This is DrJamesAch's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following DrJamesAch's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
DrJamesAch
Recent Activity
Max & Trapper, Interesting you mention Bellevue and Calvinist takeover. JD Hall just helped organize a so-called abortion protest with "Rhology" (Alan Maricle) and his New Age editor, Dustin Germain with the AHA (Abolish Human Abortion) group. Their pastor, Steve Gaines, has endorsed petitions and legislation against abortion, calls abortion a "hate crime", and sinful, is pro life, and yet these CALVINIST protesters went there under the guise of protesting abortion against a church that is strongly opposed to it? Give me a break. JD Hall announced the group's "visit" to Steve Gaines' Twitter page several days before the event. The group attempted to pass out literature that promoted Calvinism, and the several people that contacted us from their church said they weren't talking about abortion, but about getting the church to repent for teaching a false gospel (e.g., anything that isn't Calvinism). One of the elderly ladies was harassed all the way to her car and almost tripped over a curb trying to get away from the girl that was hounding her about reading the tract. JD Hall recently stated "If I can't go through your pastor I will go over him", and he has had a beef with Steve Gaines since at least June of 2013. They used the pretext of "abortion" as a smoke-screen to spread Calvinist propaganda at a church with a known history of opposing Calvinism (Adrian Rogers has quite a few good sermons exposing Deformed Theology). So we are beginning to see Calvinists getting desperate in their "evangelism" by attempting to strong-arm churches that don't cow-tow to the Calvinist agenda.
1 reply
What Do Calvinists Really Know About Election? Mike says, "If these guys don't even know a Calvinist’s biblical response to why God chooses some and not others, then it is evident that the rest of their answers will be off course." Since when have Calvinists ever claimed to know why God chooses some and either reprobates or passes over the rest? That's always been one of the "great mysteries" even among Calvinists, so why would they expect a Calvinist Critic to explain it when Calvinists themselves don't agree? Furthermore, they WHY of election (as if they knew, anyway) is actually a tacit Calvinist defense of Open Theism. Now follow along closely my little Calvinist children because either God didn't know who the elect and non elect were, or He DID know, and if He DID know, the only way that could be known is if he deliberately selected who would be lost which is something most modern Calvinists reject, the only other alternative is that God passed over the non elect without actually knowing who they are or would be (although the WCF rejects any election based on foresight): The Calvinist explanation for election (at least for those who will shun the hyper-Calvinist label) is that God merely passes over the unelected, that God didn't actually actively choose who would go to hell, but that He merely passively selected some and the rest are just victims by failing to get chosen. The problem with that view is that it implies God didn't know who He actually chose to be elect. The only way for God to not have actively singled out the elect, and to have passively skipped the non elect, is if God rolled the cosmic dice because He didn't want to appear biased in His arbitrary selection of humans. If His selection was not arbitrary, then it has to have been calculated, and calculation implies deliberate thought and planning. Yet Calvinists maintain the arbitrariness of election while at the same time maintaining it's chosen design. Either way, Calvinists have actually NOT given an explanation as to "why God chooses some and not others" which explains why they are so offended when a Non Calvinist fills in the blanks for them. The only possible answer is that God intended and desired to create a minority group to save, and then a majority to watch burn. When Satan fell, it wasn't good enough that God meted and displayed His justice and wrath on the devil and his angels, God had to add to His entertainment by making humans reprobate as well. In other words, if the sole point of making a reprobate class was so that God could show His holiness, He could have just stopped with the devil and his angels, and then elected everyone in humanity to worship Him and watch God prove His wrath on sin and evil by putting the eternal smack down on Lucifer. But NO, God wasn't satisfied with that, He had to guarantee that Adam would sin -how else would His "eternal decree" for the elect come to fruition if Adam chose NOT to sin? God couldn't possibly elect anyone if Adam chose to refrain from the fruit. Why? Where's the Calvinist explanation otherwise? When have the Calvinists ever explained these conundrums other than merely shifting the burden of explaining theodicy on to their opponents, punting to mystery (which is still not an explanation) and blaming "hyper-Calvinism" which is an imaginary theological demarcation line when a Calvinist really wants to blame blatant contradictions on the Invisible Man (Don't believe me? Look up the train wreck among Calvinists when Calvinists themselves used Phil Johnson's definition of Hyper Calvinism and applied it to James White-WHO'S NEVER HIMSELF STUCK TO A DEFINITION OF HYPER CALVINISM--hmmm why not?) It is ironic that Vietti and Crews got so much attention over this. When you don't see Chad Vegas or Steve Swarts writing 100 page essays on Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, Dave Hunt, Jerry Walls, Laurence Vance et al, who have written and lectured extensively on Calvinism. We have a short response to Chad Vegas response to Vietti and Crews, and we've explained the places where they nailed it, regardless of how much Calvinists want to claim "misrepresentation" (shocker). http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/worst-calvinist-response-evah-to-a-calvinism-exposed-video-part-2/ Dr James Ach
1 reply
Contrary to popular belief, I actually spend just as much time trying to give people the benefit of a doubt than I do penning their errors. Yesterday, I wrote about scenarios that could show how James White played a role in Braxton's death, and then my brother had a brief exchange with White and Richard Pierce, and then I sat back and again, ruminated on what I had written, and just as I was about to consider giving them a little bit of credit for making an effort, I see this on Richard Pierces Twitter: HacimMb ‏@HacimMb Aug 8 Why do some who think that a one-time exchange on twitter is "bullying" but its okay for them to initiate a barrage of harassing tweets? Richard C Pierce ‏@RichardCPierce @hacimmb because they want to show us what REAL bullying looks like. Get yer pitchforks boys. First of all, if a "one time exchange" isn't enough to be considered "bullying", call your wife a fatso JUST ONCE and see how long she holds it against you. Secondly, Richard is flip-flopping now on his previous position where he was claiming to have "exhorted" Hall. Now what he says about Braxton's critics is that it wasn't "REAL bullying". With comments like that, I must ask the same question White thinks he must ask: How can I stop writing about White & Co in regards to the Caner issues?
1 reply
A few more observations about Hall, but first to Patrick and Dale Pugh. As stated before your 2 posts, I had already discussed this with Dustin and wrote above that is not what he intended to convey. Dustin and I discussed this on Twitter and he immediately amended the article, to which I immediately retracted my statement after the correction. Now Dustin and I still don't see eye-to-eye on everything, but we did at least clear that matter up! Now on to JD Hall, OK JD Hall, just one more question (even though he still has answered my rebuttal to his article) On your "Downgrade" audio podcast http://pulpitandpen.org/2013/05/23/17/ , at the 7 minute mark, you say that "Southern Baptist missions took me all over the world....to Mosul Iraq" where you slept in the same room as missionaries who were gunned down. This happened on March 16, 2004. Now, your testimony says that you started college at 17, finished up with the masters I'm assuming at 22 (as you say, 4 years for the BA, and 1 year for the MA) which is when you say you went into business. And this beginning, again as you say, in 1999. So before I ask my question, let's some this up: 1999, 17 years old, 5 years of college, missions the whole time, LEFT MINISTRY to go into business at age 22. Got it so far?! Good. Let's move on. SINCE OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM BEGIN IN 2003 AND THE 4 MISSIONARIES WERE GUNNED DOWN IN MARCH 2004, 1) WHEN DID YOU HAVE TIME TO GO TO IRAQ and 2) YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN IN IRAQ AT THE SAME TIME YOU SAID YOU LEFT THE MINISTRY AND STARTED A BUSINESS. Now I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, perhaps you have a logical explanation for this. Also noteworthy is that JD Hall was deleting documentation posted on his website from a reader asking if sexual allegations were reason to leave the Convention. http://pulpitandpen.org/2013/02/28/why-ive-left-the-convention/ and http://thewartburgwatch.com/my-comment-was-deleted/#comment-113088 Now note, that this involves the CALVINIST part of the Southern Baptist Convention, SGM. It is perfectly clear that to me, that Hall's primary objective is to inundate churches with Calvinism. This reminds of only one notoriously motivated group that specialized in such infiltration tactics-JESUITS. Either Hall is deliberately embellishing his story to gain more notoriety among Southern Baptists, or he is just a really bad story teller.
1 reply
A few things. First to Fredericka. Apparently, you have don't know where I stand on Caner. I frankly don't care how anyone in the SBC define "church planting". Why is it that when Hall's hypocrisy and conflicting statements are shown, instead of explaining them in a manner that deals directly with the specific accusations, I get spin in return? Secondly, my comment posted a few posts up about the new article by Hall was clarified by Dustin Germain, and that was not what he intended to convey in the article. Thirdly, more hypocrisy from Hall. Hall discusses on his radio show today that Dave Miller calling numerous fake accounts "social media terrorists" is wrong. But yet it is perfectly acceptable for Hall and White to label Caner and his defenders as JIHADISTS against Christianity? This blatant hypocrisy appears to me as virtually conspiratorial.
1 reply
By the way, it was Hall himself that gave the 5 year explanation. He said 4 years for his BA, and then another year for the MA. This was cleared up at 10 a.m. my time, with Stephen, so I am very surprised that he is bringing this up again, unless his comment was merely in queue and was posted before our Twitter conversation.
1 reply
And the hits just keep on coming. Folks, this is WHY it is important to know something about your pastors background. Today, JD Hall wrote a new article, some charismatic, Joel Osteen type emotional rhetoric to stir his readers, that stated in part, "Why did God send Jesus to die on a cross? Not to save us from our sins, but rather to save us from a life of mediocrity." http://pulpitandpen.org/2014/02/07/i-dont-want-to-have-an-impossible-dream-or-birth-a-vision-for-my-life/ Really, JD???? "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:21 "For the son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost" Luke 19:10 "Who gave himself A RANSOM for all to be testified in due time" 1 Tim 2:6 "But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" Hebrews 2:9 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but quickened by the Spirit" 1 Peter 3:18 ...and many MANY more. Now the bottom of the article says contributed by Dustin Germain, but it still had to pass through Hall before being posted, and Hall's signature is on the top of the article. SO whether Hall co-wrote it, edited it, he still endorsed this HERESY and posted it on his website.
1 reply
JD Hall has responded to this which presents even MORE problems now. http://pulpitandpen.org/2014/02/06/how-to-answer-questions-about-your-testimony/ First of all, Jordan makes it appear as if Peter wrote this, knowing full well that I wrote it. I am so "unworthy and irrelevant" that he won't mention my name, but yet what I wrote was important enough for him to devote an entire article on it. Second, he ended the article claiming that what I wrote was for the purpose of deflecting attention away from Caner. Hall knows full well that I do not support Caner and have written matters AGAINST Caner. But, he can't admit this to his readers because he loses the force of his vendetta against Lumpkins by doing that, which is why he refused to name me in his article. Now let's look at his explanation. * Hall writes, "After I had completed my Masters Degree, I was forced in a position to earn more income so that my wife, WHO WAS FINISHING OUR DEGREE and had our first child, wouldn't have to work". So Hall's WIFE did his homework for his degree?? Furthermore, Mr. Hall, with that shady explanation of such a fast-tracked MA, I don't EVER want to hear you critique someone elses education credentials LOL. *In Hall's original testimony, he stated that after pastoring at 18, he left the ministry to pursue his business career. But in his new response, he says that he entered college from 17-22. Which is it? Did he go to college first, or did he start his business first? Now mind you, that it wasn't just A business, but a SUCCESSFUL "millions of dollars passed through my hands" business of "SEVERAL LOCATIONS" (that he doesn't give the names of). *Hall admits that "millions of dollars" passed through his hands, but yet in his original testimony he claims to have failed, which any marketing expert knows is typical in the first few years of business. You don't see much yield until after a loss first. So which is it? Did he find "financial success ELUSIVE (original)" or did he make "millions of dollars"?? *Hall provides ZERO context for his history before becoming a pastor. I would think that an 18 year old pastor would have some background, salvation testimony, some kind of qualifications that allowed someone to entrust him with a church at age 18 (or is it 17?). There is a necessary context that is just absent here. *Hall claims to have been A PASTOR of several churches, but yet his new response says that he was merely the interem pastor of Hickory Ridge Baptist Church, and then an associate in other churches. *Hall claims to have been a church planter, but his new response says that he worked with other "groups" but never names one single church that he was responsible for planting. Hall says he was the associate pastor "of A church plant" but doesn't say HE STARTED it. *Hall was the "co-founder" of Reformation Montana which he describes as a handful of Reformed Baptist Churches, with an "inter-denominational network". Inter-denominational? Kind of odd for a conservative Baptist Calvinist group don't you think? *Hall says it took him a year and a half to get "spiritually healed" from his "sin". A year and a half to heal from being a successful salesman? And it was then he read Romans 9 and "saw the doctrines of grace". Now Hall has not mentioned any additional Bible college since rediscovering himself in the doctrines of Calvinism. So any college training he had is not said to have emphasized any of the Reformed positions he now holds. And Romans 9? Really? You mean that a hypothetical question asked by a critic of Paul about corporate Israel showed him this grace that pushed him into a Reformed ministry? Give me a break!! And if he was so broken over it, then why did he "manage ANOTHER business" right before he had his epiphany on Romans 9?????? So it took him "a year and a half" to "spiritually heal" over his sin of being involved in business instead of ministry, and then right before he reads Romans 9 on the Road to Damascus, he GOES BACK TO MANAGING A BUSINESS??? *Hall states that after reading Romans 9, for the FIRST TIME he had "a desire to serve in ministry". You mean he DIDN'T have a desire to serve at 17 (or is it 18?). And if he didn't have the desire to serve at 18-22, THEN WHAT WAS HE GRIEVED OVER BEFORE HE READ ROMANS 9 AND NEEDED SPIRITUAL HEALING FOR????? *Hall claims is degree was in "Christian Education", but Fellowship Baptist Church says "Religious Education". I'm sure I don't need to explain the difference between "religious" and "Christian" here. A little like James White's testimony where his college gave him the option of choosing what he wanted his degree to say, biology or theology. I didn't know colleges let you pick and choose what you major in AFTER you've already earned the degree! (Stated on recent Dividing Line discussing Ham/Nye debate, which White said Nye won. Ironically, Hall took the same position which Fred Butler disagreed with). And if you look at his profile pic on the FBC website, I'm betting that's not Kool-Aid in that Margarita glass with a straw in it. http://app.razorplanet.com/acct/41802-0070/images/untitled.JPG I am a little curious as to why they changed the name from Fellowship BAPTIST to Fellowship Church. Folks, there are more semi-wide holes in Hall's explanation than I care to continue elaborating on. Needless to say, Hall has dug himself a hole. I do believe that JD Hall was a good salesmen, because he sure has done a good job at selling a pile of garbage to some very naive professing Christians as well as twisting and distorting something that *I* wrote, as if Peter or Timothy Rogers wrote it. Hall is obviously piggy-backing on the groundwork laid by White against Caner and taking the torch to improve his notoriety. Yet, Hall still refuses to respond to me as to why it is that after ADMITTING he said-in anger-that BP College "hates Muslims" that he has never apologized to them, never actually said it was wrong (admitting you said something in anger, and admitting it was wrong are 2 different beasts. Jordon's been giving lectures on repentance for several months now, he should know better), and has never publicly repented over it. So is Hall "unregenerate"? Ironically, one of his defenders debated me on this last night, and when cornered about Hall's lack of context and background, said "A pastor is responsible to his church, AND NO ONE ELSE" (emphasis mine). https://twitter.com/SVMuschany/status/431702623969091585 That one comment summed up the entire debate: Hall and Co are not responsible to being accountable to anyone else but "the elect" of their own kind, BUT YOU ARE.
1 reply
Stephen, I will respond to your comments later as I am dissecting Hall's response on his website about his testimony as I have already found numerous holes and contradictions in it from his short testimony that was taken off of the website. But one thing to consider here in demonstrating how blatantly dishonest Hall is, if you read his response, you note that he won't give my name on it, and labeled the writer as a "Caner defender". Now Hall and even Peter here know good and well that I am NOT a Caner supporter. I've made this clear to Peter, Rogers and I have argued about it and I've sent my own sentiments to Caner personally. However, I do not need to stoop to the vile levels that White and Hall have to make my point. The fact that Hall would label me as a Caner defender knowing full well that this is not true is a blatant lie that shows that he is probably unregenerate according to his own definition of sin and repentance. It is also ironic that Hall chose to respond to this, but has refused since early January to respond to me calling him out on his deliberate lies about Rogers, and the fact that he admitted to James White on his radio program, that he said Brewton Parker College hated Muslims in anger, but he never apologized to any of them, nor retracted the statement, nor said it was wrong. Unrepentant. I documented this in great detail here, http://wp.me/p2K6Yn-mt and sent Hall the link to it several times with a countdown of how many days it's been since he refused to repent of it. He replied that he was waiting for me to run out of fingers. But, now you are seeing the same kind of spin practiced by Hall that he accuses others of. And, I'm just getting started :)
1 reply
I'm curious about what church JD Hall pastored when he was 18 years old. I was a little curious why a website such as Pulpit and Pen did not have any staff testimonies on it, so I did some digging on the Way Back Machine. Hall's Testimony is MISSING from the current Pulpit and Pen website, and has been replaced with a short comment about Ergun Caner dated Jan 9, 2014 http://web.archive.org/web/20140109052031/http://pulpitandpen.org/about/ Here is the original with Hall's testimony on it dated October 7, 2013 http://web.archive.org/web/20131007191509/http://pulpitandpen.org/about/ Why from October of 2013 to January of 2014 did JD Hall remove his testimony from his website? Well, I think there's a few explanations: *Hall claims to have been the pastor of not one, but several churches at the age of 18. Not only does he claim to have been a pastor, but also a "church planter". So at 18 he was not only pastoring a church, but planting others-at 18. *Hall says he came to Montana at age 26, but spent 10 years in Northeast Arkansas first. This at least means he was in Arkansas from age 16 to 26. *Jordon left the ministry at to become a successful record setting and award winning marketer/business man, but yet claims that he did not find financial success. Pretty odd for someone that started numerous award winning businesses in "various locations in the Mid-South". *Jordon went to Williams Baptist College in Arkansas earning a BA in education, and then a MA in History from Arkansas State University. Now if Jordon went to Montana at age 26, and figuring in at least 5-6 years for a Masters degree, how did Jordon become a successful award winning business man starting several other business locations at age 22, while attending college courses toward a BA and MA at the same time before moving to Montana at age 26???? Me thinks JD Hall has some splainin' to do, but I see why he removed his testimony from the Pulpit & Pen website. No wonder Hall is screaming so loud about "Canerizing", looks like he did the same thing to his own testimony right before announcing the "Caner Project". Curious timing for the removal of his testimony indeed!
1 reply
I'd almost forgotten that I had written a short piece on Westboro Baptist Calvinists. http://wp.me/p2K6Yn-lk I may modify that article to fit JD Hall into it :)
1 reply
It also seems the Caner controversy is quite profitable for White: http://www.zazzle.com/hadith_2425_t_shirt-235019869189624920 Twenty-six dollars for a t-shirt??????? ($31.50 when you pull it up on a separate tab).
1 reply
Peter, Those audios come close, but it's not enough to really pin him down on it. White, with all his faux pas is a little more 'street smart' than JD Hall. It's one thing to say that Geisler is involved in a conspiracy, as if that isn't bad enough, but it's quite a stretch to claim that Geisler is unregenerate. Given the respect that Geisler has even among Calvinists, I don't think White, nor Hall, nor Turrets have the audacity to make that claim, especially since Geisler has an endorsement on the cover of White's 'King James Only Controversy' book. He may loosely allude to it, but remain ambiguous to maintain plausible deniability. When I confronted White about his inconsistency in addressing the C.J. Maheney issues surrounding the SGM sex cover ups, and Al Mohler's silence on it, White said that it wasn't an important issue in apologetics (as if thousands of people joining atheist groups as a result of perverted pastors raping their children isn't worthy of an apologetic response. Sexual abuse in the church isn't an apologetics issue to White, but homosexuality is?) and he'd only read about it in passing from an article somewhere. Yet he tweets to Mohler on a regular basis and even praised Mohler for saying "theology matters" during a speech at Brigham Young University (Ironically, White and co criticized Michael Brown for doing an interview with Benny Hinn, but when a fellow Calvinist speaks at a MORMON COLLEGE, its all bubblies and skittles). I listened to part of Hall's radio show, and I had to turn it off when he used Revelation 21:8 as an excuse for labeling someone unregenerate. Hey JD, ask Calvin or Luther what they thought about Revelation. Oh wait, they never touched it with a 10 foot pole because Calvinists can't exegete Revelation anymore than a tulip can make home-made ice cream (Not even the Pre Mil Calvies. See MacArthur's take on those taking the number of the beast still being savable). Revelation 21:8, just as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, is a list of sinners who were never saved which is why Paul says in verse 11 of 1 Cor 6 "and such WERE some of you". Furthermore, Revelation 21:8 is in distinction to those who overcame in verse 7, and they overcame by the blood of the l Lamb and the word of their testimony (Rev 12:10-12). But, considering that consistent Calvinism always leads to conditional security when it comes to perseverance, it is no surprise that Hall demonstrates a clear ignorance of repentance. Since repentance by definition is a volitional decision, no Calvinist that holds to compatiblism can ever properly identify its Biblical elements. Thus, Calvinists will always be caught using misleading rhetoric: one definition of repentance and the love of God in front of their congregation, and a different one in the class rooms of their cemeteries, I mean seminaries. Greisbach called this the "Accommodation Theory"-if you don't think your listeners can grasp the full reality of what you say, it's OK to lie to them to accommodate them on a level you think they can comprehend. Calvinist utilize the Accommodation Theory with impunity. Hall said on his radio show that this is all about theology. But what he won't admit is that his antics, and the constant inconsistencies and equivocations from White and co have only shown that "theology" is the driving motivation behind their vilification of anyone that does not support their Gnostic caricature of God.
1 reply
Should've added this on my last post, but I'm still waiting for Hall to respond to my question as to whether or not Norman Geisler and John Ankerberg are saved. I've asked that question a few times and never got a response to it, asked it again a few minutes ago. Come on now, JD, if Caner and those defending him are not saved, put all your cards on the table and throw Norman Geisler and John Ankenberg in there too. Or are you afraid that you will get too much negative attention by claiming that Geisler is unregenerate. White has already said Geisler is involved in a massive conspiracy, so doesn't that make Geisler unregenerate? Show me your big boy pants, Mr. Hall. Now don't be ambiguous about it, is Norman Geisler and John Ankenberg saved or not?
1 reply
Now Peter knows as do several others where I stand on the Caner issue so I won't belabor that point here. I have a very curious observation I've noticed among the likes of James White, JD Hall, Fred Butler, et al. Now perhaps I'm wrong on this observation, and anyone please feel free to correct me. But I have not once, heard James White or Fred Butler claim that Ergun Caner, Peter Lumpkins or Timothy Rogers are not saved. I'm quite sure that James White and Fred Butler hold to a form of eternal security (although I disagree that "P" is the same as eternal security). Thus James White's appeal to Caner to repent seems the normal admonition from one believer to another. JD Hall's appeal to repentance, however, seems to be unto salvation, where he has now claimed that three professing believers in pastoral positions are not saved. Now of course, Hall doesn't clarify whether he believes these three men were ever saved at all, but in light of his hyper-Calvinist view of election, it is rather humorous how much radio time he dedicates to appealing to someone's will to repent. I can't really tell whether Hall is a Calvinist or Arminian that believes in conditional security. My question is: Why are the likes of White and Butler, et al, remaining silent on JD Hall's accusations that these three men are not saved? That's a hefty accusation to make against another professing believer without concrete evidence that they are unregenerate. Why is White not rebuking Hall over his accusations? I would really love to hear the excuse or explanation from these folks as to why they are remaining silent about this. Does James White agree that Timothy Rogers is "of his father the devil" as Hall claimed? Why are Butler and White being cowards about this and letting their fellow Calvinist rant about something they themselves have not publicly supported or endorsed? Now perhaps White and Butler have agreed with Hall on this, I have not seen it, and I stand corrected if they have. But if not, I'm very puzzled by their silence on Hall's repeated accusations that Caner, Lumpkins and Rogers are not saved. Now, if Hall has any guts, he would stop using misleading rhetoric and just be honest and say that all Non Calvinists are not saved. But, I don't know of too many Calvinists who are yet willing to risk their credibility by being honest about their theology by admitting that God doesn't love everybody, that all non elect are predestined to hell, and that if you don't believe that you are not saved and following pseudo-Christian cults. I think we're seeing a perfect demonstration of fear of credibility tainting by White and co in their silence on this issue. If White and Butler and co don't have the guts to say that these three are not saved, then they should be demanding Hall's repentance for making false accusations.
1 reply
Oh by the way, I left some deliberate spelling and grammatical errors in my post so the Spell-Checker Onlyists can play "Find Waldos Gerunds". Since they won't be able to critique the content of the post prima facie, I figured I'd give them something to complain about.
1 reply
Wasn't John Calvin a lawyer! I guess White was right, you can't trust lawyers. And, let me get this straight, according to White, a church historian knows more about how to evaluate the evidence and laws than substantiate the facts of a murder case than a lawyer does? Makes sense to me. I can see it now if James White ever got arrested for something. "..you have the right to an attorney, if you can not afford one ..." [White interrupts] "That will not be necessary officer, I have a church historian on speed dial". When one learns to go beyond all the initial fallacies that White employs in his rhetoric designed to intimidate gullible listeners, and dissect that little bit of actual content that he leaves, there's very little substance, and a very shallow theology. For example, in the book "Debating Calvinism", White says, "Christ’s substitutionary death in behalf of His people is a real and finished work: It is not dependent upon the human act of faith for failure or success" (pg 191). I would simply tell White to take out a concordance and look at all of the imperatives that require faith in Christ as necessary for "failure or success". "If ye *believe not* that I am he ye shall die in your sins" John 8:24. And Paul calls it obedience; "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and that OBEY NOT the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" 2 Thess 1:8. This fact is such a rudimentary and simple element of Christianity only an egotistical Calvinist could miss it. But, that's what happens when you spend a lifetime reading Reformed books ABOUT the Bible, and begin with creedal presuppositions. And let's not forget the statements that John Calvin made before and after Servetus was killed: BEFORE-“If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight”, written by John Calvin in a letter to Farel Feb. 13, 1546 DURING-“We have now new business in hand with Servetus. He intended perhaps passing through this city; for it is not yet known with what design he came. But after he had been recognized, I thought that he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge. … I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him”-Calvin’s letter to Farel, Aug 20th 1553 AFTER-"Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.” John Calvin to Marquis Paet, High Chamberlain to the King of Navarre, 1561 And just like White says of Caner's videos "they are his words", these words are CALVIN'S, not some revised story about Calvin, or some biased historian or lawyer's history book, but the actual documented letters from the hand of John Calvin himself. White made a response to this article, and one of the things he mentions is that Lumpkins edited the videos. I about spit my coffee out when I read that. The biggest Caner critic just "Canerized" his own videos. Or perhaps he was using "WHITE out" :)
1 reply
By Dr. James Ach, JAMES WHITE'S HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST LOGIC James White has posted a recent article slandering this article in particular, but of course, he does not direct his readers to the url for this article. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2014/01/01/truly-strange-bedfellows/ James begins by identifying Peter Lumpkins, Timothy Rogers, Diana Penn, Paul Owen and myself as "strange bed fellows" who hate him. This sounds all too familiar coming from Calvinists. I can't count how many times I have heard that I "HATE the doctrines of grace", or as Dr. Bob on the Baptist Board accused me, "you HATE the sovereignty of God". Does this sound familiar to anyone else? but coming from another community? It should, because it is the favorite buzzword of homosexual activist groups like GLADD and BJUnity. They call it "hate speech" whenever a Christian disagrees with them about anything. And ironically, White labelled several of us males together as "BED fellows". One of White's followers created a fake Twitter account called "Fake Timothy Rogers" and Tweeted, "Dreamt of Peter Lumpkins in chaps last night" https://twitter.com/FakeTimRogers/status/417646852792524800 Some of White's followers have also made parody videos of his sister and Steve Ray. One video has Patty being compared to a string of bikini clad "Bonds" girls dancing erotically. We documented the other ones on our recent article about the JD Hall Radio Show and James White Cover Up. Such is the kind of "fruit" that White produces. No pun intended. Interestingly enough, White did not quote anything that I said on this article, he just threw me in the mix as a Caner defender, which if he's read this article (and obviously he has since he responded to it), he would know what my position is on the Caner ordeal. So why then did he remain silent about that in his article? *White has also used additional homosexual community logic with the following quote: " But when you can manage to draw together two people as utterly different as Paul Owen and Timothy Rogers, you’ve accomplished something!" When the people in the United States of all different denominations of whom are "utterly different" stood together against GLADD and A&E over Phil Robertson's treatment, does James White's logic prove that GLADD won that battle? I mean, if people so "utterly different" are prima facie evidence that you've accomplished something, what does that say about GLADD? In my recent article about the JD Hall Radio Show, I stated in no uncertain terms that I love James White and JD Hall, and I mean that. And any Christian worth their salt should reflect that sentiment and is a hypocrite if they do not. But I asked James White if he could say the same about me? This is where White's Calvinism mixed with his pride and pedantic ego would prevent him from saying so. Since the god of Calvinism does not love everybody, should we expect Calvinists to love any more or less? One can only love someone else to the extent that he believes that God loves others. I can love James White regardless of how much I despise the theology he promotes. Why? Because God loves me, and is the "propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" 1 John 2:2. Since every Calvinist theologian wrests that Scripture from its common and plain reading (as well as other clear passages on universal atonement [not to be confused with universalISM]), it is no wonder they can not express love to anyone else, and define those who disagree with them as "hateful" and use the exact same tactics as GLADD by calling our disagreements "hate speech". Would John Calvin have caused the death of Servetus and countless others if he had truly loved Servetus? And let's not pretend that this was "a civil issue" and compare it with capital punishment under Romans 13. John Calvin made it a personal premeditated goal to have Servetus killed. Would he and COULD he have plotted such a heinous crime if he really loved Michael Servetus? And thus we see what Dr. Jerry Walls describes as the core problem of Calvinism: their elevation of the "sovereignty of God" over the love of God. When I have asked Calvinists to explain, what was God sovereign over before He created anything? compared to, was God loving Someone before He created anything? the answers to that have been nothing short of mind-numbing equivocations. If Calvinism can not offer a reasonable explanation about the character of God, how can they be expected to reflect the love of God to anyone else? This conundrum is so painfully obvious in the manner in which James White and his ilk have vilified their detractors. John told us that Jesus Christ came "in GRACE and TRUTH" (John 1:17). Yes, we are to "buy the truth and sell it not" (Prov 23:23), and must worship God "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24)-truth matters; where as White's moniker is "theology matters"-but without love we are as clanging cymbals. White has no balance of grace and truth (which is no concession that some of the things he espouses to are even truth at all), is dishonest in his rhetoric, and hypocritical in his pursuit of his opponents. But since the god of Calvinism does not love his enemies, then neither can White love those he considers to be his (even though, ironically, the Bible commands us to do something that God himself doesn't practice [Matt 5:44], according to the Calvinist view of God). Dr. White, since your friend JD Hall included Albert Mohler in his exposition about those "covering up" for Ergun Caner, I fully expect to see you put him on the list of "Jihadists Against Christianity" right next to Dr. Norman Geisler and John Ankenberg. Now stick that in your inbox and blog it-I DARE YOU!
1 reply
My brother in law has written a short critique of those who defend the Calvin/Servetus on our website which offers somewhat of a legal opinion against the excuses used by the Calvinist defenders of the Servetus ordeal. http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/calvinists-defense-of-john-calvin-in-the-michael-servetus-ordeal/ What is concerning to me are also "Tweets" like these: Fred Butler, "@PulpitAndPen Anyone who invokes Serevetus or Luther and the Jews during a debate has pretty much lost the debate." On what grounds have they "lost the debate"? Paul and John advised believers to separate from others for far less than what Calvin did to Servetus. Even if the Servetus incident were an isolated incident (and it certainly was not, Servetus is the most notorious incident, not the only one), should that matter as far as critiquing Calvin's theology? Paul thought so when he told Timothy, "But continue in the things which thou has learned and hast been assured of, KNOWING OF WHOM THOU HAST LEARNED THEM" (2 Tim 3:14). And in Philippians 3:17 Paul told us to mark godly persons as an example. So how a professing believer lived their lives IS partly important to the credibility of their doctrine. But since neither Fred Butler, James White, JD Hall begin with those kind of Biblical presuppositions (unless it benefits a defense of their actions to attack someones character)it is no surprise that factoring those axioms into their oft public critiques of such men in their own ranks is consistently absent. John made it clear that a person that professes to be a believer and hates his brother (and not that does mean "elect") is a MURDERER, and "we know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him" 1 John 3:15. A person with a heart that believes it is justifiable to kill another professing believer, thinking that "he doeth God's service" (John 16:2), is not a person that one can not possible affirm is a saved man, and as such, can not be considered as a credible source for doctrine. "But what about David?...Paul?"-neither of whom committed such acts after their repentance. White is obviously somewhat aware of this (or not?), so therefore his defense MUST be to revise the history of this event, because Calvinists know if the commonly accepted and provable historical evidence against Calvin on the Servetus ordeal is true, as even reported by those who had no axe to grind against Calvin (Philip Schaff for example), then the Calvinists know they have an uphill battle trying to make their doctrines palatable. Therefore Calvinists MUST create a new caricature of the paradigm and defend the revisions, and manipulate others into believing that the burden of proof is on historians to show that the events surrounding the Servetus ordeal are a legitimate or merely alternative record, instead of being the FACTS of real history with the burden being on them to prove contrawise. Now in response to Butler, I think it should be worth noting that when a person must resort to the most vitriolic methods of personal attacks in a debate, they have lost the debate. Butler attacks me because I don't post my education credentials. Would that matter? I care not for them because it's a distraction on the content of the arguments [Yes, I use my ThD in my signature-it gets me into hospitals and jails easier! :)). If you are a lowly fisherman or tax collector, I will give audience if the content of your argument has merit and value. And yes, I am KJVO, but according to Butler and White, that renders me "utterly incompetent" to give a valid opinion on ANYTHING, and they would rather compare me to Riplinger (whom I do NOT consider a valid source for KJVO arguments)then to actually address the content of anything I have written. I do not stoop so low as to use the "how knoweth this man letters having never learned (John 7:15) tactics of the Pharisees. And I would carefully state that perhaps that is not even a fair accusation against White for those who employ it. He DID do the work albeit the quality of its questionable; but that's not the point, and it distracts from valid arguments against him (although I do think it can be valid in rebuttals against him when he employs the tactic first). That has been the consistent method of ad hominem debate tactics employed by the likes of White, Butler, Hall, et al. But I do rather enjoy watching them squirm over my somewhat anonymous personal history because it reveals their clear motives and strategums of using ad hominem manipulations as a requisite debate tactic, so much so that James White has placed me on his Index Liborum Prohibitorum. Interestingly, White has never talked about the complicity of Albert Mohler, his fellow Calvinist, whom JD Hall confessed was present during one of Caner's presentations. Now I will respectfully disagree with Peter here and many others defending Caner as I have done my own independent research apart from what White has presented, but will refrain from clogging up his blog with my opinions on the matter, because I see a much bigger threat to the churches and the reputation of Christianity in the manner in which White has pursued his vendetta and neglected or ignored the creaking bones from the skeletons in his own closet as well as the selectiveness he has utilized in who he attacks, and the effect that it has caused on his follows which I have thoroughly documented and explained here http://wp.me/p2K6Yn-mk Thank you for your time, Dr. James Ach Just a Lowly Nobody for Christ Eph 3:19
1 reply
DrJamesAch is now following The Typepad Team
Jan 1, 2014