James White's recent abuse of Baptist brethren

Earlier today, I finally got around to listening to the February 9th, 2012 Dividing Line program (link). My interest in doing so was due to the fact that the blog description of the program stated, "the last half hour of the program" was to get "back into the Ehrman/Wallace debate" (i.e. the 3rd); the debate which I recently commented on here at AF (link).

I have learned from past experience/s that it is best to take in James White's programs from the beginning, rather than attempting to locate the section that I am actually interested in. This meant that I would also be listening to, "a one hour segment of Radio Free Geneva, reading a few interesting statements found on line, then getting back to Emir Caner's anti-Calvinism sermon from 2011."

Well, folks, I don't know how many others who read this blog have listened to this particular program, but I must say, I was quite disappointed with the "Radio Free Geneva" portion (which starts at about the 36:50 mark). Around the 43:00 mark, James begins a diatribe against an online article published at the Times-Herald.com site, which was penned the Baptist pastor, Daniel Ausbun (LINK; first installment, HERE), by quoting the following selection from the 2nd installment of Daniel's two part series:


Pastor Daniel Ausbun: What is unconditional election? Election is unconditional in the sense that it is based not upon our decision for God, but rather upon God's decision for us. From eternity past it has been decreed that the elect must be saved and non-elect cannot be saved. I do not believe you can put yourself under the authority of Scripture and not believe in election. Hebrews 2:9 affirms, "by God's grace He might taste death for everyone." 1 Timothy 2:4 says Jesus desires "everyone to be saved." The Greek for this verse literally means, "who willeth all men." God desires all men to be saved and "come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4)...

...Was the atonement limited to only the elect? This belief is that Christ only bore the punishment due for the sins of the elect alone. Consequently, no one else can or will receive the saving benefits of His death. Four key texts in the New Testament affirm an unlimited atonement, referring to the "world" (John 1:29; 3:16-17; 17:6; 1 John 2:2).

James White: 44:20 ff - What I wanted to focus on was this, this phraseology:

From eternity past it has been decreed that the elect must be saved, and non-elect cannot be saved.

Now, I've never heard a Calvinist speak like that; and it is interesting to me that so often when we listen to anti-Calvinists, when, when we listen to those who—you know, and some of them might not want to be called anti-Calvinists, but I, I think if you misrepresent what the other side says, after having been corrected repeatedly, then I think that, you know, it might mean that at least, a slightly appropriate description of you—but folks who make it their business to attack Reformed theology in various contexts, uh, uh, whether it be, you know, firing all the Reformed folks in a college when you take over as president, uhhh, or making it difficult for Reformed students to make it through certain programs in certain schools, and the rest of that stuff; why is it that they can't represent the positions that they are attacking in an accurate way? Why it that?

I don't, I don't really understand—well, I do understand why—but, from a Christian perspective, I don't understand how a person who in other areas might bend over backwards to be fair and truthful, and everything else; you come to this one area and it's like forget that, let's not worry about the fair and truthful part anymore, at all; and it seems like they even put out an effort to make sure to utilize language that will carry the most emotional baggage.

Now I think there are probably—and, and if you don't like my books, there are a lot of people who have written books on this subject—you can look at R.C. Sproul...

47:00 ff - Something tells me that you could find a meaningfully accurate definition of unconditional election, that would be acceptable to Reformed people. But, that's not what you get here...

50:00 ff - The non-elect do not desire to have their heart of stone taken out!


If one reads ALL that Pastor Daniel Ausbun has written in BOTH installments, is it truly fair to say that he has been inaccurate? I have read over the material twice now, and cannot in good conscience make the claims that James' has done. IMO, James has been abusive in his treatment of Pastor Ausbun, if not deceptive. But there is more...

Later, in the same program, James shifts his focus from Pastor Ausbun, to yet another Baptist, Emir Caner, the brother of Ergun Caner (two of James' 'favorites' when it comes to verbal and written abuse). At approximately the 1:13 mark, James provides the following audio clip from Emir:


Emir Caner: As C.S. Lewis would say, love if it is ravishing, or if we would put it our terms, God is not a divine rapist.

James White: Yeah, God is not a divine rapist. But it, it God is in fact a divine resurrector. And it's just as foolish, and foolhardy, and wrong, to refer to the great miracle of regeneration as rape, as it would be to say that Jesus raped Lazarus in raising him from the dead, because he didn't ask him if he wanted to be raised from the dead.

Look, what these men object to is the very language of Scripture itself. I'm not the one who came up with the heart of stone, heart of flesh thing. You got to blame the guy who lived a long time ago for that, named Ezekiel. He's the one who wrote it down, not me. And, are you really saying that when the wind blows over the valley of the dry bones, that this is some kind, because it's powerful, and because it's monergistic that it's to be likened to rape?!!!

Synergists who use this example—Emir Caner, Ergun Caner, Norman Geisler—should be ashamed of themselves for behaving in this manner. It is dishonest to utilize this language; it's the only way to put it. How else could you put it? To try to force a connection between resurrection power and sinful, sexual violence—who even thought of it I wonder, who was the first one to come up with it; I know it wasn't Norman Geisler, he certainly uses it enough; I wonder who came up with it first—I would not want be that person when I stand before God...


Oh really??? This is where James' remarks get even more bizarre, for earlier in the same program he recommended the works of Dr. R.C. Sproul (see above), and Dr. Sproul utilizes the very language that James condemns as being "dishonest"!!!

I have provided in two previous posts here at AF (http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/07/rc-sproul-if-we-grant-that-god-can-save.html; http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/07/rc-sproul-and-holy-rape-of-soul.html) the following documented comments from the pen of Dr. Sproul:

“Does God have the power to insure the salvation of everyone?” Certainly it is within God’s power to change the heart of every impenitent sinner and bring that sinner to himself. (Page 35.)

The non-Reformed thinker usually responds by saying that for God to impose his power on unwilling people is to violate man’s freedom. To violate man’s freedom is sin. Since God cannot sin, he cannot unilaterally impose his saving grace on unwilling sinners. To force a sinner to be willing when the sinner is not willing is to violate the sinner. The idea is that by offering the grace of the gospel God does everything he can to help the sinner get saved. He has the raw power to coerce men but the use of such power would be foreign to God’s righteousness.

That does not bring much comfort to the sinner in hell. The sinner in hell must be asking, “God, if you really loved me, why didn’t you coerce me to believe? I would rather have had my free will violated than to be here in the eternal place of torment.” (Pages 35, 36.)

The question remains. Why does God only save some? If we grant that God can save men by violating their wills, then why does he not violate everybody’s will and bring them all to salvation? (I am using the word violate here not because I really think there is any wrongful violation but because the non-Calvinist insists on the term.) (Page 36.) [R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God - bold emphasis mine.]

And:

On the fourteenth night the battle ceased. The hound prevailed and Scooter had no alternative. This was not a religious decision; it was unconditional surrender, a docile submission to the holy rape of the soul.(R.C. Sproul, Thy Brother's Keeper, p. 58 - bold emphasis mine.)

Dr. Sproul is not the only Reformed gent who utilizes the very language that James' condemns, but hey, let's ignore the facts, and support his continued abuse of non-Reformed Baptist brethren...


Grace and peace,

David

The 3rd Ehrman-Wallace debate

As many probably already know, a third debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Daniel Wallace concerning the text of the New Testament took place on February 1, 2012. Two excellent summations of the debate have been posted (one by Dr. Wallace himself), and both include some pretty high-level dialogue (for the internet) in the respective comboxes.

Link to Dr. Wallace's summation (with 82 comments)

Link to Dr. Köstenberger's summation (with 37 comments)


Now, I would like to 'spice-up' the debate a bit, by introducing a third perspective on this issue (the first being the conservative minority text presupposition [i.e. Wallace's]; the second being the agnostic/atheist presupposition [i.e Ehrman's]): the conservative, majority text presupposition.

Back in 2009, Kent Brandenburg delved into the epistemology of textual criticism in the following posts:

Part one

Part two

Part three

Part four

Additional reflections

And a bit earlier, Kent provided reflections on the related debate between Dr. Ehrman and James White:

First Impressions of the Ehrman-White Debate


A lot to take in and reflect upon...


Grace and peace,

David

Martin Luther: "the name 'Trinity' is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man"

Did the title of this post get your attention?

Lest my detractors hurl accusations of 'quoting out of context', and/or 'inaccuracy' in my direction, I want to make it quite clear from the start that Luther WAS NOT questioning the 'doctrine of the Trinity'; rather, he was advancing the notion that it is better to stick with Scriptural terminology, and refrain from non-Scriptural language. The following is the quote from the thread title in greater context:

I. THE HOLY TRINITY.

1. Today we celebrate the festival of the Holy Trinity, to which we must briefly allude, so that we may not celebrate it in vain. It is indeed true that the name "Trinity" is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man. For this reason it sounds somewhat cold and we had better speak of "God" than of the "Trinity."

2. This word signifies that there are three persons in God. It is a heavenly mystery which the world cannot understand. I have often told you that this, as well as every other article of faith, must not be based upon reason or comparisons, but must be understood and established by means of passages from the Scriptures, for God has the only perfect knowledge and knows how to speak concerning himself.

3. The great universities have invented manifold distinctions, dreams and fictions by means of which they would explain the Holy Trinity, and have made fools of themselves. We shall therefore quote only passages from the Scriptures in order to determine and establish the divinity of Christ. (Martin Luther, "Sunday After Pentecost, or Trinity Sunday", in Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 3, edited and translated by John Nicholas Lenker, Baker Book House reprint (n.d.) of The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, 1907 edition, vol. 12, pp. 406-407 - bold emphasis mine.)

[NOTE: the 1907 edition is available online for free reading and/or download: LINK; the page numbers in both editions are the same.*]

Immediately following the above selection, Luther begins to list and discuss "passages from the Scriptures", used "to determine and establish the divinity of Christ." I think most will agree that some are considerably 'stronger' than others in his attempt to accomplish the task set forth. He finishes Part I of the sermon with:

Therefore, we cling to the Scriptures, those passages which testify of the Trinity of God, and we say: I know very well that in God there are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but how they can be one I do not know, neither should I know it. This may suffice for the first part. (Ibid. pp. 410, 411 - bold emphasis mine.)

Some very interesting 'honesty' from the pen of the 'good' Doctor...


Grace and peace,

David

*On page 405, the editor provides an introduction to Luther's above mentioned sermon based on John 3:1-5:

This sermon, which is not found in edition c, appeared in two pamphlet editions in 1522 and 1523. The title of the first was, ''A sermon of Dr. Martin Luther, Preached on the Day of the Holy Trinity on the Gospel, John 3. Wittenberg (1522)." German text: Erlangen Edition, 12, 407; Walch Edition, II, 1547; St. Louis Walch, 11, 1146.

Yet another OPC pastor has entered the Catholic Church

Earlier today, I learned that yet another ordained pastor of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has entered the Catholic Church. On February 7th, 2012, at the website, Called To Communion, the thread, An OPC Pastor Enters the Catholic Church, was posted. The following selection is from the opening of that post:

Please welcome our first of two newly added authors at Called To Communion, Jason Stewart. Jason was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) before he and his wife Cindy entered into full communion with the Catholic Church in January of 2011. He earned his Master of Divinity from Mid-America Reformed Seminary (Dyer, IN) in 2005, and subsequently served for 5 1/2 years as pastor of Trinity OPC in eastern Pennsylvania. Jason and Cindy live in Rockford, IL, and have four children.

A bit later, Jason Stewart writes:

Our decision to leave Presbyterianism for the Catholic Church surprised many. We can sympathize given that in the past we’d have been incredulous if told we’d be Catholic one day. And yet looking back now from our vantage point we can trace the trajectory that led us to full communion with the Catholic Church, and it’s a trajectory that progressed naturally and imperceptibly over time - a growing appreciation for the necessity and role of the visible Church; a deepening understanding of the sacramental nature of the Christian faith; the apostolic quality intrinsic to Church authority; the unique function of the Minister of the Gospel in the liturgy and life of the Church; the inescapable dynamic of tradition within the Christian Faith; and an increasing awareness of the implications of the adjectives “one” and ”catholic” as used by the Nicene Creed to identify the Church of Jesus Christ. Each of these areas of faith track back from where we are now as Catholics to where we were when Reformed. They prepared the way for us to give serious consideration to the Catholic faith when the time came.

There is, of course, so much more to Jason's conversion story, and I see that there is already 64 comments!!!

I am off for a bike ride; when I return, I will get to those 64 (and possibly more) comments, which should prove to be almost as interesting as the original post itself.


Grace and peace,

David

A series of YouTube videos 'making the rounds' on anti-Islamic sites

There has been a considerable amount of internet chatter, over the last couple days, due to a series of YouTube videos that were linked to (and embedded) by at least three anti-Islamic sites:

January 24, 2012 (7:12 PM)- http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/01/does-quran-claim-that-bible-has-been.html

January 25, 2012 (7:35 AM)- http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4953

January 25, 2012 (1:07 PM)- http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/quran-never-says-text-of-bible-was.html

[Link to YouTube for alternate access to the above, and the rest of the videos in the series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDSPND0suVY]

This series was uploaded to YouTube via the website: EVIDENCE FOR GOD'S UNCHANGING WORD. This site (IMHO) is by far, one of the more charitable, non-inflammatory, anti-Islamic apologetic sites I have encountered. And unlike so many other anti-Islamic apologetic sites, at least one of the main contributors, Faouzi "David" Arzouni, is actually fluent in Arabic (link to bio).

The series of videos, and related articles, on the status of the Bible in the Qur'an produced by EFGUW reflect my own position on the matter. I would urge anyone interested in this subject (including Muslims) to read through the material with an open mind, keeping in mind, there have been faithful Muslims who are in agreement with the assessment that the corruption spoken of in the Qur'an pertains to the INTERPRETATION, rather than the TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION of the Bible. (See THIS THREAD for an excellent, and balanced, book that touches on this subject.)

In addition to the status of the Bible in the Qur'an, EFGUW has also weighed in on another topic of interest to me—Surah 4.157 and the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ—Did Jesus Die on the Cross?

Readers of this blog should be aware of my keen interest in this subject. For those not familiar with my take on this very important issue, I recommend the following threads:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/recent-interest-in-surah-4157.html

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/dr-todd-lawsons-stimulating-lecture.html

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/11/does-quran-deny-crucifixion-and.html


Now, it is more than just a bit interesting that while ALL three of the above websites which linked to EFGUW series of videos on the status of the Bible in the Qur'an with glowing support, they in turn REJECT EFGUW's conclusions concerning Surah 4.157 !!! This is yet another example of the inconsistency, and poor methodology, that permeates much of the Evangelical online apologetic world. The methodology (i.e. Qur'anic exegesis based on pre-polemical interpretation, showing agreement between the Bible and the Qur'an) that EFGUW employed to reach it's conclusions concerning the status of the Bible in the Qur'an, is identical to the methodology they used in their interpretation of Surah 4.157.

It sure seems to me that if one is going to endorse EFGUW's reflections concerning the Bible's status in the Qur'an, they had better accept their assessment of Surah 4.157, for if one rejects the latter, the former's credibility becomes damaged beyond repair.


Grace and peace,

David

English Hexapla - a parallel New Testament published in 1841

Earlier this week, I discovered an incredible (IMHO) online resource: the English Hexapla (a parallel New Testament - 1841). An excellent PDF copy is available for reading and download at:

http://www.archive.org/details/englishhexaplaex00schouoft

On page 161 of the PDF version, "THE PLAN OF THE ENGLISH HEXAPLA", is outlined—therein, it is stated that:

The name " Hexapla," signifies six-fold, or six-columned, and appropriately describes the arrangement of the Six English Versions.

And from the same page, the descriptions of the six English editions used in the English Hexapla are provided:

I. THE TRANSLATION OF WICLIF has been printed with the most scrupulous care, from a valuable manuscript in the library of His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, who has graciously permitted its use. The text of Wiclif's version, as here presented, is, in many respects, much more accurate and complete than the editions of Lewis and Baber. The present edition of this version has been minutely collated with the previously printed text, and every variation from it has been compared with the readings of twenty-one other MSS., so that not only have numerous transcriptural and typographical errors received correction, but it is believed that the genuine version of Wiclif is far more faithfully exhibited than by either of the two previous editions.

The introductory verses to the Gospel by St. Luke, which appear to be omitted in every known Wiclif MS., are supplied from a MS. in the library of Queen's College, Oxford, communicated by the kindness of Mr. Eastwick.

II. THE VERSION OF WILLIAM TYNDALE is reprinted from a copy of the edition which was revised by himself, and published in 1534 ; for the use of which the Publishers are indebted to the Trustees of the Baptist College, Bristol, where it forms part of the valuable collection of English Bibles and Testaments bequeathed by Dr. GifFord. Tyndale's " revision" has been adopted in preference to his first translation, because it far better exhibits him as a translator, and manifests the care which he took in revising what he had previously executed. The first edition, of 1526, has already been reprinted by the Publishers in 1836.

III. CRANMER'S, or "THE GREAT BIBLE VERSION" version, has been reprinted from a very fine copy of the first edition, 1539 ; also furnished by the kindness of the Trustees of the Baptist College, Bristol.

IV. THE GENEVA NEW TESTAMENT, is from a copy of the first edition, 1557. An exact reprint of tliis edition has also been prepared in a sepai-ate form, in whicii the text is printed line for line, and word for word, with the whole of the interesting marginal doctrinal notes, the prefaces and indexes, with fac-simile initial letters and other ornaments.

V. THE ANGLO-RHEMISH TRANSLATION has been reprinted from the original edition, 1582.

VI. KING JAME'S or THE AUTHORISED VERSION, is printed from a large black letter copy, of the year 1611. The Rev. John Heniy Montagu Luxmoore has obligingly allowed the use of a copy from his Library.

In addition to the online PDF version, a 'user friendly' HTML version is also available:

http://bible.zoxt.net/hex/hex.htm

For those with a lot of discretionary cash available, a hard copy may be purchased at:

http://www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/hexapla-1841.html


I sincerely hope that others will find this wonderful resource as useful as I have.


Grace and peace,

David

John 17 and Unity: valuable insights from a conservative, Baptist pastor

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 11, 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!!!


Grace and peace,

David