Apologetic Blog

Pros Apologian: Thoughts from the Apologetic Front

James White

Pros apologian is the Greek phrase translated
"toward a defense" in 1 Peter 3:15

larger image
 

10/27/04:  Discerning the Real Fuss in October, or a Delightfully Readable Parable for the Day of Reformation, or a Digital Record of the Reformation, or…Well, You Get the Idea
     Sometimes reading modern takes on Luther and the Reformation makes one wonder if the radical willingness to rewrite history hasn’t gone just a bit too far in theological circles.  Such is surely the case of late as some have been attempting to recast the German Augustinian monk in the form of a modern English prelate known for his odd takes on theological history and for his penchant for theologizing.  The Englishman’s followers seem to expect to hear the cry “Here I stand, God help me!” coming from his lips (with the proper English accent, of course) at any moment as his new perspective sweeps out the dusty halls of academia.  Those who are not nearly as excited about his monochromatic view of justification, which is truly a great leap backwards from the richness of the concept in Scripture, are seen as mere traditionalists by the zealous followers of the bishop of Durham, benighted souls unable to delve into the richness of his impressive theologizing.
     For some odd reason the would-be-Luther of England at times seems confused when those who do not find his theories compelling disagree, even strongly.  It seems odd to he and his followers that the great light they offer would not be welcomed by all.  Yet, given that he so often misrepresents the Reformers and their reading of the New Testament (and of Judaism), and in practice presents a conclusion utterly outside the realm of the faith of those who do not follow him, should it be so surprising that someone might say, “Excuse me, but, that’s not the truth!”?
     Of course, the Luther of old was inviting debate when he published his 95 Theses: and anyone who has read them knows he was still a good Roman Catholic when he wrote them.  In fact, there really wasn’t much new in them.  What he said had been said by others before him.  But in God’s providence, it was when he said them, and where he said them that mattered.  Luther did not, as some of our modern revisionists would have us believe, intend to start a rebellion, a reformation, or anything else.  He saw an abuse, a gross abuse, and though he did not, at the time, truly see where it would lead him, he spoke out.  The door of the church was the village “bulletin board,” and his challenge was meant to be taken in the context of one professor from a university seeking a competition with one from another university (the equivalent of our modern-day football rivalry, as would be seen later in the debate between Luther and Eck in Leipzig). 
     Luther’s protest at first was just one amongst many, and at the time, Rome was really, really busy being the big political machine it developed into over the centuries.  The Papacy was distracted, and hence did not appease the German monk as she so easily could have done (and had done so many times before).  Luther’s condemnation of indulgences touched upon the growing nationalistic spirit of the time, which did not like the idea of money flowing (in the form of indulgence selling) from poor Germany into rich Italy just to build up the papal palaces (the funds built St. Peter’s basilica).  How very different from today’s revisionists who dare to think that someone would respond to the would-be-Luther of Durham for financial reasons!  Goodness, one could get along so much easier in “the Academy” today by nodding and heaping praise upon anything that is new (and publishable…and novel, and…new).  All the money folks spend on the bi-monthly new book published in defense of various new perspectives has to go somewhere.  But the zealous proponents of the new, which is really not overly new, but is definitely a lot less than the old, and surely will not satisfy for long, seem to have a problem taking criticism.

“We can’t have people questioning our exegesis or our view of Scripture!” they bemoaned.

“Why can’t people love our favorite theologian-who-sees-and-knows-all just like we do?” they wailed.

The Hypocrisy of the Left
If you are a leftist, you can run for office from the pulpit of a church.  If you are a conservative, you can't.  If you are a leftist, you can produce films filled with outrageous lies and ridiculous conspiracy theories, and you will be celebrated and paid handsomely; if you produce a film on the right that is fully documented and true, members of Congress will write to the FCC to try to suppress your work.  Truth lies wounded in the streets indeed.  Since the left has succeeded, in the main, to suppress history itself, take a little over 40 minutes of your time and watch this.

The Byzantine Priority Argument on 2 Cor. 11:32
     I heard back from Dr. Robinson, and he mentioned that there is a better, fuller presentation of his position on line, available here.  And he said he does read my blog!  Made my day.
     Here is the argument Dr. Robinson presented, almost verbatim:

It is peculiar that the na27/ubs4 editors would reason in such a manner, particularly since their own evidence suggests a very simple transcriptional reason for the omission of qelwn in the two (and only two) Greek mss out of approximately 600 that contain this passage, reflecting all known text types.

If the particular archetype of B and D* (also the respective now-lost Greek archetypes of it-d, it-61 vg sy-p cop-sa arm) had read the transposition QELWN PIASAI ME (as is found in F G 1739), the omission could easily have occurred due to homoioteleuton of WN^WN, skipping from the prior ending of DAMASKHNWN to the ending of QELWN. That such a transposition with a consequent omission by h..t. could occur in whatever archetypes may independently have underlay the various versional witnesses is likewise no surprise.

Further, the transposed form would reflect a far more "natural" manner of syntactical expression than the Byzantine PASAI ME QELWN, which peculiarly places the infinitive before the participle. One need only compare the remaining nt instances of qelwn with an infinitive present to see this point amply illustrated: cf. Mt 1:19; 14:5; Lk 10:29; 14:28; 23:8, 20; Ac 24:27; 25;9; Ro 9:22; Heb 12:17; 1Pet 3:10. Apart from the peculiar Byzantine placement here of the infinitive before qelwn, there are no other instances of such in either nt or lxx, which clearly makes the Byzantine construction the "more difficult" reading.

If the preceding scenario is valid, and the reading of B D* arose by h. t. skipping from an archetypal DAMASKHNWN QELWN PIASAI ME, the issue then becomes a choice between the slimly supported QELWN PIASAI ME (F G 1739) or the strongly supported PIASAI ME QELWN – the latter being not only syntactically "more difficult,", but also supported by the widest variety of mss and versional testimony.

As usual, I suggest the Byzantine reading to be more likely correct than vice versa.

There's the argument.  I'll respond from my perspective soon.

10/26/04:  Good Grief (Said in Charlie Brown Voice)
     So I get this e-mail today from DR saying that if I really accepted the apology for the last colorful-metaphor-filled blast from a staff member there, I'd pull it from my blog.  I pointed out in response that I would, but, since I read the letter on the air, and mentioned I had posted it on my blog, its absence might create more questions.  I sorta figured it was better to just let it stand, note the apology, and move on.  But, if they wanted it gone, I'd pull it.  Anyway, it was obvious Paul of DR had a point he wanted to make, so I invited him to make it, pointing out that I was not the first person to receive "love notes" from DR: folks have been sending me URLs to complaints about just such behavior for the past few weeks (I had no idea it had been going on so long and was so widespread).  And what do I get in response?
 

Ah, I love the smell of napalm in another DR e-mail.  For those wondering, my dear wife had sent a note about the earlier flame-throwing e-mail, and mentioned that long ago, as a child, I decided to never go into the ministry because of the fact that I saw my father so badly treated by "Christians."  So, the bunker mentality is in such full force up north that you can misrepresent an author's book, cuss him out, rip his lips off, tell him to crawl back into his Pharisaical Reformed Baptist hole, and it is all his fault too!  As we say in channel, w00t!  Thanks guys, I'm growing in my discernment every day... 

More on 2Cor. 11:32 and Textual Criticism
     I am tremendously honored to discover that Dr. Maurice Robinson, Senior Professor of New Testament and Greek at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, NC) reads my blog…though, I realize, it may just be that someone forwarded the current blog entry to him for his comment (I’ll hope for the former, but expect the latter).  Anyway, Dr. Robinson is one of the foremost proponents of the priority of the Byzantine text type in the US today (the Robinson-Pierpont text is included in the BibleWorks Bible program which we highly recommend here at aomin.org).  His published work is titled The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Byzantine-Majority Textform.  I had the pleasure of being in contact with him a decade ago now while I was writing The King James Only Controversy. 
     In any case, Dr. Robinson wrote to suggest a different way of looking at the textual variant I commented on this morning in 2 Cor. 11:32 (which I had picked simply because I was looking for something that involved an infinitive, and that due to the comments I made about needing to work harder on bringing my grasp of the syntax of infinitives up to the level of my darling participles).  I realize that textual critical discussions do not prompt cries of joy and excitement from the large portion of the Christian community---I have always been rather odd in truly enjoying the examination and discussion of textual variants.  So I promise not to fill the blog completely with this discussion.  I’ll break it up.  But for those of you who are serious about these things, you might well find the discussion useful.
     If you are one of those who find the discussion challenging because of the vocabulary used, you might want to consider picking up some basic resources, such as:

The Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition Greek New Testament, Novum Testamentum Graece.  A library in one hand once you master the notation system. 
The King James Only Controversy.  Yeah, yeah, I know, I wrote it.  But it is used as a text all across the land for the simple reason that it introduces the key issues in an understandable and interesting fashion.  Humor me!
The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger.  The classic introductory text.
Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, David Alan Black, ed.  This work includes Dr. Robinson’s essay, “The Case for Byzantine Priority.”

10/25/04:  Killing Two Birds/One Stone
     Fast "weekend" so I'm behind already.  Peoria, IL, this weekend, back Tuesday, gone again Thursday for LA and the debate/ conference/cruise!  Time is short, blogging will be brief for a while.
     So as to utilize my time better, I tried to find a textual variant in the New Testament that involved an infinitive but that would also allow me to make some comments regarding the proliferation of anti-Christian Muslim apologetics materials criticizing the textual basis of the Bible.  Muslims, operating on the false assumption of the perfection of the text of the Qur'an (a false assumption that simply cannot survive the reality of the Uthmanian revision and the presence of major textual variation in early versions of the Qur'an that, in many cases, are not easily examined today due to the tendency of Muslims to kill people who dare question such things, whether those people are Muslim or non-Muslim), point to the presence of textual variation in the New Testament manuscript tradition as evidence of the imperfection and corruption of the biblical text.  Most Christians are completely ignorant of the backgrounds of the Bible and the process of textual criticism (something I tried to help address in my own way by writing The King James Only Controversy), and hence are easily stymied by the simple citation of textual data that is available to any first year Greek student. 
     I came up with the variant found at 2 Cor. 11:32.  The verse reads in the NASB,

In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me,

The final phrase reads in the UBS/NA27 texts, "pia,sai me," "to seize me."  This is the reading of B, D*, a number of early translations, and some early Fathers.  F and G, two witnesses that are clearly transcriptionally related and that often go off on their own, read,   qe,lwn pia,sai me, which would be, "wishing to seize me."  And then a large number of witnesses, including Aleph, H, Y, uncials, a number of minuscules, and the Byzantine text (hence, the reading of the TR), reads pia,sai me qe,lwn, which is also translated "wishing to seize me" (this is the reading of the KJV, "desirous to apprehend me").  Now, the infinitive by itself (as translated by the NASB) can carry with it this concept of purpose or result, and hence is rendered "in order to seize me."  The variant is three fold, for it includes the absence of the word "wishing," and its presence twice, first before the infinitival phrase, then after (which is translationally negligible at this point). 
     The first thing to note is that the meaning of the text is not materially altered by any of the choices made.  The majority of variations in the NT are of the same kind, and very rarely is the ultimate meaning of the text at stake in the textual choice.  Secondly, one of the three readings is the original. The original reading has not been "lost," but remains with us.  Third, while the Majority Text reading (the third listed) has the largest variety of support, the NA27/UBS editors chose the shorter reading, reasoning that there is no textual reason for the omission of qe,lwn, but there is reason why later scribes would wish to insert it to smooth out the text and fill out the implied function of the infinitival phrase.
     One thing is truly clear: we should cherish the freedom we have in non-Muslim nations to even discuss such things, for to raise questions about the textual purity of the Qur'an in many nations today would result in swift imprisonment and even death.  We should truly pray for God's continued blessing (in the form of repentance and revival, the only things that will stop the Muslim expansion!) so that we will be able to freely, and without fear, speak the truth.

10/22/04:  It's a True Story
    Last summer, down on Lake Isabella, located in the high desert, an hour east of Bakersfield, CA, some folks, new to boating, were having a problem. No matter how hard they tried, they couldn't get their brand new 22 foot boat, going. It was very sluggish in almost every maneuver, no matter how much power they applied. After about an hour of trying to make it go, they putted into a nearby marina, thinking someone there may be able to tell them what was wrong. A thorough topside check revealed everything in perfect working condition. The engine ran fine, the out-drive went up and down, and the propeller was the correct size and pitch. So, one of the marina guys jumped in the water to check underneath. He came up choking on water, he was laughing so hard. Under the boat, still strapped securely in place, was the trailer!
     Now, upon reading this and chuckling like everyone else, I stopped to ponder it just a bit more.  The boat looked, at the surface level, like it was in fine shape.  The engine roared, the gauges showed it to be working fine, but it was a dog anyway.  Why?  Well, we truly wonder about the basic IQ of anyone who would just drive the boat, replete with trailer, into the water, but the fact of the matter is there are a lot of folks putt-putting around in fine looking theological systems wondering why they won't go anywhere, and strapped to the underside of their sleek boats is the dead weight of a massive system of tradition, sucking the life out of the ability of the boat to do anything meaningful at all.  But it seems tradition hides quite well, and for most, putt-putting around is about as adventurous as they want to get anyway.  But I couldn't help thinking about how our traditions do just what that trailer did: suck the life right out of the power of the Word of God to propel us forward.  As I watch much of the formal church in the Western world spin off into either zany evangelical nuttiness (turn on that one TV network, you'll see) or fracture into all sorts of Rodney King style ecumenical social clubs on the other, I can't help but long for the time when sola scriptura released its life-changing power, knowing full well that the Word is the same today as it was then.  So if your boat is under-performing, do a man-made tradition check.  You'll be amazed at the results!

10/21/04:  Sorry 'Bout the DL
     Obviously, it was not meant to be.  A fairly heavy rainstorm came into Phoenix (we need it, and I love temperatures in the 50s!!!), and in the afternoon our phone lines began failing.  Hence, no calls for the DL.  I quickly tried to download some clips on the issue of Calvinism and God's knowledge to play and respond to instead.  But, the main one recorded blank, and as I tried to re-record it, my system began coming apart: sections of windows not displaying, etc.  So I had to reset, and when I did, it all blew up.  Found out later for some reason the soundcard is demanding that I not use an alternate set of drivers I have used without a problem for a long time, and hence I could not even access the microphone controls to turn it off, etc.  It was a mess.  So we just shut her down.  That's what happens.  The folks in channel who started whining were a real encouragement, to be sure.  Anyway, Lord willing, the phone lines will be back on Tuesday, and we can take another run at it.

Grammar and Syntax
     When you study Greek as a first year student you work hard to learn basic paradigm rules and apply them so as to be able to recognize the grammatical forms of the language (in the older way of learning you just memorized huge tables of forms, but we have learned that is a very counter-productive way of doing it).  And about halfway through you start getting excited about being able to tell the difference between a genitive and an accusative noun form, or becoming comfortable with the present indicative verb forms.
     At the beginning of your second year of study, though, you start to realize that you are not nearly as far along as you thought you were, for that is when you discover the wonderful world of syntax.  Grammar speaks to the basic forms of words in the language, while syntax takes the next step toward true communication of meaning, the relationship of those words and phrases in sentences.  When studying syntax you learn how truly expressive those basic grammatical forms can be when placed in certain constructions.  My favorite area of syntactical study has always been participles.  I find them simply fascinating.
     But to the surprise of many, the one area of syntactical study that has always challenged me is that of infinitives.  This is a bit odd simply because on a grammatical level, infinitives are nice and simple and easy to recognize.  But on the syntactical level and in translation, they have been the bane of my existence.  It is like the "syntax of infinitives" portion of my brain has a coating of Teflon: they just don't stick.  Oh, sure, eis to + infinitive is easy, but that's probably because when you've read the Pauline corpus enough times it gets drilled into your head. But I guess for my mind the infinitive falls into that wonderful land of "idiom" that remains a challenge.
     And so I have decided to exercise personal discipline, like the Olympic athlete---well, ok, like the geeky grammarian---and have decided to tackle this area once and for all!  Infinitives, I serve you warning!  You will not fluster me any longer!  OK....substantival, adverbial...anarthrous and articular...here we go....

OK, Another Last Word
     I thought I should note that Julie from DR wrote and apologized for her e-mail.  Only fair to mention that.

10/20/04:  Last Word on the DR Stuff
     Man, I am truly sick of nuttiness.  I will keep this very, very brief.
     1)  I had promoted DR for years, even when I started to hear complaints about their service, and thought, until late May of this year, that we were "on the same page."
     2)  Even when RS responded to me in a completely improper way, I did not speak of it publicly (May/June).
     3)  RS first decided to go public in his defense of NPism and attacks on me.  I simply refuted his assertions (without colorful metaphors).  He apologized, I thought it was over.
     4)  9/14 RS e-mailed me, quoting Owen and getting personal.  I ignored it.
     5)  Last Friday someone quoted the section in the review of The God Who Justifies alleging it does not contain exegesis but "theologizing."  I rebutted this on the blog.
     6)  E-mails exchanged, including accusation that I am to blame for the demise of DR while I am speaking in Oklahoma.  "Julie" from the DR fires off nasty note attacking myself, Phil Johnson, and Steve Camp. 
     7)  I do the DL and respond to both RS and Julie. 
     8)  Follow up e-mails blame me for all ills at DR. 

Obviously, this is a no-win situation.  There's the chronology, I leave it to the Lord to judge.  I'm moving on.

10/19/04:  One Hour Radio Encounter with Dave Hunt Scheduled
     I was asked today if I would be on with Dave Hunt on December 1st on Chuck Crismier's national radio program to discuss Calvinism.  Obviously, a single hour isn't a debate, and I will offer the debate during the program once again, but it's better than nothing, I suppose.  We will keep you informed of further developments.

10/18/04:  On the DL Today: The UnDiscerning Reader Proclaims James White "The Biggest Jerk of ALL" and Other Words We Can't Use Unless We Want to Lose the NASCAR Title...
     Update:  Spent the first 25 minutes of the DL discussing the Discerning Reader situation, and in particular, the kind letter written by Julie of the DR which included such glowing lines as:

And who is doing the talking? Nice Calvinists like you.  Jerks. (All the ladies concur you are the biggest jerk of all, James.)...You have destroyed the work God was doing through this ministry. How shameful for someone who is supposed to shepherd the flock. God will destroy you, Dr. White. Along with Phil Johnson and Steve Camp you have slandered us terribly. So much for your doctrines of GRACE....I pity you Dr. White. In addition to being a royal jerk you are just a sad example of a human being. Your Christianity sucks.  Big time.

I can't include all of the, as Spock once put it, colorful metaphors, that seem to pepper DR e-mails, but you get the flavor.  So, since the DR folks have unjustly and unfairly been telling folks that I have tried to shut them down (I think I need to rent Conspiracy sometime to figure this stuff out), I decided I might as well join the movement and fulfill their desires.  Calvinists are mean, nasty people: they are behind all the evils in the world, and if a customer is unhappy because they don't get their books for months on end, well, that's the Calvinists' fault, too.  In fact, though I have heard of complaints for years, long before the owner of DR started sending me those colorful metaphors, I am to blame for those, too!  So now you know the truth: I've been behind the Great Calvinistic Conspiracy all along.  And while we are at it, I was behind the demise of Loyal Publishing, too.  And the flu vaccine thing?  Yup, me again.  Oh, and I planned the Red Sox comeback, and the rise in oil prices.  Go ahead and blame me.  It's the fashionable thing!

DL Today at 4PM
     Lord willing and I survive my flight back from Oklahoma we will have a DL at 4pm instead of the normal 11am. 
     Also, Rob Schläpfer informs me the inaccurate and false description of The God Who Justifies has been there for months.  Other than that, he didn't have any defense of the misrepresentation (outside of reminding me what a nasty fellow I am and how I am attacking him, etc. and etc.). 
     Had a great time here in Edmond.  Neat folks, lots of interest in apologetics. 

10/16/04:  The Not-So-Discerning Reader
     A few months ago some back and forth with Rob Schläpfer, owner of The Discerning Reader, appeared on my blog.  I thought that while DR was taking a decidedly non-Reformed direction, at least the personal animosity expressed by Mr. Schläpfer had subsided.  Unfortunately, my hopes on that level diminished when he sent me a note echoing the personal nastiness associated with the well known writer of ad-hominem, Paul Owen. I ignored it.  But today someone pointed out that it seems the description of The God Who Justifies has been changed at the DR website.  Now, I know that not everyone at DR has jumped onto the "Calvinists are nasty people, we are not Reformed, NT Wright rocks!" bandwagon, and I'm thankful for those folks.  And the description had always contained a note that (just as the book says and explains in the text) I did not deal with NPism nor with any system based upon the fundamental denial of the inerrancy and ultimate authority of Scripture.  I still happen to believe that what we have taught about justification is very much the heart of the gospel, and unless someone knows that first, the dangers of these other views will seem like nothing more than nit-picking by theologians with way too much time on their hands.  But unless we are mistaken, the new description has absorbed a blatantly false accusation that has appeared repeatedly in Schläpfer's statements.  We quote the relevant portion as it appears now on the website:

Advanced students will want to ponder the more exegetical — less theological — arguments from contemporary New Testament scholars such as Tom Wright, Paul Barnett, Don Garlington and others. In fact, the real weakness of the book is that it fails to address the issues that are truly on the forefront of today's theological discussions. One would hope that a future revision of The God Who Justifies will do so — through careful exegesis of the texts, as opposed to merely thoughtful citations from the confessions and theologians of the Reformed past.

Those of you who have read the book must, at this point, be winching your jaw back into place.  Anyone who has read the book knows that the reviewer (Schläpfer) is grossly misrepresenting the text itself.  Why?  Because unless it is Wright, it isn't exegesis, or so he has come to believe.  Anyone who can read the chapters on Romans 3-4, or James 2, and conclude they are "thoughtful citations from the confessions and theologians of the Reformed past" rather than exegetical in nature is obviously not dealing with reality, but is clearly agenda-driven.  Let the reader discern!

10/15/04:  Mike from Covina on BAM 10/8
     It seems the Roman Catholics gang-called the Bible Answer Man show when Paul Maier was on regarding Luther.  Around the 42 minute mark a fellow who sounds vaguely familiar to me who identified himself as a Roman Catholic, Mike from Covina, calls in with a clearly pre-written question presenting an argument against eternal security.  He places it in the context of justification.  He describes a man who has no interest in spiritual things, no evidence of spiritual life.  And when Maier, a Lutheran, says he does not believe in "once justified, always justified," Mike the RC shows he has not the foggiest idea what others believe (though I get the feeling he is quite confident they are wrong anyway) when he mentions me and joins me with Jimmy Swaggart in preaching that once a person is justified, they will remain justified.  Now, I guess Swaggart would be the one who would have the most reason to be offended, since that is obviously not what he believed (is he even still around?).  But to join my theology, and in particular, my soteriology, with Swaggart is simply laughable.  And once again we see the same phenomena I have noted repeatedly in the past: while we expend every effort to make sure our representation of the theology of, say, Rome, is accurate to the documentation Rome herself provides, those like Mike in Covina who can be so very dogmatic in their denunciation of others' beliefs do not feel constrained to expend that level of effort. 
     For Mike's benefit, I do believe Romans 8:29-30, which states:

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Mike may notice that the one whom God justifies He also glorifies: all who are justified are glorified.  This is not true in Mike's system (nor, evidently, in Maier's view either).  But at the very same time, the scenario he presented would never, ever represent what I teach.  He spoke of a person shaking a pastor's hand and receiving confirmation of his justification, something that would never happen in my church, that's for sure.  Perhaps Mike should listen to my sermon on James 2, or read the chapter on that passage in The God Who Justifies?  In either case, it was rather humorous to hear my name put in the same context as Jimmy Swaggart. 

My Apologies for Being Less than Blog-o-rific….
     We mercilessly tease one of our #prosapologian regulars about advertising his blog as “blog-o-rific” even though his blog will go for months without a single change. So I feel badly when days go by without my adding something of benefit to the kind folks who take the time to stop by. But weeks where I am traveling both weekends are generally so massively compressed there is little time for almost anything (let alone when the Secret Service shows up…see the DL for 10/14 for details!), and throw in yet another trip after this weekend’s visit to Edmond, OK (Peoria, IL) followed immediately by LA and the debate/conference/cruise, and you can see why blogging has taken a back seat for the foreseeable future.
     Another reason for the less than blog-o-rific week is that I confess the sin of anxiety. I have very strong feelings about the current election. We have Supreme Court justices who have quite simply been “hanging on” in hopes of a change in Washington. The older I get, the more I think of the future in terms of what kind of world my children’s children will face. I confess to a non-post-millenial view of things, that’s for sure (yes, I realize you can be a postie and still believe the US is busily jumping off a cliff, morally and ethically), and I have said more than once I view this election as a choice between the slow, but continual march off the cliff, and the sudden catapulting of the entirety of the nation over said cliff. But in such a situation, one fights for the good and prays for national repentance. I have been deeply disappointed in the utter lack of common sense prevailing amongst many Christians as well. But I really can’t say what I would like to say on this blog, as it isn’t my personal blog. Just remember folks, one side would like to see my book, The Same Sex Controversy, judged “hate speech.” One side would like to force us to accept “same sex marriage” as a legitimate and moral union. One side denies the humanity of the pre-born, promotes partial-birth infanticide, and the destruction of human life for the “betterment” of those who manage to survive those first nine, perilous months of life. One side would take away your responsibility to protect your wife and children from evil men. There surely is no hope in any political party, and I have been deeply disappointed by men I had hoped would have more backbone. But really, the choice, seen in the light of simple common sense, seems very, very clear. But as I said, I confess the sin of anxiety, and well know that even in a nation under wrath and judgment, our duties, indeed, our privileges, are laid out for us in Scripture, and we must press on, by God’s grace, no matter what the obstacles before us.

10/14/04:  Quick response to Dave Armstrong’s “Open Letter.”
Dave:
     Regarding your suggestion that you and I spend an hour on the DL “chatting” and getting to know each other: I don’t believe that would be a proper investment of an hour of our webcast.  While at times we do less than serious things for portions of the show, I don’t think  “getting to know your local Roman Catholic apologist” has ever appeared on the proposed topics list (not that I generally make one anyway).  My conversation on the Dividing Line to which you refer was about people who have no knowledge of my writings or my debates making absurd but deeply personal accusations based fully and completely upon ignorance.  And the caller, aside from having said I was yellow-bellied, had no “history” with me that goes back for years and is less than pleasant, including, in just the past few months, illegally altered and utilized copyrighted materials.  One does not simply sweep such history under the rug and “make nice.” 
     If you wish to come on The Dividing Line, then we shall surely seek to accommodate you.  However, I would wish to discuss the issues that separate us.  You say Roman Catholicism is biblical.  I say it is not.  Most of the material on the web just keeps repeating the same old things over and over again.  Shall we address key exegetical issues, relating to justification, election, atonement, the New Covenant, etc.?  This is the kind of interaction the listeners of The Dividing Line appreciate and can utilize.  If you would like to do this, we can make arrangements. 
     Regarding a written debate (something about which you have written often on your blog), I am currently under contract for two books, wish I had time to be working on a third, and have three major articles to write before January.  I am teaching a Jan term class, and have been traveling more than ever in my entire life (and more than I really would like).  Over the next 18 months or so I am tentatively scheduled to visit England, Singapore, and Israel, all in a teaching capacity.  Unless you could suggest a topic that would truly offer something widely useful and helpful that is not covered elsewhere, I do not see how I would be wise to invest time in such an adventure.

Sincerely,
James

10/12/04:  Just Busy Studying
     Since returning from Little Rock I've been working at preparing for Edmond, OK this weekend and the debate in LA.  Just a few representative Federal Vision quotes in passing.  Doug Wilson wrote:

Our duty is simply to accept this. And this means we must maintain that there is a union with Christ that all baptized Christians share, whether those Christians are reprobate or not. In this sense, there is no covenantal distinction between the elect and the reprobate within the covenant. But it also requires us to maintain that there is a decretal distinction between the elect and the reprobate within the covenant. This decretal distinction is then manifested in history by means of covenant members who either keep or break covenant. The covenant is kept by grace through faith, and the covenant is broken through unbelief. When the covenant is kept, it is kept by faith in the only One who kept covenant perfectly, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the only true covenant keeper, and we keep covenant through faith in Him–and that faith is a gift, lest any boast. Unbelief that causes the covenant to be broken is unbelief in Jesus Christ, either through rejection of the covenant, or through attempts to keep covenant on our own apart from Him.

Steve Schlissel:

Galatians 3:28…and Romans 3:28…are verses which have oft been extorted from their contexts, stripped of their author’s intent, dressed in the style of their captors, and reduced to servitude in contrived systems.  If anyone should speak of restoring the verses to their original settings, the taskmasters scurry to their battlements and snipe.  That’s understandable, I suppose.  After all, it’s hard to find good servants; their lords are loathe to let them go.

10/9/04:  Speaking at The Bible Church of Little Rock
     I'll be with Lance Quinn and the folks at The Bible Church of Little Rock this Sunday morning to speak on Sola Gratia.  I will be illustrating what it means in the preaching of the Lord Jesus from John chapter six.  See the calendar page for further trips (two more after this before we head to LA for the debate!) and details.

10/8/04:  New Book (Free Advertisement!)
     Sam Waldron's work on the New Covenant as the manifesto for the church is out.  Click here.

Bruised Nerve?  Or Perfect Provision?
     Every element of God’s truth can be twisted to provide cover for man’s sin.  Paul recognized this when he asked “Shall we continue in sin that grace might abound?  May it never be!” (Romans 6:1-2).  Paul’s doctrine of grace clearly had been twisted by his opponents so that he had to respond to this objection. 
     Some suggest the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (especially in the context of the claim that this is an addition to the biblical teaching about the forgiveness wrought in the cross) leads to an inadvertent bruising of the nerve that leads from justification to obedience, that the doctrine of imputation as classically presented by faithful Protestants of generations past is unable to make the “transition” into “Christian life.”  And surely one can understand the concern.  If one takes a crass, unrealistic view of the doctrine (surely in a fashion unfair to Protestant orthodoxy), it could be said that the imputed righteousness of Christ could be looked at as if it were an unlimited account of merit, leading a person to believe that they can simply “transfer” from this “account” to cover their secret sins, their apathy, their unwillingness to mortify the flesh and follow Christ.
     Over against such a viewpoint, however, I would like to suggest that the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ is the perfect provision for the Christian, a bulwark of truth against the constant encroachment of the sinful nature and its desire to rob from God the glory of His work of salvation.  Specifically, what attitude do we see in Scripture drawing the greatest wrath and disdain from our Lord, but that of the Pharisees?  Was not their self-righteousness, exhibited in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, and in the woes of Matthew 23, and in their constant battles with the Lord over mercy and law and tradition, the single attitude that drew from the Incarnate Lord the strongest words of denunciation?  So how do we avoid the great sin of self-righteousness in the Christian life? 
     God has provided us with many aids to help us in this battle.  The Supper constantly reminds us of the cost by which we have been redeemed, at the same time graphically showing us our helplessness and reminding us that we were joined to Christ before we drew our first breath.  How than can we boast in anyone but the Lord?  The great doctrine of election, despised by so many, is a great aid in battling self-righteousness, for the only doctrine of election that is meaningful is that of unconditional election.  God set His love upon an undeserving people from eternity past, not for anything in them, but solely to the praise of His glorious grace.  The regular reflection of the redeemed heart upon that truth cannot but drive from us any thought of self-righteousness.
     But one of the greatest weapons God has given to His people to battle self-righteousness is the great truth that we stand before His holiness robed in the seamless garment of Christ’s righteousness, a righteousness full and free, and hence we can never for a moment seek to find a place for such self-righteousness.  It is by its very nature utterly destructive of those attitudes that are so reprehensible in God’s sight.  Even as God’s Spirit works in my life to conform me to the image of Christ, I am constantly reminded by the very ground of my standing before God that if I wish to boast, I can boast solely and only in him.  His righteousness alone avails; my every act of righteousness pales in comparison with the perfection of His obedience (note the unity of His righteousness that, on some theories, would be both irrelevant and inaccurate to even acknowledge). 
     Not only does the imputed righteousness of Christ provide me with the only solid foundation for true and lasting peace and the destruction of the soul-destroying attitude of self-righteousness, but this divine truth likewise illustrates the “holistic” nature of Christian truth: what is true forensically in the sense of the doctrine of justification harmonizes perfectly with what is true in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement; likewise, these truths fit seamlessly with union with Christ as our federal head and substitute (is this union limited to solely to union with His death?  What does our union with Him in His resurrection say?), and all of these give luster and depth to the divine truth of election. 
     Consideration of these divine truths surely reminds one of the depth of the divine wisdom in Christ, and how limited we are in our abilities to plumb the depths of divine revelation.  Some take that to mean we should be constantly left in a state of doubt and hesitation, withdrawing from the now demonized “systematic theology” (how arrogant!) into the realm of the Least Common Denominator, a bland and simplistic faith that can be made “friendly” with almost any framework of “tradition” we wish to adopt.  But that is surely not my intention.  Instead, we should not draw back from these truths, nor give in to those who would seek to mock doctrinal exactitude on the basis of vague accusations of “Hellenism” or the like; rather, we should endeavor, as Christian leaders, to present the full glory of the multifaceted work of God in Christ to our fellow believers, expanding their knowledge of Christ and hence their conformance to His image.  It is our joy and privilege (and our duty) to encourage our fellow believers to stand against the tide of cultural decay and post-modernism, even when it wears the façade of some form of scholastic medievalism, and rejoice in the great truths that shine light upon our path as we seek to walk worthily of our calling in Christ Jesus.

Summer on KFAX
     If you were unable to tune in last night, we recorded (from our end) the brief interview on KFAX in San Francisco.  Here's the file.  Enjoy!

Dave Armstrong:  I haven't read the open letter I was informed of during the course of the DL last night, but I've been told you wish to "chat" as I "chatted" with Jonathan on Tuesday on the DL.  I imagine some might wish to listen to such a "chat" for various, somewhat odd, reasons, but the idea of "chatting" without engaging the real issues does not seem to be something that would be of great benefit to a large audience.  I will try to find time to read the letter.

10/7/04:  Inaccurate?  How About Proving It?
     Did you hear Senator Edwards on "The View" charging Vice President Cheney with untruths and inaccuracies, but not bothering to back up the allegation?  It's so very frustrating to see folks make allegations and then not even try to back up what they are saying.  The Kerry/Edwards folks do this all the time, and it drives me nuts.
     On a smaller scale, today one of our local Federal Visionists posted a complete non-response to my quotation (yes, those are quotes; they are in print; they are even in context) of Steve Schlissel's highly emotional, but much less than helpful retort to Richard Phillips in The Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons (cited below).  One will note (if one has read the book) that Rev. Phillips likewise took umbrage at the tone and flavor of the response, and rightly so.  But our local FVist completely missed the point.  First, he said my statements were "inaccurate."  How so?  Prove the allegation. Were they mis-cited?  Out of context?  What?  Evidently, like one of his mentors, ipse dixit seems to be sufficient.  He says I took Schlissel in the worst possible way.  Really?  Phillips seemed to understand him just like I did.  In fact, when you go to the lengths Schlissel did to get your point across, I do have to wonder what other possibilities we are to entertain as to his meaning?  If you can get your blood pressure that high on paper, and still not get your point across, you've got a real problem.  Of course, our FVist doesn't tell us what Schlissel does mean, and how he obtained this special knowledge, but that's par for the course as well.  Of course, we are told that since this fellow knows Schlissel, his "catholicity" can't be questioned.  That's nice, but it doesn't address the quotations provided, does it?  More non-answers.  Finally, we are told that this kind of rhetoric has already crossed the Mississippi.  Yes, that is true.  But, of course, I made reference to a temporal context which seems to have missed our local FVist: November 5th.  Obviously, I was stating my hope that Doug Wilson will not engage in the same kind of rhetoric-without-dealing-with-the-issues that this section of the book represents in the debate in November.  I am unaware of anyone who would be interested in inviting our local FVist to a national platform to debate, hence, his seemingly inadvertent admission to using the same kind of rhetoric, even here in the Valley of the Sun, does not have much relevance to my expressed desire that the debate transcend the kind of "in your face" style Schlissel expressed in those words.  Of course, sometimes you speak the most honestly when you speak in that fashion.  I will be more than mildly interested in Doug Wilson's thoughts on Schlissel's words.

Quick Announcement!
     On the DL this afternoon (7pm EDT, 4pm PDT) my daughter Summer will be joining me for the second half hour, partly because I just get to do things like that and partly because she will be interviewed on KFAX radio in San Francisco at 6:30pm PDT tonight so I wanted to 1) check the microphone and 2) give Summer some time behind the microphone before the interview starts.  KFAX contacted us and asked to interview her about her letter to the President (which, btw, was hand-delivered to the White House on Saturday) and about what has happened since her letter was rejected at her school.  We will webcast the interview, so if you want to reconnect around 1:20 after the DL ends you'll be able to listen in.

10/6/04:  Federal Vision Rhetoric I Hope Stays East of the Mississippi in November
     I had the misfortune of having to once again look over the “response” Steve Schlissel wrote to Richard Phillips in The Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros & Cons (2004).  This is the kind of stuff I hope we don’t hear, at least in this form, November 5th:

Phillips has difficulty identifying Christians.  The Reformed faith does not.  Christians are heirs of the promise, and the church is made up of those who have had the promise signed and sealed to them in baptism.

I thought Christians were followers of Christ, those whose sins have been forgiven, who have been justified, and indeed sealed in their faith---by the Holy Spirit of God.  Evidently, to be “truly Reformed,” one must believe the church is formed not by the sovereign action of God through His Spirit, but through trinitarian baptism, even when practiced by those who despise the gospel of grace.  Keep your eye on the ball….

If I appear to be read to leave Ft. Lauderdale believing that the children of believers are anything other than fully children of the Living God, please shoot me.

Quick note: that kind of line may go over well in places where the Second Amendment has been functionally repealed (like New York, Massachusetts, or California); but I would strongly suggest not using that kind of terminology in Texas, for one might not make it out of the pulpit as a result. 

How many exclamation points am I allowed to append to these astonishing, stunning statements?  Covenant children are only sort of, but not really in the covenant?  Their entry awaits their free decision?!  How this view differs from that of Baptists, I fail to see.  What I do see is that it is not the view of Calvin, Augustine, Paul or Jesus Christ.

I am reminded that Schlissel told me a couple of years ago on an e-mail list that I am precluded, by definition, from understanding the covenant, since I’m a Baptist.  While the Federal Vision folks say Reformed Baptists are not precluded from the “camp” so to speak, it is pretty hard to read this kind of stuff and not get the very clear feeling that you are indeed persona non grata. This is the kind of rhetoric you hear from the “there is no such thing as a ‘Reformed’ Baptist” crowd.  But it gets better, or worse, depending on your perspective….

Grace disappears on the altar of Phillips’s thoroughly baptistic system:  “Baptized children…must…be evangelized and must come to a personal faith in order to receive the salvation offered by God’s covenant”…This statement is repulsive to God’s testimony that the children of His people truly and fully belong to Him.  They need not wait for anything.  That is called grace.  All baptized Christians are addressed in the same way: they have been translated from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of His beloved Son.  Now they must walk in the light as He is in the light, and have fellowship with one another.  Grace has no greater testimony than infant baptism, which is an everlasting sign and seal that those who properly receive it really belong to God, apart from anything they’ve done, or could do.

Of course, Presbyterian ministers, such as Richard Phillips, rightly take Schlissel’s language as purposefully insulting, and we Reformed Baptists, being the lovable bunch we are, don’t mind the insult headed our direction, either.  We are used to it!  But isn’t it odd to see Schlissel inadvertently fulfilling Phillips’ own words, repudiating faith and replacing it with baptism?  How can anyone not read this is as blatant, unvarnished sacerdotalism that stands in opposition to the gospel (which, of course, is notable by its absence in these words).  We are told all baptized Christians are said to have been translated from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of His beloved Son.  If Schlissel’s position is consistent (eek!  Platonism!  Enlightenment philosophy!), then the passage referred to has nothing to do with the gospel, faith, regeneration, etc., and is just as applicable to a gospel-denying reprobate who trusts in his own self-righteousness (but was validly baptized) as it does the greatest saint of God; yet, the passage itself reads, “For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”  If baptism does this, doesn’t it follow that ex opere operato baptism results in redemption, the forgiveness of sins?  Now, we see some “wiggle room” inserted by the phrase “properly receive it.”  How does an infant improperly receive infant baptism?  Could someone explain that?  But Schlissel wasn’t done:

“Baptized children . . . must . . . be evangelized and must come to a personal faith in order to receive the salvation offered by God’s covenant.” Only insofar as all God’s people are “evangelized,” only insofar as all God’s people continually renew their faith. The view that a covenant child becomes God’s only after a crisis is not the Reformed faith. Should this view ever be understood as the Reformed faith, I hereby reject that “faith” with all my heart. Better to lose the adjective than the treasure of grace.

Mr. Phillips insists that only those “who [come] to God in trusting faith and thus [receive] an imputed righteousness as a free gift” can be saved. Apparently, to have been the beneficiary of such grace without so much as your “free” reception of it is not good enough for Mr. Phillips’s scheme. He expressly rules children out “until the conditions of the covenant are fulfilled”. Therefore, in that monstrous version of the church which Mr. Phillips and his baptistic co-religionists invent, there are no infants.

If you are sitting there staring at the screen going, “That really sounds like Schlissel finds the idea of calling your children to faith and repentance repulsive,” you are completely correct, but have obviously not listened to the 2002 AAPC talks, either!  Keep in mind that clearly, for Schlissel, the term “Reformed” cannot, and should not, and never should have, been used of Southern Presbyterianism.  Whatever it is, it isn’t “Reformed.”  The term the speakers used was “wet Reformed Baptists,” and I didn’t get the feeling those words were spoken with a great deal of collegiality.  Now, I’ll let my Southern Presbyterian brothers fight it out with these folks regarding their reading of Calvin.  I see little danger that Steve Schlissel will be changing his views on the matter anytime soon.  But one thing is for sure.  The “catholicity” of Schlissel’s views dies a thousand deaths with that last line.  I really don’t get the idea that “monstrous version” means “another perfectly acceptable view,” nor do I get the feeling that there is a lot of warmth to be found in the phrase “his baptistic co-religionists.”  Of course, you have to get rid of the necessary visible/invisible distinction with reference to the church to create this straw-man attack anyway, but the fact remains that if you happen to be so backwards as to think that faith and repentance are part and parcel of what it means to pass from death to life, well, you have just missed the real meaning of trinitarian baptism. 
     In case there is something gnawing at your gut as you read those quotations, let me remind you what it is.  It’s a little thing.  Just a small word, one that often gets lots in all the rhetoric and citations of Calvin and accusations of being a Baptist (for some, all mental activity stops as soon as that charge is leveled, since of all things, that’s the one we know we can never accept!).  See, what you won’t find defining the church, or the covenant, or the word “Christian” in all this, is the word gospel. See, you knew it all along.  You knew something was missing, and now you know what it was.  And with that, we press forward….

10/3/04:  Summer Reflects on the Need to Support Opinion with Reason
     My daughter Summer and I didn't watch the Presidential "debate" last week.  First, we know who are are voting for (OK, she's 15, she can't vote yet), and secondly, 90 second press-conference style questions without interaction isn't a debate to begin with.  But something tells me neither of us would have enjoyed watching anyway, given that politics in this nation rarely has much to do with consistency or truth.  And that drives both of us nuts.
     I asked Summer to find a few moments to write up her thoughts concerning her letter to President Bush and the fact that her teacher has refused to give her any credit for writing it.  (Here is the original letter).  She has done so.  It follows.

Modern thinking. Modern writing. Oh I would love to see an area in which there is more cause to rebel than these. Beliefs without cause run rampant under the banner of “free thinking” while these brilliant minds look down their noses at those who dare infuse opinion with reason. What a tragedy it is that one might not be so caged as to have convictions as to the weight one’s words must hold!
     This lesson is taught everyday, and taught to the most dangerous of minds. The premise that your opinion is the ultimate truth, regardless of how unfounded, will be the demoralization of this nation; and it is being preached on every street corner, every bookstore, through every television set, and in one form or another in the majority of our classrooms. The dangerous minds that are swallowing this fallacy whole are none other than the next generation of America: our adolescents. 
     When assigned to write a letter to the President of the United States, in scarcely a heartbeat I knew what I would be writing about: homosexual marriage. My class was barely being introduced to the format of the letter when I was forming sentences in my mind concerning this issue, conjuring up the most powerful words in my vocabulary, and scratching out brief notes on my paper so as not to forget to do research. I was wholly inside my own mind as the class was throwing out possible topics for the assignment; thankfully, one voice brought me crashing back down into my seat. The subject of stem-cell research, and it’s need to be more widely funded, was introduced.  [continue with this article]

10/2/04: Open Letter to Mark Seifrid, Part V
Dear Dr. Seifrid:
     I hasten to finish this open letter as I have so many pressing duties, and I’m sure you do as well.  Unless events call for more, I intend this to be my final installment in this “saga,” one that has taught me many lessons, most of which have been surprising, disappointing, to be sure, but in the long run, worthwhile.
     The next section of your response illustrates, rather fully, the problems inherent in being overly “nuanced” in your statements.  If we were to read 4.5.1 by itself, it would seem to set all minds at ease…until we read what comes immediately thereafter.  I quote at length:

4.5.1. I have never rejected the truthfulness of the affirmation that Christ’s righteousness is imputed by God to those who believe. If someone insists on the distinction between forgiveness and positive imputation, or that between Christ’s active and passive obedience, I will happily affirm the imputation of the whole of Christ’s righteousness in all its distinctions to the believer.

4.5.2. It is necessary to observe, however, that while these formulations represent significant aspects of biblical truth, they are syntheses. Nowhere in Scripture does one find the explicit statement that “Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us who believe.” The Scriptures have other ways of speaking about justification. The apostle Paul in particular speaks about salvation first in terms of Christ and God’s work in him, not in the first instance in terms of the individual believer and how salvation comes to that one. Many Protestant schemes of salvation are inadvertently anthropocentric.

     This observation should not lead us to reject an affirmation of “imputation” outright, as Robert Gundry has done. But it certainly should lead us back into the Scriptures, to hear them again. It is not irrelevant to mention that long before current debates others have complained about the way in which Protestant formulations of justification confuse the laity as they turn to the Scriptures. To my thinking, the founders of Southern Seminary exercised great wisdom in summarizing the doctrine of justification in terms which are understandable to the average Baptist in the pew, while losing nothing of what is meant by speaking of “Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us.”

4.5.3. It is also necessary to recognize that the language of “the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” came into prominence only in the 1550’s as Protestants debated with Andreas Osiander, who argued that is the indwelling divine presence of Christ which justifies. Naturally, the formula of “imputation” served equally well in defining Protestant views over against Roman Catholicism. It represents a partial summary of what the Scriptures teach from a certain perspective, and has its primary function in these debates. It is less able to bridge the gap to Christian living.

In some ways, Dr. Seifrid, I think you went farther in your reply on the key issues between us than you did in COR in 2000.  In a sense we can at least understand more fully what you stated in the SBTS statement.  You write, [continue with this article]

10/1/04:  Today's DL Results in Odd CA Forum Comments
     Our re-scheduled DL today got some folks talking over on the Catholic Answers Forums.  Just a note to the guy who thinks I should spend my time posting over there: even if that was a possibility (it isn't: look at this just to see the next month and a half), for some reason I can't log in anymore; repeated requests for my password have been ignored, and two attempts to register using valid e-mail addresses have produced no results.  Evidently, I'm persona-non-grata anyway.  Be that as it may, JPrejean opined, "Then why can't he say it to a person's face? Why would he hide behind a microphone when he could actually address people directly?"  You mean like in my debates?  Or like folks on the CA Forums accuse me of every kind of sinful attitude short of pulling the wings off of butterflies without the slightest bit of personal knowledge of me?  In case you hadn't noticed, when I do the Dividing Line we have this thing called a toll-free phone number (877-753-3341).  Feel free to call in!  This person continues, "he whines on his own blog (again with no comments allowed) rather than making use of the comment function on theirs."  Ah, I see.  I didn't read the "how to engage in ad-hominem on blogs" rules.  No, we are low-tech, and even when we go high-tech (yeah, RSS and all, it's coming) my blog does not exist to create opportunities for endlessly wasting my time replying to this kind of stuff.  Put up your own blog and see if folks will take the time to read it.  But it is truly amazing that given how available I make myself in general (how many other folks do something like the DL and take calls on a regular basis?) that this kind of complaint could be made.  And it is ironic, in light of the number of RC apologists I have debated since 1990, and how many others will not take up my challenge, that this writer can add, "He'll boast all day about how much conviction he has in his position, but when somebody actually throws down the gauntlet, he never has enough time to take the challenge (although somehow he always seems to have enough time to cry on his blog about it)."   And then, "Maybe I'm just a dumb Southerner, but it works on my last nerve that White will never challenge a statement in the forum where the statement was made, even though he has every opportunity to do so. To me, that's just yellow-bellied."  It is hard to take that kind of rhetoric seriously, but having just returned from Texas, I'd like to invite this brave Texan to have the courage of his convictions and give me a ring.  The next Dividing Line is Tuesday, 1pm central time, and the number is 877-753-3341.  And as they say down in Texas, bring your six-shooter, and don't load it with blanks. 
     Then again, maybe Scott Waddell will call in and defend this piece of brilliance, also posted in that thread:

Everyone would be much better off it they put White in the same category as the Raelians--fringe elements who don't have anything to say that is worth expending mental energy contemplating.

Anyone want to take bets on whether ol' Scott could provide the first bit of meaningful interaction with, say, three or four chapters of The God Who Justifies?  Better bet...that he has ever read anything I've written? 
     Oh, speaking of having been in Texas, there was a pickup truck in the parking lot (like that's unusual in Texas) that had this great bumper sticker on it.  It said, "Yanks 1, Rebels 0, Half-time."  Only in Texas!  Well, and Georgia and Virginia and....

Regarding “Christians”
     I recently read a blog commentary by a Presbyterian, and the resultant comments, regarding my response to Doug Wilson’s “What is a Christian” blog entry.  I’m very glad the thesis is “Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ?” so that we do not simply dicker over using the term “Christian” in a way that is biblically meaningful or biblically bankrupt.  Hopefully the debate will be more than my attempt to point out the obvious fact that using the term “Christian” based upon an ex opere operato function of trinitarian baptism devoid of the gospel creates great confusion and does nothing to promote the evangelism of those who have been given a false gospel in Rome.  Hopefully “brothers and sisters in Christ” speaks to something much more, something that can bring us to the central issue.
     Now, our Presbyterian friend did, at least, offer a discussion of what it means to “grab someone by their baptism.”

So, how do you evangelize your brother by “grabbing him by his baptism?” I don’t see what is so hard about this, especially given the fact that we have copious examples from Christ and the apostles as to how to do this. If you have an unregenerate, God-hating, righteousness mocking, destined-for-hell member in your church who boasts of being a Christian, then you say to him or her, “If you are a Christian, then you would do the works of Christ.”

That is quite interesting.  It is first odd for me to think of someone like this “in my church,” but that’s just the Donatist in me I guess (we actually ask those who join our church about whether they are unregenerate, God-hating, righteousness mocking, destined-for-hell people); furthermore, if they were in the church and confessed to that, we would remove them from the church and proclaim the gospel to them (since, evidently, they hadn’t heard it before).  The problem is, the Federal Visionists use this language within the context of Roman Catholicism, and despite the claims of rC’s that Rome possesses the gospel, I continue steadfast in my belief that Rome’s gospel makes the error of the Judaizers in Galatia pale in comparison.  Hence, is it seriously to be suggested that this is how you “grab” a Roman Catholic by their baptism?  This is the face of Roman Catholic apologetics in the future?  You tell a person who has, in the vast majority of instances, never once heard the gospel and instead has been given a falsehood, a perversion thereof, “If you are a Christian, then you would do the works of Christ”?  This is supposed to get through to them?
     The comments generated by the blog article were interesting to say the least.  One wrote,

I hope that Dr. White has someone in close company that can point out to him various ways in which he can improve his ability to reason and exchange ideas, so that he won't end up looking like an idiot in the upcoming debate. I know that his debate skills are highly acclaimed, but I'm concerned that this type of approach will net him a serious blow to credibility.

How do you respond to that?  Another commented, a little more meaningfully,

White's single phrase, " So, trinitarian baptism, not only separated from the gospel, but set in direct opposition to it..." is the point of separation that will make this a difficult debate. There is no common starting point as long as White sees baptism as man's act toward God.

At least here is something to respond to: the context is Rome’s gospel and Rome’s baptism.  The only way to understand this statement is to buy into an ex opere operato form of sacramentalism that can have us believing you can have Christian baptism not only separate from, but in opposition to, the gospel of Jesus Christ.  As has been pointed out before (and the resultant gyrations on the part of some proved the point more eloquently than I ever could), Mormons baptize in the “proper fashion” as well.  The idea that something is pleasing to God, or joins one to the covenant in the blood of His Son, when it flows from a denial of the gospel of Christ, is simply without merit.  I will gladly risk being viewed as an “idiot” by standing firmly on the assertion that you cannot please God by denying His gospel; and without the gospel, all the baptizing in the world is not going to join anyone to the covenant in the blood of the Son of God.
     Finally, one man who has truly come to symbolize for many of us the end result of FVism-gone-to-seed opined, “I would also be surprised to hear Wilson argue that Rome practices a trinitarian baptism 'separated from the gospel'."  How else could it be unless Rome actually possesses the gospel?  And that is exactly what this rC has come to believe, but only by reducing the gospel to a slight shadow of what he once believed it to be.
     Are we splitting theological hairs?  These comments show we are not.  The issues run deep, very deep indeed.

Missed It When It Was Here?  Check the Archives.