Pros Apologian

God and Evil: The Trauma of Sovereignty

Tue, 9 Mar 2010 19:55:38 -0700

James Swan

I'm not particularly keen on reinventing wheels. Part of the fortunate heritage of the Reformed worldview is that much better minds than mine have studied the Biblical text, then formulated its information into concise doctrinal statements. Of course the statements are only as good as the verses they're based on. For instance, chapter three of the Westminster Confession of Faith states:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

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

If one were going to dispute this statement, it shouldn't be by philosophic speculation, tradition, or an emotional feeling. It should be done by proving the Biblical texts used don't support the statement being made. Such though typically isn't the case. The counter charge often begins with the assertion that Reformed theology turns God into a puppet master and the author of evil. The ingredient said to be missing is free will. It's touted that by adding free willto a biblical summary statement, a completely different view of sovereignty emerges, one which absolves God of being the author of evil and provides humanity with true freedom. Some go as far to say that the God of Reformed theology is far from Biblical.
Before a Reformed person pounces on such a counter view, one thing shouldn't be overlooked. Those who find Reformed theology illogical often have no other intent than to vigorously defend the honor of God as not being the author of evil, and wanting to place responsibility for evil and sin clearly on the shoulders of mankind. The irony of course is that the Reformed don't hold God to be the author of evil, nor do they consider men to be mere puppets. We agree with them that God is good and men are responsible. We're on a similar page in some respects, but the theological explanation as to how we both got there is very different. There are also crucial ramifications on other important areas of soteriology based on those differing explanations.

When non-Reformed people argue against the Reformed understanding of sovereignty, I have to immediately ask them how they also avoid their own argument. If we apply their argument against their own position what happens? They similarly believe God created all that is, and knew the beginning from the end before He created. If I knew in advance that a person was going to get in their car by their own choice, and while driving down the road strike and kill someone, and I let them do it,I share responsibility. It's actually a severely culpable responsibility because I knew and they didn't. When God chooses to create knowing full well what evil will happen, and creates anyway, I don't see how a non-Reformed person can avoid the same charge they place on us. Also, if God knows what we're going to choose when he creates us, do we really have free will? We certainly can't choose otherwise at that point. Further, to really make a free choice, those choices would have to be uncaused by circumstances surrounding us. Don't genetic and environmental factors place quite a burden on the proper and pure operation of free will? The long chain of events leading up to our point of choosing can't in any way be caused by God for our choices to be truly free. If God is behind that long chain of events, shouldn't God share at least some responsibility?

Many of you probably realize the above arguments are those typically launched by atheists against theists that use free will to absolve God of evil and determinism. One thing should jump out immediately: garden variety non-Reformed people really share a similar dilemma as the Reformed. Rarely though will a non-Reformed person admit that their view of sovereignty if scrutinized by an atheist, ends up with the conclusion that people are puppets and God is ultimately the author of evil. When the non-Reformed argue against us, they need to explain why they aren't arguing against themselves. Then they should explain why they use our paradigms when trouble or evil enters their lives. They can't escape their own heart of faith that knows "God is in control" and that all works according to His purposes. Everything is a free will adventure until tough circumstance befall a non-Reformed person. Then come cries for God's sovereign control.

The battle therefore really shouldn't be the Reformed versus the non-Reformed. The battle should be Christian theism versus atheism. The battle is between belief and unbelief. If you have non-Reformed friends that attack your Reformed understanding of sovereignty, with love and respect you have to show them they are standing right next to you facing common enemies: the world, the flesh, and the Devil. If their own arguments work just as well against their own position, they don't have valid arguments. Then it's to the Biblical text, to see whose view fits the evidence of Scripture. There, free will as understood by the non-Reformed crumbles under the weight of clear Scripture.

One of the problems with non-Reformed argumentation on this subject is it's application of extra-Biblical reasoning rather than simply taking sola scriptura to its logical conclusion. This isn't readily admitted. No Christian wants to admit their core belief on this issue is tainted. Of course, making generalized statements typically isn't safe, but I've found probing through typical non-Reformed explanations of sin and the nature of the will ultimately turn "The carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" into "That man has a will and the ability to choose from his heart (indeed that he must in order to please God) is abundantly clear from the repeated references to 'heart' throughout Scripture" (Dave Hunt, Debating Calvinism pp.339-340). The Reformed hold whatever views we have of God's sovereignty and man''s will must be based only on the Scriptures. If God says he's sovereign, we're enslaved to sin and responsible, and he's not the author of sin, that is precisely who God is and how the world is. It doesn't matter how many times the word "heart" is used. If the Bible repeatedly describes the will and heart as enslaved and dead in sin, that's indeed what it is.

Only the eyes of faith want to know who God is and what the exact plight of man is according to Scripture. By worldly standards, a sovereign God and a spiritually dead sinner sounds absurd, utterly foolish. The God invented by mankind is more of a loving aged grandfather. It holds each person, though they make mistakes, all have a spark of goodness within them simply needing to be ignited. Contrary to this, 1 Corinthians tells us how a central tenet of our theology, the cross of Jesus Christ, is foolishness to the world. The passage should serve as a reminder that much of what we believe as Christians will be considered foolish. Is it foolish to believe that a sovereign God created everything from nothing, knew the beginning from the end, is not the author of evil, and that men are responsible? I say without the eyes of faith, it is, but it's just as foolish as other central beliefs of Christianity:

Christians believe that a virgin gave birth to the Son of God. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that this baby was fully God and fully man, infinite and finite at the same time. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that God almighty spent his infancy being taken care of by a woman, nursed and diapered. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that God Almighty had a job. He was a carpenter. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that a man deemed to be a criminal by his own people and by the governing powers was God. God Almighty, the most powerful force that is, was nailed to a cross and died in weakness. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

Christians believe that God has communicated to us via a book. The book is perfect, even though written by sinful human beings. The book also is authored by God the Holy Spirit. Is this not just as "foolish" as believing God is sovereign, not the author of evil, and that we are responsible?

This of course is only a partial list. We could go on, exploring many more facets of Christian theology. I think non-Reformed Christians often forget the deep mysteries of the faith. There are simply facets of Christianity that can't be dissected philosophically or understood completely. God's sovereignty and human responsibility is just as mysterious as all those things listed above. As Christians, we don't simply pick and choose what we're going to believe based on if it makes sense to us. When our non-Reformed friends chastise us for believing something that sounds utterly foolish, we need to remind them of all the foolish things they likewise believe along with us. We have to press them to choose either the world's wisdom of the loving grandfather and humanity's spark of goodness, or the foolish paradigm of a holy sovereign king and enslaved sinful humanity.

Attempting to get an infinite being off the hook because of his sovereignty is a difficult plight for anyone claiming to adhere to Christian theism. It's a built in failure that the finite will never be able to fully comprehend the infinite. I can't even wrap my brain around the fact that a simple line with two points on either end has an infinite amount of points in between. How is it possible I can see the beginning and ending of a line, yet have infinity in the middle? As Christians, we're surrounded by more mysteries than we even realize. But some of those mysteries are holy. In terms of getting God's sovereignty off the hook, perhaps it would be wiser to simply stand back in awe of his holiness and infinitude.

Simply because it is a mystery though, doesn't mean Reformed people don't have any Biblical information to prove their view. The Bible repeatedly shows us that God decreed all things, and that people are still held accountable for their actions, especially their sinful actions.Theologians refers to this as compatibilism: God's decree is compatible with a person's will. They don't contradict each other.

In Genesis 50 we find Joseph, whose brothers sold him into the evil of slavery, who lied to their father breaking his heart, claiming Joseph was dead. In front of his brothers, years later Joseph states, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." The two statements in Hebrew are in direct parallel. Joseph's brothers meant evil by their actions, but God intended the same actions for good. The text shows one action with two intentions. This same principle can be found in Isaiah 10: 5-12, where God uses Assyria as an instrument of judgment on the rebellious people of Israel, and then holds Assyria responsible for her sinful attitude and desires against Israel. The text shows one action with two intentions, a sinful intention and a holy intention.The most important example of compatibilism though is Acts 4:27-28. Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews all sinfully join forces to crucify Jesus. Yet God?s predestined the entire event for his holy purpose.

R.C. Sproul wrote a chapter a number of years ago entitled, "The Trauma of Holiness." Similarly, I think looking at this issue as "the trauma of God's sovereignty" is a good beginning. We need to remind the non-Reformed of the danger is defining God's sovereignty differently than the way the Bible has expressed it. It's not simply an issue that we can be haphazard with. It demands reverence, caution, and meekness. The Belgic Confession rightly puts the humble spirit of a Christian before us on this issue:

As to what God does surpassing human understanding, we will not curiously inquire into farther than our capacity will admit of; but with the greatest humility and reverence adore the righteous judgment of God, which are hid from us, contenting ourselves that we are pupils of Christ, to learn only those things which he has revealed to us in His word, without transgressing these limits.

Ergun Caner Materials

Tue, 9 Mar 2010 19:25:24 -0700

Tur8infan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig von Buseck Interview (at CBN)
Transcript

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

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

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

July 6, 2002, Associated Press Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo Allegedly of Ergun and his Father (retrieved 2004)

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

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

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

- TurretinFan

What a Shame

Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:20:40 -0700

James White

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

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

Tomorrow on Iron Sharpens Iron

Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:22:22 -0700

James White

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

Today on a Special Monday Edition of the Dividing Line

Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:16:33 -0700

James White

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

An Amusing Textual Criticism Story

Mon, 8 Mar 2010 15:24:11 -0700

Alan Kurschner

Stephen Neill recalls:

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

Egun Caner, Pat Robertson, and the Satanic Verses

Mon, 8 Mar 2010 01:00:00 -0700

James White

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

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

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

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

Sun, 7 Mar 2010 17:53:05 -0700

James White

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

The 2010 Scottish Invasion!

Sat, 6 Mar 2010 17:49:22 -0700

James White

My dear brother Pastor Jim Handyside of the Reformed Baptist Chuch at Anniesland (Glasgow area, Scotland) will be speaking in churches in the Florida/Georgia area over the next number of weeks. Let me tell you, there are few preachers who draw the line as straight and who cut to the heart of the matter the way brother Handyside does. If you are tired of smarmy "feel good" preaching, and you are anywhere near these locations, do yourself a favor and go hear him. Here is his itinerary:

Jim Handyside's 2010 US Itinerary
March 3-11 Williston, FL 352-528-2216
March 10 Jacksonville, FL 904-272-6483
March 11-19 Sebring, FL 863-385-3787
March 19-24 Sanford, FL 386-492-2218
March 24-27 St. Mary, GA 912-882-5704
Mar 27-Apr3 Macon, GA 770-631-3660
April 3-6 Atlanta, GA 404-484-7690
April 6-13 Woodstock, GA 678-880-1123

Greenville, South Carolina

Sat, 6 Mar 2010 13:42:53 -0700

Jeff Downs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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