Unity and the Christian Church: Part 5 - Reflections from two Independent Baptists—Kent Brandenburg and David Cloud

In this post, I will be re-publishing the reflections from two Independent Baptist pastors concerning the issue of unity and Christian Church. First, from Kent Brandenburg (originally posted January 6, 2012):


>>Last week, I happened upon a website (link) providing some 35 sermons from the last two years of the "Word of Truth Conference". One of the sermons in particular caught my eye: John 17 and Unity, delivered November 10, 2010 by pastor Kent Brandenburg (link). I have done a good deal of study on this chapter, so I sincerely wondered what an independent Baptist pastor had to say. What I learned from his sermon was that he agreed with my understanding on many key points. In an effort to stimulate others into taking in the entire sermon, I shall provide a few extracts:

Beginning ff-

John 17 and unity. Anyone who wants to understand unity between Christians must consider Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17. I think this is an important point: Biblical separation and Biblical unity will mirror each other. Obviously Biblical separation will never violate Biblical unity; Biblical unity will never violate Biblical separation.

8:54 ff -

What's the unity that Jesus Christ was praying for here? All right. If we're going to understand what unity is, that unity is the unity that he wants between people, is the unity in this chapter.

12:05 ff-

The unity we desire should be the same as what the Lord Jesus Christ prayed for here...

Do you want the unity that Jesus prayed for?

What was it?

13:27 ff -

Some believe Jesus prayed only for a spiritual unity. When I read commentaries on John 17, almost every single commentary differs on what they believe Jesus was praying for here. I'm talking about, if I read 25 commentaries, I can read 25 differences on what they think Jesus was praying for here. Is the Bible something we can't understand? Is the Bible not perspicuous? And I think it kinda drives me crazy; I mean, how, how is it that we can have so many opinions about what he is praying for here? How do I know that 26, let's say I am at number 26, why is 26 right? Why are the 25 wrong, and I am right? Can you know? Because I mean as you read the commentaries there are so many different viewpoints, how could people, how could we be sure that people can even know based on that.

15:01 ff -

Some believe Jesus prayed for a spiritual unity found in their position in Christ...Ummm so he prayed only for people in Christ to have spiritual unity is what their belief is in John 17. Others assert this is a practical unity among all believers. All believers have a practical unity. Some teach that. OK. But I'm just telling you some people teach that. In order to have it they concluded a need to coalesce around a few important doctrines with which true Christians should and will agree; and the number is shrinking. The number is increasingly smaller, until you can put the doctrines on the head of a pin that you have to agree on, basically to have what the Bible teaches on unity; and really what's on the head of the pin is blurry, you can't even quite make out what, what it is.

23:44 ff -

If there's unity between all believers, I don't see it.

[End of extracts]


Amen!!!>>



The second is from David Cloud (originally posted December 9, 2010):


>>Now, back to Tuesday's email. The author of the email was David Cloud, an independent Baptist author, lecturer, minister. The email that I received was also published online at Cloud's "Way of Life Literature" website (HERE). Cloud, as so many Protestants of the period delineated above by Hollman, does not like Meiderlin's now famous phrase; from his email/online essay, we read:

The modern evangelical philosophy is often stated by the dictum, “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.”

Though commonly attributed to Augustine, it was actually first stated by the 17th-century Lutheran Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin).

It became the rallying cry of the Moravians, who did many good things but retained such Roman heresies as infant baptism and a priesthood and promoted unity above the absolute truth of God’s Word.

It was adopted by the Fundamentalist movement of the first half of the 20th century. As a movement Fundamentalism focused on unity around “the fundamentals of the faith” while downplaying the “minor issues.” The objective was to create the largest possible united front against theological modernism.

This dictum has also been an integral philosophy of New Evangelicalism. They might stand for ten or twenty or thirty “cardinals,” but they refuse to make an issue of the WHOLE counsel of God. Particularly when it comes to one’s associations, they believe that there are “non-essentials” that should not get in the way of unity.

Many Independent Baptists are buying into this error.

And a bit later:

There is no support in the Bible for the “in essentials liberty” doctrine. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded His disciples to teach converts “to observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mat. 28:20).

The Apostle Paul reminded the elders at Ephesus that the reason he was free from the blood of all men was that he had preached the WHOLE counsel of God (Acts 20:27). The more plainly you preach the whole counsel of God, the less likely it will be that you will join hands in ministry with those who hold different doctrine.

Paul instructed Timothy to keep the truth “without SPOT, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:14). A spot is a small, seemingly insignificant thing. That particular epistle contains commandments about such things as the woman’s role in ministry, which is widely considered a “non-essential” today. Paul taught Timothy to have an entirely different approach toward such teachings.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2 Paul said to the church at Corinth, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in ALL things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” This passage deals with hair length and the Lord’s Supper, which are widely considered to be “non-essentials” today, yet Paul praised the church for remembering him in all things.

We know that not all doctrine has the same significance and weight, but none of it is “non-essential” in any sense.

I challenge anyone to show me where the Scripture encourages the believer to treat some doctrine as “non-essential” or to “stand for the cardinal truths and downplay the peripherals.”

Some try to use Romans 14 to support this philosophy, but Romans 14 does not say that some Bible doctrine is non-essential. It says that we are to allow one another liberty in matters in which the Bible is silent! The examples that Paul gave were eating meat and keeping of holy days. Those are things that the New Testament faith is silent about. There is no doctrine of diet in the New Testament, so it is a matter of Christian liberty.

This reminds us that the only true “non-essential” is a personal opinion not based solidly upon Scripture.

Jude instructed every believer to “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). As Jude didn’t delineate what part of the faith is to be defended, the obvious meaning is that whatever aspect of the faith is under attack at a particular time, God’s people should rally to its defense rather than pretend that it is a “non-essential.”

Since the Bible doesn’t identify a “non-essential” doctrine, who is to say what this might be?

The fact is that once one adopts the “non-essentials” philosophy, his list of “non-essentials” tends to grow as time passes and as his associations broaden.>>

Kent and David have given us plenty to ponder...

Grace and peace,

David

Independent Baptists and 'Quick Prayerism'

Being raised a 4th generation Jehovah's Witness, I had virtually no knowledge of other Christian denominations apart from what I read in Watchtower publications, and my brief contacts with individuals while engaged in the 'field ministry'. Some of the first non-JW churches I attended in the 1980's were Independent Baptist churches. Though by nature staunchly 'independent', there existed a good deal of common doctrines and practices within the Independent Baptist paradigm, which included: dispensationalism, 'alter calls', 'soul winning', King James onlyism, and salvation by faith alone.

I soon learned that there was some disagreement among Independent Baptists concerning exactly what was meant by 'salvation by faith alone'. Some maintained that 'saving faith', in a very real sense, included signs of repentance and ongoing sanctification; while others believed that the inclusion of such signs turned 'salvation by faith alone' into a form of 'works-righteousness' salvation. These two opposing views—which also exists within Evangelicalism—has been termed by a number of folk as the Lordship salvation controversy and/or easy believism.

Now, I had read a good deal of literature on this issue back in the 80s and 90s, and thought I was pretty knowledgeable on the topic. However, earlier today while reading David Cloud's, "Friday Church News Notes", I learned of a certain aspect of this controversy that was new to me: "Quick Prayerism" (see this link). Note the following from David's online article:

Hyles-Anderson Baptist College and First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, have had the greatest responsibility for spreading the weird heresy of Quick Prayerism throughout the world. This occurred under the leadership of Jack Hyles. The Sword of the Lord published Hyles’ books on Quick Prayerism soul winning beginning in 1962 (Let’s Go Soul Winning and Let’s Build an Evangelistic Church). Quick Prayerism is an evangelistic methodology that is quick to get people to pray a sinner’s prayer after a shallow gospel presentation that, typically, is devoid of any hint of the necessity of repentance. It is quick to pronounce those people saved and give them “assurance” and to try to baptize them even if they demonstrate zero biblical evidence of having been born again. Quick Prayerism incorporates psychological salesmanship manipulation and is characterized by soul winning reports that are grossly exaggerated, since the number of actual spiritual conversions are exceedingly minute compared to the overall statistics.

I am wondering if any other folk have of heard this, "weird heresy of Quick Prayerism"?

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. David Cloud has an extended treatment of this subject which is available online without cost in a PDF format HERE.

Shocking news concerning a son of the controversial KJV only advocate Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

Earlier today, I learned of the tragic murder-suicide event involving a son and grandsons of the controversial KJV only advocate Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, via David Cloud's, Friday Church News Notes (link).

I became aware of Dr. Ruckman (link) when I began my studies into Biblical textual criticism in the early 1980s. He was the author of dozens of books (Amazon; Bible Baptist Bookstore), many of which focused on textual criticism and the 'Kings James Only' movement (link).

Dr. Ruckman became one the most controversial figures in the textual criticism debate. Though I believe that some of his conclusions concerning textual criticism are flawed, I also maintain that a number are valid. Unfortunately, most critics of Dr. Ruckman are unable to separate his style of writing—non-academic, ostentatious—from its core content; and their critiques are often filled with ad hominem attacks.

Anyway, this post is not intended to be an in depth presentation of my views on Biblical textual criticism; but rather, it is meant inform folk of the sad event related by Dr. Cloud.

Grace and peace,

David

Jack Chick's earthly sojourn ends

I finally finished reading a good number of books that I have received over the last few weeks, allowing me to visit some internet sites that I like to check in on from time to time. Whilst browsing through the First Things blog, I noticed a post from 10-31-16 (link) that mentioned the recent death [10-23-16] of the controversial polemicist Jack Chick. [IMO, the entire post is worth reading.]

I first became aware of Jack Chick in the early 1980s when a good friend (who was also an employee of mine) gave me a couple of comics from Chick's Crusaders series (link). My friend was/is an ardent independent Baptist. The pastor of the church he was attending at that time was a huge fan of Chick's books, comics and tracts, and he encouraged his flock to distribute Chick's tracts to individuals they knew and would meet. (They would also leave the tracts at pretty much any establishment they would visit.)

Through the coaxing of my friend, I ended up attending a number of independent Baptist churches, and spent a good deal of time studying their history and theology. To this day, I remain a bit amazed at the widespread acceptance and  influence of Jack Chick's publications within the independent Baptist movement as a whole. The following are some good online articles on Jack Chick:

Nightmare World of Jack T. Chick

Meet Jack Chick

   

And just yesterday, First Things published another post on JC:

The Gospel According To Jack Chick

Would be interested in hearing from others who may have had some experience with Jack Chick's publications in their life.

Grace and peace,

David

Dr. Sam Waldron on the Monarchy of God the Father, Eternal Generation, and the Filioque

Back on October 11, 2011, I published a thread (link) which provided information on Dr. Sam Waldron's online series, "Who's Tampering With the Trinity?" At that time, he had published 11 posts in the series, but since then, he has added another 7 threads. The following are the links to all 18 parts:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Part 12

Part 13

Part 14

Part 15

Part 16

Part 17

Part 18

I am sure that those who read the first 11 parts will be interested in the subsequent 7 posts. For those who have yet to read Dr. Waldron's series, I highly recommend that you do so, for this Reformed Baptist professor has provided some thought provoking reflections on the Monarchy of God the Father, the Eternal Generation of the Son, and the Filioque.

Enjoy !!!

Grace and peace,

David

Mr. White's method of disputation: part 3 - confusion and misdirection

It seems that my recent two threads on Basil 'the Great' are finally beginning to 'wind down' a bit after some 174 comments; and so, I thought I would return to the litany of derogatory/inflammatory comments that were directed towards me by James R. White in his August 30, 2012 Dividing Line program.

In the second installment (link) of my series, "Mr. White's method of disputation", I cited a number of patristic scholars who took exception with Mr. White's claim that, "In the early Church, as was mentioned before, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is, is a HUGE gap." In this installment, I will focus a bit more on Mr. White's failed attempt to defend his original words.

Once again from the August 30, 2012 Dividing Line program, at the 29:30 ff. mark, Mr. White quotes the same selection from Athanasius that I provided in my August 29, 2012 post (LINK):

"Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks ; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential [homoousios], must not be treated as enemies"—Now, now, let me just stop right there. That's not what I was talking about, and David Waltz knows it. He knows it! He's not a stupid guy. He knows that's not what I was talking about. He knows I'm talking about someone in the 'Elephant Room' who has a very different view of things. He knows that's not what I am talking about.

Two important points: first, the "someone in the 'Elephant Room'" (who was being discussed by the panel that Mr. White was a part of), was being examined concerning whether or not he espoused the doctrine of monarchian modalism, and most certainly NOT for whether he held to homoiousios; and second, Mr. White in the original context clearly stated, "In the early Church, as was mentioned before, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is, is a HUGE gap."

Mr. White's original context concerning "the difference between homoousios and homoiousios",  was "the early Church", NOT "someone in the 'Elephant Room'." Further, even if the context for the statement in question had actually been "someone in the 'Elephant Room'", "the difference between homoousios and homoiousios" was not an issue for the gentleman in question (i.e T.D. Jakes).

And yet, somehow, I was/am supposed to "know that's not what he was talking about"—AMAZING...

Mr. White continued with:

Athanasius is addressing, is, is people who accept what Nicaea said, but they have reservations; and his whole argument is going to be there's no reason for your reservations because if you say, "of like essence"—reason with me here—you're actually agreeing with what I am saying.

Once again, two important points: first, if Mr. White's statement was in fact concerning "someone in the 'Elephant Room'", then his example from "the early Church" would seem to exonerate T.D. Jakes; and second, notice that the same example from "the early Church" makes Mr. White's original assessment nonsensical, for how could "the difference between homoousios and homoiousios" be "HUGE" if the primary difference between the homoousians and homoiousians was merely semantics. In fact, Mr. White in his own book, The Forgotten Trinity, stated:

Instead, the "of a similar substance" group [i.e. homoiousians] should be seen as a subset if the "same substance" group [i.e. homoousians]. (Page 187.)

Indeed Mr. White, indeed. With statements like that (which falls in line with the assessments of the noted scholars I cited in THIS PREVIOUS THREAD), why does Mr. White seem surprised that I had difficulty with what he said during the panel discussion, namely:

In the early Church, as was mentioned before, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is, is a HUGE gap.

I honestly don't 'get it'; Mr. White's two statements are not compatible—one of them is inaccurate.

More later, the Lord willing.

Grace and peace,

David

Mr. White's method of disputation: part 2 - misdirection and sophistry

In reference to my assessment that Mr. White was inaccurate concerning his claim that, "In the early Church, as was mentioned before, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is, is a HUGE* gap", just past the 22 minute mark in his DL response, he states:

And so he starts off taking on, now this is ,this a a statement that I did not come up with, this is a statement that many people far, far more trained in Church history than David Waltz could ever pretend to be, uhhh, have likewise stated.

Now, not one of the "many people far, far more trained in Church History" are either named, and/or cited—not one. With this in mind, note what the following scholars had to say about this issue:

Dr. Khaled Anatolios:

He [Athanasius] also concedes that those who follow the "likeness of essence" terminology of Basil Ancyra are substantially in accord with his own (Nicene) teaching, though he continues to prefer homoousios. We find similar conciliatory moves in Hilary of Poitier's On the Trnity, written in the early 360s. Hilary was careful to interpret homoousios in a way that clarified the real distinction between Father and Son, thus avoiding the specter of modalism, and was even more explicit than Athanasius in allowing the legitimacy of homoiousios. (Retrieving Nicaea, 2011, pp. 22, 23.)

Dr. G.W.H. Lampe:

This term [homoiousios] became characteristic of the theology of Basil of Ancyra, George bishop of Laodicea, and others who, while still anxious not to compromise the distinctness of the two hypostases, were moving nearer to the Nicene position in the face of the developed Arianism of the 'Anomoeans'. A formula drawn up in 359 by George of Laodicea asserted a likeness in substance between the Father and the Son as distinct hypostases and identity of deity. At about this same time Athanasius explicitly recognized that this party shared his own view, differing only in respect of their hesitation over the actual term homoousion; if they were content to acknowledge that the Son is both 'of like substance' with the Father and of the Father's substance [which they in fact did affirm], they were in agreement with the homoousion was intended to signify. (A History of Christian Doctrine, edited by H. Cunliffe -Jones, 1978, pp. 110, 111.)

[Note: Dr. Lampe is the author of the massive (1,568 pages) , and invaluable work, A Patristic Greek Lexicon.]

Dr. Jarsolav Pelikan:

But among nonscriptural words, what was so sacrosanct about homoousios? Athanasius, for example, made surprisingly little use of it and wrote his longest defense of the concept, the three Orations against the Arians, almost without mentioning it. And at the very end of his treatise on the councils, Hilary, "calling the God of heaven, and earth to witness," swore that he had not so much as heard of the Council of Nicea until he was about to go into exile in 356, but that he regarded homoousios and homoiousios as synonymous. They were not synonymous to begin with, but they eventually converged—not principally through orthodox suasions, but through the recognition by the adherents of both terms that the threat to what they believed most deeply was coming from the extreme Arian position: Christ the Logos was "unlike the Father" or, more moderately, "like the Father not in ousia." Speaking doctrinally rather than polictically, the homousios was saved by the further clarification of the unresolved problems of the One and the Three and by the recognition of a common religous concern between the partisans of homoousios and homoiousios. The spokemans for that recognition, after various kinds of hesitations, was Athanasius himself, who ultimately asserted his unwillingness to attack Homoiousians "as Ariomaniacss, or as opponents of the fathers; but we discuss the issue with them as brethren with brethren, who mean what we mean and are disputing only about terminology." (The Christian Tradition - The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), 1971, p. 210.)

Dr. Henry Chadwick:

During the mid-4th century, a number of the largest and most important churches were being taken over by Arian bishops who were pressing the notion that:

...the Son is not merely distinct from the Father , but actually belongs to the created order; that all derived being is substantially dissimilar from the underived First Cause; in short, that the Son's essence is unlike (anomoios) the Father's. This position, quickly labled Anomoean or 'dissimilarian', was opposed not merely to the Nicene formula that the essence of the Father and the Son is identical (homoousios), but also to the predominant formula of the great majority of Greek bishops that the Son's essence is 'like' the Father's (homoiousios) as a perfect image resembles its archtype. This homoiousios formula seemed to possess the attractions that it affirmed the highest degree of resemblance short of that 'identity of essence' which, under the umbrella of the Nicene creed, could give dangerous protection to 'Sabellians' like Marcellus of Ancyra. (The Early Church, 1967, p. 141).

In 360 Athanasius realized Basil of Ancyra [a homoiousian] and he were basically fighting for the same cause, and held out a proposal of an alliance even if Basil and his friends retained their scruples about the keyword of the Nicene formula, 'identical in essence' (homoousios) : 'Those who accept the Nicene creed but have doubts about the term homoousios must not be treated as enemies; we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers; they mean the same as we, and dispute only about the word.' (Ibid. p. 144.)

Dr. J.W. Nevin:

These zealous teachers [the Anomoeans (i.e. Arians)], Eunomius in particular, had much to say of the absolute simplicity of the Divine nature, the being of God conceived of in the most abstract way, which made it impossible, they contended, that his substance could be conveyed by any generation to another; the Son could not be, therefore, absolutely like the Father, but must be regarded as the production of the Father's will out of nothing, though endowed with power to create the world, and exalted far above all other creatures. Such was the thinking and reasoning of the strict Arians. Over and against these stood the far larger party of the Semi-Arians of Homoiousians, sometimes called Eusebians, from their distinguishing representative, Eusebius of Cesarea, an unsteady fluctuating party, which felt itself pressed continually between the Arian and Nicene schemes of thought without the power of finding any firm middle ground of its own on which to stand. They contributed in truth little to the movement of theological thought. Their concern all the time was to maintain the distinction between the Father and the Son, which they supposed must fall away, if both were allowed to be of one substance [i.e. Sabellianism/monarchian modalism]...Finding itself thus hard pushed between on both sides, the party was led more and more through the force of its religious instincts, to disown Arianism and make common cause with the Nicene Faith, until, finally, having become reconciled to it at all points, it ceased to exist altogether. Indeed, Semi-nicene, rather than Semi-arian would seem to have been the proper title for the party from the first. ("Arianism", in the Mercersburg Review, vol. 14-1867, p. 438 - bold emphasis mine.)

[Note: Dr. Nevin was the good friend and colleague of the famous historian, Dr. Philip Schaff.]

Dr. Archibald Robertson:

We must now take account of the party headed by Basil of Ancyra and usually (since Epiphanius), but with some injustice, designated as Semi-Arians. Their theological ancestry and antecedents have been already sketched (pp. xxvii., xxxv.) ; they are the representatives of that conservatism, moulded by the neo-Asiatic, or modified Origenist tradition, which warmly condemned Arianism at Nicæa, but acquiesced with only half a heart in the test by which the Council resolved to exclude it. They furnished the numerical strength, the material basis so to call it, of the anti-Nicene reaction ; but the reaction on their part had not been Arian in principle, but in part anti-Sabellian, in part the empirical conservatism of men whose own principles are vague and ill-assorted, and who fail to follow the keener sight which distinguishes the higher conservatism from the lower. They lent themselves to the purposes of the Eusebians (a name which ought to be dropped after 342) on purely negative grounds and in view of questions of personal rights and accusations. A positive doctrinal formula they did not possess. But in the course of years reflexion did its work. A younger generation grew up who had not been taught to respect Nicæa, nor yet had imbibed Arian principles.  Cyril at Jerusalem, Meletius at Antioch, are specimens of a large class. The Dedication Creed at Antioch represents an early stage in the growth of this body of conviction, conviction not absolutely uniform everywhere, as the result shews, but still with a distinct tendency to settle down to a formal position with regard to the great question of the age. There was nothing in the Nicene doctrine that men like this did not hold : but the word ὁμοούσιος opened the door to the dreaded Sabellian error : was not the history of Marcellus and Photinus a significant comment upon it ? But if οὐσία meant not individuality, but specific identity (supr., p. xxxi. sq.) even this term might be innocently admitted. But to make that meaning plain, what was more effective than the insertion of an iota ? Ὁμοιούσιος, then, was the satisfactory test which would banish Arius and Marcellus alike. (Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, NPNF 4.lv.)

Anatolios, Lampe, Pelikan, Chadwick, Nevin, and Robertson (all recognized scholars of the period we are discussing), clearly side with my assessment, contra Mr. White, and his unnamed "many people far, far more trained in Church History".

I did not quote any of the above scholars in my original post, but rather, I quoted directly from St. Athanasius. Mr. White implies that I quoted St. Athanasius out of context, and urges his followers to read St. Athanasius for themselves. I will second that—everyone interested in this issue should read St. Athansius for themselves, for an objective reading of him in context will yield but one result, namely that St. Athanasius did not believe that,"the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is, is a HUGE* gap", and will instead affirm with Dr. Lampe, myself, and others, that "Athanasius explicitly recognized that this party shared his own view, differing only in respect of their hesitation over the actual term homoousion".

Interestingly enough, St. Athanasius himself had no problem with the terms "likeness" and "like":

We understand in like manner that the Son is begotten not from without but from the Father, and while the Father remains whole, the Expression of His Subsistence is ever, and preserves the Father's likeness and unvarying Image, so that he who sees Him, sees in Him the Subsistence too, of which He is the Expression. (Contra Arianos 2.33 - NPNF 4.366.)

And:

For what is sown in every soul from the beginning is that God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that is, His Image and Radiance; from which it at once follows that He is always ; that He is from the Father; that He is like ; that He is the eternal offspring of His essence ; and there is no idea involved in these of creature or work. (Contra Arianos 2.34- NPNF 4.366.)

So, once again, concerning Mr. White's bold statement that,"In the early Church, as was mentioned before, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is, is a HUGE* gap": Is that an accurate statement?

Grace and peace,

David

[*Note: Mr. White took issue with the fact that I placed his "HUGE" statement in all capitals; I did so because in the NCE-E1 video he significantly emphasized "HUGE" by a prolonged elongation of it's pronouncement. I could have of chosen to have used 'huuuuuuuuuuge', instead of HUGE, but selected the latter.]

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:

First thread

Second thread

Third thread

[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

James R. White: you should have stayed out of "the deep water" - part 2

At the 13:30 ff. mark of the NCE-E1 video linked to in my previous thread, James White said:

And it would be very easy—would have been absolutely simplistic—to, to press T. D. Jakes to come up with a meaningful response to one simple question—which I would think would be just obvious to a church leader at least—uhh, and that is this: Did the Son as a divine person pre-exist his birth in Bethlehem? Not as an ideal idea; not as, as concept in the mid of the Father; but, did the Son as a divine person exist prior to his birth in Bethlehem? Did he have interaction with the Father...

And a bit later at 15:00 ff.:

All you have to do to recognize modalism, and to, and to unmask modalism, is to, is to say: Do you believe that the Son as a divine person pre-existed his birth in Bethlehem? Was in relationship with the Father; there was communion and love between the Son and the Father before the incarnation. That question was not asked.

I discern two significant problems with the above comments by James: first, modalists believe "the one Being that is God" (I am using James' own phrase, from his book The Forgotten Trinity, here) pre-existed His incarnation, "as Father, Word, and Spirit." James' "absolutely simplistic" question is easily side-stepped by historic/traditional modalists. Second, a number of Evangelical theologians (including Reformed folk) deny that the second person of the Trinity existed as the Son prior to the incarnation !!! (See THIS THREAD for documentation.)

Maybe it was just on 'off-day' for James (I sincerely hope that in his debates with modalists his arguments were substantially more accurate and solid); but with that said, I shall end this post by recommending that a good portion of his presentation in the NCE-E1 video should be Forgotten as soon as possible...

Grace and peace,

David

James R. White: you should have stayed out of "the deep water" - part 1

Still trying to 'catch-up' on what transpired over the internet during my grandson's recent visit; the following thread posted by Ken Temple on the Beggars All blog caught my attention:

Just one small correction for Carl Trueman

[Original online posting of the Vimeo video: No Co Ever: Episode  1]

In the written portion of the post, Ken penned:

I agree with everything these gentleman said on the issues of doctrine and the problems with the Elephant Room 2

. . . except for one small side comment that Carl Trueman made that I think is important for Christians to understand.

Ken then expounds on the "one small comment", stating:

When talking about the Christians at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, Professor Trueman said they were Turks. [around the 31 minute mark] Professor Trueman was right that the men at the Council of Nicea were not "white men", but they were not Turkish either. They were Greeks and Egyptians and Syrians (The Syrians before the Arabs conquered them in the 600s AD.) That is an amazing mistake by a church history professor, in my opinion. They were mostly Greeks, Syrians, 2 Latins from Rome, and Egyptians (Athanasius, for one) and others from around the Roman Empire. The Turks did not live in what is today called Turkey at the time of the Council of Nicea. The Turks (Seljuk and Ottomans) did not come to that land until before the Crusades (1071 AD) and they did not completely conquer the area known as Anatolia and Constantinople until 1453 AD. No Turks lived in these areas in the New Testament days nor in early church history until the 900s AD!

Apart from some particulars concerning the ethnic and geographical background of some of the bishops that attended "the Council of Nicea in 325 AD", Ken has been pretty accurate in his above assessment, though he appears to be unaware of some background information that seems to qualify Carl's remark in the video (see THIS LINK for Carl's article, "Gnosticism, Nicea and Celebrity").

But, this post is not about going to focus on the ethnic and geographical background of the bishops that attended the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, rather, it will build upon, "everything these gentleman said on the issues of doctrine", which Ken stated that he "agree[s] with".

Pastor Mike Abendroth, the host of the program that Ken linked to, near the beginning of the NCE-E1 video, states:

What is a 'kook and a Barney'? Well 'kooks and Barneys' are people who try to surf with experts, and they'll try to paddle in, out in the water, and they just get in the way of the surfers';  and they are known by the locals as 'kooks and Barneys'—they're in over their head, they're playing in the deep water. So I would like to offer a 'kooks and Barneys award'; and so, today, we are going to offer that award, not to a particular person, but to a group of people, and would be the organizers of The Elephant Room. (2:40 ff.)

[For information on "The Elephant Room", go to their OFFICIAL WEBSITE]

Now, I am going to 'play-on' Mike's theme of 'kooks and Barneys' a bit, for I think it will become apparent that at least one of the members of the panel of 'experts' in the video is probably "over their head", "playing in deep water"...

In the NCE-E1 video, at approximately the 6:20ff mark, James White said:

I really think what we're dealing with here—uhh um, and this, this may be more in, uhh, in, in the good Doctor Trueman's area to comment on—but, as, as I have had the opportunity to teach Church history in the past, and also joining to that working as an apologist, it seems to me that at different periods in Church history, the clarity that we gain on particular topics is due to the struggles that the Church is facing...

And a bit later at 7:14 ff.:

In the early Church, as was mentioned before, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is, is a HUGE gap, but it is only one letter...

Is that an accurate statement? Note what St. Athansius, the great defender of the Nicene Creed and Trinitarianism, had to say:

Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks ; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential [homoousios], must not be treated as enemies ; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute about one word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence, and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential' [homoousios]...But since they say that He is 'of the essence' and 'Like-in-essence,' [homoiousios] what do they signify by these but 'Coessential?' [homoousios] (De Synodis - Councils of Arminum and Seleucia), 41 - NPNF 4.472.) 

A "HUGE gap" in the early Church ???; I, and St. Athansius, think not.

A bit later, Mike reads off the questions that Mark Driscoll presented to T. D. Jakes, all of which Jakes' answered in the affirmative. James White then jumps in with:

But before that, before those questions, Jakes had provided the absolutely necessary redefinition from a non-Trinitarian modalistic perspective, which was when asked initially about the existence of three divine persons, his response was, 'I can go there, but that's not my favorite way of saying it; that doesn't do it for me'. Well when someone starts talking about the ancient creeds of the Church and says, 'that doesn't do it for me, I want to know why. And when you go back into his teaching before this, he is consistently used the language of manifestations, he has said that there is one God, but different manifestation, going to a major textual variant in 1 Timothy 3:16 where, uhh, God was manifect in the flesh—even though the earliest reading, the manuscripts, He was manifest in the flesh—but leaving that to, to, uhh, to the side, Oneness Pentecostals, Jesus only Pentecostals, uhh, teach that Jesus was literally two persons...

James White does not know what he is talking about here, Oneness Pentecostals DO NOT teach, "that Jesus was literally two persons".

From the United Pentecostal Church International website (the largest Oneness Pentecostal denomination) we read:

The Oneness of God

God is absolutely and indivisibly one (Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 3:20). In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). He is the self-revelation of the one God, the incarnation of the full, undivided Godhead (John 20:28; I Timothy 3:16).

God has revealed Himself as Father (in parental relationship to humanity), in the Son (in human flesh), and as the Holy Spirit (in spiritual action). (See Deuteronomy 32:6 and Isaiah 63:16; Luke 1:35 and Galatians 4:4; Genesis 1:2 and Acts 1:8.) The one God existed as Father, Word, and Spirit before His incarnation as Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and while Jesus walked on earth as God Himself incarnate, the Spirit of God continued to be omnipresent. However, the Bible does not teach that there are three distinct centers of consciousness in the Godhead or that Jesus is one of three divine persons.

Jesus is true God and true man as one divine-human person. We can distinguish these two aspects of Christ’s identity, but we cannot separate them. The Incarnation joined the fullness of deity to complete humanity. (Link - bold emphasis mine.)

Dr. Gregory A. Boyd in his critical book, Oneness Pentecostals & The Trinity, 'gets it right':

And yet, Oneness Pentecostals insist, Jesus was only one person. If he appears to be more than that, if the Father and Son appear to be more than distinct "natures" and rather appear in the Gospels as actual distinct "persons," this can only be an illusion assumed for the sake of revelation. (Page 35.)

James White not only misrepresents the Oneness Pentecostals, he also misrepresents the modalism that existed in the early Church:

So the prayers of Jesus—this is not technically, exactly like what Sabellius had it; there were different forms of dynamic monarchianism, and things like that in ancient Church history...(12:46 ff.)

Sabellius DID NOT teach any of the "different forms of dynamic monarchianism, and things like that in ancient Church history"; fact is, Sabellius was a modalist monarchian. (FYI: Oneness Pentecostals ARE NOT dynamic monarchians, they are modalistic monarchians).

Much more to cover, but it will have to wait until part 2.

Grace and peace,

David