4/30/04:  What Brouhaha?  [2nd Response to Akin Here]
     I took a few hours off of writing tonight to sorta de-compress, came back over to the office to do a little more work on an article, and found it necessary to put on my helmet and dodge a flood of incoming fire, both in channel and then in the "blogosphere."  Though I had commented only on Jimmy Akin's ruminations about me, and then replied to theological issues raised by some of his commentators, he has chosen to post a rather lengthy response to a much wider set of "issues."  He calls it "The James White Brouhaha."  And he starts out his comments with, "Although I personally find James White as abrasive as anybody..." and later adds, "and however un-Christlike White may be in his demeanor...."  Wow, how is that for a "How do you do?"  Why Mr. Akin chose to start out on the "slash and burn" road I'm not sure.  It sure doesn't help in setting up a future debate!  But I'm sure it is my fault, for some reason, and should I find such a comment offensive, I'm sure it is just because I am the abrasive, un-Christlike one! 
     Now, for those who may not know, Jimmy Akin is "Staff Apologist" for Catholic Answers.  For those who have somewhat lost track of Catholic Answers, they are the organization that gave Gerry Matatics his start in the apologetics world.  Back in the 1980s they were big on challenging folks to debate, and Matatics was their main man.  But in early 1990 that all changed, and over the years the emphasis on debating has waned greatly.  For a while it was Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, and James Akin.  Then Madrid left and began Envoy Magazine, and Akin took over most of his duties, appearing frequently on their national radio program, and handling a lot of the writing and editing in This Rock magazine.  So, with that brief history, some brief replies, following Mr. Akin's numbered comments:

1)  I will avoid personally commenting on whether I find Mr. Akin abrasive or not.  I do find his discussing issues such as "inceptive aorists" without having any background upon which to do so "less than useful."  I do not seek "fans," and have not, at the time of this writing, even read the comments on Akin's blog to which he refers.
2)  Outside of the gratuitous insults, some of our readers could read this paragraph and honestly think it was written by someone I will be debating later this year!  :-)  I recognize what God did for me in my salvation, and that my baptism was my witness to others of what God had already done in my heart, which is what made it so special and meaningful, rather than an empty action looking forward to some hoped for fulfillment (in one view), or one that allegedly put me in a "state of grace" before my heart was ever touched by grace. 
3)  Here is the obligatory attack upon my scholarship based upon the "you can't do scholarship unless an agency of librarians approved by the gov't says you can" argument, one that, I do believe, will self-destruct in the not-too-distant future for other reasons.  For now, I invite Mr. Akin to try a little harder, examine the work I have done in my field, and dare demonstrate that the years I spent on those degrees produced published work below par for the field in which the degree is claimed.  Keeping in mind that those degrees are in apologetics, scan down the list of my work here and see if you can figure out a logical basis for Akin's comments.  If scholarship is something you buy from a school you can argue as he does: if it is something you do consistently in teaching and writing and research, then I think the rational person can judge for themselves.  Oh, and as to the "why go that route" question, the answer is simple: obedience to Christ's call on my life as seen in my commitment to Alpha and Omega Ministries and the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.  [Update: Dear Alexander: Are there any depths to which you will not sink?  Any cause you will not aid?  I have been very open in promoting the propriety and viability of doing advanced educational studies within the purview of the local church.  Now you slander me by saying I have been deceptive!  Witness to the deception, Alexander, or again admit your constant lack of honesty and forthrightness!]
4)  I do not claim infallibility in anything.  And I deny it to Mr. Akin as well.  And since I continue to grow in my sanctification and therefore in the assurance of my salvation on an experiential basis, I do not use the term "infallible" of my certainty.  I say it is sufficient, and it is part of saving faith.  How any Roman Catholic can claim to have something superior in light of the never-perfecting sacrifice of Christ and the entire sacramental system of Rome, I have no idea. 
5)  Chris Arnzen arranges the Great Debates on Long Island.  And he talked to Mr. Akin twice regarding representing the Roman Catholic position in debate on Long Island.  Mr. Arnzen is the singular person who arranges these debates, and hence is as official as you can get regarding the Long Island debates.  And, if we were to arrange a debate as part of a future ministry cruise, for example, Mike O'Fallon would be the one who arranges it.  When I debated Dr. John Sanders on Open Theism at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando in 2002, I never spoke to Dr. Sanders until the day of our first debate.  Mike O'Fallon did all of that work, and properly so.  It would be ridiculous to say that since I did not personally speak to him on the phone beforehand that he had not been challenged to do the debate.  Hence, if Mr. O'Fallon calls Mr. Akin to discuss arrangements, that is just as "official" (and, given my schedule and inability to do a good job working on arrangements and the like, much smarter) than if I did it myself.
6)  A debate has a thesis, a format, and equal opportunities for discussion.  I am sorry Mr. Akin thinks a widely-ranging call-in radio program is tantamount to a formal debate.  I find that utterly without merit, and leave it to the reader to decide.
7)  No one has ever once contacted us to my knowledge about any irregularities regarding the KIXL debate, including Mr. Akin.  Why wait years to even raise the issue?  I have never listened to the debate myself, and hence have no idea if what Akin says is true or not. 
8)  We had considered installing blog software that would support comments, but I do not have the time to monitor such a feature to begin with, and unlike Catholic Answers, which has a multi-million dollar budget and a staff at least six or more times larger than our own, the only other staff person does not have time to mess with it either.  My blog developed out of the fact that it took me far too long to post new articles on the main page, and the "blog" idea allows me to discuss a wide variety of issues and to keep folks up to date on upcoming topics on The Dividing Line. 

Now, as I said earlier, I would like to arrange a debate with Mr. Akin either in 2005 or 2006, depending on our schedules.  Despite Akin's dismissal of my education, I happen to teach, regularly, and it has gotten more and more difficult to arrange large "events" (like this November's conference and cruise) around my teaching duties, let alone my publishing deadlines.  Hence, I would like to involve those who have expertise in making such things work (Mr. Arnzen, if Mr. Akin would like to join the likes of Patrick Madrid, Mitchell Pacwa, Gary Michuta, and Peter Stravinskas---all of whom have engaged in the debates on Long Island; Mr. O'Fallon if he would rather not travel by air that far in hopes of combining the event with his future plans for the ministry), for I know my strengths and my weaknesses, and organizing and arranging such things is not something I handle with expertise.  The Lord has given me great colleagues and friends who are the "detail" men, and they are the ones who will get in touch with Mr. Akin.

4/29/04:  God Gives His People an Apologetic Response

But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His indignation. Thus you shall say to them, “The gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.” (Jeremiah 10:10-11)

Jeremiah 10:11 is the only verse in Jeremiah’s prophecy that is written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew. As a result, many feel it is a gloss or interpolation. However, a much more logical reason exists. Charles Feinberg notes, “It should, however, be remembered that Aramaic was the lingua franca of the day; so the pagan idolators would be able to read the judgment of God on their idolatry.” And in a textual note, he also says,

No one has ever explained why an interpolator would introduce it here. It was a proverbial saying; so it was given in the language of the people (so Streane). The best explanation appears to be that it is in Aramaic so that the exiles could use these very words as a reply to solicitations by the Chaldeans to join in their idol worship.

Charles L. Feinberg, “Jeremiah” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 6:449-450.
     What does this mean?  God's people found themselves in the midst of idolatry, under constant pressure from those around them to give in to the temptation to join the worship of Yahweh with the worship of other gods (just as we are today tempted to give in on the "offensive" aspects of the truth of God, especially regarding the gospel).  God gave his people the very words they were to use in rejecting the temptation of those around them, in a language they could understand!  And do not fail to note that the reply was not "politically correct" either!  They were not to say, "Oh, we would like to share with you a different way that we think is a bit better than yours."  No, they were to say that those false gods would perish!  When it comes to the "non-negotiables," why are so many today bent upon negotiating?

More from Jimmy Akin's Blog
     After responding to Jimmy Akin's blog note, I took a moment to read the comments attached to it. I found them fascinating. Some were your standard "ra-ra" kind of comments from folks who obviously are not big on fairly evaluating apologetic material and logical argumentation. One fellow, Brad Haas, was all excited about Dave Armstrong's "work." Sorry, but anyone who can read Armstrong's meandering diatribes and go, "Ooh, that's good!" isn't going to find much of what I have to say useful anyway. Sorry, Brad. A number of them likewise made reference to the BAM show as if it were a debate (obviously, covering dozens of topics, sometimes with less than 60 seconds to make a comment, is anything BUT a debate). One wrote, "Hearing White fumbling after you asked him 'Do you know with absolute infallibility that you're really saved?' was only one of a number of times where I felt you completely destroyed the Protestant position." It has been a number of years since that BAM program, and I generally do not go back to listen to things from that far back, but to give a meaningful response to such a question would require, in the Roman Catholic context, differentiating between their claims of epistemological certainty and infallibility and my own understanding of the nature of man, the authority of the church, etc., and then would require relating this to the nature of saving faith, the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and the nature of sanctification (which would likewise require a discussion of the relationship, and differences between, justification and sanctification, again in the Roman Catholic context). So I suppose if that question was asked and I had less than a minute to respond it would be nigh unto impossible to do anything but "fumble" in the eyes of one who probably accepts Rome's claims to infallibility without giving the matter a second thought. But it is surely odd how folks can listen to the same program and come away with completely opposite impressions.
     Be that as it may, the comment I found most interesting speaks to an interesting aspect of Alpha and Omega Ministries. One of the comments referred to my blog where I wrote on the recent "abortion rights" march (I have a hard time with such euphemistic terminology: "holocaust rights" would make as much sense). But, the day before, I had written on the new Vatican document on the sacraments. In that article I had quoted from the WCF and demonstrated that it was anything but "eirenic" in its rightful rejection of Rome's denial of the finished, completed, perfect work of Christ in its theology of the "Eucharistic sacrifice." The contrast of the two was too much for the writer, who considers the proclamation of a finished, perfect work an "attack" on Christ's "very Body." He calls it "slander" to identify Rome's beliefs in the fashion of the WCF. Of course, let us remember how many thousands died over the centuries at Rome's hands for refusing to believe her doctrine of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. I wonder if the person who was offended by my rejection of Rome's doctrine is likewise offended at the history of his own communion? I wonder if he is offended at the Popes who pursued entire crusades against peaceful evangelicals in the Piedmont Valley? Am I offended by Rome's teachings? Of course. I'm offended that she would pretend to lord over the consciences of men with her man-made traditions. But I am most offended that she would turn the finished, perfect work of Christ into a repetitious sacrifice that never perfects anyone for whom it is made, and that in direct contradiction to the inspired Word of God.
     Now, I can either channel my "offense" into speaking the truth with clarity and forcefulness to those who have been given a false hope by Rome, or, I can go the Jack Chick route and just produce prejudiced bluster. If I had not very clearly, and very carefully, explained why Rome's sacrifice of the Mass is a blasphemy to the finished work of Christ (the subject of my very first book, in fact), then I would have no basis upon which to complain of the man's comments. But I have, and I simply point out that what he calls "slander" is nothing more than "historic, exegetically based Reformed teaching on the key passages on the atoning work of Jesus Christ."

4/28/04:  Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers
     Last year, right after the Great Debate on Long Island, I got in contact with Jimmy Akin again.  We had tried to get him involved in the annual debates on Long Island, twice he had agreed, and twice had pulled out.  This had led us to be hesitant to even ask, since it is so hard to "fix" things when one of the participants pulls out.  Anyway, rather quickly the issue became formulating a topic, but right then I had a ton of things hit me all at once, including travel, teaching, a publishing deadline, and in the meantime the folks back on Long Island arranged this year's debate opponent anyway.  So the convo ended.  I've heard that Jimmy Akin has made comments about being willing to debate on Catholic Answers Live, and have even recorded some comments (just never to around to playing them on the DL).  So I found this entry on Akin's blog most interesting:

Jimmy vs. James: Two Diff'rent Guys This Time

A reader writes:

Please tell me when your going to throw down with James White of A&O ministries again....

Can't rightly say. Don't have anything scheduled with him at the moment, but am open if the right topic and venue comes up.

We heard he is afraid of you......

I wouldn't presume to know what's in another's heart in such a matter, though I do detect signs that there are certain subjects that White doesn't seem to want to debate--not for intellectual reasons (e.g., Catholics and Protestants aren't close enough on them to make it profitable to debate them) but for some other reason.

It is my understanding that Mr. Akin does not like to fly, hence the problems in getting him across the US for the New York debates.  But, we had been inviting Catholic Answers (including Karl Keating) to debate in San Diego (their home base) for quite some time.  In fact, we had contacted them first before getting Mitch Pacwa to debate in December of 1999 in El Cajon.  In any case, since we have a lot of friends in the Southern California area, I am certain an appropriate debate can be arranged with Jimmy Akin.  There is still the matter of his errors on the "inceptive aorist" at John 6 to address, of course, so possibly a debate on the issue of election and predestination would be possible (Jimmy Akin was once associated with the Presbyterian Church).  Soteriology would be relevant, given his book on the subject.  Of course, I think the Marian Dogmas are the single best illustration of how Rome does not function on the basis of "Scripture and Tradition," so I would definitely challenge him to defend one or more of those dogmas. 
     As to what "certain subjects" Mr. Akin is referring to, I have no idea.  Surely when picking a topic it is important to make it one where there is a clear issue at stake so that people will be interested in attending and you can make an important point.  There are certain topics that are simply not worth debating since they do not allow for meaningful interaction.  "The Pope's Personal Motto is Goofy" just wouldn't fly (though I would support the thesis). 
     In any case, let's look at the schedule for 2005/2006 and put something together.  Possibly a two-night encounter, one night I defend, one night Mr. Akin defends?  I know there is talk of cruising to Alaska again in the future, so if not in Southern California, somewhere on the West Coast might work out as well so that we can make the debate part of the cruise experience (like this year in LA).  In any case, to the person who wrote to Catholic Answers: since Jimmy Akin and I have only done one debate (and no, it was not on BAM.  That was not a debate anymore than Open Lines Friday is a "debate" on Rush), on KIXL radio in Austin, I very much look forward to a truly formal debate, with video cameras, proper moderation, and topics that will allow the truth to be clearly seen.

4/27/04:  They Marched for Murder
     She looked into the camera and said, "I think it is just sad that we have to be here today." She was talking about being one of more than half a million people gathered in Washington in support of "abortion rights." Yes, I agreed: it is very sad. The march was called the "March for Women's Lives." Given that nearly half of those who lose their lives in the murder of unborn children are women, the title is tragically ironic. And the woman's statement, meant to say that we should be "beyond" the debate over abortion, reminded me of the description of those who become accustomed to evil in Isaiah 5:20, who call evil good and good evil. You see, we live in a day when the humanity of the pre-born child is so clearly documented, so forcefully proven through our modern technology, that every possible excuse that could be offered has become absurd on its face. When I listen to the mindless rhetoric shoveled out by those who seek to defend this "right" I am forced to recognize again the truth that total depravity extends to the mind of mankind, so that "they became futile in their reasoning and their senseless hearts became darkened" (Romans 1:21). This is all that can possibly explain how we can have such compelling, convincing evidence of the humanity of the pre-born child and yet these image bearers seek to continue the holocaust of innocents with every fiber of their being, all the time fleeing in panic from any logical challenge to their tortured reasoning. Yes indeed, those who refuse love the truth will be caused to love a lie.
     Oh God, save the little ones. Melt the hearts of stone of those who murder them. Grant repentance, we pray.

4/25/04:  New Vatican Document Released
     A fairly major Vatican document has been released, Redemptionis Sacramentum.  It addresses the 'proper' celebration of the sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church.  It has a number of interesting statements, many of which would be excellent "blog fodder," but this one was most interesting:

[129.] “The celebration of the Eucharist in the Sacrifice of the Mass is truly the origin and end of the worship given to the Eucharist outside the Mass. Furthermore the sacred species are reserved after Mass principally so that the faithful who cannot be present at Mass, above all the sick and those advanced in age, may be united by sacramental Communion to Christ and his Sacrifice which is offered in the Mass."  In addition, this reservation also permits the practice of adoring this great Sacrament and offering it the worship due to God. Accordingly, forms of adoration that are not only private but also public and communitarian in nature, as established or approved by the Church herself, must be greatly promoted.

And a little later:

[134.] “The worship of the Eucharist outside the Sacrifice of the Mass is a tribute of inestimable value in the life of the Church. Such worship is closely linked to the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice." Therefore both public and private devotion to the Most Holy Eucharist even outside Mass should be vigorously promoted, for by means of it the faithful give adoration to Christ, truly and really present, the “High Priest of the good things to come" and Redeemer of the whole world. “It is the responsibility of sacred Pastors, even by the witness of their life, to support the practice of Eucharistic worship and especially exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament, as well as prayer of adoration before Christ present under the eucharistic species."

There was a day, not too long ago, when you could assume that just about every well-read, theologically concerned "evangelical" would read those words with nothing but utter disdain and deep sadness for anyone who would believe such teaching.  At least I thought most of us had some idea of what Rome means by "Sacrifice of the Mass" and what is involved in seeing people bowing before a tabernacle or monstrance or ciborium.  Even if people were not fully aware of all of the details of Roman theology regarding the Mass, transubstantiation, and the like, there was a general recognition that the sacrifice of Christ is so sacred, the gospel so holy, that to engage in this kind of activity, which is so plainly based upon human tradition and unbiblical teaching, is to bring great offense to God. The language of the Westminster Confession is anything but "eirenic" when it addresses this topic:

In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; not any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same, so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.  (29:2)

Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone, as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.  (29:4)

That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries. (29:6)

Such terminology has not only become foreign to our post-modern world, but, sadly, has become foreign to many who claim to be "Reformed" as well.  "Popish sacrifice," "abominably injurious," "repugnant," "cause of manifold superstitions" and "gross idolatries" are not phrases born of compromise or a spirit that finds anything in the source of such teachings a ground for "getting along" and "dialoguing" about our "perspectives."  Such descriptions assume that the truth about the sacrifice of Christ is knowable and known; that to pervert that truth is to separate oneself from the very gospel of Christ; and that to refuse to speak boldly in defense of the very death of Christ on the cross is to show oneself a friend of the world and an enemy of the faith.  On a simple gut level, a person who loves the redemptive message of the cross cannot possibly sit idly by when someone begins promoting Rome's doctrine of the never-truly-propitiatory, never-truly-finished, always on-going, non-perfecting sacrifice in the Mass.  You might as well say it is manly to sit by while someone insults your wife while smiling and nodding and saying, "I appreciate your perspective."  When I read the above cited Roman Catholic document blithely quoting Hebrews 9:11 while ripping it completely out of its context and, in fact, attaching it to a teaching that is a direct and unmitigated repudiation of the precious truth of Hebrews 9:11-12, I am offended.  If you are not, and you are not a Roman Catholic, and you understand the basic issues involved, may I ask why not?  If your entire hope rests solely in the finished work of Christ, in the sufficiency of His sacrifice, the completion of His atonement, the all-encompassing perfection of Him as Prophet, Priest, and King---how can you see those words, realize how they impact hundreds of millions of people adversely by driving them away from the truth, and not have a visceral, holy reaction of indignation?  I confess, given how people can get all passionate about sports teams, fashions, eschatologies, periods of history, or any number of other such things, I truly wonder how someone can truly be trusting in the gospel and yet not have passion about its denial and perversion!
     One answer, these days, seems to be found in a simple line of reasoning:  "Triune baptism joins you to the new covenant.  Hence, objectively it makes you a Christian.  Therefore, Roman Catholics are Christians.  Therefore, ecumenical dialogue within the 'church' is healthy, so let's all chat about our perspectives and viewpoints and see if we can't increase the level of unity in professing Christianity."  Sounds good, right?  Except, one little thing is missing: the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Triune baptism, without the gospel, and especially in the context of a denial of the very work of the Triune God, is a mockery of the words being spoken and the Christ-commanded ordinance to which it is but a shadow and empty shell.  Without faith in God's truth, there is no Christian baptism, no creation of this "big tent church" that includes within its boundaries the kind of Christ-dishonoring, soul-destroying teaching as that cited above from the new Vatican document.  Paul no more made room for the false brethren who, likewise, sought to bring believers into bondage in his day than we should in ours.  The irony is, the very ones who refuse to follow the Apostolic example provided by Paul are the very ones who speak of "apostolic succession" and begin playing around with buzz-words like "tradition" and "the development of doctrine."  If you start feeling the pressure to compromise, to douse the flames of your passion for the truth of the gospel in exchange for the empty husks of a Christ-denying ecumenism or a deformed catholicity, remember what is most important, and ask yourself a simple question: do I fear the face of men, or of God?

Armstrong Installs Keyboard #3
     DA continues producing record volumes of verbiage, but, thankfully, did learn that stealing Angel's images is, well, illegal.  So, he pulled the new ones someone had produced for him.  I guess he'll have to find a real artist now.  Reading the comments section on his blog is simply entertaining, though somewhat frightening.  Thankfully, after the necessary response to my comments from the DL, Dave says he is going to avoid me like the plague.  Of course, I've seen that promise before.  :-)

4/23/04:  Pat Tillman (1976-2004): A Class Act
     I've known about Pat Tillman for a decade.  I began hearing about him when he was a walk-on at ASU here locally.  The reason I remember him was the consistency of the comments about him: "He's too small for his position, but he makes up for it with a big heart, a huge amount of discipline, and a lot of thinking."  When the Cardinals drafted him, everyone said, "He's too small.  He won't make it."  He did.  And when he turned the sports world upside down by turning down millions to become an Army Ranger for a whopping $18,000 a year, you had to give the guy credit.  So today the media here in Phoenix has been almost wall-to-wall covering his death in action in Afghanistan. 
     Why all the attention?  Well, here in Phoenix, we all knew the name.  So, someone we felt we knew has been killed in action.  A guy who had "made it" financially and professionally gave it all up to serve his country.  That's the story.
     But I really wonder.  I have not heard a word about Tillman's spirituality.  I don't think he would really like all the accolades: he seems to have been a humble man.  But I have often thought that our high-speed, high-tech culture is exposing, so very quickly, the one thing that really, really concerns me: war is a horrible thing.  It is supposed to take place in service of justice and right, in opposition to tyranny and injustice.  War tests the moral fabric of a nation.  Dedication to what is right, what is just...to freedom...these are the things that make a nation willing to pay the steep price seen in Tillman's death.  But when we no longer believe men are created in the image of God---when we don't believe God is King and that He demands justice from His creatures---when we betray our own alleged love of human life by the constant denigration of that life through our immorality---how long can this nation stand firm?  Yes, I really wonder.

Thanks to Major Storms
     I truly enjoyed having Major Storms, USMC, drop by and visit with us on the DL yesterday (here's the picture I had on my refrigerator during combat operations of he and Major Rich Leino (Major Storms is on the right).  He still has the cool sunglasses (no, they are not Oakleys, but I did not point that out, since that would not be nice of me).  It was very enjoyable to get to meet a fellow brother in Christ that I've prayed for, and who has served the US with distinction.  Now I hope to get to meet Major Leino in the not too distant future, too!  Here's another picture of Major Storms outside his HQ tent in Iraq.  And for those of you who listened to the program, the Major mentioned the Camel Spider.  I knew I had a shot of one around (Major Leino was quite the digital photographer over there, and I have a number of interesting pictures).  As I said on the program, this is NOT something I would want to see anywhere near me unless I was armed with a can of RAID, or, better, had permission to unleash a few rounds at the thing!  Man, that is definite proof of the curse, isn't it?  Anyway, since the Lord was gracious to Jay and Rich, please remember "my" current military friend in Iraq, Steve Decker.  I haven't heard from him yet, but I hope to soon.  Pray the Lord will protect him, strengthen his faith, and give him a steady hand.

James White: Bad, Bad Man
     Dave Armstrong wrote a nearly 4200 word "response" to Angel's cartoon, and, of course, it is all my fault.  See, Wilson was right: it doesn't matter what you say.  UPDATE:  Dave then ignored copyright laws, demonstrated he has no one around him who can do original work, took the caricature below, and proved he is beyond all rational discourse yet once again by attaching various altered forms to his fantasy "debates" (remember, DA has never debated me, and will not do so in person).  As I said a few weeks ago, since there is no substance to the man's methodology or study, but no end to his time to tap away at a keyboard, what do you do when he starts in with his irrational diatribes?  Hopefully the clear demonstration of his incapacity to engage in meaningful exegesis (indeed, even to know what the term means) will help some who have been impacted by his sheer volume of verbosity.

4/22/04:  Why I am Not a Calvinist
     Heh, woke you up, didn't I?  That's the title of the new book by Asbury Seminary professors Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell (IVP). I will be briefly reviewing the book today on the DL.  And for the legions of time-challenged folks out there, 4PM MST has an "S" in it.  That means "Standard."  Unless you live in some of the few places that honor the passage of time by not messing with their clocks, you are now on "Daylight" time.  Hence, 4PM MST is 4PM PDT, 7PM EDT. 

4/22/04:  Don't Mess With a Man With a Pencil

Ah, see?  This is called a professional caricature.  See how it is accurate to life?  How it has a context?  A message?  Helps you to remember something, makes a point, etc.?  So, Dave, in the future: please note that these are copyrighted by Angel (don't steal them).  Find someone on your end of things who actually has the ability to put out this kind of effort.  And...try to track down a point worth presenting in visual form.  It really helps.  :-)

4/21/04:  A Very Wise Thought
     I was listening to Doug Wilson's sermon on Galatians 1:6-9 this morning while working out (listening to such material allows me to do research for upcoming events, such as the debate in November, while "redeeming the time" and keeping this old body functioning semi-properly).  Anyway, one thing he presented really hit me in a very positive way (see, you can learn from those with whom you disagree!): he quoted Thomas Watson (nope, haven't had time to dig it up yet) who said, in essence, that when we go through trials, we often wrongly focus upon the one through whom the trial comes (enemies, heretics) rather than the One who sent the trial.  That was a great insight.  He was saying that we should rejoice when folks lie about us and attack us.  In fact, he used the language of rejoicing that we have "arrived" at a position where we have done enough in the kingdom for anyone to notice us enough to bother lying about us.  I really appreciated the presentation, since I confess I have often of late found it easier to focus upon the attacks than rejoice in the victories.  It was a good reminder that I need to avoid the sin of worry and, in fact, the sin of discontent, and should truly treasure the encouragements of family, friends, and those who have been touched by this ministry.
     A second thought that I also appreciated was this:  Wilson said that so often when dealing with one's enemies it simply does not matter what you say.  There is no reason to go back over what you have taught or preached and ask yourself, "What could I have said differently?" since it doesn't matter how clearly you express yourself: heretics will always twist what you say.  That is so self-evident from my own experience that you'd think I would not be surprised to hear it expressed.  But I was.  What should shock us at any time is when false teachers actually represent us accurately and show some desire to not twist our words!  Over the course of the past decades of ministry I have seen this so often you would think it axiomatic by now!
     Now, was there anything I took issue with?  Yes, there was.  But I reserve the right to talk about it in November.  :-)

4/19/04:  Wow, I Feel Sooooo Much Better
     Proving that reasoning and refutation are but minor irritations, Dave Armstrong has reposted his mauled graphic of me.  However, his rather less than talented artist removed the blood from my face this time (as I said, I'm so thankful and feel so much better now).  And he has chosen, in his own inimitable style to post it on one of his fantasy "debates," where he takes something I've written, works his wonderful Socratic magic (i.e. writes ten times the amount of material and hopes the verbiage will dazzle his audience), and puts "Dave Armstrong vs. James White" at the top.  You know, it never crossed my mind, back in 1988/89 when I first started listening to tapes from Catholic Answers and started replying to their claims that someday I'd have folks like DA shooting blanks at me from long range.  That's OK.  Anyone who took the time to read the exegesis comparison and follow up knows the score.  And proving that all things work together for the good, Angel has indicated I should be keeping my eyes on my e-mail in-box.  Never know when he might provide us with one of his artistic commentaries on Mr. Armstrong's apologetic endeavors.  :-)

Upcoming New York Trip
     I should be posting a more detailed listing of my speaking engagements in New York beginning May 15th in a few days.  I look forward to the opportunity of once again meeting with the saints in the New York/New Jersey area.

Truly Hilarious: A Blast from the Past
     Richard Abanes posted this from almost ten years ago now, and since I am trying to get ready to teach two classes tonight and don't have time to blog anything overly meaningful today (at least until tonight), I thought this would do:

NEWS FLASH - May 1994

"In Colorado, Betty Parker spied on her neighbor, Gary Clowes, for weeks [six, to be precise], convinced he was conducting rituals. She saw people dressed in 'robes of the devil' sacrifice animals and heard them utter unintelligible chants. Betty then persuaded members of her church to break into the Clowes home with crosses, stakes and prayer books only to find a dramatic group rehearsing Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Unfazed, Betty still insists they were 'the children of Satan.'"

4/16/04:  Kudos to the African Anglicans
     The Gobbler (don't ask) sent me this link.  Kudos to the African Anglicans for standing up and being counted.  God bless them for it.

Armstrong Tries to Defend His Actions
     Amazingly, after posting his horrific image, Armstrong has tried to turn the tables by accusing me of posting something even worse than his blood-stained Charlie-Mansonesque picture.  Remember, Armstrong just posted the picture: no context, no words, no application to any particular issue.  Just Rome's arrow (replete with Papal flag) sticking out of my forehead with blood flowing from the wound.  And how does Armstrong defend this?  By saying we did something much worse by posting the cartoon Angel drew of Patrick Madrid (see the blog archive).  And what makes that picture as bad as his bloody one?  Well, obviously, poor Patrick is going to get stoned, literally.  Of course, as anyone knows who has listened to the debate to which Angel is referring (oh, what, look at context?), this very issue came up in the discussion, and to my amazement (and most everyone else's), when I asked whether the latria/dulia distinction would have held up when a person was found worshipping an idol (hence the idol in the background), his response was that the Israelites had a particular penchant for idolatry, one that we no longer struggle with!  And it is this amazing response that prompted Angel's cartoon.  I truly wonder if Armstrong has even listened to or watched the debate, so as to have a context?  Probably not.  He surely gives no evidence of knowing anything about it.
     I do not need to waste much more blog space on this one: the truth is clear for anyone who wishes to see it.  Just three notes:
     1)  Armstrong is either feigning some kind of mock amazement and hurt, or, is simply completely clueless as to what I believe and teach.  In either case, he writes:

By implication, not only Pat Madrid, but all Catholics who hold to the Church's teaching, are the equivalents of worshipers of the Golden Calf: the rankest, most primitive, despicable form of idolatry. I need not establish that this is not in the slightest degree related to Catholic veneration of images or the Mass. That is too silly to waste time on. I just wanted to establish exactly the point that James' caricaturist (with his permission) was trying to make, in this "accurate" and "perfectly on-target" caricature. I'd like to hear from Protestants: do you think this is a fair portrayal of Catholicism?

Yes, Mr. Armstrong, that is exactly what I have been saying, and said, clearly and without apology, in the debate with Patrick Madrid.  The latria/dulia distinction does not hold and cannot survive examination and hence yes, your prayers to Mary and your bowing to statues is idolatrous, hence the need to warn you to flee from that which offends God.  Now, you can seek to throw post-modern dust in the air if you wish, and appeal to the "crowd" by asking Protestants for their "feelings," just as Madrid asked the Catholics in the audience if they "felt" like they were committing idolatry.  None of this deals with the simple fact that it is not up to you to define idolatry: God did that already. 
     2)  The impossibility of the task of trying to deal with Dave Armstrong's rhetoric is illustrated by the fact that at one point he actually argues that I misrepresented his drawing because I said the arrow was between my eyes.  Armstrong points out it is in the middle of my forehead!  Oh goodie!  A distinction without a difference!  Perhaps Mr. Armstrong would like to illustrate for us the functional difference between taking an arrow between the eyeballs and one in the middle of one's forehead?
     3)  Finally, Armstrong complained again that I have "ignored" his rebuttals of my position.  Yes, in general, I find them to fall so far short of meaningful and relevant that I do not believe them worth the investment of time.  Want proof?  OK.  Here's a response to his most recent attempt to "respond" to the exegetical comparison I posted a while back.

4/15/04:  Dave Armstrong's Sense of Humor
     I've taken a great deal of heat for having *any* humor on this blog, and especially for the cartoons Angel was so kind  to provide.  No matter how accurate his commentary, or how perfectly on-target the satire, there are some who just don't believe there is any room at all for the use of sarcasm, satire, or humor in apologetics. 
     Each of the cartoons we have presented have not only been accurate in how they look, but they have had a clear application to a particular situation, as anyone knew who listened to the debates or programs to which the cartoon referred can attest.  And in no case was anything even remotely like violence suggested.  Angel is a professional.
     Well, as Rush Limbaugh always says, you really need to leave such things to the professionals.  Today Dave Armstrong, Roman Catholic apologist extraordinaire, posted an altered version on his blog. <see below>  Yes, Rush is right.  Leave such things to the professionals.  So, the next time you think about complaining about Angel's professional cartoons and the points they make, remember what the "other side" thinks is funny.

Update About Three Hours After Posting the Above:
Evidently some of Armstrong's supporters pointed out that his posting a grotesque redrawing of me with a Roman Catholic arrow stuck between my eyes, blood all over my face, and in Charles Manson-style red, "Veni Vidi Vici" written across the picture, was not only tasteless and simply disgusting, but it was anything but funny.  Then, without apology, Armstrong put a self-serving list of his own writings he says I have ignored on the web page that, only a little before, had hosted the bloody picture of me.  So I pulled the link.

They Knew Me Too Well!
     Well, it shouldn't shock anyone that the folks in #prosapologian correctly guessed my eschatological viewpoint!  And before you hit the "send" button, please realize I have informed our volunteers to delete, trash, and otherwise ignore any e-mails wanting to debate eschatology.  That I still do not do.  There are plenty of places on the web where you can find any number of folks who will invest the rest of their natural days in arguments about the subject.  Just not here.  :-)

Today is the BIG DAY!
     And the current #prosapologian poll is:

Amillennial:  58%
Historic Pre-Millennial 31%
Post-Millennial Non-Reconstructionist 3%
Post-Millennial Reconstructionist: 3%
Pre-Trib, Pre-Millennial Dispensationalist: 3%

4/14/04:  Tomorrow is the BIG DAY!
     Yes, after many, many years of avoiding the "eschatology" question, I will finally "take a stand" tomorrow on the DL and "make it official."  In fact, we have been taking a poll in #prosapologian all day long, and as of this evening, the folks who know me best have placed their "bets" and have concluded:

Amillennial:  59%
Historic Pre-Millennial 33%
Post-Millennial Reconstructionist: 3%
Pre-Trib, Pre-Millennial Dispensationalist: 3%

Who is right?  Tune in tomorrow at 4pm MST (which, for those of you who are temporally challenged, is the same as PDT at the moment) to find out! 

More from the Mailbox
     Another brother wrote and began his letter, "You have done all former students of Dr. Norman Geisler a great service in your very helpful book The Potter's Freedom.  I am one of those former students and I don't know how many of us you have heard from, but I just had to write to say, "Thank you."  I am grateful to Dr. Geisler for his clear and insightful teachings in other areas, i.e., bibliology, apologetics, theology proper, etc.  But I found his teaching on the doctrines of sovereign grace in soteriology to be confusing and misleading.  The problem is that his explanations sound scholarly and reasonable, but, as you have shown, he really is masquerading as an Arminian." 
     The rest of the letter went into detail on the issue, and I truly appreciated it.  I can't say how many former students I've heard from (almost all written correspondence, i.e., non-electronic, is handled by Rich Pierce), but I do know I have heard from some, and this brother's experience is not uncommon at all.  I'm thankful The Potter's Freedom has been a blessing to him and so many others.

From the Mailbox
     I rarely talk much about the correspondence we get (partly because, obviously, I only see a small portion of it).  But I thought today I'd share some of what Rich Pierce plopped on my desk this morning.  MR from Lexington, KY wrote, in part:

I languished in the [seeker sensitive/warm fuzzy preaching] church for a few years....Well I left about a year ago and have since wandered into all kinds of churches.  All the while I've had a sense of not knowing exactly what I should be primarily looking for.  But because of your ministry, and others like John Piper, I've discovered one of the main things I need to be seeking in a local church - sound, reformed, biblical teaching, or in Spurgeon's words, "the religion of God's own church"....I'm now speaking more confidently and, yes, more compassionately with others about Jesus Christ.

I'll add a second after prayer meeting tonight.  :-)

4/11/04:  God's Promises Are Firm
     This evening I preached at PRBC from Acts 2.  When I finished, I then had a privilege that only a few fathers have in this life: I baptized my daughter upon her profession of faith.  I baptized my son last summer.  Both of my children have now professed faith in our Lord and Savior, and I have had the inestimable honor, privilege, and joy of administering the Christian ordinance of baptism before the congregation of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.  It was wonderful to look out upon the congregation and see so many who were important in the lives of my children, who taught them and encouraged them and modeled the Christian life for them.  I started to list names and realized I was running the danger of skipping someone, so I will just mention those godly men who have taught them, such as Don Fry, Simon Escobedo, Mike Porter, Warren Smith, Jim Broyles (who, along with Rich Pierce and Warren Smith, is to be thanked for making the sermons at PRBC available on the web), Eddie McKee, Jim Callahan, and Ed Ricketts, along with the godly women like "teacher Dianna" and Mary Ricketts and Gail Flock who ministered to them when they were so very young.  Tonight was truly a "family celebration," and a wonderful reminder that God is faithfully building His church. 

4/8/04:  Quick Pageant Update
     As many of you who listen to the Dividing Line know, we were very concerned that our outreach at the Mesa Easter Pageant would be ended by the arrival of KJV Only street preachers, some of whom have become regulars in Salt Lake City at the General Conference.  Well, it has been a pleasant surprise.  We still firmly believe signs are not effective for Mormons; of that there is really no question from our perspective.  But since they are there, we have to adjust.  The folks who have come with Jim Webber have good signs: Scriptural, and not designed simply to offend.  The KJV Only guys have less useful signs, and are still antagonizing folks, but again, what can we do about it?  So we have started trying to use their presence to get our own conversations going, and who knows, maybe by trying to help them "tune" their message, might influence them in the "right" direction, even if not all the way to our viewpoint?  In any case, I was talking to an LDS woman this evening who was just absolutely certain that we shouldn't be there because we had not studied Mormonism enough to say it was wrong.  As we tried to reason with her, we eventually came to the issue of the nature of God, and I mentioned the LDS distinction between Elohim as the Father and Jesus as Jehovah, the Son.  "We don't believe that!" she insisted, and even though I pointed her to "The Father and The Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve" found in Talmage's Articles of Faith (p. 466) she refused to believe me.  Well, we tried.  Keep us in prayer as we have two more nights of work in Mesa. 

DL Half an Hour Early Today
     The DL will be live today at 3:30PM MST, half an hour early due to the need to drive across the Valley (and this is a big valley!) to minister at the LDS Easter Pageant in Mesa.  Sorry I did not post this earlier, but I have not had access to the computer until now.  We will report on the situation at the Pageant on the program, and take your phone calls.

4/7/04:  Daniel Peterson: Lion Behind the Keyboard
     He claimed, with much bravado, that he would debate me "anytime, anyplace" on a radio program in California.  He has yet to back up his words, of course, though he has often been given the opportunity.  Today Dr. Peterson, in his customary fashion, is alleging dishonesty in how we have attempted, vainly, to get Dr. Hamblin to engage the issues of the LDS temples in a meaningful fashion.  Since Peterson and others have been willing to falsely make accusations publicly, we here provide the entirety of the correspondence between myself and Hamblin since March 17, 2004 when he initiated the most recent contact between us.  Further interaction can be viewed here.  Most will not find anything of benefit in watching Dr. Hamblin dodge every rational attempt to establish grounds for debate, but for those who care, here is yet another example of how LDS scholars behave when invited to engage the issues outside of a post-modern "lets all just get along" context.  Remember, this is not some inter-varsity dispute: these men use all of their abilities to foster, defend, and promote a system of teaching that enslaves millions and keeps them from a knowledge of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.  Those who have sought to transfer this battle from that of truth vs. error to the "academy's" post-modern ground of "dialogue" would, it would seem, if they are consistent, have to fault the Apostles for their response to false teaching in the early church.

Update:  Dr. Hamblin's "final word" and a note from Daniel Peterson added to the above linked correspondence file.

4/6/04:  Dr. Hamblin Declines Internet Debate
     Despite Dr. Hamblin's constant reiteration of his desire to debate the topic of temples on the Internet, when I responded to his very first counter-proposal, accepting all his conditions, but not yet arriving at an acceptable thesis statement, he ended the negotiations and said he was not interested.  Hence, our challenge to debate publicly before cameras, in written form in published venues, and even in the form he himself promoted, on the Internet--all have been declined by Dr. Hamblin.  Be watching for the DVD's and CD's of the debate with Richard Hopkins.

4/5/04:  Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts Needs Your Assistance
     Just got a letter about an incredible opportunity the CSNTM has to greatly advance our knowledge of ancient Greek manuscripts relating to the Old and New Testaments.  They need another $6k to make their goal.  This work is vital, so consider helping them.  Visit their site and see the donations page.

For those interested: interaction with TGE.

I would direct you to the current blog by TGE, but it is so completely beyond the bounds of decorum that it makes any further discussion of that particular illustration of FVism/NPism/Medievalism-Gone-Awry worthless.

4/4/04:  And I Thought Utah Would Be A Rest…
     Just back from Utah!  I’ll be reporting on our two debates on The Dividing Line Tuesday, so make sure to listen in.  Briefly, both debates went very well.  We did not get much cooperation from the UofU as far as the venue was concerned, but we persevered and made it work anyway.  The video taping went very well, so keep an eye on the ad column to the right for announcement of the availability of the debates in mp3, CD, and DVD formats.  As normal, the debates were handled in a respectful fashion, and the issues were very clearly presented for those who were in attendance.  Many thanks especially to Jason Wallace, Mike Kwiatkowski, and Brandon Anderson for their help in setting up, etc. 
(Mike Kwiatkowski, Jason Wallace, James White, Rich Pierce, Brandon Anderson)    
    
     Of course, while I was in Utah I was forwarded more of the amazing saga of Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications, a man I thought was an “ally” up until just a few days ago.  I knew he had made some comments about my previous work, The Potter’s Freedom, regarding the issue of regeneration.  I did not pay much attention to his comments at the time, since it was obvious to me he did not understand what I was saying, and I simply did not consider it an important issue.  Well, as you will see if you read down this blog, Mr. Ross has decided to not only comment, but seemingly engage in an extended tirade/crusade on the issue now that my debate with Dave Hunt, Debating Calvinism, is in print.  Despite my attempt to clarify Mr. Ross’ confusion in the blog entries below, he seems to be beyond rational correction (or dialogue).  While in Utah I received an e-mail containing these comments:

(2) JAMES is refuted by the fact that this verse eliminates the idea that one can be regenerated and still not yet be a believer in Christ. It plainly says that the one who believes in Christ IS born of God. Unless James could show elsewhere in Scripture that one who is regenerated IS NOT a believer, this verse crushes James' view to powder.

Seemingly, Ross’ entire “issue” is the assertion that in the ordo salutis the exercise of saving faith is absolutely coterminous with regeneration: i.e., that there cannot be any period of time, seemingly, even a moment, between regeneration and the exercise of saving faith. Even if a person says that 1) God uses means to draw His people unto Himself (i.e., the proclamation of the gospel) and 2) that the exercise of saving faith is utterly inevitable and certain as the result of regeneration (both truths I would affirm), evidently one is still unorthodox in one’s view. 1 John 5:1 says that anyone who is currently believing has been born of God (i.e., the rebirth is that which gives rise to and results in saving faith), but evidently, to be truly orthodox and worthwhile, you must believe that though there is a logical order in the ordo salutis, that there is not the slightest temporal “gap” between the experience of the elect in regeneration and the resultant act of the new nature in believing in Christ.
     I have outlined the issue simply because most folks have no idea what on earth Ross is seeking to argue about. Personally, given the battles we face today on all fronts, arguing with Mr. Ross regarding minute temporal points of the ordo salutis is of no importance to me. I thank those who have forwarded Mr. Ross’ complaints, but I would like to note I do not need anyone to invest their time in forwarding any more of his materials. I have confirmed my belief in the relevant portions of the London Baptist Confession of 1689, and if Mr. Ross disagrees, he is free to do so. I will allow the fair-minded person to consider my work and judge it on its merits.
     This situation does, however, raise the opportunity of once again addressing, briefly, the issue of debates.  Given the number of debates I have done over the years (fifty two such moderated, public debates since 1990) many people assume that I simply live to argue.  Such is not the case.  I truly seek to choose debates that address issues that will help the body of Christ to “give an answer” and speak the truth.  I do not feel the slightest necessity to engage in needless arguments (such as the one with Mr. Ross) as if I am the “big gun” in a small Western town.  For example, many have wondered about the scheduled debate with Douglas Wilson on the nature of the covenant and the concept of Roman Catholics being properly referred to as Christians, as brothers, due to the experience of Trinitarian baptism.  Well, I believe the topic is important: it is causing great confusion amongst those who seek to proclaim the life-giving gospel to Roman Catholics.  Hence, it is a topic that is important and, it seems to be a topic that I can address from a position of strength and knowledge.  There are many topics I simply will not address because unlike many, I do not claim to be an expert on everything there is out there.  I have areas of strength, but I likewise have areas of weakness.  There are many, many who are far more capable than I am in their study of particular issues, but, they lack the ability to speak publicly or to present their great knowledge in an understandable, clear fashion.  Debating requires a group  of skills that not everyone possesses:  you need to be able to speak with clarity, think on your feet, respond to questions quickly and recall facts and scriptural passages on the fly, identify logical errors in your opponents’ argumentation almost instantly, and communicate your position with conviction and passion while remaining respectful and controlled.  As a Calvinist I believe any gifts I have were given to me by my Lord to use in His service and to His glory.  Just because someone else does not have the same gifts does not make me better, or worse; I am just different, and must use my gifts under the direction of the Holy Spirit in the service of His Church.  I foresee a time in the not too distant future when I will be limiting not only my traveling, but the number of debates I do in the course of a year.  I have been averaging one debate every ten to twelve weeks for four years now, and that pace is difficult to maintain. 

Regarding an Internet Debate on Temples with Dr. Hamblin
     A few weeks ago Dr. William Hamblin, associate professor of history at Brigham Young University, declined the invitation offered to him to debate the thesis, “The Building of Temples is Consistent with New Testament Christianity” in a public setting before video cameras.  Shortly thereafter a discussion occurred, referenced on this blog, regarding debates, etc.  On April 2, 2004, I debated Richard Hopkins on the same subject on the campus of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City (audio and video recordings will be available soon).  During the conversation with Dr. Hamblin prior to the Salt Lake debate, I indicated that, after the weekend of debates in Utah (I also debated the issue of homosexual marriage the next evening, also at the University of Utah), I would consider his challenge to “debate” the issue in written form on the Internet.  I remind the reader that we have a standing challenge to Dr. Hamblin and to others who have been, or currently are, associated with F.A.R.M.S., to join in the dialogue that has been taking place now for a number of years in Utah.  In cooperation with Jason Wallace and Christ Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City, we have now done ten moderated, public debates in the Salt Lake area.  Those who have taken the time to either attend (we had one couple drive from Texas for the two debates April 2-3) or to view the debates on video know well that the debates are handled respectfully and properly.  All accusations made against the debates that we have heard have come only from those who did not attend or have not actually viewed the debates.  Also, please note that I also suggested to Dr. Hamblin that if we are going to invest the time to write our positions in a debate format, we should consider pursuing a publication project with a major publisher.  Dr. Hamblin has not shown any interest in following that route, either.  Hence, I respond now to the challenge to debate the topic of temples in written form to be posted on the Internet.
                Both Dr. Hamblin and I teach in undergraduate and graduate contexts, he for Brigham Young University, I for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and Columbia Evangelical Seminary.  I am currently teaching Systematic Theology II and Development of Patristic Theology, and I’m sure Dr. Hamblin has a busy teaching schedule as well.  I do not know of his current publishing schedule, but I know that I have hundreds of pages of publishable material to produce this year, along with at least four more debates, along with teaching during the summer session at the main campus of GGBTS in Mill Valley, CA, and teaching an apologetics class in the Fall as well.  Hence, simply due to time constraints, I propose a very controlled, concise exchange on the topic that allows for sufficient time to write our responses without cutting too deeply into class preparation time, etc.  Hence, I am proposing the following format and thesis.  I am doing so in public, and propose that the debate be posted “in process,” i.e., as it takes place, so that our readers can follow along.  We invite Dr. Hamblin to provide a counter-proposal.  Once an acceptable format for both sides has been agreed upon, we can proceed with the exchange.

Proposed Thesis:  The Building of Temples for Worship and Priesthood Activities is an Essential Element of New Testament Christianity

Proposed Outline: 

Opening Statements:  Hamblin:  3000 words  White: 3000 words
First Cross Examination:  Each participant will provide three questions of less than 250 words, to which the respondent will answer in less than 750 words.
First Rebuttal:  Hamblin:  1000 words  White:  1000 words
Second Cross Examination:  Same format as first.
Second Rebuttal:  Hamblin:  500 words  White:  500 words
Closing Statements:  Hamblin: 1500 words  White:  1500 words

I propose doing the debate in two-week segments; that is, the opening statements would be posted two weeks from the agreed upon initiation of the debate; cross-examination questions due four days later, with responses due ten days later; first rebuttals due two weeks later; etc. 
     The debate would be posted at www.aomin.org and a website of Dr. Hamblin’s choice, concurrently.  We hope to hear from Dr. Hamblin regarding his counter-proposal by April 9^th, 2004.

One Quick Note About "Blog Wars"
     There can't be a war without two sides.  You will note I have refrained from posting anything in a number of days.  Has this slowed down the vituperative rhetoric from certain quarters?  Not in the slightest.  Even when I returned to my hotel after defending the institution of marriage in debate (remember, I just want to live in my little enclave and let the culture self-destruct) I found more rhetoric flying about without the slightest bit of provocation on my part.  You know, someone who can keep arguing (and in fact become more and more shrill) when the other side has left the room probably wasn't listening in the first place.  J

4/1/04:  Heading to Salt Lake
     That normally means I'm headed into unfriendly territory, but given the current bombardment at home, I think I will enjoy the time away....
     Friday night the debate on the issue of temples with a Mormon representative at the University of Utah, Saturday night a debate on homosexual marriage, same venue. 
     DL this afternoon/evening: your calls, some comments on TGE, Dave Armstrong, Bob Ross, and the Open Theists amongst the Mormons. 
     Random thought: the Yamaha Road Star Warrior is the prettiest piece of machinery I've ever seen.  J

Bob Ross on the Warpath [Updated]
     I do not recall ever having mentioned Bob Ross in anything I have ever written, nor in any of my public talks or sermons.  Despite this, for some reason, Mr. Ross has decided to engage in a crusade to warn "true Calvinists" that I am not really a Calvinist.  I assume this is because of my recent book with Dave Hunt, I don't know.  In any case, I am having a number of things forwarded to me, and truly, the last thing on earth I want to do is respond to someone who calls me a Pelagian.  I mean, what could be more absurd anyway?  Today I received a number of quotes, produced by Ross, from Spurgeon, Gill, and Pink, which concluded with this:

It is obvious from these brief quotes from Spurgeon, Gill, and Pink that James White holds a view on Lazarus which is in direct contrast to that of these Calvinists. It seems that James' sole purpose in referring to Lazarus is an effort to support his "logical" apparatus to sustain his Pelagian-like view that "command implies ability," and that this necessitates his theory on the new birth that "life precedes faith." He must have Lazarus alive before he hears the Word of Christ, for this is the "ordo salutis" view of the new birth which James is determined to prove. -- Bob L. Ross

Mr. Ross, there wasn't a word those men said that I did not completely agree with.  You do not understand me and are misrepresenting me.  Christ's Word brought life to Lazarus, as Spurgeon said.  Ross writes:

No one was ever a more staunch Calvinist than Dr. Gill, and he always associated the use of means with the power of the Spirit in calling men to Christ.

I agree, wholeheartedly.  Never said anything other.  I agree fully with the 1689 London Confession:

When God converts a sinner, and brings him out of sin into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage to sin and, by His grace alone, He enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good. (9:4)

And,

At a time appointed by and acceptable to God, those whom God has predestined to life are effectually called by His Word and Spirit out of the state of death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.  Their minds are given spiritual enlightenment and, as those who are being saved, they begin to understand the things of God.  God takes away their heart of stone and gives them a heart of flesh.  He renews their will, and by His almighty power He sets them to seek and follow that which is good, at the same time effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ.  And to all these changes they come most freely, for they are made willing by divine grace.  (10:1)

I would appreciate it if Mr. Ross would go back to doing what he does so well: publishing Spurgeon's works.  I publicly reject his misrepresentation of my writings, and exhort him to aim his literary cannons where they might do some good.  As for me, this is the last I will have to say about it.  There are more important issues to address.

Update:  I do sometimes feel like I have fallen down the rabbit hole and things have become very, very strange indeed.  Now I read that Bob Ross wants to debate me!  On what?  I have no idea, since I have agreed with every quote he's produced.  So I guess we are supposed to debate his misunderstanding of my position.  Yeah, right.  Is it a full moon or what?