thanks to Roger Brazier, pastor of the Edmonton Baptist Chapel for his tireless support of my feeble efforts to bless the saints in the UK. Without Roger and his family I would never have had the opportunities I have had over the past year or so. Anyone who can put up with me for days on end like Roger can should be nominated for some kind of medal...or sainthood or something. Here's a picture from yesterday of Roger and me. Likewise, Jim and Chrissie Handyside in Glasgow have proven themselves "hospitable to the saints" in every way. And my thanks to Peter Masters and the fine folks of the Metropolitan Tabernacle for their hospitality as well.I am going to try to post the talk I gave in Glasgow on homosexuality as well as my gospel sermon from Jeremiah 9 in London for those wishing to listen.
I head back to work this week with a mountain before me. I hope to take a fresh run at the Ergun Caner situation and seek to reason with brother Caner on the grounds that we must set aside our personal feelings and seek the benefit of the saints. Period. I challenged him to debate because his statements are demonstrably in error regarding the Reformed faith and the consistency of being a Baptist and believing that Jesus Christ saves perfectly without needing human assistance in the matter. I challenged him to debate on the basis of a common commitment to the inspiration and inerrancy of God's Word, the Bible. And I challenged him, personally. I still intend to seek that encounter, to the benefit of God's people. We need to go back to square one, however. It is time to be fair in this discussion. I will present my proposal for the debate format and thesis. I will explain how the audience is benefitted by each and every element. Then I will ask Dr. Caner to please explain, if he disagrees with any element of the proposal, how his counter-proposal specifically and clearly benefits the listening audience. I will challenge him to let that one consideration guide: how will the people of God be best benefitted? We will see if he will allow thoe considerations to take precedence and guide our negotiations.
At the same time, I must rush headlong back into Pulpit Crimes, which has taken a vacation since I got back a few weeks ago. And while doing these things, I must press forward with preparation for the other debates coming up in a matter of weeks, literally, aside from my preaching duties and the like. It is wonderful to have so many opportunities upcoming, but I feel a great weight to do my best in all of these presentations.
So at this very challenging time could I ask all of those who regularly read this blog, listen to the Dividing Line, and utilize the resources we seek to provide to the people of God in apologetics and evangelism, to remember us at this time? Many of our regular readers are taking vacations and paying extra at the pump. Summertime can be a "lull" for many, and as a result, "discretionary" funds go elsewhere. Our ministry is very small, and hence even small interruptions are large to us. Remember that you can join us as a regular supporter and by so doing receive full access to our entire mp3 library. Click on the "Support Us" link on the left to learn more. I know it will be a great encouragement to me if Rich can tell me that a number of brothers and sisters have contacted us and shown their support in a tangible way at this time. I appreciate your consideration at this time.
00:07:27 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -
Western Culture Collapse Update
06/02/2009 - James White
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 1, 2009
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society....
Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration -- in both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.
My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security....
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
BARACK OBAMA
=====
June would be a good month to pray for repentance for all those trapped in sexual deviancy and in all those behaviors which destroy life and mar the image of God. It would be a good month to pray for repentance for the nation, and its leaders, who pander to such soul-destroying behaviors.
=====
All around the world, women are denied their right to free, legal and safe abortions. Even in Europe, women are deprived of the control over their own bodies and the number and spacing of children. It is the everyday reality facing women in Ireland, Poland and Malta.
A cornerstone of the European Union is to work for gender equality and health.Therefore, women who lack the access to free, legal and safe abortions in the EU-countries such as Ireland, Malta and Poland, can no longer be ignored. The governments of these countries must be put under pressure.
It is time for the EU to secure the right to free, safe and legal abortions and render it a human right.
=====
A human right...to murder unborn children. The twistedness of the thinking is stunning, and further evidence of the wrath of God coming upon the Secular West.
13:37:57 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
Reading in Context and for Meaning: Evidently, a Lost Art + A Fractal!
09/13/2007 - James White
Yesterday, in responding to the straw-man representation of "Baptists" presented by Jonathan Bonomo, I replied to the assertion that Baptists have separated themselves from "Christendom" (I used the term Christianity, since as a good Baptist I don't believe it is appropriate to dub something "Christian" that lacks the gospel and the Spirit and, also as a good Baptist, I'm not a sacralist) with these words:No RB would view himself as having "broken away" from Christianity because he is convinced the Bible teaches that baptism, like the Supper, is for believing, repentant people. When I join with my Presbyterian brothers in defending the gospel against the heresies of Rome, I will try to remember we are not fellow Christians.To my shock and dismay, some folks have failed to catch the clear, obvious, contextual meaning of these words. They are found in an article pointing out all the mischaracterizations in Bonomo's description. So it is painfully obvious that the last line is pure sarcasm: I even refer to my Presbyterian brothers, with whom I join in the struggle for the gospel, in the sentence. I am replying to the assertion that I have somehow separated myself from them because of my views of baptism so that we are no longer part of the same Christian faith. I'm mocking the idea that I could join with someone in fighting for the gospel who isn't a fellow Christian. Yet, some have so completely missed the point they actually think I'm saying Presbyterians are not my brothers in Christ! Please, folks, read in context! I was saying just the opposite about my Presbyterian brothers with whom I have true koinonia (fellowship) in the gospel!
Ironically, there are some Presbyterians who are not my brothers in faith. Those who denigrate the authority of Scripture, who promote a different gospel, promote homosexuality as a God-accepted lifestyle, etc., are not the first on my list of those with whom I feel koinonia. But this again brings us to the point: it is fellowship in the gospel that matters for me. I don't call those who have a false gospel Christians. I call them pseudadelphoi, false brethren, (Gal. 2:4). Paul used this language of baptized professors. To call those who preach a false gospel "Christians" simply because they underwent a religious ceremony "properly" in your viewpoint is to sow the seeds of the crop of utter confusion that exists all around us today. Such is the reason we have a "Christendom" that has no message, no cohesion, no voice. Once the gospel is lost as the central unifying definition of the faith, all you have is...human religion. That is what my debate with Doug Wilson came down to: Christianity defined by baptism vs. Christianity defined by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now, to try to get back to a positive note, it has been a very long time since I uploaded a fractal! This one turned out especially nicely. In fact, I converted the non-buttonized version and loaded it on my BlackBerry 8830 and it makes an awesome background on that small screen. Since it has been a long time since I last posted one of my fractals, let me explain what a "fractal" is to those who might be a bit confused as to why a bald apologist from Arizona would be posting colorful graphics. Fractals are the result of plotting the results of hyper-complex mathematical formulae and assigning color definitions to the graph. The resultant plots are...well, glorious! If you search on "fractal" on this blog you will see that I have posted many before, and they are all found here. Many have found my fractals useful desktop backgrounds, and as long as you don't pass them off as your own, or try to copyright them, please feel free to download, use as backgrounds, pop them in your PowerPoint presentations, use them on your PDAs or BlackBerrys, or whatever you'd like. I have much I could say about the theological implications I find in fractals and the like, but I have a debate to prepare for, and more of the Ray response, Ataie response, etc., to get to. I'm sure for some, fractals prove I'm not Reformed, too! I mean, Calvin would not have approved of fractals (way too colorful). Enjoy!
10:04:58 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -
Doctrinal Integrity, Dignity, and Soundness IV
11/12/2005 - James White
Titus 2:7-8 7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.Teaching marked by integrity, dignity, and now, "sound speech." Literally, "whole, healthy, sound" in word, speech. In this particular instance, the term Paul uses is u`gih/ , which of course is related to his more common term, u`giai,nw , "sound, correct, well-grounded. Consider for a moment how often Paul uses this concept in exhorting the next generation of church leaders:
1 Timothy 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,Sound doctrine, sound words, sound in the faith---all refer to that which is in proper order, functioning aright, healthy.
1 Timothy 6:3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness,
2 Timothy 1:13 Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,
Titus 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
Titus 2:1 But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.
Titus 2:2 Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness.
I can't help but think of an example from my own life right now. I am looking forward to riding in my first cycling race in seven years. The last race I rode in was El Tour de Tucson in 1998, riding the 75 mile portion. In a matter of days I'll be riding in El Tour again. Things have changed a bit over the seven years I've been gone, and now the 75 mile portion is an 80 mile run. In any case, you climb a lot in El Tour. If I recall correctly, the full 109 mile course had 3,300 feet of climbing in it. Though I've dropped nearly forty pounds since June, I've kept lifting, so I'm still much heavier and more muscular than I was the last time I rode El Tour, so climbing hills is slow going in comparison to the lightweight hammerheads around me. So I've been working hard on my climbing of late (did 3,300 feet last Wednesday over 36 miles, and 3,500 over 41 miles just a few days ago, all on South Mountain here in Phoenix). Now, a bit over a month ago I "tweaked" my left knee kneeling down to do something in the back yard. Now I have to ice my knee after every ride. In fact, the faster I get the ice on it, the better chance I have of avoiding pain. My knee is no longer truly "sound." It's not working the way it is supposed to. Thankfully, it hasn't started bothering me when I ride, only afterward---but as anyone knows, it is on my mind even when I'm climbing. I probably unconsciously favor it as well. It's still functional, of course, but it is not fully sound, not perfectly healthy (as all my 40+ readers can probably understand). Something isn't quite right, and it reminds me of that fact with regularity.
Apologies for my sports-related example, but in the same fashion, teaching that is not "sound" may "work" by many standards. It may "get the job done." But if it is not really sound, it will have results, down the road. It is like feeding the sheep an imbalanced diet: they may live fine on it for a while, but eventually, it will have an impact. Sickness will develop. Disease will enter the flock.
Sound doctrine is not something that would be "nice" if we could just "afford" it. You will never become truly healthy by cutting corners on diet and exercise and nutrition---though you can, in the short haul, get away with things. But short-sightedness is the hallmark of American evangelicalism, is it not? The shallow pap we call "teaching" in so many churches today cannot long nourish the famished sheep. It builds no solid foundation, and it results in an anemic, birth-defect filled next generation. Sound doctrine is simply letting God say what God says in His Word: unsound doctrine means we are ashamed of the truth and think we are wise enough to come up with something else.
01:00:00 - Category: Exegesis - Link to this article -
"But I chose you out of the world, and because of this, the world hates you" Our Lord, John 15:19
10/22/2007 - James White
God's judgment upon decadent God-hating secularism seems to be speeding up. The collapse of Western culture into open, unapologetic persecution of Christians based upon Darwinistic dogmatic fundamentalism is evidenced every day in the media. Unreasoning secularists refuse to even consider engaging in an intellectual defense of their worldview. Instead, with force of human law, they seek to silence all opposition. While we normally see these things happening in Europe first, we can look to the East and Left Coasts in the US for examples as well. Repeated stories about the exaltation of homosexuality to a position of protected, preferred status, with the attendant insistence that the state has the right to force all children into its mind-numbed mold of political correctness is already forcing many Christians to consider fleeing from those nations and states that enforce such evil ideologies. The open denunciation of the simple factual evidence that life is complex and the result of design, and the prohibition of even mentioning this obvious fact within the context of "public education" (far better to identify it accurately: public, government sponsored indoctrination), is another clear example of God lifting His hand of restraint and allowing the evil of men's hearts to run wild.I have noted that the secularists will probably not last long in Europe anyway. I am hearing stories of how sharia law is being put into practice in Norway, so it is just a matter of time before the secularists are swept away anyhow. Humanistic religion is a brittle thing, and quite incapable of moving men's souls (how could it, since, in its Darwinistic dogma, there is no soul to move?), and hence incapable of putting up an extended fight against Islam. Just as the apostate armies of Israel long ago were no match for the Assyrians, so the apostate secularists will have little chance withstanding the jihadis.
I'm sure most have already read about the bills Schwarzenegger signed in California that seek to give uber-rights to homosexuals and sundry others who define themselves by how they have sex or how they dress, etc. I suppose that makes sense: in a secular worldview, there is nothing spiritual about man to raise him above being defined by such things as what kind of under clothes you like to wear. I mean, we define dogs by "long hair" or "short hair," so man, the evil animal, might as well be defined by such mundane things as well, right? No wonder we no longer see Bachs and Beethovens. Anyway, I noted a while back the move in the UK to make preaching the gospel or just reading the Bible itself in public a hate crime. Here's an article that should likewise make you realize that in a very short time we will all be faced with the choice of suffering persecution and loss of worldly goods at the hands of those who irrationally hate God and refuse to defend their views in argument, and being silent. Note how the secularists hate the idea of truth. Well, except for "their" truth, which is unquestionable. The only truth they will allow is that "there is no truth in religion, only in science." They have no idea they are just as much a caricature as the most wild-eyed Inquisitor in Spain in the 15th century.
I pray God will cause me to love His truth, His church, His people, His gospel, more and more, so that my attachments to this world will grow ever weaker and weaker. The only Christians who will remain strong in the coming years will be those who realize the strong antithesis of these simple words: "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15). The only "leverage" the world has against us is that which we willingly give: our ungodly attachments to this world system. The more we are crucified to the world, the more we live in light of our death in Christ and our life in Him, the less power they will have. This is the secret of the persecuted church, and it is a lesson our brothers and sisters in other lands know well. It is one we must learn, and quickly.
10:05:11 - Category: Persecution - Link to this article -
Please, Think Clearly About What is Charitable!
05/10/2007 - James White
The following just appeared on the Catholic Answers Forum:Mr White has been following this thread. On his website he states this:
Over on the Catholic Answers forums a thread has developed calling for a day of fasting and prayer for my conversion to Roman Catholicism. I would like to encourage Christians to spend time in prayer asking God to draw to Himself His people who are currently trapped in the Roman system...
To state that Catholic Christians are "trapped in the Roman system" is uncharitable indeed. But with all due respect, many uncharitable things are directed at Mr White fairly often on this forum. We do not need to pray for his conversion--the Lord takes care of the conversion of hearts. Just simply pray for him. Everyone needs prayer.
May I please, please, please seek to explain to Mickey and others that their use of the terms "charitable" or "uncharitable" in reference to my quoted statement is unbiblical and, in fact, illogical? If, in fact, Roman Catholicism is a false religion with a false gospel, is it charitable, or uncharitable, to warn someone against it? Mormonism teaches that God was once a man who lived upon another planet, and that men may become gods. Is it charitable, or uncharitable, to say "Mormonism is not a Christian religion and to follow it will lead you only into deception and error"? When Paul referred to religious teachers as "false brethren" and said that they were accursed by God (Galatians 1:6-9, 2:4), was he being "uncharitable"? Is Matthew 23---the entire chapter---"uncharitable"? If we speak in accordance with biblical guidelines in saying that homosexuality is an abomination in God's sight, and that anyone guilty of it must repent to have eternal life, is this "uncharitable"?
The Bible says we are to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). The Bible never says we are to speak in such a way so that people will always think we are loving. In fact, those who are in rebellion against God's truth, whether they be atheists or religious, will often be "offended" by our proclamation. But it is biblically unloving to edit the gospel so as to remove the offensiveness of it: it shows no love for God, for the gospel, or even for those to whom we are speaking. Offending them may well be part and parcel of the means God uses to save them! An inoffensive "gospel" is no gospel at all (1 Cor. 1:18-25).
When Roman Catholics cannot even get past the feelings stage ("Oh, he said Rome is wrong! I'm so offended! He's so mean!") is it any wonder they do not see how shallow and circular their defenses of Rome's claims really are? All Christians today must recognize that we live in a culture where feelings have become the new standard of truth, and offending someone's "feelings" is the new unpardonable sin. The fact that the Christian is offended day in and day out is ignored, of course. But we must be prepared to bring the twisted thinking of Western culture back to ground zero: the fact that all are made in the image of God, and hence we can demonstrate the inconsistency of thinking in a way that is contrary to God's truth.
Now, Mickey is quite right: many truly uncharitable things are said about me by Roman Catholics every day. What is the difference? Simple. When I speak about Roman Catholicism, I have done everything in my power to be accurate in what I am saying. I have taken the time to read what the other side has to say (ironically, while typing this paragraph, an Amazon shipment arrived with another new Catholic work of apologetics in it). In my books, I cite sources, quote official materials, and I do so in context. I surely disagree with what I am citing, but the only way to show honor to the truth and honor to God is to handle even what which you disagree with accurately. But, is it not the commonality of so much of what is posted in these forums that these folks have not read my books, and even refuse to do so; that they have not watched the debates, and refuse to do so. Second and third hand rumors fly around without challenge, and are accepted at face value. (I even saw an outrageously funny statement by someone recently who said I had gained 100 lbs just so I can intimidate my opponents!) Why is it that these folks do not even take note of my work in reference to Mormonism, the Watchtower Society, Islam, or my defense of the Trinity, the transmission of Scripture, etc.? Personal attacks are uncharitable when they are 1) untrue, or 2) unnecessary, or 3) derive from an unwillingness to fairly represent the person being discussed. And that is the nature of what I see in these forums in the majority of instances. The exceptions, while refreshing, are likewise quite unusual.
So, Mickey and the others at the Forums: tell me. If it is uncharitable for me to speak of your being trapped in the Roman system, is it likewise uncharitable for the Pope to promulgate the Papal Syllabus of Errors? Is it not obvious that whether something is charitable or not simply cannot be determined on the basis of whether you are offended by it or not?
14:33:37 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Valuable Insight into Islamic Attitudes Toward Christianity and Christians
10/04/2008 - James White
Very early this morning I happened to get up. I wandered into the kitchen to get a drink, and ran my finger over the touchpad of my Mac to check my mail. One of the e-mails was from Sami Zaatari, a Palestinian Muslim living in London. Mr. Zaatari was in the LA area a few weeks ago, and presented Islamic objections to the Christian proclamation of the Gospel during the Friday evening activities. You may recall that he was one of the Muslim debaters in Norfolk, Virginia earlier this year as well. He is a very young gentleman. When I first heard him speak I could tell he was an intelligent fellow, though not at all well read in the Christian faith, to be sure. During his second debate I was a bit less impressed, simply because I sensed a certain sharpness as in a willingness to say things that are simply untrue for the sake of "effect." He likewise demonstrated the standard "Muslim street" tactic of citing anything, no matter how inconsistent it might be with his own self-professed worldview, as long as it could be used as a shallow, thoughtless weapon against Christianity.
Mr. Zaatari and I will be debating in London in November, and again at some point (date not yet determined as I write this) in Connecticut in February (along with Jalal Abualrub). I am sometimes asked why I would debate a young, inexperienced man like Sami Zaatari. The answer is simple: while I seek to defend the Christian gospel against the leading proponents of Islam, I have come to realize that especially in the West, there is a vast difference between the arguments and approach of those leading intellectuals and those in leadership in Muslim countries. You can see this for yourself. Go listen to a Hamza Yusuf lecture on YouTube, then listen to MemriTV and listen to the most recent appearance of a leading Imam from Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the like, and compare them. If you did not know better you would think they were presenting different religions, the only similarity being the language they use. Of course, in passing, you might note the freedom Muslims have in non-Islamic countries to speak their case, and the lack of such freedom for Christians in the Islamic countries. We will return to that later. In any case, Mr. Zaatari represents the "Muslim street," the kind of Islam that represents the views and feelings of the mass of Muslims, the ones living in Islamic societies, and, the ones attacking our brothers and sisters in other lands. They may do so only verbally, arguing against Christians in the marketplace, but as we all know, they do so regularly in a much more open fashion, persecuting, beating, imprisoning, and even killing, believers who refuse to renounce their allegiance to Jesus Christ. So for the sake of those precious believers who suffer in Muslim lands, I debate the Sami Zaataris and Osama Abdullahs and Jalal Abualrubs so that I may provide to those precious brothers and sisters the biblical and apologetic resources they need to give an answer in their own contexts. As long as I have the freedom to do so, I will. Of course, Islamic leaders are doing their best to use the ignorance and gullibility of the secularized West to silence all such efforts, as I noted just yesterday here on the blog.
Now, the last contact I had with Mr. Zaatari were some e-mails a few days about out the details of our upcoming debate. They had been "bland" discussions, nothing of any note. So as I scanned the beginning of Mr. Zaatari's e-mail early this morning, I was left wondering what had happened. The first paragraph read:
Here is a new article I just wrote against you http://muslim-responses.com/Soldier_of_Christ/Soldier_of_Christ_ which fully exposes you to the core. It exposes what is becoming an apparent rising bigotry in yourself against the Muslim nation. I am seriously loosing more respect for you by the MINUTE, not the days or weeks or months, but by the MINUTE, not that you really care though but I care and I just though you should know how I feel about you before we debate because I’m not a coward and speak my mind and let people truly know what I truly believe and feel, whether it be about their beliefs or the person them self.
Now, at first I really had no idea what had gotten into Mr. Zaatari. My mind turned to the recent videos I had posted, and I wondered if maybe my noting that 1oftheMuslims (a YouTube poster) had stolen a bad argument directly from Gary Miller without attribution had something to do with it. But, I wasn't interested in delving into it in the wee small hours of the morning, so I went to bed, pondering the odd explosion of nastiness from Mr. Zaatari.
I rose this morning and went back to the e-mail, this time following the link to the article. And finally I had my answer. As you can see by reading his article, we have here a very valuable insight into the religio-political nature of Islam. Islam is not merely a religion. It is an entire political ideology. They are inextricably linked. To the Muslim who cannot think outside of that "box," the matters that separate us are not primarily religious in nature. It would be like my trying to hear Barak Obama lecture on monergism vs. synergism: no matter how hard I try, I will "hear" what he would say with political overtones of partial birth abortion, gay "marriage," and sub-prime mortgages, and the truly religious nature of the dialogue would be deeply, deeply colored by those things. This is how the Muslim hears the Christian speaking today (outside of the intervention of the Spirit, anyway). I posted a letter from....A SOLDIER! Gasp! The fact that it never once crossed my mind in doing so that someone like Sami Zaatari, a Palestinian Muslim, would come unglued as a result, illustrates the vast chasm that separates us. For him, I am a hypocrite, since, for him, this illustrates that "Christianity" is invading Islam.
A similar thing happened recently in talking to Osama Abdullah on the way to San Diego. Mr. Abdullah blamed Christianity for the rise in homosexuality. He made reference to "Christian cultures." I demanded he name a single "Christian culture" in the world today. After repeatedly demanding he do so, he finally said, "Well...America!" He found himself on the end of a fairly fervent mini-sermon, I assure you. But this is how they think. For them, it is Christianity vs. Islam, the Crusaders vs. the faithful. And no matter how painfully obvious it is that the West HATES the Gospel, DESPISES God's law, and only rarely FEIGNS honor toward Christ, their political ideology trumps these facts and twists their thinking. The result has so far cost countless lives.
This mindset explains lots of things. For example, Muslims will call almost anyone in the West a "Christian" when citing sources in debates, even if there is a clear, obvious inconsistency in so doing. The political boundaries trump those of theology. Hence, they can assert a level of disagreement amongst "Christians" that doesn't actually exist, simply because they insist that basically, if you aren't a Muslim in the West, you are a Christian. Hence, secular liberalism becomes a form of Christianity in their thinking. So, the secularists who promote homosexuality are "Christians," hence, Christianity becomes responsible for homosexuality, abortion, you name it. Logical? Truthful? Of course not. But it is the Muslim mind, and we better understand it. Of course, as soon as we understand it, we are faced with a major problem: if the Muslim mind is, by definition, irrational and impervious to truth, what hope is there? And that is why theology matters! If you are an Arminian reading this, I don't have any suggestions for you. If you, like me, believe God raises the spiritually dead to life, changes hearts and minds by sovereign grace, then you already know why the situation is not hopeless.
So you can see the great "hypocrisy" I am guilty of in the mind of Sami Zaatari. For him, any soldier is equivalent to a Crusader, in essence (though, anyone at all familiar with the Crusades and the Islamic response knows how deeply, deeply ignorant modern Muslims are about that time period). So, while I can express amazement at Jalal Abualrub's assertion that "Christianity invaded Iraq," here I am saying just the opposite. Or so, that is what he "hears," not because it is true, but because Islam by its very nature distorts and twists the truth.
I know only the Spirit of God can make Sami "hear" what I am saying, and I truly pray God will open the young man's mind to the glory of Christ. But I will keep saying it, in the hopes that eventually, God will have mercy upon his soul.
...[Click Here to Continue Reading]
11:49:12 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -
More On the Death of Free Speech
04/22/2009 - James White
Last year I posted a blog article on the faux-marriage of Jennifer Kozumpli and Nicole Webber. These lesbians were pictured (one dressed as a man) holding an 18-month old girl, Sophie, which the caption identified as "their...daughter." I commented on how abusive it is to subject a child to such conditions, and how this again shows us how far our culture has descended into utter reprobation in its views.
You may recall that a while later I received a note demanding we take down the picture. I blogged the following at that time, and I note that the links are still active and accurate:
Back on June 30th I posted a short note regarding the abuse inherent in depriving a little child of a father and a mother that comes from "same sex unions." I made reference to a picture, posted on the Internet, in a major news source (MSNBC) as a glowing example of just how self-centered "same sex unions" have to be by nature. Here is the article I posted.
I was contacted by "jennifer kozumplik/nicole webber" (name provided on the contact page) and told to remove the image, found in the above linked article. I have done so pending my getting legal advice on the matter. You will find the image on the following websites, and something tells me "jennifer kozumplik/nicole webber" haven't contacted USA Today, MSNBC, etc., demanding that the picture be removed. As I have said many times, and as more and more people are discovering, homosexuals do not ask for equal rights: they want super-rights, including the ability to shut down all expression of belief that reminds them of the moral evil by which they have chosen to identify themselves. This is a glaring example. Note the use of this picture by such national online sources as MSNBC and USA Today. Google will provide you with lots of examples, such as this one.
The two individuals have likewise posted similar pictures on Facebook; even those without a Facebook account (such as yours truly) can see them.
Even Flickr has them as well.
I wonder if they wrote to The Ledger as well? That one even provides the very same image they have demanded I remove in a zoomable form.
Clearly, these two individuals are not camera shy, and they surely did not grant "rights" to all of these sources to post their pictures. No, the reason for this is clear: homosexuals use the cover of "tolerance" as a demand for "silence" on the part of those of us who still identify moral evil as moral evil. These individuals are glorying in their rebellion against God's moral law, and they are damaging not only themselves in their rebellion, but others too young to even understand what is being done to them. But they are intent upon making sure that no one reminds them of these facts that they know all too well.
I have been asking those "in the know," and since the picture is an AP picture, all one needs is an account with AP to post it. These individuals do not have the right to selectively determine which sites post the pictures and which do not---they lost that right when they allowed the pictures to be taken in the first place. But their demands cannot change the reality of their actions, and the actions of all of those rushing off to California so that they can pretend that marriage is a term humans get to define (instead of an institution God Himself ordained) before common sense returns to that state (Lord willing) in November. My original post only used their picture as an illustration of a general moral evil that is being promoted in our day. They are not alone in putting their own sexual desires before the good even of themselves, let alone of a little child. It is the very essence of homosexuality, and the very essence of man-centered Western culture.
So today I was informed that a laywer from AP had sent us a cease and desist order. So I've once again removed the picture, though, you can see it, repeatedly, if you so desire, even with zoom capabilities, at all the links posted above. For, as we all know, the only reason the AP came after us is that a complaint was filed with them.
Compare this zealous activity with that of YouTube/Google. I noted last week that someone had posted a disgusting, vile, clearly illegal and slanderous video in which they used my own video, but cobbled together words and phrases from other videos, so as to accuse me of gross immorality. I informed YouTube/Google of the video. Last I checked, it is still posted. When I complained, I was told it wasn't a copyright issue! So I asked to be directed toward the forms I needed to fill out on other grounds, and I did not even get a reply to the request.
Once again we see the elevation of a sexually-defined minority to the position of a protected group of elites based upon the society's fear of "offense" of these elites, while, concurrently, there is an ever lessening concern for a much larger minority group's rights, all due to the "political correctness" of the day. Somehow, long, long ago, these words were written:
"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you..." (John 15:18)
15:31:45 - Category: Christian Worldview - Link to this article -
On True Unity
11/24/2009 - James White
I was directed to some comments made regarding the concept of unity and Rome's constant attack upon the Scriptures and the doctrine of sola scriptura. Someone had made mention of my home church, which is partly what drew my attention. A comment was left by Joey, who said,
Your comparison is not well structured. First, you are comparing a single “organization”, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church, with “Protestantism” in claiming that the Catholic Church is more unified in doctrine. I think this is a false comparison since “protestantism” is not a single “organization”. In my opinion, the more accurate comparison is that of “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church” against the “Roman Catholic Church”. If we allow comparing apples to apples, you will notice that unity in doctrine and teaching that doctrine to its catechumen in the “Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church“ is no different from the unity claimed by the “Roman Catholic Church”. In fact, there are more churches that are more united in their beliefs and stance than the RC Church. What I mean is that, if we look at the individual members of a particular church and asked them their beliefs, we will get a more united stance. However, ask Roman Catholic members and you will get a more diverse stance or understanding of a particular doctrine. The point is that, the problem of disunity within the Roman Catholic Church can be seen outright when individual members are examined.
This comment clearly reflects points I have made in the past, as well as Eric Svendsen and many others. I would only change the specific local body (PRBC) to Reformed Baptists in general, across the US and the world. I know those folks pretty well, having preached in their midst in the US, the UK, Italy, Brazil, and now Australia. A Roman Catholic, however, took umbrage:
Joey – you are treating Protestantism’s fragmentation and lack of unity as a strength and Catholicism’s institutional unity as a weakness. Because the First (second, or third) Reformed Baptist Church of Phoenix has repeatedly schismed from other Protestants until it formed itself into a small homogeneous group, is it then comparable to the universal Church in terms of unity? Far from it. The Catholic Church was not formed out of schism, and it is not a country club of homogeneous Christian saints, but rather a universal hospital for all of the sinners of the world. Yet in spite of this Catholic mission, she retains her unity and hierarchical structure.
I'm afraid Tim has missed the point, one that would have been a little clearer had my suggested emendation been included in the original statement. As I watch Nancy Pelosi, a Roman Catholic, promoting homosexuality and abortion as the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, I ask myself a question: what would a Reformed Baptist Church do if she claimed membership? And I can answer that one easily. The first time she promoted such godlessness the elders would have met with her and sought to bring correction. If she refused to repent, she would have been excommunicated. Period. Yes, that's why the world thinks we are so narrow minded, just like it thinks Paul was narrow minded and the Jesus of the New Testament was narrow minded. That is to be expected. But all Nancy Pelosi, or the Kennedys, or any of the rest of the Roman Catholic abortion promoters in politics have to do is go on down the road a ways to find a good liberal bishop who will assure them that all they need to do is keep dropping something in the plate and all will be well.
It is an indisputable fact that Reformed Baptists worldwide are far, far, FAR more united in doctrine, practice, piety and worldview, than Roman Catholics are. In fact, it is an indisputable fact that Reformed Baptists and Orthodox Presbyterians, for an example, are far, far more united in doctrine, practice, piety and worldview, than Roman Catholics are. Now how can this be, given the constant mantra that sola scriptura is the blueprint for anarchy? How could our common commitment to the Scriptures result in such unity in the gospel, such unity in worldview? Yet, we find a massively wide range of views expressed under the banner of Roman Catholicism, and, it seems, Rome lacks the spine, the simple intestinal fortitude, to do almost anything about it. It is very hard to give much credence to Rome's oft made claims of unity and infallibility when you know what is being taught at Boston College or any number of other such places, and how it is light years away from the confident assertions being broadcast over Catholic Answers Live. So how is it that our focus upon the Scriptures produces unity, while Rome's focus upon her traditions, her "living magisterium," etc., produces Nancy Pelosi, the Society of Pius V, Boston College, Gerry Matatics, and Catholics for Choice?
17:12:46 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -
Lest You Missed It....
12/09/2008 - James White
I have suggested some items for your holiday season in various posts over the past few weeks, but I thought I'd concentrate them in one spot. First, I am tremendously pleased at the response to our beginning to carry new books in our bookstore. I really think these books will be of tremendous benefit to anyone who obtains them. Four in particular have been added of late:
Bill Webster's fine work, Behold Your King: Prophetic Proofs that Jesus is the Messiah. The study of biblical prophecies that focus the attention upon Jesus Christ is a true blessing. I sure found it encouraging and edifying. Bill has put a lot of time and effort into providing a huge number of resources relevant to the Jewish interpretation of the key texts as well. It may be "trite" to say "a great gift idea," but everything we are adding to the bookstore would, in fact, be a great gift idea for elders and teachers and evangelists and apologists. Get it here.
We actually ran out of this title for a few days, so good has been the response! But we have it in stock now. I passed this around at the conference in St. Louis and a number of folks commented, "Man, I have always wanted a book like this, but didn't think anyone had written one!" This isn't a stocking stuffer (899 pages!), but it sure will be appreciated by whoever you give it to (including yourself!). Get yours here.
Of course, my own work, Is the Mormon My Brother? is back in print. This work focuses upon the key issues at stake in answering that question, and once again flies in the face of our post-modern age in answering the question clearly and directly. Get yours here.
Of course, don't forget "the apologists' best friend," the NA27/NET diglot edition, available both in black leather as well as tan hardback.
This is what I carried through all six debates in London and Durham. In fact, here is a picture from the radio studio on the Unbelievable Radio program. You can see the diglot open in front of me. A true treasure trove of information in a single gorgeous volume. This one comes with my highest recommendation for "most useful information packed into a small space."
If you have been listening to the pre-show on the DL recently (yes, those who log in early can hear the "pre-show," which is normally just music, but at times is a bit more interesting), you have heard the tremendous talent of Clyde Bauman, my friend from up in the frozen tundra, a great brother in the Lord. The great Mylo Hatzenbuhler (Clyde's alter-ego!) has produced a Christmas album, "A Very Mylo Christmas." The comic genius displayed in "Winter in Nordakota" (to the tune of Ricky Martin's Livin La Vida Loca) is worth the purchase price! Of course, "Checkout Gals" will have you rolling on the floor, too. You will truly enjoy this one, and it will obtain an honored place in your Christmas music library! Visit Mylo's website here. Once you are addicted to his music, you can get his fan gear here, from the same kind lady who provides A&O gear as well! 
You gotta stop by Carla's place since who else would get me to pose for a picture like this? (Yes, I do, in fact, ride a motorcycle, and have, for...let me do the calculations here...27 years now---but that bike finally gave up the ghost about six months ago, so I'm on another cruiser now). Carla has designed all sorts of things that folks who like the DL will find enjoyable!
Now, this is hardly a holiday-oriented item, but I wanted to make mention of the fact that we have expanded the mp4 listings in our bookstore by adding my debate with Dee Bradshaw on the oxymoron of "homosexual marriage." It is now available in mp4 format for your iPod or computer (digital video), as well as in mp3 for audio alone. Don't forget the mp3 of the debate with John Shelby Spong on homosexuality, as well as the debate with Barry Lynn.
18:11:43 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -
The Religion of Perpetual Outrage
06/21/2007 - James White
I am writing a review of LDS author Daniel C. Peterson's work, Muhammad: Prophet of God put out by Eerdmans (yes, Eerdmans, the formerly evangelical publisher). One of the topics addressed by the book relates to the power of the spoken word in Arabian thought. Poets were particularly potent enemies. Muhammad faced the wrath of a number of them (and they learned to fear him as well). Someone who could turn a phrase or a verse could bring great shame upon the objects of his literary wrath. A tribe with a great poet was blessed, the opponents of that tribe shamed.
The mind-set that invests tremendous weight in being "shamed" by satirical language is difficult for many in the West to understand. But, it still exists, especially in Muslim contexts. Take the current furor over the knighthood of Salman Rushdie. In comparison with many other works that have been written over the decade's, Rushdie's novel is mild, a work of fiction satirizing many aspects of religion, and not just Islamic religion. I doubt Khomeini even read it. Its title was all that was needed. Muslims can talk about the "Satanic verses," but others may not. That Rushdie dared to engage in satire of Muhammad and Islam is all that matters. For large numbers of Muslims, Rushdie is worthy of death. Just look into their eyes. This is not the result of rational thought, it is visceral, and it is encouraged by the culture and the history spawned by Islam.The Satanic verses themselves are found in Islamic writings. I have on my desk the English translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, titled The Life of Muhammad. There on pages 165-166 you have the entire story laid out. Muhammad and his movement were facing difficult times in Mecca, and the Quraysh were opposing his claim to prophethood. He longed for acceptance, and so, Surah 53 was "revealed" to him. But as it was originally given, it read as follows:
19 Have ye seen Lat an Uzza 20 And another the third (goddess) Manat? Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third ... these are the exalted Gharaniq (a high flying bird) whose intercession is approved.Lat, Uzza, and Manat, are female pagan deities, worshipped and prized in Mecca. When Muhammad gave forth these words, there was a temporary peace between himself and the Quraysh. They went out, saying, "Muhammad has spoken of our gods in splendid fashion" (p. 166).
However, given that this contradicted everything he had said about monotheism, later generations explain that this was a trick of Satan, and God "annulled" the Satanic verses, replacing them with what is found in the Qur'an today:
21 What! for you the male sex and for Him the female? 22 Behold such would be indeed a division most unfair! 23 These are nothing but names which ye have devised ye and your fathers for which Allah has sent down no authority (whatever). They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire! Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord!Not only this, but another Surah (22) was revealed, which includes these words:
52 Never did We send an apostle or a prophet before thee but when he framed a desire Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom: 53 That He may make the suggestions thrown in by Satan but a trial for those in whose hearts is a disease and who are hardened of heart: verily the wrongdoers are in a schism far (from the Truth):This leads into a discussion of the entire concept of "abrogation" and the like, and surely, for many, leads to many questions regarding the reliability of Muhammad's "revelations." But my point here is that this is discussed in Islamic sources, but no one issued a fatwa in response. But it is the element of non-Islamic satire, where in essence the tribal elements of early Islamic history have now been transferred wholesale into the Muslim vs. non-Muslim context. Rushdie made reference to this incident in the context of satire, and just as this led to great anger and outrage between tribes in the deep deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago, so too today the outrage is easily seen.
Of course, Islam has no problem encouraging the demonization of others, the mockery of Christianity, for example (their imams speak often of the "cross worshippers" for example), but that's fine, because the idea of having a single set of standards that binds all is foreign to their thinking. That is why it is quite appropriate to speak of the "Religion of Perpetual Outrage." No matter what you say, or how you say it, a reason for offense can be found.I have noticed another development that I will note briefly in passing. Recognizing how potent is the term "phobe" in shallow Western thinking, Muslims are co-opting the term from the homosexuals and have now begun pressing the phrase "Islamophobe" with dreadful regularity. You can always tell when one side has no meaningful arguments to present in its defense when it adopts the "me-phobe" terminology. "Homophobe" is just as meaningless and absurd a term as "Islamophobe," and I, for one, lose all respect for anyone who utilizes the language. The only meaningful context in which such terminology could be used would be one of abject ignorance combined with abject bigotry--like calling Rosie O'Donnell a Christian-o-phobe. That would be appropriate. But when men and women who are knowledgeable speak the truth about Muhammad and Islam, attacking them as "Islamophobes" is just as empty, just as absurd, and just as much an abandonment of rationality, as the regular use of "homophobe" is by the apologists for homosexuality.
00:01:00 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -
Debate Set: Sunday Night, March 30th, Twin Lakes Church, Aptos, California (Updated)
01/25/2008 - James White
For those who recall the series I did last summer responding to the lectures of Steve Gregg against Calvinism, a debate is scheduled for Sunday night, March 30th at Twin Lakes Church in Aptos, California.In preparation Mr. Gregg has indicated that his views have evolved, I guess would be the term, since he recorded the programs I responded to. So in downloading the literally hundreds of pages of web board posts that represent his current position, I found these comments:
I have been reading, for the past few days, the debate between Dr. White and Dave Hunt. I confess that it has been vexing, as both men seem too interested in attacking each other personally than in sticking strictly to the issues. Mr. Hunt, in my opinion, stuck more with the issues and answered James's points more consistently than James did with Mr. Hunt's points.Elsewhere, I found Mr. Gregg referring to my "raving" out how "exegetical" Calvinism is, with these thoughts:
James seemed to think that, instead of presenting air-tight arguments favoring his own traditions, he could simply say that Dave Hunt was depending upon "the traditions of man" (a term White gratuitously used about a zillion times---per page!), and that, instead of answering Mr. Hunt's strongest scriptural points, he could simply accuse his opponent of not using (what Dr. White regards as) "exegesis."
If Dr. White cannot do better than this in debate, I may have to deprive myself of sleep for two or three days before our debate, just to make it fair (I am not suggesting that I am smarter than Dr. White. I am sure that I am not! However, no matter how smart you are, when you argue against the truth, you place yourself at a disadvantage).
Then I realized that Dr. White holds to a rather narrow definition of the word exegesis. When I use the term, I am speaking of rendering an explanation of a text, based upon:Those who have read my work to any depth at all well know how far off Gregg's views are. I cannot offer any explanation for what would cause such a complete misreading of my materials. And I must confess, this is the first time since my first debate in 1989 I've had an opponent say he may have to deprive himself of sleep before the debate just to make it fair. In all those years Roman Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, proponents of atheism, homosexuality, etc...none have uttered such words.
1) the meanings of words (vocabulary),
2) the relationships of the words to each other (grammar), and
3) the relationship of a sentence to other sentences in the flow of thought (context).
By contrast, it would appear that, to Dr. White, the chief feature of exegesis is a painstaking analysis of Greek syntax (a feature of #2, above). This is a convenient (though truncated) definition for him to adopt, since he has special training in such matters of the Greek language, whereas few in his audience can understand his arcane explanations, giving the following false impressions:
1) that he knows more than they do about the Bible,
2) that his interpretation (something different from translation) must be correct, and
3) that even if his interpretation is not correct, the problems involved in understanding the text are so complex as to render it impossible for the common man to know if he is right or wrong.
So he wins his point by default---unless his opponent knows Greek as well as he does, and can clearly explain why his point is not established by his intricate arguments.
At the end of this particular post, wherein Mr. Gregg demonstrates that he has yet to have the slightest idea who I am, what I believe, what I teach, etc., he quotes from Matthew 11,
"I thank you, Father...that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them unto babes!"The irony is he doesn't read the text in its context:
Matthew 11:25-27 5 ¶ At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26 "Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.In the context, Jesus is rejoicing in God's judgment, and in that context affirms that this is in accordance with the Father's will. Then we have the direct statement that to know the Father, the Son must will to reveal Him to you. There is an exclusivity in the Son's revelation of the Father, and it is one based upon the Son's will, not upon man's! If one wishes to say that it is the Son's will to reveal the Father to all indiscriminately, then why put these words in the context of judgment? No, these words are directly parallel to those in John that emphasize so clearly the divine right of self-revelation to those given by the Father to the Son.
All I can say is it is going to be an interesting debate.
UPDATE
DeoVolente pointed my attention to another post added to the thread I quote above. I will be honest folks: I never expected this from Steve Gregg. I mean, I obviously found his presentations horribly flawed and pointed out numerous problems with them, but never, in 19 years of formal debating (starting with Gerry Matatics in Long Island in 1989) have I ever encountered anyone who, before a debate, would make comments like "I may have to deprive myself of sleep for two or three days before our debate, just to make it fair." I suppose some may have said that privately to some friends, but I personally never heard such commentary. Anyway, on 12/1/07 Mr. Gregg added these comments:
In hearing his comments and reactions to my lectures, I got the impression that he is not going to be a very formidable opponent. He seems to neglect most of the important considerations in exegesis, and then distracts his audience from this fact by accusing his opponent of "eisegesis," "following tradition," and other canards. My assumption is that intelligent audiences will notice what he is doing, and it will weaken his case in their eyes.I am left speechless by such rhetoric, honestly. I will gladly allow the fair-minded readers of our comparative works, and the fair minded listeners to our programs, our presentations, and eventually, our debate, to decide the matter. But I simply point Mr. Gregg to two of my opponents who did, in fact, come to our debates with the idea that they were going to have an easy time of it: Father Peter Stravinskas and ACLU board member Barry Lynn. A word to the wise.
I am now much more familiar with James White's writings and debate methods, and I am more convinced than ever that my first impressions were correct. Whether he is debating Tim Warner, Dave Hunt or Norm Geisler (or me), he always resorts to the same tactics and the same name-calling. Some people have asked me whether it makes me nervous about being on the receiving end of that kind of treatment in a public forum. I don't know why it should. Only if I succumb to the temptation to respond in the same manner will I or my case look bad. I should think that Dr. White would himself be nervous every time he debates—not that his opponent will make him look bad, but that he will make himself look foolish.
17:14:47 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -
