Saturday, September 1, 2012

Mr. White's method of disputation: part 1 - 'poisoning the wells', and abusing a Reformed Baptist missionary


Thanks to Ken Temple over at Beggars All (LINK), I found out yesterday that James R. White responded to my previous two blog posts on last Thursday's Dividing Line program (LINK). I am using "responded" quite loosely—diatribe and/or rant would be a more precise description. As an introduction of sorts to what Mr. White had to say (he stated in the program that I do not have the right to call him James—yes, I know, quite petty), I am going to adapt something that John Henry Newman penned to one of his critics:

I scorn and detest lying, and quibbling, and double-tongued practice, and slyness, and cunning, and smoothness, and cant, and pretence, quite as much as any Christians hate them ; and I pray to be kept from the snare of them. But all this is just now by the bye ; my present subject is Mr. White ; what I insist upon here, now that I am addressing this portion of my discussion to the opening comments he made concerning me on the August 30, 2012 Dividing Line program, is this unmanly attempt of his, to cut the ground from under my feet ;to poison by anticipation the public mind against me, and to infuse into the imaginations of my readers, suspicion and mistrust of every thing that I may say in reply to him. This I call poisoning the wells. (Adapted from John Henry Newman's, Mr. Kingsely's Method Of Disputation.)

Mr. White stated (10:20ff.):

David Waltz is one of my stalkers...has been for over a decade.

This is not the first time that Mr. White has leveled this charge in my direction. Back in 2009, I responded to this silly accusation in three threads:




[Mr. White's most recent recipient of "stalking" appears to be Dr. William Lane Craig.]

Mr. White continued with:

I don't even bother reading his stuff, because when it comes to me, all he does is follow me around try to find something to uhh, to pick on. Try to find something to, to make him look like he's smart and I am stupid.

This is utterly false. I have never been to his Twitter account; I look in on his blog a couple of times a month to see if he has posted something that pertains to one of my interests; I wrote a letter to CRI a few years back that addressed an article he wrote on Islam in their journal; I sometimes drop by his chat room at night when I have trouble sleeping (maybe 5 or 6 times over the last year), but I have never commented on anything he writes there; I rarely listen to his Dividing Line—fact is, the majority of cases of when I read or listen to him is when one of his devoted followers provides a link to something he said or wrote.

Mr. White:

And normally it is some kind of juhh [?], it uhh, the definition of nit picking, and that's what we have here today. Now one of my, my, one of the reasons I, I—to be perfectly honest with you, I don't bother reading the man, that is because he is the quintessential definition of the person who is blown about by every wind of doctrine. He's been everything.

Wow, he doesn't bother reading what I write, but he somehow 'knows' that I have "been everything". Eerie, scary...

Mr. White:

I haven't been keeping track ummm, my recollection is he was once Jehovah's Witness; he's been uhhh, he's played around with Roman Catholicism; and he's into Orthodoxy; he's just (whistles), just all over the place.

Right...I was born into, and raised a JW (4th generation—no choice in that—eternal decree of God); left the JW's in 1983 after 8 years of intense study and prayer;  joined the Orthodox Presbyterian Church via baptism on March 25, 1984 through the influence of my Greek  tutor and theological mentor; started having serious doubts about the Reformed faith in the early 90s due to the number of denominational splits that occurred among conservative adherents, with our Lord's prayer to the Father in John 17 weighing heavily on my mind; on March 30, 2002, I entered the RCC via confirmation and first communion after years of in depth study and prayer; and finally, I ceased attending the RCC and mass at the beginning of 2010 due to critical issues I elaborated on here at AF. Have never been a member of any other church/denomination other than the three listed above. Yeah, I have "been everything", "just all over the place"...BTW Mr. White, how many different denominations have you been a member of ???


Mr. White:

And you know, I have, I'll be honest, I have a real hard time working up a whole lot of respect for people who are blown about by every wind of doctrine. And, and they can't get their feet down on the ground and stay in one place [can you spell Southern Baptist Convention] for long enough to actually accomplish anything, and so it's easy for him to sit around—he's a moving target—'cuzz phew, because today and next week he might believe (some jumbled word I can't understand followed by laughing) that's pretty easy. Uhh, uhh, that's an easy way to get around things.

My-oh-my...what was that all about? Weird...

Mr. White: But uhh, he's very proud of his very large library...

Yes I am. I am a bibliophile—have been since I was about 4 years old—it has taken me over 50 years to build my library, so yes, I am somewhat "proud" of it. But then, Mr. White has commented on his large library in the past (not only the size, but also the expense, with a number of the books costing hundreds of dollars each), and he too seems quite proud of it—ahhh, the joy of double-standards...

Mr. White: ...and uhh, so he sits around dragging quotations out and firing and stuff.

Do you have a hidden camera in my library Mr. White ???

Now, the whole reason again that I, I'm going to address this is uhh, as I said, B1Crowley [spelling?] on Twitter sent me the link after I had already heard about it from TurretinFan; I had told TurretinFan, "what's, what's he up to now". "He's, he's talking about some things you said in the No Compromise video. I said, "oh, about modalism?" "Yeah, you're misrepresenting the Oneness guys and stuff like that." So once it was Tweeted to me, I thought, OK, alright, let's take a look at what he has to say.

Wow, quite the introduction, for sure. We have the quintessential 'poisioning the wells' fallacy displayed via character assassination, ad hominems, wild conjecture and outright falsehoods. What an ensemble !!!

Though the derogatory comments and insults do not end here, at least Mr. White finally starts to comment (well, sort-of) on what I posted—from 21:04 ff.:

Alright, so, the first article uhh was posted uhh yesterday, "James R. White: you should have stayed out of 'the deep water'." I just love this (chuckles), the, the Waltz is, does not make any pretense to humility, uhh and he talks about someone taking a pot-shot at Carl Trueman, and uhh, well not everyone at the Council of Nicea was Turks, and , and basically what these guys want to do is they, they sit around going, "look how smart I am about Church history, I'm smarter than that person there. I can disagree with you, I can nit-pick anything." That's what these guys are. It's like they never leave their, their libraries to do anything else. And I don't think David Waltz has ever actually debated a Oneness person, or actually gone out in the front-lines and done it like that. They sit in the back and toss stones and go look how smart I am.

Yes, the pettiness and 'poisoning the wells' continues; but now, Mr. White includes a fellow Reformed Baptist in the mix. Those who are following this series of threads on Mr. White know that the "someone taking a pot-shot at Carl Trueman" is none other than Ken Temple.

Now, a couple of important points: first, I do not think at all that Ken was "taking a pot-shot at Carl Trueman", in fact, I believe that he had some very valid points concerning certain statements made by Dr. Trueman in the NCE-E1 video; second, Ken is an SBC missionary who focuses on Iranian Muslims who live in America—I think it is safe to say that Ken doesn't just, "sit around going, 'look how smart I am about Church history, I'm smarter than that person there'," as Mr. White charges.

On a side note, I find it more than just a bit interesting that Mr. White is "taking a pot-shot at" at Ken, for not only is Ken a fellow Reformed Baptist, he is also a major contributor at the Beggars All blog, which is owned by James Swan, who is a member of Mr. White's "Team Apologian". I guess 'collateral damage' has little meaning to Mr. White.

I shall end part 1 here; probably will not be able to start working on part 2 until Monday—the Lord willing.


Grace and peace,

David

39 comments:

Drake Shelton said...

David,

Just finished listening to Mr. White’s little DL portion: http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20120830.mp3

I was going to ignore him because after all, he is a Baptist. Shouldn't that be enough reason? However, after that snide little diverso-defamation of my friend David, it's on. He has officially made my black list. You have given him the Edmund J. Exley treatment now its time to tag in Wendell 'Bud' White. I’m going to listen to his debates and get his book and go straight medieval on that ars.

James is saying that your criticism is a misrepresentation because Athanasius is saying that there is not a huge gap in meaning between homoousios and homoiousios because they mean the same thing, but James was saying that there is a huge Gap between the two but not really because he doesn’t want to have to be interpreted that way. Hmmmm…..
Sounds like a distinction without a difference.

Right after the 46:56 mark he says,

“If you are Reformed you believe that the second person of the Trinity existed.; and whether you want to use the Sonship language, that’s certainly the orthodox Reformed view, but even if you don’t, the fact is, that you would still affirm that there was the second person of the Trinity who existed in relationship with the father; or you are not Reformed and in fact you are not Trinitarian.”

>>This is a riot! So get this, you can have an eternal relationship with a Father, not be the Spirit but also not be a Son either! Wow! Lewis Carroll would love to get his mind around this character. A very merry un-birthday indeed!


Dave, you just need to get Orthodox! LOL! I thought I was cankerous.

Drake Shelton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Max said...

I used to really like James White when I was a new Christian, but now I see his true colors... he may be saved but I'm certainly not going to his church! LOL

Ken said...

Thanks David,
As I wrote over at Beggar's All - i don't think Dr. White even noticed that my article was at Beggar's All and I don't think he had time to read it.

I hope he will read it and the comment box that I defended him.

Thanks for the other graciousness - I don't know very much about church history, but I learn from both you and Dr. White and Turretinfan and others.

But I do know some of the connections of church history as it relates to Islam and missions. (or the lack of missions to Muslims)

I also lived overseas for 3 years (Turkey) straight and learned one Middle East Muslim language (Farsi/Persian - In Turkey, among Iranian refugees; never been to Iran) fluently and learned another one a little bit (Turkish) - and I have done mission trips to Tajkistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, and Bosnia.

And I spent all day today meeting all kinds of Muslims at a local book fair near my city. I shared the gospel with about 10 different Muslims - from Lebanon, Pakistan, India, Syria, Egypt, and African American Muslims. It was a great time of ministry.

Ken said...

David,
Thanks for the other graciousness - [ to me only]

Drake,
You certainly know about these issues more than I do - but it seems he is referring to the problem of "today I have begotten you" in Psalm 2:7, quoted in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 and Acts 13:33.

All Trinitarians believe either
1. the Son as the Son was the eternal Son
or
2. Son was the Word from eternity in a personal relationship with the Father (John 1:1; 17:5) and at His incarnation He became "the Son" - Luke 1:34-35 (for this reason the holy offspring will be called the Son of God) - "today I have begotten you" - Psalm 2:7, with 2 Sam.
7:13-14; quoted in Heb. 1:5; 5:5; Acts 13:33

the struggle is with the word "today" and "begotten" (birthed, born, caused to be born)

As with the differences between the Generic Unity vs. numeral unity and Augustine (one essence in 3 persons), Monarchy, etc. - they all believe in the Trinity - one God in three persons.

the different nuances should not have been enough to cause you to leave your Presbyterian church, and no longer even have a local church. They are all orthodox in doctrine. Nicea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Augustine on the Trinity, Calvin (the auto-Theos of each person) on the Trinity (who obviously would deny what David has suggested that he held to a form of "try-theism", etc.

We must be balanced.

Ken said...

"try-theism",

should have been

tri-theism

I think the auto-correct over corrects more and more.

Ken said...

Why should Baptists be ignored?



Drake Shelton said...

Ken,

"All Trinitarians believe either

"2. Son was the Word from eternity in a personal relationship with the Father (John 1:1; 17:5)and at His incarnation He became "the Son"

>>>The relationship cannot be personal because he is not a son in eternity. His sonship is created on this view. If that is the case then he cannot have a personal relationship with the Father, because on this view the Father has no son therefore cannot be a father.

This is Christian Theology Proper 101 and the fact that James W has deceived you and others into thinking that he has a clue what he is talking about only goes to show why I am no longer a member of a Reformed Church.

Ken said...

Dr. White and I hold to # 1 - that the Son was the Son from all eternity.

I was just noting that there are others who explain the eternality of the Son before His incarnation in the terms of "the word" in John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and 17:5 - not in the Oneness theology terminology - that He was a plan in the mind of God, etc. but in an eternal personal relationship into eternity past.

The difficulty is explaining the word "today" in Psalm 2:7 and quoted in Acts, and twice in Hebrews (above) -

I am curious how you explain the word "today" (I have begotten You) and the verb "begotten" ?

How would you explain those terms to Muslims who read the those verses when we evangelize them and they ask about "today" and "begotten"?

Also, how do you explain Luke 1:34-35 - "for this reason He will called the Son of God" - ?

So, what kind of a church do you go to?

I understand frustration with leaders and teachers and pastors and churches, for they are made up of sinful and weak and fallible humans; but you cannot really argue with the fact that the bible mentions church and that it is the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and then there is Hebrews 10:25 is clear and it seems that the principle of humility and the need for human accountability and the Lord's supper, etc. would keep you in some kind of Presbyterian Church. the books and past authors (Gordon Clark, John Owen, Samuel Rutherford, Turretin, etc.) that you mention at your web-site in a positive way would seem to keep you in a Presbyterian church, no matter how you might think they have drifted from the old Presbyterians.

I don't see how you can survive emotionally or spiritually being so alone with just your books and internet and your own circle of what you consider true Christianity. (if it is the case that you don't go to church anywhere anymore and just have your Gordon Clark and other books, etc.)

Ken said...

Drake,
I remember a few months ago, I watched your video on the Trinity, etc. that David Waltz linked to in which you drew diagrams, etc.

More people can understand it better, if you would do it over again, explain it more simple terms and create Power Point diagrams instead of the paper and your drawing - the glare and the angle and the paper not covering the entire screen in a smooth way, made the presentation hard to follow.

Ken said...

Drake,
Wasn't John Knox the founder of the Scottish Presbyterian church?

Didn't he hold to Calvins' view of the Trinity? (auto-theos)

How can Calvin have that view and the other Presbyterians you follow (Rutherford, Owen, Gordon Clark) not have that view ?

Obviously, I confess I don't know a whole lot about those details and I don't know much about all the church state issues you point to in Rutherford's writings. I have heard of them, but I am not that well read as you are.

Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology was the main Systematic Theology text book I had and was taught from in seminary. Since then, Wayne Grudem's has been useful. (But I disagree with his take on spiritual gifts and prophesy - he is a Reformed, Baptist, and believes the miracle - sign gifts continue to today.)

Ken said...

No comments?

either one of you, David or Drake, or both?

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

It seemed to me that your last few comments were directed to Drake, so I did not feel that I should 'jump' in, but rather, let Drake speak for himself.

With that said, if you have any questions for me, please feel free to fire away, thuogh it will probably be tomorrow before I will be able to get to them.


God bless,

David

Kelly said...

David,

C'mon. You really don't like James White. I get that.

I like the guy just fine and don't dislike you.

But, he's right that you're a (fast-) moving target.

There's something to be said for actually defending a known position as opposed to calling it in from the safety of the sidelines.

I was also caught off guard by JW's apparent reference to BA's Ken.

But, then, I'd also found Ken's correction a bit overblown--I didn't make much of Trueman's throwaway comment.

You, on the other hand: You just appear to be itching to mix it up with White whenever the opportunity presents itself.

I tend to agree with him that arm-chairing it is your preferred mode of interaction.

best,

cksalmon (from madb; holla!)

Kelly said...

Drake,

As a fellow Kentuckian, tell me: is there a fed-subsidized, sheltered work environment I can directly mail my check to?

Should I go through your parents?

I want to help get your books professionally edited, is why I'm asking.

Drake Shelton said...

Ken,

Samuel Clarke says in his Modest Plea,

“There are indeed figurative and metaphorical senses, wherein persons may very elegantly be said to be begotten or generated into a New State when they are invested with some extraordinary New Powers, Thus God is said in Scripture to have Begotten us unto a lively Hope by the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead [1 Pet 1:3-DS]. And to Christ himself, upon his being raised from the Dead, he saith, (Acts xiii;, 33,) Thou art my Son, This Day have I begotten thee. But never was That, stiled in any senfe a Generating or Begetting, before which the person generated was Every thing he could be after it; A Generating, which implied in it "- No Change at all, no not so “much as in any Mode of Existence; "No Change "more," than there is in “God the Father “ himself, upon Every '' New Act"' or Exertion of his Power. What the Writers before and at the time of the Council of Nice, call the Generation of the Son ', always means a Real Generation…by which he was really…generated from the Father by his Power and Will.”

http://archive.org/stream/modestpleacconti00clar#page/n260/mode/1up

Drake Shelton said...

“Drake,

"Wasn't John Knox the founder of the Scottish Presbyterian church?”

>>>Yes.

”Didn't he hold to Calvins' view of the Trinity? (auto-theos)”

>>>Most likely. Yet I hold to a number of things that Knox said that modern Presbyterian hate: Public resistance to tyrannical and even as little as non Christian government authority that refuses to acknowledge the Crown Rights o Jesus Christ, and the idea that the Pope is THE ANTICHRIST. Etc.

”How can Calvin have that view and the other Presbyterians you follow (Rutherford, Owen, Gordon Clark) not have that view?”

>>>When did I say tht Rutherford or Owen did not hold to the Latin Construction. I have stated numerous times that the Protestant Scholastics held to Latin Theology Proper.


”Obviously, I confess I don't know a whole lot about those details and I don't know much about all the church state issues you point to in Rutherford's writings. I have heard of them, but I am not that well read as you are.”

>>>Rutherford and Gillespie are the masters of Church and State in the history of Christianity.

”Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology was the main Systematic Theology text book I had and was taught from in seminary.”

>>>Berkhof has his many uses.

“Since then, Wayne Grudem's has been useful. (But I disagree with his take on spiritual gifts and prophesy - he is a Reformed, Baptist, and believes the miracle - sign gifts continue to today.)”

>>>The only Baptist that gets any serious supportive attention from me is John Gill.

Drake Shelton said...

Ken,

“No comments?

either one of you, David or Drake, or both?”

Look man I am a member of the Kentuckiana Philosophical Society. I have demands that have to be met by these people. I had to draw up a defense of the historical authenticity of the Pre-Socractic authors in the last few days, plus put together a historical defense of the Jesuit influence behind George III's African slaves being forced on my ancestors in Virginia. Not to mention Monday and Tuesdays are my days off to get shopping and errands done.

I think I answered your question pretty well. Is not samuel clarke the bee's knees?

Drake Shelton said...

Ken,

I know I am butting in here but I gotta throw my two pence at this.

“There's something to be said for actually defending a known position as opposed to calling it in from the safety of the sidelines.”

>>I am not too familiar with David’s history here but I am not on the sidelines. I am out on the streets preaching. I am a member of a philosophical society where I am the only Christian in a room full of atheists, spiritualists and their Professors.

”You, on the other hand: You just appear to be itching to mix it up with White whenever the opportunity presents itself.”

>>After listening to JW’s snide reply I can understand why.

Drake Shelton said...

Drake,

"As a fellow Kentuckian, tell me: is there a fed-subsidized, sheltered work environment I can directly mail my check to?"

>>I have no idea what you are asking me.

"Should I go through your parents?

I want to help get your books professionally edited, is why I'm asking."

Here is my email: drake.shelton@gmail.com

Lets talk about this in private.

David Waltz said...

Well hello ck,

What a pleasant surprise; though it is great to hear from you, I wish it had been another topic. Anyway, hope you can forgive me for be brutally honest in my response. You wrote:

== C'mon. You really don't like James White. I get that.==

Me: When it comes to James White as a person, I am neutral because I do not know the man. We share a lot of interests (Catholicism, JWs, Mormonism, Islam, chess, and biking come to mind), but beyond that, all I really know about him is what he publishes, which is vastly different from actually knowing someone.

However, with that said, I do not like many of James White's methods and tactics when it comes to disputation; he use of double-standards, 'poisoning the wells', personal attacks, et al. are repugnant to me, and end up tainting his positive contributions.

== But, he's right that you're a (fast-) moving target.==

Me: Would like some clarification from you on exactly what you mean by the above.

==There's something to be said for actually defending a known position as opposed to calling it in from the safety of the sidelines.==

Me: Just because I do not do public debates, or have an online webcast, it does not mean that I merely reside in "the safety of the sidelines". I could give plenty of concrete examples, but I suspect my detractors would accuse me of bragging.

== I was also caught off guard by JW's apparent reference to BA's Ken.

But, then, I'd also found Ken's correction a bit overblown--I didn't make much of Trueman's throwaway comment.==

Me: Ken Temple has been a Christian missionary to Muslims for decades—he has been 'in the trenches'—as such, I think you should give a bit more warrant to his concerns on this matter.

== You, on the other hand: You just appear to be itching to mix it up with White whenever the opportunity presents itself.==

Me: This is patently false. I rarely "mix it up with White"; there are literally dozens of instances that I could have, but have refrained. I am reasonably sure that if I was half the "stalker" that he thinks I am, I could expand the "dozens of instances" to hundreds.

== I tend to agree with him that arm-chairing it is your preferred mode of interaction.==

Me: My home is open to James White; he can visit me at the beach pretty much anytime if he gives me a few days notice (I'd even pick him up at the airport). I sincerely doubt that he has any interest in debating me over topics that I have spent years of study in...so, if I notice errors in his programs and/or publications that I believe need correction, what method is available to me do so in an effective and efficient manner? If he allowed comments on his blog, that would be a good one; but, as you know, he does not. So, what better means than my own blog ???

With that said, do you think your hundreds of posts (maybe thousands now?) over at the Mormon message board is something other than "arm-chairing"? If not, how is different from blogging? If so, is that not a double-standard?


Grace and peace,

David

Jnorm said...

David,

I kind of saw the samething between homoousios and homoiousios, which is why when you and I went back and forth last year or the year before I wasn't that hard on you. In fact, I think I even said that the moderate Arians were extremely close to the Old Nicene Party.


This mistake by Mr. White could cause a number of his followers to question his future statements in regards to you.

Ken said...

Drake,
Thanks for some response. Some of the things you responded to were not from me, but from someone named "Kelly", but it seems you thought they were from me.

Samuel Clarke's statement is very short, and the old English is hard to understand. I confess I am not that well read in the old stuff like Edwards, Owen, the Puritans - there is only so much time for that stuff.

Clarke talks about taking "begotten" as a metaphor for Jesus; but he doesn't answer the question of the word "Today".

You and I and David - since we believe all the Bible about Jesus - have no trouble with eternal generation into the past, that begotten as pertaining to Jesus means a spiritual relationship into the past as a Son with the Father, etc.

But, the bare passages themselves - from Acts and Hebrews and Psalm 2:7 and begotten in the gospels and 1 John - are very, very difficult to understand for a Muslim in witnessing contexts.

We both believe that God in His Sovereignty must open the heart when a person is witnessed to and the gospel is presented to them. Acts 16:14; John 6:44

I didn't have time to read your debate with Catholic Nick on justification, but I assume you still hold to the classic justification by faith alone of the Majesterial Reformers, etc.

I am glad for that.

So, I am amazed that you would leave a Presbyterian church over the Trinity issues that you exposed, when they are not a spousing anything heretical, but is in line with the orthodoxy of Augustine, Calvin, Knox, etc. (what you call the Latin view)

It seems to me that all those views fall within the pale of orthodoxy - both the Latin view and the Monarchy view that you espouse - prayer to the Father alone in Jesus name, etc. As long as the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit is protected and monotheism is protected, they all seem to be orthodox and Biblical.

What do you do with Acts 6:59 where Stephen prays directly to Jesus?

Also, John 14:14 and others in the gospels where is would seem that prayer to Jesus is not a problem, although the vast majority of texts is prayer to the Father in Jesus' name in the power of the Holy Spirit.

"Generic Unity" vs. "Numeric Unity" needs to be fleshed out more for simple people like me - and "monad" - you use lots of words that need more explanation in simpler terms for the average person.

Dealing with Muslims, Oneness Pentecostals, and Jehovah's Witnesses - they have similar thinking patterns in needing the text and a clear and more easily understood explanation.

But, I am not saying we are to "make God more understandable" - I wrote an article against that idea.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/08/man-made-religion-tries-to-make-god.html

The numeric unity of only one God cannot be like Hinduism, since Hindus believe in many gods and avatars.

Ken said...

Drake,
one more thing, I am glad you are preaching the gospel in the streets, etc. and talking to atheists at the Kentucky Philosophical Society - all good.

but what do you do for church fellowship and the Lord's supper and local church accountability?

Hebrews 10:25

I Tim. 3:15

Ephesians 4:1-16

Your main beef seems to be the church-state issue; - I understand and share some of that frustration in seeing our society become more and more pagan and secular and evil in allowing abortions and homosexuality, Darwinian Evolution as dogma, public government schools, and all the pornography rampant - but

if more Christians don't vote against Obama and for the Mormon (I know, it is bad, but not as bad as Obama's liberalism and policies.)

It will end up like when so many voted for Ross Peroe, it took votes away from Bush, Sr. and Clinton won.

Of course whatever happens will be God's will, and may be an increasing level of judgment; but until it happens, we should strive for something better for society.

Ken said...

The only regret I have is the title of my post :

After thinking about it, it should have been:

"The Turks were not at the Counsel of Nicea in 325 AD; they have never been reached with the gospel"

instead of "just one small correction for Carl Trueman" that way, I could have kept it more focused on the issue I was emphasizing, rather than it being construed as an attack on him.

David Waltz said...

Hi Jnorm,

So good to see you back; thanks much for taking the time to comment. You posted:

==I kind of saw the samething between homoousios and homoiousios, which is why when you and I went back and forth last year or the year before I wasn't that hard on you. In fact, I think I even said that the moderate Arians were extremely close to the Old Nicene Party.==

I don't know if you read the group of patristic scholars that I cited in my latest thread (link), but I must concur with Dr. Nevin's assessment that, "Semi-nicene, rather than Semi-arian would seem to have been the proper title for the party from the first", for as you well know, the Homoiousians held none of the fundamental tenants of Arianism, and were Nicene to the core with the exception of the use of the term homoousios, which they did not like given its abuse by the modalists.

==This mistake by Mr. White could cause a number of his followers to question his future statements in regards to you.==

Wait until I get into his view/s on what he thinks modalists/modalism taught/teaches (he actually termed it "dynamic monarchianism"), I suspect it will literally cause you to shake your head in surprise.


Grace and peace,

David

P.S. Last night, I read a very interesting letter from St. Basil the Great that I plan to share soon; I think you will greatly appreciate his reflections therein, concerning the Nicene Creed.

Drake Shelton said...

Kelly,

Woops, sorry, I mistook your statement for Ken's. My email is

DRAKE.SHELTON@GMAIL.COM


Drake Shelton said...

Ken,

The point that he is making is that the term begotten can have a figurative or spiritual meaning that a person has been transformed into a new state of being not into being, but into a new state of being with new qualities or powers. However, eternal generation refers not to a person being brought into a new state but the generation of a person absolutely.


“Clarke talks about taking "begotten" as a metaphor for Jesus; but he doesn't answer the question of the word "Today".”

>>>You did not understand what he said. Read my statement above and then re-read Clarke.

“that begotten as pertaining to Jesus means a spiritual relationship into the past as a Son with the Father, etc.”

>>>But it is more than spiritual. It is an ontological dependency of the Son on the father.

“I didn't have time to read your debate with Catholic Nick on justification, but I assume you still hold to the classic justification by faith alone of the Majesterial Reformers, etc.”

>>>yes

“So, I am amazed that you would leave a Presbyterian church over the Trinity issues that you exposed, when they are not a spousing anything heretical, but is in line with the orthodoxy of Augustine, Calvin, Knox, etc. (what you call the Latin view)”

>>>That is just it. I think what Augustine, Calvin and Knox taught about the Trinity was heretical as is the official Trinitarianism of BOTH the Western and Eastern Churches considered as Institutions since the time of Constantinople 381.

“What do you do with Acts 6:59 where Stephen prays directly to Jesus? ”

>>That is not a prayer, that is an invocation. I deal with the greek here: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/how-then-should-we-pray-case-studies-in-nicene-triadology-vs-thomistic-and-van-tillian-sabellianism/

The only other passage that could be appealed to is John 14:14 where a recent manuscript has been found which mentions asking Jesus things in his name but you will notice the word is in brackets in all the major textual apparatuses as it is a recent find and not in the traditional manuscripts. It seems a bit odd that God would introduce a manuscript including prayer to jesus 20 centuries after the fact. This point you acknowledge next.

“The numeric unity of only one God cannot be like Hinduism, since Hindus believe in many gods and avatars.”

>>>Well I have been arguing that the triune God is necessarily either one person or three Gods. Read pages 23-25 of this book and tell me what you think: http://books.google.com/books?id=GooEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR1&lpg=PR1&dq=hislop+two+babylons&source=bl&ots=8-pNkprJp3&sig=T2ihuu18XQPmsGRa2skrgo9YYnQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gtVHUKrPNIbe9AT9woEw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Btw, this book was written by a Puritanic Scottish Presbyterian.

Drake Shelton said...

Ken,

“but what do you do for church fellowship and the Lord's supper and local church accountability?”

>>>What did John Knox do when he was exiled in Europe in the 1550s? He trusted God on his own. See THE LIFE OF JOHN KNOX by Thomas M’Crie, Period 4, especially pg. 65: http://www.a4t.org/Library/History/mcrie-life_of_knox.pdf

What did Samuel Rutherford do when he was exiled, Athanasius when he was exiled? Trusted God and learned valuable lessons from Christ. I was kicked out of the ARP Church here in Louisville for accusing the session of idolatry for implicitly following the WCF and the Puritans on this issue. Church accountability? These American clergyman cannot even get the first principle of their religion straight and I am supposed to submit myself to these people? No way! The Modern clergymen, that I have known in Reformed Churches are just as shallow and ignorant as the ones that Luther chided in the 16th century. I will never submit myself in membership to them, and I will NEVER attend one of their seminaries ever again.

Circumcision and the Passover were also commanded to God’s Church in OT but Rutherford points out,

“Abraham called with his house to leave idolatry, obeyed the calling, building an altar to the Lord (Gen 12:1¬18) professes and teaches as a Prophet the doctrine of the covenant, and God appearing revealed the Gospel unto him (Gen 12:1¬3, Gen 15:4¬7) and so he and his house are a visible church, when, not while many years after and until he was ninety and nine, the seal of circumcision was ordained and given to him and his house, Gen 17:1¬3. (Samuel Rutherford, Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline, 1658, SWRB reprint, 1997, p. 17).

…and the church is a true visible church in the wilderness… which yet wanted [lacked ¬ GB] circumcision and the passover forty years in the wilderness (Josh. 5:5¬7), this proves that there is a true visible church, where Christ is, and yet wanteth the ordinary seals, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Samuel Rutherford, Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline, 1658, p. 17, emphases added).” The Covenanted Reformation Defended. Misrepresentation #2-Barrow

“Hebrews 10:25”

>>>So are you suggesting that a Church is not a church unless it has officers? What about the Reformation? It had generations of Christians worshipping God with no ordained elders and for years many of them did not take the sacraments. Not to mention the dozens of passages that command separation from false teachers:

Rom 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.

Prov. 19:27 Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge. (KJV)

John 10:5 A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.”

Acts 19: 8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.

2 Jon 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

1 Tim 5:22 Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.

Drake Shelton said...

“I Tim. 3:15”

>>>You are confusing the institution with concrete examples of that institution. What is true de jure, is not always true de facto.


“Ephesians 4:1-16”

>>>Are you suggesting that I am not a member of the visible church?


“Your main beef seems to be the church-state issue; - I understand and share some of that frustration in seeing our society become more and more pagan and secular and evil in allowing abortions and homosexuality, Darwinian Evolution as dogma, public government schools, and all the pornography rampant”

>>>But the question is, will you do something about it? It sounds real pious when you type it out or preach it from a pulpit. It is another thing to walk out in public with a billboard hanging from your neck that advocates secession. Do that and then come back and tell me you share my beef.


“if more Christians don't vote against Obama and for the Mormon (I know, it is bad, but not as bad as Obama's liberalism and policies.)”

>>>You are talking as if there is no other option. I have one for you: Secede! Be persecuted and killed by the FBI and the CIA. That is my plan.

“It will end up like when so many voted for Ross Peroe, it took votes away from Bush, Sr. and Clinton won.”

>>>You act like you have a real choice to vote for Ken. Both of your options are bought and paid for by Rome. On the Demo side you have Jesuit Communist (Remember Communism was invented by the Jesuits: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/the-jesuit-roots-of-socialism-and-communism/) Biden which steals from the common man by the state through his racially jesuitized obama. On the Repub side you have Jesuit Jew loving Austrian Economics (and remember, Libertarianism was invented by the Jesuits: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/is-gary-north-a-jesuit-temporal-coadjutor-case-studies-in-the-contemporary-lust-for-filthy-lucre-in-the-reformed-church/) Ryan which steals from the common man with usury. Both are cartel banking economic systems for the Vatican. Take your pick. Red Rome or Blue Rome.

“Of course whatever happens will be God's will, and may be an increasing level of judgment; but until it happens, we should strive for something better for society.”

>>>This sounds indistinguishable from the Royalist idea that we cannot resist our government because we are commanded to perpetually suffer under their tyrannies until god deliver us:

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/politics/divine-right-of-kings-part-2

No,I would rather die in resisting them and give the children a hope for the future.

Ken said...

The point that he is making is that the term begotten can have a figurative or spiritual meaning that a person has been transformed into a new state of being not into being, but into a new state of being with new qualities or powers. However, eternal generation refers not to a person being brought into a new state but the generation of a person absolutely.

Thanks for that; you are easier to understand than Clarke and the old or middle English. (smile)

Well I have been arguing that the triune God is necessarily either one person or three Gods.

So, you don't agree with the Cappadocian fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, and Basil the Great) on the 3 hupostases ? 'υποστασις

I read the pages (and more pages before and afterward) of Hislop's book(I have heard of this before in critiques of Roman Catholicism), and I can see the parallels with the Roman Catholic "mother and child" motif in paganism; and I did already know that the original Brahman of Hinduism was "the ultimate one reality" - also known as philosophical Hinduism, and it later developed into many gods and avatars, etc. - I have always understood that as an example of Romans 1 and that Hinduism originally was monotheistic, but drifted later in history into polytheism and pantheism. I don't know if he is stretching it on "Brahm" being "rahm" (compassion, womb) - sounded kind of like the way Dispensationalists took the Hebrew "Rosh" (head, chief) for "Russia". but I need to read and think about all that again.

Ken said...

That is just it. I think what Augustine, Calvin and Knox taught about the Trinity was heretical as is the official Trinitarianism of BOTH the Western and Eastern Churches considered as Institutions since the time of Constantinople 381.

Pretty amazing if you ask me. Are Owen, Clarke, Rutherford, Gill, Gordon Clark, etc. also heretical on the Trinity ?
“Ephesians 4:1-16”

>>>Are you suggesting that I am not a member of the visible church?

I don't know - it seems you don't have a local church where you submit to authority, etc. - but your points about those who were exiled are good points. Knox went to Geneva and studied under Calvin. I am having a hard time understanding how you can accept most things from them, yet reject the doctrine of the Trinity as developed from the Cappadocian fathers onward.

But I am learning a lot from you and I appreciate getting the short version in today's English.


You are talking as if there is no other option. I have one for you: Secede!

No thanks; the South already tried that and lost. I have enough opportunity for persecution by Muslims in my outreach to them; and I don't think God wants us to seek it out; but be faithful in living holy and preaching the gospel; and if it comes to not be surprised - I Peter 3:13-18; 1 Peter 4:12-16.

I don't know about thinking that both Dems and Rep. are controlled by Rome. Seems far fetched to me.

Well, I understand you better now. Thanks so much. You have certainly given me a lot to think about this evening - went to bed around 11pm, but woke up at 1:30am - I could not go back to sleep around 1:30am and started reading your comments and now it is around 4:23am and I am finally getting tired and sleepy.

Ken said...

Also, I still don't see Clarke or your statements as answering the question of dealing with the word "today" or "this day" in Psalm 2:7, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5; Acts 13:33

How do you deal with that? (in plain modern English and not a quote from the old stuff - too hard to figure out what they are getting at with their weird syntax and old words and old spellings.)

the way "today" is used, along with Luke 1:34-35 seems to imply incarnational Sonship, but that does not imply that Jesus was not in personal and eternal fellowship with the Father into eternity past. John 1:1-5 and 17:5 is very clear on that.

Drake Shelton said...

“ Are Owen, Clarke, Rutherford, Gill, Gordon Clark, etc. also heretical on the Trinity ? ”

>>>Clarke and Clark no, the rest yes.


“I don't know”

>>>Then you have no business making accusations on this issue.

“it seems you don't have a local church where you submit to authority”

>>If you think that a local church is the same thing as the visible church you do not understand protestant ecclesiology. I have all this stuff in my Systematic theology for you. Kevin Reed and Reg Barrow have specialized in this issue. Begin with Kevin Reed’s Imperious Presbyterianism.


“Also, I still don't see Clarke or your statements as answering the question of dealing with the word "today" or "this day" in Psalm 2:7, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5; Acts 13:33

How do you deal with that? (in plain modern English and not a quote from the old stuff - too hard to figure out what they are getting at with their weird syntax and old words and old spellings.)”

>>> I will re-post my comment: “The point that he is making is that the term begotten can have a figurative or spiritual meaning that a person has been transformed into a new state of being not into being, but into a new state of being with new qualities or powers. However, eternal generation refers not to a person being brought into a new state but the generation of a person absolutely.”

The word “today” or “this day” refers to the day of the resurrection where Jesus did not ontologically generate from the father, but spiritually received a new state with new powers just like the elect do in 1 Pet 1:3 (same greek word-gennaō)

Drake Shelton said...

Ken,

“the way "today" is used, along with Luke 1:34-35 seems to imply incarnational Sonship”

>>>First, you are confusing his birth with his Resurrection. Well there is a sense in which Christ’s hypostatic union does introduce a new Sonship ASPECT to the eternal Son Christ and I am operating off of John L. Girardeaux and Rutherford. From my ST: Rutherford says,

“There be two parts (as it were) of the Covenant of Redemption. 1.) A covenant of Designation. 2.) Of actual Redemption. The former is eternal...the other part , the Man Christ , until he should be Man and have a man's will, he could not in two wills close with the covenant of actual redemption." [Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, (Originally published in Edinburgh 1654, Andro Anderson. Reprinted by Puritan Publications and edited by Matthew McMahon, 2005), 438]

Just as there are two aspects to Christ's Sonship divine (eternal) and human (temporal), so there are two aspects to this covenant (The Covenant of Redemption), one eternal and the other temporal. The Son, comprehended by both aspects of his Sonship obeys the decree of the Father. People who think it is contingent often cross their language later in their writings when they admit the COR cannot be broken (as contrasted with the covenant of grace) because of the nature of the parties. I prefer the wording "Terms of the Covenant" rather than a condition. The work of Christ is a term of the covenant that will be fulfilled. This can hold the same meaning when someone says that his work is conditional if one who says so makes clear that there are no contingencies in God.

The Sum of Saving Knowledge states,

"2b The sum of the Covenant of Redemption is this: God having freely chosen to life a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did give them, before the world began, to God the Son, appointed Redeemer, that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature, of a soul and a body, to personal union with his divine nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even to the suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase to them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading there to, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them. This condition the Son of God (who is Jesus Christ our Lord) did accept before the world began, and in the fulness of time came into the world, was born of the Virgin Mary, subjected himself to the law, and completely paid the ransom on the cross: But by virtue of the foresaid bargain, made before the world began, he is in all ages, since the fall of Adam, still upon the work of applying actually the purchased benefits of the elect; and that he does by way of entertaining a covenant of free grace and reconciliation with them, through faith in himself; by which covenant, he makes over to every believer a right and interest to himself, and to all his blessings”

“but that does not imply that Jesus was not in personal and eternal fellowship with the Father into eternity past. John 1:1-5 and 17:5 is very clear on that.”

>>Do you mean Jesus as an eternal Son? If not how can someone have a relationship with the father, not be the Holy Spirit, but also not be the Son? How can an eternal Father not have an eternal Son?

Drake Shelton said...

Ken,

"So, you don't agree with the Cappadocian fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, and Basil the Great) on the 3 hupostases ? 'υποστασις"


>>Can you show me in the cappadocian fathers where they use the phrase "Triune God", of course its greek equivalent?

"I read the pages (and more pages before and afterward) of Hislop's book(I have heard of this before in critiques of Roman Catholicism), and I can see the parallels with the Roman Catholic "mother and child" motif in paganism; and I did already know that the original Brahman of Hinduism was "the ultimate one reality" - also known as philosophical Hinduism, and it later developed into many gods and avatars, etc. - I have always understood that as an example of Romans 1 and that Hinduism originally was monotheistic, but drifted later in history into polytheism and pantheism. I don't know if he is stretching it on "Brahm" being "rahm" (compassion, womb) - sounded kind of like the way Dispensationalists took the Hebrew "Rosh" (head, chief) for "Russia". but I need to read and think about all that again."

>>>Fair enough

Ken said...

"So, you don't agree with the Cappadocian fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, and Basil the Great) on the 3 hupostases ? 'υποστασις"


>>Can you show me in the cappadocian fathers where they use the phrase "Triune God", of course its greek equivalent?

No; I am not that well versed in them. Maybe David knows.

But I do know that summaries say that they are the ones who developed the three 'υποστασις

right?

Ken said...

“the way "today" is used, along with Luke 1:34-35 seems to imply incarnational Sonship”

>>>First, you are confusing his birth with his Resurrection. Well there is a sense in which Christ’s hypostatic union does introduce a new Sonship ASPECT to the eternal Son Christ . . .

I can see the resurrection being connected to it in Acts 13:33 - that seems to go with Romans 1:3-5 - that "He was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead" - He was the Son from Eternity, also "for this reason, the holy offspring will be called "the Son of God" - Luke 1:34-35 - because His spiritual nature was the Spirit of God and the power of the most high and He had no human father, etc. -

Hebrews 1 and 5 seem to point to His ascension, especially Hebrews 1, but also pointing back to His being the "outshining/radiance/effulgence of the father's glory and the exact representation/character of his being" (Heb. 1:3)

Personally, I am not questioning the eternal generation of the Son; but I am seeking a better way and practical way on how to explain this stuff to former Muslims (who are really confused) in discipleship; and to Muslims in evangelism.

See, I am no bookworm (only) who is not applying this to evangelism to unbelievers and discipleship of believers.

The word "today" in Psalm 2:7 and Heb. 1:5 and 5:5 is still a struggle to explain - it looks like it means a time in history when he was born, or as in Acts 13:33, the point in history when He rose from the dead.

Ken said...

“ Are Owen, Clarke, Rutherford, Gill, Gordon Clark, etc. also heretical on the Trinity ? ”

>>>Clarke and Clark no, the rest yes.

So, from that, it seems that Gordon Clark thought Augustine, Calvin, Owen, and Rutherford and Gill were heretical on the Trinity?

i have actually heard about Gordon Clark, that whenever a Reformed mentions him, they say things like "he drew a really tight circle around himself and it was really small whom he considered "truly Reformed", etc.

Amazing.

You are free to be that way if you want to; but it seems to be a pretty small church you advocate.