Friday, October 30, 2009
James White’s “stalking” of Dr. Francis Beckwith continues on steady pace at AOMIN. During the month of October, five blog posts, and at least one Dividing Line program, reference Dr. Beckwith in a negative light:
19th; 22nd; 25th; 27th; 28th; 29th.
And back in September, James devoted four Dividing Line programs to “the Timothy George/Frank Beckwith dialogue from Wheaton”:
14th; 15th; 17th; 22nd; 24th (link posted 10/06).
[As usual, link not provided by James, so I shall do so: Exploring Christian Identity.]
Pretty impressive James; I just can’t keep up! As such, I am officially demoting myself from “neophyte stalker” to “poor impersonation of a stalker” status.
Grace and peace,
Friday, October 23, 2009
In the early portion of the 10-22-04 Dividing Line webcast, our master “stalker”, James, takes a few minutes, yet once again, to cast some disparaging remarks at Dr. Francis J. Beckwith. The following is a selection from the program:
…speaking of apostasy, ummmm, I was reading a brief article by Francis J. Beckwith this morning on his website: The Council of Trent did not deny forensic justification…(2:20ff.)
James goes on to tell us that Dr. Beckwith is “not really like the Pope”, and then, a bit later, informs his listeners that Dr. Beckwith’s interpretation of the 11th canon of the Council of Trent, “is a denial of Roman Catholic teaching on this subject.”
In essence, James is saying that one should not to trust Dr. Beckwith’s assessment, but rather, one should trust a professional, anti-Catholic’s interpretation.
And further, James is also inferring that one should not trust a certain Evangelical scholar, whose specialty happens to be historical theology, because it just so happens that this scholar’s understanding of canon XI is almost identical to that of Dr. Beckwith’s. Note the following:
It is clear that this condemnation [in Canon XI] is aimed against a purely extrinsic conception of justification (in the Catholic sense of the term) — in other words, the view that the Christian life may begin and continue without any transformation or inner renewal of the sinner. In fact, the canon does not censure any magisterial Protestant account of iustificatio hominis, in that the initial (extrinsic) justification of humans is either understood (as with Melanchthon) to be inextricably linked with their subsequent (intrinsic) sanctification, so that the concepts are notionally distinct, but nothing more; or else both the extrinsic justification and intrinsic sanctification of humanity are understood (as with Calvin) to be contiguous dimensions of the union of the believer with Christ. (Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 3rd ed., p. 343.)
[BTW, I had posted this same quote in the combox (HERE) of an earlier thread at the Return to Rome blog.
So, ignore Dr. McGrath, and ignore the monumental document, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (see THIS THREAD for links to JD and supporting documents)—just trust James’ take on the matter…
Grace and peace,
David (a neophyte “stalker”)
Friday, October 16, 2009
In the past, James has leveled the charge (insult?) of “stalking” in my direction, as well as at other individuals (Paul Owen and Dave Armstrong immediately come to mind without a “Google” search); and yet, I seriously doubt that any of us who have been accused of “stalking” by James, have come close to the level, and volume of derogatory posts, that he has piled on certain individuals. For instance, perform a search on AOMIN using these keywords: “Armstrong”, “Beckwith”, “Peterson”, “Steve Ray”—the results speak for themselves…
But, it is James’ most recent BLOG POST, aimed at the fellow Baptist professor, Ergun Caner, which provides a truly ‘classic’ example of “stalking” (once again, search on the AOMIN site, this time using the keyword, “Caner”, for more examples).
Is it just I, or do others sense yet another “double standard” from the ever busy pen of James?
Grace and peace,