|
While traveling in Scotland recently I was made aware of an
on-going thread of comments on the Founders Blog involving
Dr. Ergun Caner of Liberty University. I had
encountered Dr. Caner's anti-Calvinism before, and, given
his self-promotion as an apologist and defender of the
faith, I had invited him to engage the topic in public
debate. He had declined three such invitations, one
from a young man who had contacted him (and I had become
involved directly), one from a Christian High School in
Sedalia, and one from Mike O'Fallon in reference to one of
our upcoming conferences. This led to a rather lengthy
exchange of e-mails, in size, though not in time, as most of
what comes below was exchanged in less than 24 hours.
I make this information available for a single reason:
I would encourage the reader to "track" the conversation as
you read it. Mark direct questions I asked of Dr.
Caner, and see if he ever even attempts to give a
response. Be consistent and do the same in reverse,
and then ponder which side is open to the Word of God and
which side is not. Which side wants a true dialogue
and which side wants only a monologue? I believe the
answer is very clear given what appears below. And as
to simple fairness, respect, ability to engage a theological
subject in a scholarly fashion--I leave the reader to come
to his or her own conclusions.
As of the posting of this material (2/23/06) I do not
know if Dr. Caner will even so much as engage in a written
exchange. I continue to hope he will live up to his
own PR materials and allow a debate in Lynchburg itself.
I continue to stand ready to do so.
This exchange took place mainly on February 21st, my
first e-mail being written while I was still in Scotland on
February 20th, 2006.
**********
Dear Dr. Caner:
Today I logged on to your website, erguncaner.com, and noted
the very professional appearance of the site. It likewise
has a large graphic with the phrases, "without fear, without
fail, without flinching." In light of your consistent
avoidance of direct challenges from credible individuals
such as myself to debate, and I would hope, correct your
misapprehensions and misrepresentations of Reformed
theology, I found the graphic somewhat ironic. It does seem
that on the issue of your erroneous statements on
"Calvinism," you have, and continue to, both flinch, and
fail.
You are aware, sir, that you have been approached a number
of times to debate this issue. I doubt highly, sir, that you
have been challenged to debate by anyone with more
documented debate experience; I likewise doubt you have been
challenged by someone who has taught at a Southern Baptist
Seminary since 1995, either. I doubt you have been
challenged by someone who has written as many books on the
subject, and defended the topic in debate, as often as I
have. If I am incorrect, I ask you to correct me.
Dr. Caner, I am asking you directly if you have 1) ever read
any of my books; 2) ever read The Potter's Freedom; 3) ever
read any of my other books relevant to Calvinism, including
my recent debate book with Dave Hunt; 4) ever listened to
any debates I have ever done. Could you answer these
questions? They seem to go directly to the credibility of
one who would claim, as you have claimed, that Dr. Geisler's
appendix, which has been thoroughly debunked on an
embarrassing level, is in fact worthy of being given any
level of credibility. Also, if you are going to claim that
the appendix, which is so poor it cannot even cite my book
correctly 3/4s of the time, and even accuses me of
misrepresentation when I was the one who caught the original
typographical error in Geisler's book, reported it to
Bethany House so it could be fixed (a fact Geisler missed),
should you not take the time to at least read my fully
documented response which is, I believe, longer than
Geisler's appendix? One that has never even been mentioned
by Geisler, let alone refuted? Surely you do not use this
kind of approach when approaching the likes of Badawi or
Ally, do you?
You wrote:
1. DR. WHITE VS. DR GEISLER: Interesting that Dr. White
believes he corrected Dr. Geisler's Chosen But
Free...virtually every person I know who has read the 2nd
edition of CHOSEN, even reformed-minded, believe Dr. Geisler
thoroughly won...
Could you direct me, sir, to any Reformed minded person,
just one, who actually read Geisler's appendix, read my
book, read my response, and came to such a conclusion? Just
one, sir? I've never met one, personally, so I would like to
do so. I'm sure you could do so, or you would never say such
a thing in public.
You likewise said:
2. DEBATE DR. WHITE: Explain to me again- WHY debate a
non-Southern Baptist again? I thought Founders was an SBC
site? Perhaps I was mistaken.
I was originally ordained and licensed in a Southern Baptist
Church; graduate of a Southern Baptist College; and have
been teaching for a dozen years in a Southern Baptist
seminary. Further, as a Reformed Baptist, exactly what
distinctive of "Baptist" do you think is necessary to be
able to debate this issue properly? I have debated
Presbyterians on the topic of paedobaptism, and will be
doing so again in just a matter of months (Bill Shishko of
the OPC). I hold to, and defend, Baptist distinctives. I am
sorry, but for someone who promotes himself as you do as
fearless, making an issue of this seems quite out of line,
don't you think?
Dr. Caner, either you do not understand Calvinism, or you
are misrepresenting it. Out of Christian charity I will say
you do not understand it. I believe God's people would be
very blessed by a thorough, biblically based debate on the
doctrines of grace. I would gladly do so at Liberty
University, or any location of your request, before all of
your students. You need to remember, Dr. Caner, that I am
willing to debate Shabir Ally in Toronto in front of his own
audience; I have mentioned my desire to debate him in
Birmingham, UK, before the Islamic Student's Association. I
do not make these challenges lightly---and I can promise you
a very challenging debate, if you will simply realize that
you need to stand up and defend your claims in public
debate. If you will look at www.aomin.org/James.html, you
will be able to see that I have a long history of
meaningful, scholarly, respectful debates on a wide variety
of issues. Truly, outside of scheduling issues, there should
be no reason why you would continue to take the public
stands that you do without facing me in public and Christian
debate on this issue. I look forward to hearing from you,
especially in response to my questions asked above.
James>>>
**********
Dear Dr. White:
Having seen your references throughout the Founders' blog,
and knowing that this is a subject of particular interest to
you- let me respond. I am sure I shall see and hear of this
exchange. However, when I am quoted, please be assured that
I ask I be quoted correctly:
1. Why exactly would you want to debate me? In fact, why
would you want to debate the topic again? Dave Hunt and Norm
Geisler have BOTH taken you on quite well, and proven our
points effectively.
2. In fact, this is the frustration- Chosen But Free (2nd
ed.) did in fact silence any points you were seeking to
make. Yet, even AFTER they were finished, you were still
claiming victory? How, exactly? To whom, other than the
cadre of the Bezians, did you prove your points?
3. Thirdly, WHY would you want to debate me, a Southern
Baptist? The Founders' issue is supposedly a SBC site, where
the semi-Presbyterians want to revise our Anabaptist, free
church and dissenter heritage. Perhaps you should debate
someone in your own camp to stir up the interest you seek?
4. And the typographical errors in Dr. Geisler's book hardly
hold up to the theological ones in POTTER'S FREEDOM.
5. Finally, issuing challenges, while certainly interesting,
do not prove or disprove anything. I have in fact read your
books, and I continue to hold to the NON-5-pointer position
in both exegesis, philosophy, church history and theology.
They did nothing to dissuade myself, my brother, or
anyothers in the Non-Calvinistic world. HOW can you say Dr.
Geisler's arguments were debunked??? By whom? Oh, that's
right, by OTHER five-pointers like yourself. My goodness,
how scholarship ever survived until the theocrat from Geneva
arrived is beyond me. His thorough refutation of
hyper-Calvinism and reprobation stands up quite nicely,
whatever responses you offer.
Feel free to maintain your position as a Calvinist.
Others shall remain Armenian.
I shall choose neither- I am a Baptist.
I assume I am predestined to do so.
Whosoever will:
ergun
**********
NOTE: at
this point I will begin to differentiate between my text and
Dr. Caner's using color to aid the reader in following the
discussion.
On 2/20/06, Ergun Caner <ergun@erguncaner.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. White:
Having seen your references throughout the Founders' blog,
and knowing that this is a subject of particular interest to
you- let me respond. I am sure I shall see and hear of this
exchange. However, when I am quoted, please be assured that
I ask I be quoted correctly:
Dr. Caner:
I am very disappointed in your response. The fact that you
did not respond to any of my questions indicates very
clearly that you have not, in fact, read my books, despite
your claim to do so found later in your e-mail. The fact
that you fail to ever provide a SINGLE reference to any of
the alleged errors in my work further proves this point.
Hence, any and all comments you make are based upon
ignorance, not upon scholarly concern for the truth, and
this is truly troubling in light of your position and your
work. I would never, and have never, engaged in public
commentary as you have without first doing the requisite
work and study to be able to accurately represent someone's
position and by following up with direct citation of their
words, which again, you fail to provide.
1. Why exactly would you want to
debate me? In fact, why would you want to debate the topic
again? Dave Hunt and Norm Geisler have BOTH taken you on
quite well, and proven our points effectively.
Since you have not read my rebuttal of Geisler your
statement is left without any meaningful basis. It is the
voice of prejudice, not the voice of truth. The commentary
on Hunt is likewise almost humorous: Hunt's materials are so
full of errors he has had to revise his book numerous times,
and has to do so once again, given how often I have
documented them. But you would be unaware of these things,
since you have not read my debate book with him, nor read my
frequent documentation of his errors, including his citation
of cultic Yahweh sites as evidence that the first fifteen
chapters of Acts were not written in Greek but in Hebrew,
utterly undercutting the doctrine of inerrancy? I am quite
certain you have no idea what I'm talking about, since you
have not taken the time to even be aware of the issues you
are so confident in addressing. I truly, truly hope you do
not engage in apologetics against Islam with the same
cavalier attitude, sir. I truly do.
FACT: I have documented the errors of both Geisler and Hunt.
Geisler and Hunt have never responded. They sit in stoney
silence. Both refuse all challenges to debate or discuss the
issue whatsoever. Please, sir, do not go about saying
otherwise. You will be presenting untruths if you do, and
now, you will be doing so knowingly.
2. In fact, this is the frustration-
Chosen But Free (2nd ed.) did in fact silence any points you
were seeking to make. Yet, even AFTER they were finished,
you were still claiming victory? How, exactly? To whom,
other than the cadre of the Bezians, did you prove your
points?
But the page number errors were almost insignificant next to
the most amazing aspect of this attempted review. The reader
may have noted that to this point I have referred to "the
appendix," "the review," and "the author(s)," not to Dr.
Geisler. The reason is simple: I find it next to impossible
to believe that Dr. Geisler actually wrote the entirety of
this review. Why? Because this review not only ignores the
vast majority of the book it is allegedly responding to, but
much more, the author(s) of this review either lacks the
capacity, or the integrity, to deal with the material before
him or her in an honest, contextual fashion. The interaction
offered is so flawed on a consistent basis that one is left,
at times, completely speechless that anyone with a high
school education, let alone multiple doctorates, could ever
produce such material. So consistently does the review miss
the basics of the English language that I have concluded
that it simply could not come from Dr. Geisler's pen.
Surely, he is accountable for it, as it appears under his
name, but I truly believe he entrusted the task to someone
else, perhaps an undergraduate student or students (a class
project, perhaps?), as this is the only possible explanation
for the kind of egregiously silly errors one finds in this
response.
Strong words require factual backing. Here is the classic
example of how this review completely ignores context and
loses all contact with reality in its desperate attempt to
give the appearance of a response to TPF.
On page 29 of TPF I was just getting started in explaining
the need for a response to Dr. Geisler's attack upon
Reformed theology. In explaining various aspects of the
issues raised by Dr. Geisler, I wrote the following
paragraph:
There is great confidence in trusting in God's sovereignty,
especially when it comes to the fact that even Christians
are willing to place their own supposed freedom and autonomy
over the true freedom and autonomy of God. I have seen many
precious souls struggle through these foundational issues
and emerge changed, strengthened, with a new and lasting
appreciation of the holiness and love of God along with a
passion for His grace that cannot be erased. While I am
grieved at the confusion that books like CBF cause, I am
confident that the Word is so clear, so plain, and so
compelling, that the mere presentation of its truths is
sufficient for the child of God. And it is to that we now
turn.
I honestly do not believe this is a difficult paragraph to
understand. The context and meaning are easily discerned. I
am not here discussing Dr. Geisler's exegesis. In fact, he
is not mentioned in the paragraph. CBF is mentioned only in
passing as a source of confusion. But the point of the
paragraph is simple: God's truth remains God's truth, and
when Christians honestly seek to know God's truth from the
pages of His Word, they will find it. It may involve
struggle, as they work through traditions and
misunderstandings, but the Word is sufficient for the task.
Evidently, however, the paragraph caused no end of
difficulty for the author or authors of the newly published
"response" in CBF. Twice a single phrase from this page is
cited in the response. That phrase is "mere presentation,"
found in the second to last line of the paragraph, "I am
confident that the Word is so clear, so plain, and so
compelling, that the mere presentation of its truths is
sufficient for the child of God." The first time "mere
presentation" appears is on page 255 under the subtitle, "Ad
Hominem." We read,
This fallacy literally means a response "to the man" (rather
than to the argument). Throughout PF, the author takes great
pride in his exegetical skills, while any exegesis of the
text contrary to his is labeled not "consistent" (19), not
"meaningful" (20), not "in depth" (136), a "mere
presentation" (29), or not based on "definitive" works
(254).
None of the citations are even semi-accurate examples of ad
hominem, and each is a fascinating example of how to avoid
the obvious, but note especially the inclusion of the phrase
"mere presentation" and the reference, (29). Here we are
told that if a person were to look on page 29 of TPF they
would find a seemingly prideful dismissal of Dr. Geisler's
exegetical conclusions as a "mere presentation." And yet,
the reader is invited to once again read the above cited
paragraph and attempt to figure out how anyone could
possibly make any logical connection between what actually
appears on page 29 of TPF and what this review alleges is on
that page. There is simply no way to so completely and
utterly misread such a passage. It is bad enough that one
such blunder would appear in the text of the review, but the
error is only compounded by the fact that the same review
repeats the same error but this time it contradicts itself
and gives a completely different context! This is why this
might well have been a "class project," as this kind of
incredible inconsistency would be explainable on that basis.
Note what is said on page 258:
It contends that a "mere presentation" of my view is not
sufficient (29), yet it sometimes does the same for its view
and at times even no presentation at all, such as an
explanation of one of the most difficult verses for extreme
Calvinists, 2 Peter 2:1 (251).
Note that this time the phrase "mere presentation" is placed
not in the alleged context of ad hominem argument against
the exegesis of Dr. Geisler, but in a completely different
arena! One is simply left without words to describe the
utter lack of coherent thought that lies behind such a
reply. [And I note in passing that this review, which is
defending an allegedly "comprehensive" work against
Calvinism that somehow did not include any meaningful
exegesis of John 6:37-44, ignores the fact that I referred
my readers to Gary Long's fine, and very full, discussion of
2 Peter 2:1.]
A singular example, you say? Hardly. The reader who actually
sits down, as I have, and looks each reference up will be
left in shock by the end of the second page of this review.
Here is another example that displays the same complete lack
of comprehension of the basics of language and discourse.
To grasp just how completely this review misses the mark, it
is necessary to provide a fairly large section from chapter
two of TPF. In this chapter I carefully and methodically
traced Dr. Geisler's view on "predeterminately
knowing/knowingly predetermining" back through his earlier
writings. I interacted with these sources, attempting to
explain Geisler's view as accurately as possible. Note the
following:
Right here we run directly into the most problematic element
of Geisler's paradigm: "there is no chronological or logical
priority of election and foreknowledge." That means that in
his system one cannot ask the question that has been asked
by generations of theologians before him: it has always been
recognized that God either bases His election and decrees on
what he foresees in the free actions of creatures, or, His
decree and election determines what takes place in time. In
the first scenario, the creatures are by default the
sovereigns of the universe, since their wills and actions
are ultimate; God becomes a mere servant of the creature,
reacting rather than reigning. In the second, God is
absolutely free and man, the creature, acts in accordance
with his created nature. But Geisler (it seems) attempts to
chart a different course, in essence saying that one cannot
ask which one gives rise, logically, to the other.
Geisler bases this assertion on the statement that "all of
God's attributes are one with his indivisible essence.
Hence, both foreknowledge and predetermination are one in
God." It is somewhat startling that generations of Christian
theologians could have missed such a simple truth and as a
result have needlessly argued over this issue for
generations. But does the simplicity of the Being of God
necessitate that there really is no logical relationship
between foreknowledge and predetermination?
It is at this very point that Geisler's thesis is subject to
devastating criticism. John Feinberg was quite right to
respond:
But, granting God such knowledge does not mean that he does
not know the logical sequence and relations among the items
that he knows. Moreover, granting that God foreordains all
things simultaneously does not mean that there is no logical
order in what he foreordains. For example, God always knew
that Christ would be born and would also die. But he also
understood that logically (as well as chronologically) one
of those events had to precede the other. That does not mean
that God knew one of those events before he knew the other.
It only means that in knowing both simultaneously, he knows
the logical and chronological relation between the two
events.
Indeed, one can point to the fact that God is fully just and
fully merciful. Yet, even these two aspects of God's
character bear a logical relationship to the other: one
cannot define mercy without logical reference to justice.
Hence, the mere assertion that God's Being is simple and one
does not logically entail accepting the idea that there is
no logical relationship between God's act of decreeing, His
election, His foreordination, and his knowledge of future
events. We must agree with Feinberg when he summarizes the
question Geisler (and everyone else) must answer: "does God
foreknow because he foreordains or does he foreordain
because he foreknows?" The fact is we will see that Dr.
Geisler does take a de facto position on this topic.
Geisler continues:
More properly, we should speak of God as knowingly
determining and determinately knowing from all eternity
everything that happens, including all free acts….In other
words, all aspects of the eternal purpose of God are equally
timeless. For if God is an eternal and simple Being then his
thoughts must be coordinate and unified.
Whatever he forechooses cannot be based on what he
foreknows. Nor can what he foreknows be based on what he
forechose. Both must be simultaneous and coordinate acts of
God. Thus God knowingly determined and determinately knew
from all eternity everything that would come to pass,
including all free acts. Hence, they are truly free actions,
and God determined they would be such. God then is totally
sovereign in the sense of actually determining what occurs,
and yet humans are completely free and responsible for what
they choose.
It is very difficult to understand these words, given that
they are based upon the assertion that there is no logical
priority of foreordination to foreknowledge, for they are
"one." But given that in point of fact there is no reason to
accept this assertion, we are still left with the classical
conundrum of how God can be sovereign over all things on one
hand, and man "completely free" on the other. Using phrases
like "determinately knowing" or "knowingly determining" does
not in reality solve the problem, it only confuses it.
At this point it is good to note that there is a real danger
in misunderstanding the use of the term "predetermined" or
just "determined." Most people upon reading this term think
of a positive, volitional action on the part of God: i.e.,
in the sense of decreeing that something is going happen,
such as the crucifixion of Christ (Acts 4:28) which took
place, we are told, as God's power and will had decided
beforehand. Most people understand these terms to speak to
something active on the part of God. But we will see this is
not Geisler's meaning. When he speaks of "knowingly
determining," the active element is gone. "Determined" here
refers to the passive recognition of the actions of free
men, not the sovereign decree that the action would take
place through the instrumentality of creatures. In other
words, what Geisler means is that God "determines" what will
take place through His perfect knowledge. It would be like
my saying that "I determined the water in the pool was very
cold by putting my toe in the water." "Determined" here is
passive: I did not make the water hot or cold, I just
passively took in knowledge that it was, in fact, cold. We
could contrast this with my saying, "I installed a heating
system in my pool, and determined the temperature would stay
at 76 degrees." Here, "determined" is active because I am
actually making the water a particular temperature. When
Geisler speaks of God "determining" things he is saying that
since God has perfect, complete, and instantaneous knowledge
of all events, past, present, and future, then He determines
those actions—but this is solely in the passive sense. The
grand issue of whether God actively decrees whatsoever comes
to pass is, in fact, directly denied. In this sense,
Geisler's position, despite all the theological terminology
and discussion of sovereignty, is very much the same as the
Arminian who says that God merely looks into the future and
elects on the basis of what He sees. While Geisler repeats
his assertion that one cannot logically determine the
relationship between foreknowledge and predetermination, his
constant emphasis upon the absolute freedom of the creature
betrays the reality of his system. (TPF, pp. 56-59).
The reader will note that the discussion of Geisler's
position is full and as clear as his own confusing and
non-standard use of terminology will allow. This response
ignores the entirety of this chapter's argumentation,
choosing instead to isolate phrases from it rather than deal
with its actual content. But, the author(s) did choose to
take a particularly cheap and amazingly shallow shot at me
based upon this section anyway. The appendix provides a long
list of alleged misrepresentations (none of which prove to
be accurate upon examination), followed by the complaint
that the author counts no less than forty examples of
misrepresentation of his position. Then we encounter these
amazing words:
Interestingly, in one place PF even admits finding it
difficult to understand my view (58). One might ask how
something can be properly evaluated which is not properly
understood. Nonetheless, this failure to comprehend my
position does not impede in the least the overly zealous,
pedantic, and at times somewhat arrogant critique of it in
PF.
One is again left airing one's tonsils at such writing. One
can find the relevant text immediately above, specifically
the beginning of the paragraph that reads, "It is very
difficult to understand these words, given that they are
based upon the assertion that there is no logical priority
of foreordination to foreknowledge, for they are 'one.'" But
as anyone can see, this was not an admission that I found it
difficult to understand the view, nor that I failed to
comprehend it! How can the author(s) of this response
possibly read that paragraph in the midst of the entirety of
the context which provides full and accurate discussion of
Geisler's position and make such an absurd claim as this,
and then have the temerity to follow it up with language
such as "overly zealous, pedantic, and at times arrogant"?
By this time the reader is surely beginning to understand
why I see a group project or a misguided undergraduate
student behind this response. I said on our webcast shortly
after reading this review that on the simple level of utter
misrepresentation of the text being reviewed, this work
rivals anything produced by Gail Riplinger! Not even the
Watchtower has had the courage to put this kind of material
in print. And while Dr. Geisler remains responsible for it
(it appears under his name), surely it is not possible that
any person with graduate training could possibly miss the
basic meaning of language with such consistency.
Still unconvinced? Maybe these are just two anomalies,
albeit glaring and egregious ones? Well, let's try one more
just to make sure the point is firmly established.
One of the issues that I raised in TPF had to do with the
way CBF dealt with truly scholarly Reformed material, such
as the writings of John Owen or John Piper. I documented how
CBF used highly unscholarly techniques to attack Piper's
work and allege error when in fact nothing of the substance
of Piper's work was even quoted, let alone refuted (a
technique taken to the extreme in this response). I likewise
noted the amazing accusation of "adding to the Bible" on the
part of CBF against John Owen. As this runs in very close
parallel with the treatment of my own work, and as it again
demonstrates that the original context of any work under
review by CBF and its author(s) is utterly irrelevant, I
reproduce the discussion here from TPF and then provide the
comments from the new response.
Most frustrating to the Reformed believer who has provided a
reasoned and Scripturally-based defense of their beliefs is
the utter lack of serious interaction on the part of CBF
with such works. There is simply no attempt to interact on a
meaningful level with the many Reformed works that provide
in-depth, serious biblical exegesis and argumentation in
defense of the Reformed position. While some works, such as
Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ and Piper's
The Justification of God, are mentioned, and even cited, the
responses are so surface-level that they amount to nothing
more than a dismissal, not a rebuttal. And even here, the
Reformed material is handled in such a cavalier manner as to
make even the effort of citing it worthless. This is clearly
seen in the way in which CBF will quote as little as a
single sentence, and on the basis of this, accuse Reformed
writers of "changing" Scripture. For example, Dr. Geisler
"quotes" from John Owen and writes:
Arguably, the best defense of extreme Calvinism on limited
atonement comes from John Owen. His response to this passage
is a shocking retranslation to: "God so loved his elect
throughout the world, that he gave His Son with this
intention, that by him believers might be saved"! This needs
no response, simply a sober reminder that God repeatedly
exhorts us not to add to or subtract from His words (Deut.
4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19).
This citation is from page 214 of Owen's work. Was this
great Christian scholar suggesting that we should
"retranslate" John 3:16? Is this a fair representation of
Owen's position? Not in the slightest. This citation comes
toward the end of a lengthy discussion of the passage (a
discussion, I note, that is significantly longer and in more
depth than any discussion of any passage in all of CBF).
There is no attempt whatsoever on the part of CBF to address
the actual argument and the reasoning set forth. Here, in
context, is what Owen said:
First, If this word whosoever be distributive, then it is
restrictive of the love of God to some, and not to
others,—to one part of the distribution, and not the other.
And if it do not restrain the love of God, intending the
salvation of some, then it is not distributive of the
fore-mentioned object of it; and if it do restrain it, then
all are not intended in the love which moved God to give his
Son. Secondly, I deny that the word here is distributive of
the object of God's love, but only declarative of his end
and aim in giving Christ in the pursuit of that love,—to
wit, that all believers might be saved. So that the sense
is, "God so loved his elect throughout the world, that he
gave his Son with this intention, that by him believers
might be saved." And this is all that is by any (besides a
few worthless cavils) objected from this place to disprove
our interpretation….
As anyone reading the passage in context can see, to charge
Owen with alteration of the Word of God is quite simply
ridiculous. He not only specifically says, "the sense is…"
(a phrase that would have to be cited on the basis of mere
honesty if CBF is serious in accusing Owen of "adding" to
the Word of God), but it is painfully obvious that Owen is
interpreting the passage in the light of the preceding ten
pages of argumentation he had provided. One cannot avoid
noting that aside from this allegedly "sober reminder"
offered by Geisler, there is not a single word of meaningful
argumentation or refutation provided. (TPF, pp. 21-23).
Now surely the above would, if it were in error, demand a
response from Dr. Geisler. Surely the documentation of such
handling of meaningful material in such an unscholarly
fashion would require a response, and rebuttal, if the
accusation were unsound. But no rebuttal or correction is
offered. Indeed, the documentation of this, and so many
other errors, is passed over in utter silence. But, as with
the above cases, this new response does not blush to take a
phrase from this section, documenting a clear error in the
original book, rip it from its context, and turn it around
into an accusation of error on my part. Note this incredible
assertion:
Name calling
Another favorite technique of PF is the fallacy of name
calling. Consider only the following out of numerous
examples. My reasoning and conclusion are labeled "a
non-response" (217)…"quite simply ridiculous" (23)….
The reader will note that the phrase that is here turned
into an example of "name calling" (!) came from the above
section wherein I am documenting the utter disregard for the
original context and the partial citation (CBF cuts off the
beginning phrase "the sense is") of Owen's words. Such
writing is "quite simply ridiculous." That is not name
calling, that is factual reporting of an error the author(s)
of this response ignore. The line makes perfect sense in its
context, is perfectly accurate, and must be responded to by
Dr. Geisler. But this response fails at every point it
possibly could in providing a meaningful answer.
At the conclusion of this article is a link to the notes I
typed up for our webcast. I managed to make it through only
the first five or so pages before I realized this was going
to take way too long due to the incredible nature of the
published review. Those who need to have the point proven to
them dozens of times before realizing the truth can take
these notes, just as I wrote them, look up the references,
and sit in stunned silence as I did as I was writing them.
There is no reason to prolong the documentation of the
nature of this reply at this time.
Nameless Folks and Misdirection
One of the saddest examples of the methodology of this
review is found near the end of the appendix, on page 262.
It seems the author(s) of this review felt it would be best
to include their worst examples of mis-citation, mis-reading,
and simple error in the midst of personal attacks. So we
have an entire subsection titled "Pride and Exclusivism,"
which begins,
I am not alone in detecting a proud and exclusivistic
undertone in PF. For example, it calls its view "the
Reformed" view (38, emphasis added), while summarily
dismissing other Reformed theologians CBF cites who do not
agree with major points in its presentation (e.g., William
Shedd and R. T. Kendall). The author of PF immodestly
announces, "I will be demonstrating" that Geisler's view "is
in error" (30). Better to set forth one's case and let the
reader decide that.
One has to wonder who these nameless, faceless people are
who join with the author(s) in "detecting" this pride? I
"detected" lots of feelings I could have mentioned in regard
to Dr. Geisler's book, but you do not present such things
unless you can back up what you are saying. But the great
irony is that in the midst of accusing me of being prideful,
the author(s) of this review purposefully misrepresent me
and give clear evidence of their desire to do so. How so?
Note the second to last quoted line above which reads:
The author of PF immodestly announces, "I will be
demonstrating" that Geisler's view "is in error" (30).
When I first read this, I only noted that it is hardly
immodest to say that someone's view is in error, unless, of
course, that person does not believe you intelligent enough,
or old enough, or trained enough, to even critique their
position. But as I was finishing up my notes on the response
I looked up the actual context of the citation, and again
groaned in unbelief at what I found. Here is the context
from TPF:
The Reformed tradition is rich in honest dialogue and
debate. Those who love truth will not be offended by honest,
direct refutation and interaction. The "politically correct"
culture we live in should not be allowed to silence
meaningful theological debate. Dr. Geisler himself has
written:
Third, what about those who insist that drawing lines will
divide Christians? In response it must be lovingly but
firmly maintained that it is better to be divided by truth
than to be united by error. There is an unhealthy tendency
in evangelical Christianity to hide under the banner of
Christian charity while sacrificing doctrinal purity.
In the spirit of these words I offer a rebuttal of Dr.
Geisler's work. This is not meant to be a presentation of
the Reformed view so ably accomplished by others: my
positive presentation will be limited to establishing facts
that are not in evidence from a reading of CBF. Instead, I
will be demonstrating that the biblical argumentation
provided by Norman Geisler is in error. It is my hope that
the reader will be edified by the consistent focus upon
biblical exegesis, for this is, truly, the heart and soul of
Reformed theology.
As I compared the citation to the original I could not help
but be amazed at the use of the quotation marks in CBF. Here
we cannot blame eyesight. We cannot blame a simple
misreading of the text. This is purposeful, and planned. I
said I would demonstrate that the biblical argumentation
provided by Norman Geisler is in error. I did that. Twenty
eight scholars and pastors whose names are found on TPF, and
hundreds of others who have contacted me since then, agree
that I did just that. The fact that Dr. Geisler does not
even attempt a response on an exegetical level gives
eloquent testimony that I did exactly what I promised to do.
But that is not what is quoted in the new appendix to CBF.
No, through the purposeful and fascinating use of quotation
marks the actual substance of my statement, focused upon
biblical argumentation is deleted, and Geisler's entire
view, his entire theology, is placed in its stead. This,
then, becomes the basis for the accusation of pride and
arrogance on my part. How could a young, over-zealous,
arrogant, prideful, at times pedantic apologist like James
White dare to say he will prove Dr. Norman Geisler's entire
viewpoint in error? How brash! But, of course, the original
citation could not be used without deleting its substance.
How strange would it look to accuse me of being prideful
simply for saying (and proving!) someone else's biblical
argumentation is in error? Can the biblical argumentation
provided by two sides who contradict one another both be
correct? Of course not. Hence, it follows of necessity, that
the quotation, to be useful to the appendix, had to be
"spun" and changed. And so it was. Such is simply
disgraceful.
Where's the Exegesis?
The vast majority of this response should never have seen
the light of day. Given the character of TPF as an
exegetical reply to CBF, the logical response would involve
exegetical rebuttal and argument. But, of course, this is
exactly what is avoided by this reply. No exegesis of any
disputed passage is offered. No exegesis of the many
passages the original book simply forgot were relevant is
provided.
One brief section, subtitled "Improper Exegesis," at least
raises the issue of the interpretation of the text. But it
is tremendously surface-level, and simply says:
As readers of PF can detect for themselves, the author is
convinced of his exegetical skills and chides CBF for its
alleged 'lack thereof. Yet PF repeatedly reads "some men"
into passages that clearly and emphatically say "all men"
(140, 142). It insists against the context that 2 Peter 3:9
(where God desires that all men be saved) is not speaking
about salvation (146—147). It claims that John 1:12—13 does
not say "received" when the very word is used by John in
this text (185). It overlooks the context that speaks of
unrepentant people (Rom. 9:22), claiming Romans 9 affirms
that the "only difference" between vessels of wrath and
vessels of mercy is God's action. It distorts the word
"saves" to "saves himself' (64), and so on.
TPF contains literally hundreds of pages of positive
exegetical presentation, and this is the extent of the
response offered to it? TPF documented dozens of examples of
eisegesis on the part of Dr. Geisler. This is all the
response that can be given? And even in offering these few
sentences, the appendix stumbles over itself in making clear
errors yet once again. Note the first allegation: without
responding to a single argument or point of exegesis, this
response simply asserts that I must be wrong in my
understanding of the term "all." But since I provided
contextual and linguistic arguments that are completely
ignored, how can this be called a meaningful or scholarly
response? Then the author(s) utterly misread the text yet
again with the assertion regarding John 1:12. Compare this
misrepresentation with the actual text from TPF:
But the objection does raise an interesting issue: does the
text itself indicate a relationship between believing and
the new birth? There are certainly some points that Dr.
Geisler would have to consider to make his assertions carry
weight:
1) John, as is his custom, refers to Christians as "the
believing ones" (toi'" pisteuvousin). English translations
normally miss this important element of John's gospel (the
contrast between true, saving faith, which is almost always
expressed through the use of the present tense indicating an
on-going, living faith, versus false faith which is almost
always placed in the aorist tense, making no statement about
its consistency or vitality). It is literally, "even to
those who are believing in His name" or "the believing ones
(who believe) in His name." The term "believing" is a
present participle.
2) The verb "born" (ejgennhvqhsan) is in the aorist passive
form. In its context it is plainly said to be an act of God.
All human agency is denied.
3) It follows, then, that verse 13 is a description of "the
believing ones" of verse 12. Nothing is said in the text
that the new birth is "received" by an "act of free will."
In fact, the exact opposite is stated clearly, "the ones
born not of the will of man…." It is an amazing example of
how preconceived notions can be read into a text that CBF
can say the text makes the new birth dependent upon an act
of "free will" when the text says the opposite (184-185).
Immediately the reader again sees the simple mistake of the
author(s). Nowhere does TPF say the word "received" is not
in the text. This is yet another inexplicably glaring error
of reading. In either case, the actual text of TPF says,
"Nothing is said in the text that the new birth is
'received' by an 'act of free will.'" This is completely
true. The text speaks of receiving Christ, not the new
birth. By ignoring the exegesis offered, the response again
paints a picture with no reality, and proves itself
incapable of meaningful argumentation.
The last two examples of errors in exegesis make no more
sense than the preceding ones. The entirety of chapter nine
of TPF, 24 pages of exegetical presentation and interaction
with Geisler's piece-meal interpretation of Romans 9 in CBF,
is dismissed with a wave of the hand. And its brief,
unexplained mention of "saved" to "saved himself" again
causes any person who has a concern for context to shake the
head in utter disbelief, as the original text bears out. The
citation begins with a quote from CBF:
Whatever else may be said, God's sovereignty over the human
will includes His initiating, pursuing, persuading, and
saving grace without which no one would ever will to be
saved. For "there is no one who understands, no one who
seeks God" (Rom. 3:11).
Again the words are specific: God initiates, God pursues,
God persuades, God gives saving grace, but, despite it all,
the final decision is man's, "without which no one would
ever will to be saved." God wills to save man, but unless
man wills to save himself, he will not be saved. This is
thorough-going Arminianism.
There is, of course, no "distortion" of any terms at all in
the text. In fact, the comments flow directly from the
consideration of Dr. Geisler's own words. How is this an
error of exegesis? No one knows.
Surely no one can seriously call this a rebuttal of the
exegesis offered in TPF, and such must be quite the
disappointment for the legions of Arminians who prefer to
call themselves "moderate Calvinists" who were chomping at
the bit for some kind of rebuttal of TPF. While some of the
most die-hard may find something of comfort in this
response, those actually looking for scholarly rebuttal will
be sorely disappointed.
Drop Back Ten and Punt
Those who need point-by-point response can do so by clicking
here. There surely is no reason to drag this particularly
painful experience out much farther. All who have benefited
from the work of Norman Geisler in the past cannot help but
feel a true sense of embarrassment at the publication of
this response. I am actually thankful that I am the object
of this review, for if it had been offered in response to
enemies of the faith, they would have known no bounds to
their joyous documentation of its every error, and would
have used this as an argument against everything good that
Dr. Geisler has written.
At the end of his review Dr. Geisler says he prays that that
I will channel my "considerable talent and zeal toward the
more pressing need of defending Christianity against those
who deny the fundamentals of the faith, not those who affirm
them." While this may sound like a noble sentiment, I have
to wonder: why did he write Chosen But Free? Why did he
choose to identify the faith of Reformed Baptist Churches,
conservative Presbyterian Churches, and many others, as
irrational and unbiblical? Are we to understand that he has
the right to do this, but those of us at the pointed end of
his sword must ignore his highly errant and flawed attacks
upon our faith? I honestly do not understand the basis of
such a statement.
One thing is beyond all doubt: this response proves, even
more clearly than did the text of TPF, that Dr. Geisler has
no response to Reformed scholarship.
In closing, I would like to ask Dr. Geisler to consider well
the nature of this appendix. As I have said, I do not
believe he wrote it. I believe someone else, perhaps even a
group, cooperated in piecing together disparate and
inconsistent comments on the text of the book. But whatever
its provenance, it exists today as part of the 2nd edition
of Chosen But Free, and the front of the book says "Norman
Geisler." That places the above documented errors (a word
that seems extremely weak to cover the kind of
misrepresentations we have seen) squarely in his realm of
responsibility. And hence I will say with all seriousness,
"Dr. Geisler, do the right thing: pull this appendix, print
a retraction, and simply do what is right." You do not
attack any fellow believer with such terms as arrogant,
over-zealous, pedantic, and prideful while utilizing this
kind of utterly inane misrepresentation and argumentation as
a shield. It is simply scholarly negligence. Unless Dr.
Geisler can explain how this kind of material has some
relevance to the actual topic at hand, it should be pulled
from circulation with apologies to all concerned, but
especially to his own readers. There simply is no other
course to follow.
3. Thirdly, WHY would you want to
debate me, a Southern Baptist? The Founders' issue is
supposedly a SBC site, where the semi-Presbyterians want to
revise our Anabaptist, free church and dissenter heritage.
Perhaps you should debate someone in your own camp to stir
up the interest you seek?
Asked and answered, sir. I am a professor at a Southern
Baptist seminary. I speak at the Founder's events regularly.
I am a Baptist. Let me be clear, Dr. Caner. In light of your
willingness to even comment on my work from a position of
utter ignorance (something I would NEVER do to anyone else,
yourself included, nor have I!), I believe the only reason
you are once again declining this challenge is that you know
you cannot possibly engage this issue on the only basis upon
which it can be decided: the inspired, inerrant text of
God's Holy Word. You are neither unflinching nor unfailing
when challenged by a Baptist who has a long history of
defense of the faith against Roman Catholics, Mormons,
Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims, and the only possible
reason is that you simply do not care enough about these
issues to do your homework. Again, I had truly hoped for
better from you, I truly did! I am dismayed and shocked at
your attitude and your behavior.
4. And the typographical errors in Dr.
Geisler's book hardly hold up to the theological ones in
POTTER'S FREEDOM.
It would help if you would read what you are trying to
comment on, sir. I have written:
One allegation of an error on the part of TPF that is almost
humorous, and shows that the author(s) of the review seemed
to be a bit desperate to find errors in my work, is found in
the assertion that I mis-cited CBF. Here is the text:
For example, PF correctly notes that God's electing "in
spite of" His foreknowledge could better be rendered
"independent of" (PF, 67) and that "so dead" (PF, 104) is
redundant. (Parenthetically, there are similar errors in PF.
For instance, "world" should be "word" on 261 and 262, and
PF misquotes my statement about "unlimited" atonement [CBF,
199], calling it "limited" atonement [PF, 248].)
The appendix is correct that "world" should be "word" on 261
and 262: the electronic version of Calvin I utilized does
indeed contain a scan error at that point. However, the
second allegation is most interesting, if for no other
reason than to give insight into how things like this happen
in publication work. The quotation of Dr. Geisler as it
appears in TPF is perfectly accurate. The first publication
of CBF contained his error at this point. I caught the
error, and even contacted the editorial staff at BHP to see
if they could offer an explanation for the statement. They
could not. Seemingly unbeknownst to the author(s) of the
appendix, anyway, CBF went through a second printing, and
corrections were made at that time. Since I had raised the
issue, it was "fixed." When the author(s), then, began
looking for things to pick on in the text of TPF he
unwittingly used the second printing, not the first (which
is what TPF was based on). As a result, I am accused of mis-citing
Geisler, when in fact, I cited him correctly, caught his
error, pointed it out, and hence was helpful in correcting
his own work! Yet, despite this, it is included in a
rebuttal of my work. Such is surely ironic, if not a bit
humorous.
5. Finally, issuing challenges, while
certainly interesting, do not prove or disprove anything.
No one has said it does. However, when you put yourself
forward in the context of your website as unflinching,
unfailing, and fearless, you need to be able to live up to
your own self-promotion. I am currently ministering in
England and Scotland, and last evening I showed your website
to a pastor friend who is traveling with me, and he said,
"Goodness, that man thinks highly of himself, doesn't he?" I
replied, "Well, if he lives up to his own promotion, that
would be one thing. If he does not, then that is indeed
bad." Your unwillingness to debate me, when I have proven
not only my ability to engage in meaningful, fair,
moderated, scholarly debate against a wide variety of
opponents, but have likewise proven my bona fides as a
thorough going Baptist over and over again, demonstrates
that your claims for yourself are simply untrue. You have
yet to provide a single meaningful reason to decline the
challenge. You are clearly anti-Reformed in your teaching
and preaching. If you are going to portray yourself as a
Christian scholar who "without flinching" holds forth the
truth, when challenged, you need to stand up and be counted.
Currently, you are refusing to do so.
I have in fact read your books, and I
continue to hold to the NON-5-pointer position in both
exegesis, philosophy, church history and theology. They did
nothing to dissuade myself, my brother, or anyothers in the
Non-Calvinistic world.
Sir, I cannot count the number of former Arminians who have
come to embrace and love the doctrines of grace due to TPF,
so, you are simply in error once again. And if my arguments
are so easily refuted, sir, a man of conviction who believes
the doctrines of grace do damage to the truth would be quick
to demonstrate these and engage the subject. You refuse to
do so. Your actions betray your claims.
HOW can you say Dr. Geisler's
arguments were debunked???
If you had actually read TPF and my other works, you would
well know this, but allow me a single example: I wrote to
Dr. Geisler while writing TPF and asked him why he had not
provided any meaningful exegesis of the key text in John
6:35-45. He replied that he had provided a "full exegesis"
in CBF. I invite you, Dr. Caner, to find that full exegesis.
There is none. My chapter on Jesus' teaching Calvinism in
Capernaum stands utterly unanswered by Geisler. If you say
otherwise, sir, I challenge you to document your assertion.
By whom? Oh, that's right, by OTHER
five-pointers like yourself. My goodness, how scholarship
ever survived until the theocrat from Geneva arrived is
beyond me. His thorough refutation of hyper-Calvinism and
reprobation stands up quite nicely, whatever responses you
offer.
Sir, your emotionally-based response only shows your
incapacity to engage the subject on any other level. I am
accustomed to this from laypeople, but it is simply beyond
the level of amazement that one who claims a standing as a
Baptist scholar would behave as you are behaving. Once
again, please, please, do not engage in apologetic
encounters if you carry this kind of disrespectful attitude
into your work in other areas. Those of us who labor
diligently to honor He who is the truth would very much
appreciate it.
Feel free to maintain your position as
a Calvinist.
I do so out of fidelity to the inspired Scriptures, and it
is I, sir, who does so unflinchingly.
Others shall remain Armenian.
Sir, Armenians are so by birth. Armenian is a nationality,
an ethnic group. The term is Arminian, after Jacob Arminius.
Yes, many shall remain Arminian, but they do so out of
devotion to philosophical tradition or blindness to biblical
teaching only. And only one side is seemingly willing and
able to defend that kind of statement in the presence of the
other. We seek dialogue and debate before the people of God
based upon the Word of God. You seek monologue and diatribe.
Let God judge.
I shall choose neither- I am a
Baptist.
This is, of course, a category error. It is not a logical or
rational statement. History proves there have been divisions
amongst Baptists on this issue from the beginning. Baptist
is not a category that determines one's viewpoint in the
preceding two. It is about as logical as saying, "I am not a
Republican or a Democrat. I'm blue." And it is this very
kind of muddled thinking that gets cleared up very, very
quickly during the cross-examination period of a scholarly
debate.
I assume I am predestined to do so.
No sir, you are not given access to God's eternal will.
Christ was predestined to die at the hands of Pontius
Pilate, Herod, the Jews and the Romans (Acts 4:27-28), but
each and every one involved were likewise held accountable
for their actions. The same is true regarding Joseph's
brothers in Genesis 50:20. Once again, passages that I know
if I were in your position I would not want to have to deal
with before your students. But always remember, sir, I am
willing to appear before those students to proclaim the
sovereign perfection of the work of Christ in defense of
your insertion of human autonomy of will. You are unwilling
to defend your comments.
Whosoever will:
No man is able, unless God the Father draws...I can explain
both, you hold to one.
You honestly remind me of those Muslims who stick to the
Meccan materials and ignore the Medinan just for their own
benefit--who pick and choose what they will cite from Sahih
Al-Bukhari while ignoring the rest. How sad. I would think
you would have learned.
James>>>
Dr White:
Your response PROVES my point. I have debated over 60 times,
against Muslims, Hindus, etc. Meanwhile, you are obsessed
with just ONE aberration in Church History. Attempting to
justify this, and attempting to make hyperCalvinism the
standard of all Church History is the VERY DEFINITION of
Hyper-Calvinism! Like the Synod of Dort, you have made
"predestination the head of all doctrine."
Dr. White, why do you think Drs Geisler and White will not
debate you? They are men who have debated around the world.
WHY?
1. Because regardless of their reasoned and exegetical
answers, YOU claim that they did not answer your charges.
2. Because regardless how the debate goes, you still claim
victory.
3. Because, in short, like all of your stripe, Dr. White,
you are obsessed with ONE view of ONE doctrine. One
interpretation, that you have chosen to be your filter for
all experience and thought.
Read Dr. Geisler's answers again. It is clear he answered.
YOUR critique never addressed his book at all. As he said,
he wondered if you had even read CHOSEN.
I respectfully ask you to find another topic.
emc
On 2/21/06, Ergun Caner <ergun@erguncaner.com> wrote:
Dr White:
Your response PROVES my point. I have debated over 60 times,
against Muslims, Hindus, etc.
Where might I obtain the recordings of these moderated,
public debates? Have you debated Jamal Badawi or Shabir
Ally, I wonder? I ask quite seriously as I would like to
hear them if you have as part of my own preparation.
Further, if you have done this so often and against people
who are obviously not Southern Baptists, why do you insist I
have to be a Southern Baptist to debate me?
Meanwhile, you are obsessed with just
ONE aberration in Church History.
This is a false statement, one that any reference to the
sources provided to you would demonstrate. How can I be said
to be obsessed with "ONE" alleged "aberration" when I am
debating Shabir Ally at Biola in a matter of weeks, John
Shelby Spong on homosexuality in November in Orlando, and
even my brother Bill Shishko on paedobaptism in October? I
have written twice as many books as you have, and the vast
majority of them are not even on this one topic (again
demonstrating you truly have not been honest in your
representation of your reading of my works). The lack of
foundation of your statements continues to be quite
troubling. Your website describes you as the "intellectual
pit bull of the evangelical world." If that is the case, why
do you make such easily refuted statements with such amazing
rapidity and consistency?
Attempting to justify this, and
attempting to make hyperCalvinism the standard of all Church
History is the VERY DEFINITION of Hyper-Calvinism! Like the
Synod of Dort, you have made "predestination the head of all
doctrine."
At this point, if you had scholarship on your side, you
would back up your statements. You would prove you have read
my books by citing from them. You do not. You cannot,
because, of course, I am not a hyper Calvinist, and have
repudiated hyper Calvinism and even written against it. You
do not know what it is, cannot define it, but continue to
pretend to possess knowledge and training you do not. This
is an amazing display, Dr. Caner, but one I have become
accustomed to from those who oppose the free grace of God
because of their dedication to a tradition.
Dr. White, why do you think Drs
Geisler and White will not debate you? They are men who have
debated around the world. WHY?
I believe you mean Dave Hunt, and the reasons are clear.
More than two dozen leading scholars endorsed my book in
response to Dr. Geisler. He is a philosopher, not an
exegete, and I believe he knows he would not fair well in a
debate format. Dave Hunt will not debate because he knows I
can document literally dozens of embarrassing errors on his
part, even quoting from the Jehovah's Witnesses New World
Translation to try to get around Acts 13:48! He cannot
engage the text on any meaningful level, and knows such a
debate would be utterly self-destructive.
1. Because regardless of their
reasoned and exegetical answers, YOU claim that they did not
answer your charges.
Sir, I sent you numerous pages of documentation. Where is
your response? Where is Geisler's response? Where is Hunt's
response? Can you show me, sir? If you cannot, does this not
answer, for any rational person whose mind is not completely
prejudiced, your objection? I look forward to your full
response to my refutation of Geisler and the full and
accurate documentation it provides. Absent that, you have
been refuted, have you not?
2. Because regardless how the debate
goes, you still claim victory.
I have claimed their rebuttals failed, sir. You are the one
claiming victory for men who to this day have refused to
defend their position. You are the one claiming victory
without showing the first bit of scholarly acumen by
providing any citations to back up your claims. Please, sir,
you truly need to back up, take a deep breath, and realize
what an utter melt-down on the level of simple scholarly
behavior you are presenting here. It is egregious, is it
not, to treat someone the way you are, by refusing to
acknowledge the most simple facts when they are presented to
you?
3. Because, in short, like all of your
stripe, Dr. White, you are obsessed with ONE view of ONE
doctrine. One interpretation, that you have chosen to be
your filter for all experience and thought.
This is another falsehood, one that no rationally minded
person could repeat in light of the evidence you claim to
have examined. Over the course of the past two weeks here in
the UK I have taught at the London Seminary on the canon (2
sessions) and once on John 6. I have twice ministered on the
topic of assurance. I have preached in London, Glasgow, and
Inverness, on a wide variety of topics, including scriptural
authority, the centrality of preaching, the salvation of the
publican, New Perspectivism, sola scriptura, Islam, John 9,
the Carmen Christi, apologetics in a godless age, and
tonight I speak on the Da Vinci Code and responding to the
new film The God Who Wasn't There. One session out of
sixteen on the specific topic of "Calvinism," and it was a
particularly exegetical session at the London Seminary. So,
sir, if you repeat this falsehood that I am obsessed with
ONE view of ONE doctrine, you do so against all evidence to
the contrary, and hence, engage in lying about a fellow
believer in Christ. I hope and pray you will not do so. God
takes that kind of activity very seriously.
Read Dr. Geisler's answers again. It
is clear he answered. YOUR critique never addressed his book
at all. As he said, he wondered if you had even read CHOSEN.
Excuse me, sir, but I sent you the entire response. I quoted
frequently from the book. How can any honest person make the
statement you just did? My book, The Potter's Freedom,
clearly and accurately addressed Dr. Geisler's book. His
response miserably misrepresented mine, and my response to
him was again fully accurate. If you say otherwise, simple
honesty demands that you document your accusations or
withdraw them.
I respectfully ask you to find another
topic.
Find another topic, sir? For what? Which of the current many
topics I have spoken on, lectured on, and written on, should
I switch to?
Dr. Caner, I ask that you step back and seriously consider
the falsehoods you are currently repeating in your e-mails
to me. You have no basis for making the false statements you
have, and I ask you, as an elder in the church of our Lord
Jesus Christ that you obey the Word of God (1 Timothy 5:19),
which instructs you not to make unfounded accusations
against those in such a position, to repent and reconsider
your words. I would like to believe you have simply become
caught up in emotion, and that upon reflection you will
realize that you cannot simply lie about people without
having the temerity and honesty to back up what you are
saying with sound reasoning and meaningful citations.
I continue to stand ready to engage you in a biblically
based debate on the doctrines of grace, wherein I would
demonstrate that your commitment to libertarianism and your
denial of the clear teachings of Scripture flow from
tradition and not from the Word of God. I also stand ready
to accept your apology for ignoring all of the relevant
information and ignoring the honest attempt I have made to
get you to honestly deal with this issue to the benefit of
the entire Body of Christ.
James>>>
Dear Dr White:
Well, one one point, I shall readily apologize. The only
debate context I have heard regarding you was the Calvinism
one. Since you debate on other topics, I do apologize.
HOWEVER, that said, Dr. White, I am reaching the end of my
patience.
1. You continually call for debate. Again, having read both
your books and the books of Drs. Geisler and Hunt, I read
you calling them flaw-filled and laughable.
2. From your purported answers to them, I again state that
we must be reading different books, or else we are
completely talking in different languages. As I travel the
breadth of this nation, I have never met ONE person who felt
you had the victory against either man.
3. In fact, most make the point I restate- it is almost
impossible to debate you, since you clearly cannot be
objective on the topic. You claim victory where there is
none. You state that neither Dr. Geisler nor Dr Hunt have
answered your charges when they have clearly taken you to
task. You filter every single argument through the reformed
prism, almost to the point that it seems you presuppose that
defending Calvinism is in fact defending the Gospel itself.
4. Dr. White, modern 5-point Calvinism is NOT the Gospel
itself. It was/is the system of one man (Calvin) modified
into a Scholastic fatalism by another (Beza). It is ONE
position, with which I, and all the other "whosoever wills"
vehemently disagree.
5. If you continually lose these luterary debates,
subsequently claiming victory and ignoring clear answers,
what POSSIBLE reason would I have to believe that you would
somehow do otherwise in our debate? Even your letters show
the same pattern. I answer your question. You write, stating
I have not. You call my statements "false." You do not
refute them, you simply call them spurious.
6. Dr. White- look around. The evangelical world as a whole
rejects fatalistic predeterminism. Geisler. Hunt. Patterson.
LaHaye. Virtually every seminary among the Baptists.
Goodness, even men such as Drs. Mohler and Akin are
distancing themselves from the Founder's Movement. Ask them
if they want to be identified as the "reformed" schools of
the SBC.
7. On the other side, Drs. Patterson, Kelley, and Roberts
are leading the rest of us in purging our schools of such
teachings as the deletion of invitations, the Baptist use of
elders as an oligarchy, and in some cases, the advocation of
pedobaptism (Piper's attempt in 2005).
8. I do admit your movement has "legs." You do garner
followers. However, I state emphatically, they have no place
at Liberty Seminary, and never shall. Out of the top 100
baptising churches in the SBC, how many hold your position?
Thus, the only debate I would enter with you would be a
literary one. I have no problem, using the lasting ink, in
debating you, as I have Nadir Ahmed, through our websites.
Like the Muslim debates, it forces both participants to
actually keep on topic.
You speak of the insolence with which you have been treated.
Dr White, it is precisely this point I want to drive home. I
have NEVER met a movement so arrogant and self-obsessed as
the Calvinists (5-points). With an almost cultlike droning,
Calvinists proclaim that they are rescuing the Gospel from
those who obviously do not know or understand the arguments,
or worse, the Scriptures. We know your arguments. We read
your conclusions. We hear your points.
We reject them. Christ died for the world. He did not die
just for a boy's club who believe they and their children
are on the inside. I shall always stand for the "all the
world," and the "whosoevers." That is biblical exposition.
That is biblical exegesis. That is church history.
So, continue as you wish. I shall do the same. You will not
go away, and neither shall we. Any doctrine that drains a
Christian's hunger to see souls saved is not of God. If you
believe your form of Calvinism does not do so, then God
bless all you do.
ergun mehmet caner
Well, one one point, I shall readily
apologize. The only debate context I have heard regarding
you was the Calvinism one. Since you debate on other topics,
I do apologize.
Brother, this is what has amazed me about our exchange. You
clearly know nothing about me. You have not read my
books...books such as The Forgotten Trinity , a biblical
defense of the Tri-une God, or The God Who Justifies,
written in defense of justification by grace through faith
alone, or Scripture Alone , my defense of sola scriptura, or
The Roman Catholic Controfersy, The King James Only
Controversy, etc. and etc. Further, I mentioned debating
Islamic apologists like Shabir Ally in the first note I sent
to you, did I not? May I ask if you have even read the
entirety of the text I have sent you? Is it possible, Dr.
Caner, that you have so completely dismissed "Calvinists"
that you do not even extend to them the courtesy you would
to a Muslim or an atheist?
HOWEVER, that said, Dr. White, I am
reaching the end of my patience.
Thanks be to the Lord, I have not. :-)
1. You continually call for debate.
Again, having read both your books and the books of Drs.
Geisler and Hunt, I read you calling them flaw-filled and
laughable.
And I have yet to have you do anything other than say that.
May I ask you to provide even the first bit of
argumentation? Here, let me make it easy:
1) Please explain how you deal with my comments on Acts
13:48 and the syntactical meaning of the periphrastic
construction found there. Neither Geisler nor Hunt touched
it. They could not do so (Hunt is not a scholar nor can he
read Greek, and Geisler ignored it in his response). Can you
refute my "laughable" exegesis? Can you deal with the
meaning of tetagmenoi?
2) Can you explain why you insert a distinction between the
two accusative singular uses of auton in John 6:44
exegetically? Can you demonstrate what is "laughable" in my
single chapter on John 6, since neither Geisler nor Hunt
were capable of doing so?
2. From your purported answers to
them, I again state that we must be reading different books,
or else we are completely talking in different languages. As
I travel the breadth of this nation, I have never met ONE
person who felt you had the victory against either man.
And I have never found one who viewed it as you. In fact, as
one published author put it, my debate book with Dave Hunt
may have been "the most lopsided debate in church history."
And sir, if you are correct, why would especially Dave Hunt
refuse to debate? It would be a wonderfully useful thing to
have to demonstrate that we Calvinists are only capable of
offering "laughable" exegesis. I also wonder, sir, since you
did not even know I am a wide-ranging apologist, how often
you have engaged in a discussion of this topic so as to be
able to have any kind of meaningful spectrum of people who
have commented on my works?
3. In fact, most make the point I
restate- it is almost impossible to debate you, since you
clearly cannot be objective on the topic.
Since you have never listened to any debate I have done on
the topic, sir, might I suggest you are not in any position
to judge here? I have debated George Bryson on this topic; I
did three hours on the Bible Answer Man Broadcast on the
topic. Have you listened to these debates? And sir, are you
seriously claiming "objectivity" for yourself? One thing is
for certain, I am capable of being far more accurate, and
far more objective, in my representation of your position
than you are of mine.
You claim victory where there is none.
You state that neither Dr. Geisler nor Dr Hunt have answered
your charges when they have clearly taken you to task. You
filter every single argument through the reformed prism,
almost to the point that it seems you presuppose that
defending Calvinism is in fact defending the Gospel itself.
Sir, asked and answered. Documentation given to you, nothing
in response from you. Anyone who would read this exchange
could see that one of us offers facts, one unfounded,
second-hand opinions.
Yessir, I believe the gospel involves God's soveriegnty; I
believe it includes the deadness of man in sin; I believe it
includes the perfect of Christ as Savior, and the perfection
of His work as substitute. And I can defend that
exegetically and biblically before your own students at your
own leisure. :-) But be sure you admit, sir, that you
believe the gospel includes the liberty of the human will
and the negation of all I said above. You believe you are
defending the gospel itself, do you not?
4. Dr. White, modern 5-point Calvinism
is NOT the Gospel itself. It was/is the system of one man
(Calvin) modified into a Scholastic fatalism by another (Beza).
It is ONE position, with which I, and all the other
"whosoever wills" vehemently disagree.
Obviously that is your belief. I can demonstrate you are in
error in public debate. I can take you to the text of
Scripture and show you that you cannot start at John 6:35
and get to John 6:45 without abandoning the text and
engaging in eisegesis. In fact, since you below say you
would be willing to engage in written debate, I would
challenge you to engage that very text in exegetical debate.
My blog has a very, very wide audience, and you would post
it as well on your website, just as I would on mine. Despite
how busy I am over the next year, with trips back here to
London, Biola, teaching, a book to write, Orlando and the
debate with Spong, etc., I would be happy to engage the text
in written debate in defense of this truth.
5. If you continually lose these
luterary debates, subsequently claiming victory and ignoring
clear answers, what POSSIBLE reason would I have to believe
that you would somehow do otherwise in our debate? Even your
letters show the same pattern. I answer your question. You
write, stating I have not. You call my statements "false."
You do not refute them, you simply call them spurious.
Sir, I would submit our interaction to any semi-unbiased
person in full confidence that they would conclude that one
of us has offered extensive and reasoned argumentation and
one has done everything in his power to avoid the subject,
obfuscate, and in essence engage in the most irrational form
of dialogue possible. The fact is you have not responded to
my documentation of the errors in Geisler's work. Not once.
You just repeat the same mantra over and over again without
backing up your statements. Same with Hunt. I do not have to
do that. I can back up everything I say.
Further, if you had the slightest idea who I am and what I
do, you would know that I leave it to the
listeners/observers to determine who "won" a debate. You are
the one who claimed I lost---despite your ignorance of my
work. I, sir, have shown you a thousand times the respect
you have shown me, that much is certain.
6. Dr. White- look around. The
evangelical world as a whole rejects fatalistic
predeterminism. Geisler. Hunt. Patterson. LaHaye. Virtually
every seminary among the Baptists. Goodness, even men such
as Drs. Mohler and Akin are distancing themselves from the
Founder's Movement. Ask them if they want to be identified
as the "reformed" schools of the SBC.
I'm sorry, sir, but the state of "evangelicalism" in our day
is tremendously sad, and tremendously shallow, and I, for
one, do not determine theological and exegetical truth by
popularity contests. If I did, the names you just listed
would not hold a candle to the likes of Bunyan, Spurgeon,
Edwards, or Warfield, I assure you of that!
7. On the other side, Drs. Patterson,
Kelley, and Roberts are leading the rest of us in purging
our schools of such teachings as the deletion of
invitations, the Baptist use of elders as an oligarchy, and
in some cases, the advocation of pedobaptism (Piper's
attempt in 2005).
That would be "paedobaptism," sir. I would challenge you to
attempt to interact with my defense of the plurality of
elders in the Broadman/Holman work on church polity
published a few years ago.
8. I do admit your movement has
"legs." You do garner followers. However, I state
emphatically, they have no place at Liberty Seminary, and
never shall. Out of the top 100 baptising churches in the
SBC, how many hold your position?
A tremendously deep argument, sir. In the absence of
exegesis, cite numbers! Just do not look too closely at
them! You might find what I have found: multiple baptisms of
the same person, often two or three times in their lives;
and, sadly, the fact that many of those churches have to
baptize many dozens to get a single person who shows the
slightest evidence of the Spirit of God in their lives as
little as a year later, let alone a decade. How very, very
sad.
Thus, the only debate I would enter
with you would be a literary one. I have no problem, using
the lasting ink, in debating you, as I have Nadir Ahmed,
through our websites. Like the Muslim debates, it forces
both participants to actually keep on topic.
Nadir Ahmed could not stay on a single topic if is life
depended on it, Ergun, nor could he engage any meaningful
topic without generous uses of ad hominem and irrational
argumentation, and we both know it. :-) Be that as it may,
that is fine. I am confident any exegetical debate focused
upon the text of Scripture will thoroughly verify what I
have said in our exchange thus far today.
You speak of the insolence with which
you have been treated. Dr White, it is precisely this point
I want to drive home. I have NEVER met a movement so
arrogant and self-obsessed as the Calvinists (5-points).
With an almost cultlike droning, Calvinists proclaim that
they are rescuing the Gospel from those who obviously do not
know or understand the arguments, or worse, the Scriptures.
We know your arguments. We read your conclusions. We hear
your points.
Sir, I do not waste time discussing my personal feelings
about "the other side." They are only marginally relevant to
the issue, and then only after a strong exegetical
foundation has been established. You do NOT understand the
position you are attacking, that much is certain, and any
debate with cross-examination will, in fact, prove this
completely---at least to any rationally minded person with
ears to hear.
We reject them. Christ died for the
world. He did not die just for a boy's club who believe they
and their children are on the inside. I shall always stand
for the "all the world," and the "whosoevers." That is
biblical exposition. That is biblical exegesis. That is
church history.
Christ died for men from every tribe, tongue, people, and
nation, and he PERFECTED those for whom He died (Hebrews
10:10-14). I do not know why you have to speak as you do (is
it that your arguments require the use of emotion?), but I
again will focus upon the person who is actually looking for
truth. As for church history---I have no idea what you mean,
since, as I pointed out to Dave Hunt when we first discussed
this issue, he agrees fully with Rome on the will of man and
the nature of grace over *against* the Reformers, as, it
seems, you may as well. So, if you are confessing your
historical connection to Roman Catholicism historically, I
would agree. But I sort of doubt that is, in fact, what you
are claiming.
So, continue as you wish. I shall do
the same. You will not go away, and neither shall we. Any
doctrine that drains a Christian's hunger to see souls saved
is not of God. If you believe your form of Calvinism does
not do so, then God bless all you do.
My belief that God's power to save is not limited to man's
willingness to "cooperate" is what has taken me to many
places Arminians will never tread, Dr. Caner.
So, I would propose the following:
Resolved: John 6:35-45 Teaches God Saves an Elect People
Perfectly in Christ
Opening Exegesis should begin the debate, where both of us,
concurrently, offer a full-on, fresh, exegesis of the text
of John 6:35-45. What do you say, Dr. Caner? Shall we engage
the text of inspired Scripture and listen to Jesus' words in
the Synagogue at Capernaum? I stand read.
BTW: please note: I am in London and will be returning home
tomorrow afternoon. I should be able to respond to e-mails
tomorrow morning your time, but after that, I have a
fourteen+ hour journey home.
James>>>
Dr. White:
One final note:
YOU WROTE THE FOLLOWING. FOR CLARITY, MY RESPONSES SHALL BE
IN ALL CAPITALS, TO AVOID CONFUSION:
"Excuse me, sir, but I sent you the entire response. I
quoted frequently
from the book. How can any honest person make the statement
you just did?
My book, The Potter's Freedom, clearly and accurately
addressed Dr.
Geisler's book. His response miserably misrepresented mine,
and my response
to him was again fully accurate. If you say otherwise,
simple honesty
demands that you document your accusations or withdraw
them."
HE DID NOT MISREPRESENT YOUR POSITION. HE ANSWERED YOUR
CHARGES. JUST BECAUSE YOU DID NOT LIKE, OR DISAGREED WITH
HIS ANSWER DOES NOT MEAN HE DID NOT ANSWER THEM. DO YOU
BELIEVE THAT THE MILLIONS OF US WHO AGREE WITH DR. GEISLER
ARE JUST IGNORANT?
I respectfully ask you to find another topic.
Find another topic, sir? For what? Which of the current many
topics I have
spoken on, lectured on, and written on, should I switch to?
Dr. Caner, I ask that you step back and seriously consider
the falsehoods
you are currently repeating in your e-mails to me. You have
no basis for
making the false statements you have, and I ask you, as an
elder in the
church of our Lord Jesus Christ that you obey the Word of
God (1 Timothy
5:19), which instructs you not to make unfounded accusations
against those
in such a position, to repent and reconsider your words. I
would like to
believe you have simply become caught up in emotion, and
that upon
reflection you will realize that you cannot simply lie about
people without
having the temerity and honesty to back up what you are
saying with sound
reasoning and meaningful citations.
CAUGHT UP? SIR, I ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER YOUR WORDS AS WELL.
YOU SEEM TO BE ADJUDICATING MOTIVE. DO NOT CITE THE VERY
SCRIPTURES YOU BETRAY.
I continue to stand ready to engage you in a biblically
based debate on the
doctrines of grace, wherein I would demonstrate that your
commitment to
libertarianism and your denial of the clear teachings of
Scripture flow from
tradition and not from the Word of God. I also stand ready
to accept your
apology for ignoring all of the relevant information and
ignoring the honest
attempt I have made to get you to honestly deal with this
issue to the
benefit of the entire Body of Christ.
MY APOLOGY, IF I OFFER ANY, IS IN ENTERING INTO THIS FRAY IN
THE FIRST PLACE. YOU CLAIM TO WANT TO DEBATE THE "CLEAR
TEACHINGS OF SCRIPTURE," YET YOU IGNORE EVERY CITATION TO
CHRIST DYING FOR THE WORLD. YOU READ EVERY TEXT THROUGH THE
PRISM OF A SCHOLASTIC MOVEMENT AND ARROGANTLY PRESUME THAT
THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY NOT "RESOLVED"
THE ANTINOMY AS YOU HAVE.
DRS. GEISLER AND HUNT HAVE ANSWERED YOU QUITE WELL.
IF YOU DISAGREE, THAT IS YOUR RIGHT.
WE SHALL SEE THE FRUITS OF BOTH MOVEMENTS, AND LEAVE IT TO
GOD.
AND YOU WONDER WHY WE STAND AGAINST YOUR MOVEMENT SO LOUDLY.
I DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR MY ANSWERS- I DID CITE THE REVELANT.
YOU JUST DIDN'T LIKE MY ANSWERS.
ergun caner
HE DID NOT MISREPRESENT YOUR POSITION.
HE ANSWERED YOUR CHARGES. JUST BECAUSE YOU DID NOT LIKE, OR
DISAGREED WITH HIS ANSWER DOES NOT MEAN HE DID NOT ANSWER
THEM. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE MILLIONS OF US WHO AGREE WITH
DR. GEISLER ARE JUST IGNORANT?
Sir, since you have yet to read my response, yes, you are
ignorant. When you read it, and quote from it, and disprove
it, we will have a reason to continue on the topic. Till
then, you are simply embarrassing yourself defending the
indefensible.
Dr. Caner, I ask that you step back
and seriously consider the falsehoods
you are currently repeating in your e-mails to me. You have
no basis for
making the false statements you have, and I ask you, as an
elder in the
church of our Lord Jesus Christ that you obey the Word of
God (1 Timothy
5:19), which instructs you not to make unfounded accusations
against those
in such a position, to repent and reconsider your words. I
would like to
believe you have simply become caught up in emotion, and
that upon
reflection you will realize that you cannot simply lie about
people without
having the temerity and honesty to back up what you are
saying with sound
reasoning and meaningful citations.
CAUGHT UP? SIR, I ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER YOUR WORDS AS WELL.
YOU SEEM TO BE ADJUDICATING MOTIVE. DO NOT CITE THE VERY
SCRIPTURES YOU BETRAY.
Sir, that is not a response, is it? Again, any semi-unbiased
observer would know that one of us has provided cogent
documentation and argumentation, and one has not. If you are
going to accuse me of betraying the Scriptures, don't you
think after four or five e-mails it is time to start PROVING
YOUR POINTS with something more than just your ipse dixit? I
am truly amazed!
I continue to stand ready to engage
you in a biblically based debate on the
doctrines of grace, wherein I would demonstrate that your
commitment to
libertarianism and your denial of the clear teachings of
Scripture flow from
tradition and not from the Word of God. I also stand ready
to accept your
apology for ignoring all of the relevant information and
ignoring the honest
attempt I have made to get you to honestly deal with this
issue to the
benefit of the entire Body of Christ.
MY APOLOGY, IF I OFFER ANY, IS IN ENTERING INTO THIS FRAY IN
THE FIRST PLACE.
Which would be irrelevant to the disrespect and
misrepresentation that has filled your correspondence thus
far, Dr. Caner. :-)
YOU CLAIM TO WANT TO DEBATE THE "CLEAR
TEACHINGS OF SCRIPTURE," YET YOU IGNORE EVERY CITATION TO
CHRIST DYING FOR THE WORLD.
This is again a gross untruth. I ignore nothing. I ask you
to provide refutation of my extensive discussions of these
passages in TPF...discussions Geisler never touched, and
Hunt could not understand. If you cannot, you prove my
point. If you will not, you do again. You claim to have read
my books: I say you have not. If you are a scholar and honor
truth, you will provide a meaningful, fair, balanced
rebuttal. If you are not, you will ignore this request, as
you have ignored so much of what I have written to you
today. I leave it to you.
YOU READ EVERY TEXT THROUGH THE PRISM
OF A SCHOLASTIC MOVEMENT AND ARROGANTLY PRESUME THAT THOSE
WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY NOT "RESOLVED" THE
ANTINOMY AS YOU HAVE.
Please document this charge from my writings. Thank you.
Full citations, please. :-)
DRS. GEISLER AND HUNT HAVE ANSWERED
YOU QUITE WELL.
IF YOU DISAGREE, THAT IS YOUR RIGHT.
WE SHALL SEE THE FRUITS OF BOTH MOVEMENTS, AND LEAVE IT TO
GOD.
Dr. Geisler wrote 13 refuted pages that did not touch 99% of
my book. No rational person could say what you are saying.
Hunt dodged almost every exegetical question presented to
him. Both refuse to respond to anything said to them today.
Like you, they make claims, but cannot back them up with
documentation and reasoned, fair argumentation. You are
surely in their camp as your behavior has shown. I can only
hope that if you attempt to deal with John 6, as I have
invited you to, you will be able to stick to an exegetical
subject without engaging in this kind of rhetoric.
AND YOU WONDER WHY WE STAND AGAINST
YOUR MOVEMENT SO LOUDLY.
Yes sir, I wonder how any person could read our exchanges
today and stand against anything, actually.
I DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR MY ANSWERS- I
DID CITE THE REVELANT. YOU JUST DIDN'T LIKE MY ANSWERS.
Sir, you have not cited my works. Period. If you say you
have, document your claim. Thank you.
James>>>
OK, we are done.
Ignorant? Spelling corrections of PEDObaptism, when even MS
Word allows for the non-Latinized?
That type of answer would be the equivalent of my drawing
attention to non-accredited degrees. Futile. It is apparent
that we do not even speak the same language.
We are done.
On 2/21/06, Ergun Caner <ergun@erguncaner.com> wrote:
OK, we are done.
Ignorant? Spelling corrections of PEDObaptism, when even MS
Word allows for the non-Latinized?
That type of answer would be the equivalent of my drawing
attention to non-accredited degrees. Futile. It is apparent
that we do not even speak the same language.
We are done.
Sir, you seem to be seeking any reason to avoid facing
serious interaction. I am leaving to preach now here in
London. I will blog tomorrow about my challenge to you to
debate in writing the subject of John 6. I hope you will
step up to the challenge.
James>>>
Now THAT is funny.
Blog away. Including e-mail correspondence would seem to be
in keeping with the general tone of your "logic?"
I am more than happy to excerpt every argument Geisler and
Hunt used. We can talk in circles all day. More than happy
to do it.
I have a number of topics I am more than happy to discuss,
and shall say so. You will NOT pick the subject and "run the
show." YOUR exegesis of John 6 may not hold up to 2 Peter
3:9.
We shall see
I must go- it is amazing how many elect one finds when we go
door-to-door.
emc
I am more than happy to excerpt every
argument Geisler and Hunt used. We can talk in circles all
day. More than happy to do it.
If that is all you can do, sir (excerpt already refuted
arguments), that is fine. I am only concerned about those
seeking truth. I have seen so many who, upon reading both
sides of the subject, have been amazed at the lack of depth
and consistency in Arminian exegesis. Others, lovers of
tradition, do not even notice it. I cannot determine who
will have a love of truth and who will have a love of
tradition. I leave that to God.
I have a number of topics I am more
than happy to discuss, and shall say so. You will NOT pick
the subject and "run the show." YOUR exegesis of John 6 may
not hold up to 2 Peter 3:9.
If you wish to start with a passage about the second coming
of Christ rather than one on the topic of the work of the
Father and Son in saving perfectly, that's your choice: but
it speaks volumes to what I have been saying all along. :-)
James>>>
|
