Dr. James A., PhD

Let me write the songs of a nation, I care not who writes their laws” ~ Andrew Fletcher

As a former musician and DJ, though I no longer listen to rock and country music, I still follow their trends. There is no better critic of the dangers of secular music (and even most contemporary Christian music) than a former participant of it. In the last few years, I have noticed a trend in country music. That trend has been the slow integration of musicians adopting, encouraging, and promoting the LGBT lifestyle, something that has traditionally been a verboten practice among country music aficionados.

Before I explain why I believe Blake Shelton and Gwen Stefani are dating, let me first explain why the LGBT and Globalists need to infiltrate country music.

It’s not that country music is a bastion of orthodoxy and morality, it certainly is not, but the globalist agenda is about eliminating patriotism and nationalism, and there is no bigger strong hold on that ideology outside of Christian conservatives and country music fans. One of the most popular country anthems is by a country artist named Lee Greenwood, God Bless the USA. During times of war, country stars have written the rally themes like Toby Keith’s American Soldier and Red, White and Blue, Alan Jackson’s Remember When, Daryl Worley, Have You Forgotten. And who can forget the fighting songs written by Merle Haggard who quipped, “If you’re runnin’ down my country, you’re walkin’ on the fightin’ side of me”. Country music is replete with pro-American themes, hence “country” music.

Then there’s the reaction from the country crowd when the Dixie Chicks chose to criticize Republican George Bush which essentially stuck a fork in their career over the next two decades. Country music fans are most known for their patriotism and the 2nd Amendment; and that’s a sentiment that the globalists need to overcome if they are to get such a large conservative voter base on board with their agenda. The majority of the people who oppose liberal laws and therefore vote Republican, Tea Party, Libertarian (anything but Democrat) are southern conservatives who listen to country music.

Although country music is loaded with songs about cheating, beer, Jack Daniels, country fans have still maintained a loose sense of traditional old-fashioned values. Those values have been weakened through the acceptance of gay marriage among some of country music’s most popular voices like Carrie Underwood, Ty Herndon, Little Big Town, Dolly Parton, Kelly Clarkson (pop and country), Kasey Musgraves, et al. Country music has slowly integrated different styles of music to where traditional country fans admit that “country” is no longer “country”. But why has the sound changed so dramatically? Why has it been so popular to mash rap and country artists together? Why has the music industry created a “Crossroads” program to blend the musical genres? That’s fairly simple. The record companies behind them have an agenda, and they are well aware of the power of the arts in any culture to influence trends and lifestyles.

Blake Shelton is arguably the most popular figure in country music today. Gwen Stefani is probably one of the more popular figures in pop music. After Blake dumped Miranda Lambert, and Gwen jettisoned rock singer, Gavin Rossdale, the last couple anyone would have expected to see would be Blake and Gwen. However, Gwen is an outspoken advocate of gay rights. What better way to get country fans on board than by having a relationship with one of the largest voices in country music! Yes, there are a lot of women who’ve been blurring the lines, but men still tend to stand their ground, unless they have another male figure chiding them over their “hate”.

Recently, Blake was criticized for “homophobic” and “racist” tweets he made SEVEN YEARS AGO. These tweets had long since been deleted, but were saved by others. Now think about that….why does the liberal media make an issue out of seven year old forgotten and deleted tweets? making sure they are forwarded to Gwen Stefani? That answer is simple. If Blake is hooked on Gwen, he will make a public statement that will somehow be viewed as a capitulation on gay marriage and LGBTism that he has previously been vague and ambiguous about, and it will send a message to the male country fans that he is somehow OK with the gay agenda, something he has not been vocal about prior to dating Gwen Stefani. It’s how the liberal dishonest media and globalists are pushing their agenda. Blake stands to lose his girlfriend and possibly his career if he doesn’t kowtow to pressure to become tolerant in the way Gwen is.

It is ironic that so much of country music also has many religious oriented themes. Men in country music have lost their backbones and simple add a Bible reference or two to their songs to ensure a few deluded Christians buy their albums. The men in country music that refuse to uphold the LGBT agenda, haven’t been heard from.

If Taylor Swift tweets “boo”, 10 million teenagers would start making t-shirts on them that read “Taylor said, ‘boo'”. That’s how dumbed-down our culture has become in allowing the influences of musicians and other “artists” to dictate social mores. It’s a phenomena that the globalists are well aware of, and they are using every opportunity they can to integrate the last bastions of patriotism with influences that will continue to erode whatever is left of nationalist sentiment. This is why Andrew Fletcher wrote that if he were able to write the songs of the nation, it doesn’t matter who writes the laws because well-crafted music has the ability to tug on hearts in such an emotional way that it bypasses logic and reason resulting in its gullible sycophants to eschew any sense of truth and point of reference for judging what is objectively right.

Please read our article on the LGBT Conspiracy and the Daniel Trap for further information on how the LGBT agenda is being used to attack Christians. And, see David Clouds free ebooks Rock and Roll’s War Against God, and Baptist Music Wars

Dr. James A., PhD

When the infamous DNC Leaks hit the presses, one of the first accusations made by Hillary Clinton and her henchmen (and I mean, “henchmen”, given that 4 people are now dead linked to the DNC Leaks) shouted was that Russia was involved to help rig the election for Donald Trump (even though US intelligence as well as Israeli intelligence have debunked that theory).

However, this is not new news. What IS interesting is that Hillary is being investigated over the emails on her personal server, a Russian took credit for hacking it, and Crooked Hillary immediately denounced him as a lying criminal. Revealed in the DNC Leaks is this gem:

Hillary Clinton’s team quickly shot down a claim from a Romanian hacker that he had breached her private email server while she was secretary of State. “There is absolutely no basis to believe the claims made by this criminal from his prison cell. In addition to the fact he offers no proof to support his claims, his descriptions of Secretary Clinton’s server are inaccurate. It is unfathomable that he would have gained access to her emails and not leaked them the way he did to his other victims,” the Clinton camp wrote in a statement. Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar, known as “Guccifer,” told several news outlets that he had easily hacked into her email server on more than one occasion. His hack into the email account of a close Clinton ally first brought her private email to light. Clinton has claimed throughout the investigations into her use of a private server that it was never infiltrated by foreign hackers as critics accuse her of putting confidential materials at risk. Lazar was recently extradited to the United States and is currently in prison in Alexandria, Va., facing other cybercrime charges. (Link)

So why was Team Hillary so adamant about rejecting the notion of Russian involvement over her private emails, and qualifying that “he offers no proof to support his claims”, when she immediately accused Russia without any “proof to support” such claims after the DNC Leak? Post DNC Leak, there was absolutely nothing offered by the DNC in the manner of “proof to support” their claims, it was mere speculation, yet over the personal email server, even after a confession by a hacker, the claim of Russian involvement was brushed off.

It seems Team Clinton is fond of using capricious tactics when it suits them. Given how the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders, nothing is much of a surprise when it comes to the dishonesty and underhanded scheming of Team Hillary.

 

Dr. James A., PhD

It is amazing how much leftist liberals scream out for gun control, unless of course, those guns could be used to assassinate presidential candidate, Donald Trump:

 

 

 

 

 

 

(There are DOZENS, if not HUNDREDS, of these captured by Mark Dice)

One of the Twitter users making the death threats belongs to the U.S. Army (last name, Lara)

Oss my Houston people better kill Trump while he’s there and I’m over here 😭

Dr. James A., PhD

On June 10, 2016, celebrity singer, Christian Victoria Grimmie, was gunned down by a ghost “named” Kevin James Loibl *. Grimmie was a professing Christian that grew up in church, went to a Baptist school,  and was very vocal about her beliefs. As a fundamental Baptist, I have an enormous difference with her regarding her lifestyle choices and influences as a musician. But that isn’t the point. Orlando police reported that they believed the motive behind her killing was her Christian beliefs.

Within this same window, a Muslim terrorist and registered Democrat linked to ISIS opened fire at a gay night club, killing 20-50 people (reports on how many victims there were are all over the place). Not less than 24 hours, liberals started calling for gun control, and blaming Christians. A lawyer for the LGBT causes said, “The Christian Right has introduced 200 anti-LGBT bills in the last six months and people blaming Islam for this. No”. Scott Wiener, who is running for a state senate position, ranted, “Let’s be clear: Radical Islam doesn’t have a monopoly on anti- violence. Radical Christianity more than holds its own.”

Let’s repeat. A MUSLIM (and there was more than one shooter) kills LBGTs and the first people to be blamed are Christians. Not a single one of them remembered that just prior to the shooting of their club, that a Christian singer was shot for being a Christian. The left even complained that it merely was a disgruntled Muslim mad about seeing two gays kissing and that doesn’t represent all of Islam (but somehow he represented all gun owners), despite the fact that his mosque was praising the killings (of which an attempt to investigate the mosque was blocked by Hillary’s state department). Of course, that theory falls apart completely with the existence of multiple shooters.

Hillary Clinton has issued about 26 tweets since the Orlando massacre, and not a single one of them mention that Christina Grimmie was shot because of her Christian beliefs. However, she didn’t miss a beat in calling for tolerance, diversity acceptance, and gun control in the effort to give the LGBT community martyrdom status.

The liberals want the guns. The globalists have an agenda to get rid of patriotism and nationalism, and  merge us into a New World Order. Americans are not willing to give up their freedoms and national sovereignty and so it’s not going to be easy to force compliance when several hundred million Americans own a lot of guns. So these communist liberals who accept terrorist contributions use incidents like Orlando as platforms for gun grabs. Some of it is even planned. The greater the carnage, the easier it is to provoke emotional knee-jerk reactions to a crisis. It’s a lot easier for liberals to use emotionalism to convince the masses to swallow their manufactured crisis rhetoric than to encourage them to actually use logic and common sense to identify the real culprits and the real problems. But one thing is clear, Christians are always to blame for everything, and are ignored when they are the victims.

For more on why the LGBT and Gun Control debate matters to your freedoms, see our article on The LGBT Conspiracy and the Daniel Trap

__________________________________

  • A ghost I say because the man has no public records and no social media presence. He is said to have lived with his parents in St. Petersburg, Florida, but reports from Intellus, Spokeo, Instant Checkmate, Dirt Search, Been Verified, etc., show no such relatives living with any Loibl’s in that area.

 

Dr. James A., PhD

It is well known that James White is a Calvinist. As a Calvinist, he has rejected compatibilism on numerous occasions, and affirmed it in others, which leaves really only a hard determinist view which is what compatibilism ultimately boils down to anyway. When White had a conversation with George Bryson and Hank Hanegraaf*, he admitted that rape of children occurs because God ordains it and has a purpose for it. That’s not soft determinism (compatibilism). Calvinists often vacillate between compatibilism and hard determinism, but both sides are normally quick to affirm that man has no free will. His only “freedom” is determined by the nature in which he has, and since God determined that very nature in the first place….well, you get the point. All of your actions are determined whether you are a hard or soft determinist, and only the Calvinist’s conflicting view of “permission” and “secondary causation” attempts to make a distinction.**

According to White, all of our human actions are not free. Following in the footsteps of Pink, Clark, and many other Calvinists who bite the bullet on free will, White concedes that man’s every thought and action is determined. To consider otherwise, in White’s opinion, makes you either a Molinist or an Open Theist.

However, White isn’t so consistent in this view when it comes to the transmission of the Bible. In White’s book, Scripture Alone, he dedicates a chapter discussion on the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, and on Article VIII writes,

whitedictationtheory

Without going into great detail on the intricacies of the dictation theory of transmission, in a nutshell, it is the view that God controlled everything that the writers penned as Scripture (although it does NOT hold that God did not use the writer’s individuality as wrongfully implied by White). White REJECTS this view.

Now here’s the MAJOR inconsistency between White’s view of inerrancy and his Calvinism. The Dictation Theory of transmission OUGHT to be every determinist’s creed when it comes to transmission because it is the one time even non determinists accept that there are at least some things that God determines (Shhhhh…Most Calvinists believe us Non Calvinists do not believe that God ever determines anything at all!!!). Yet White deviates from his view within Calvinism that says man has absolutely no free will, to a complete capitulation of free will when it comes to the transmission of the Bible.

This reveals an ENORMOUS inconsistency in White’s Calvinist view of free will that simply can not be explained away with his normal obfuscation and equivocating rhetoric. However, it is convenient for White to reject human free will in the transmission of the Bible because his rejection of the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, and King James Bible, depends on human error. Thus, White has stuck himself in a conundrum on both his Calvinism and his view of Bible transmission.

__________________________________

*

White Lie

**Ironically, when James White attempts to appeal to compatibilism, he refers to it as a “mystery”, something that he vehemently ridiculed Leighton Flowers for.

Simply because it is a mystery though, doesn’t mean Reformed people don’t have any Biblical information to prove their view. The Bible repeatedly shows us that God decreed all things [IT DOES? REFERENCE PLEASE], and that people are still held accountable for their actions, especially their sinful actions.Theologians refers to this as compatibilism: God’s decree is compatible with a person’s will. They don’t contradict each other.” LINK (Emphasis added)

 

Dr James A., PhD

I’ve heard a lot of criticism over the methods of Jack Hyles and First Baptist Church, but some are so ridiculous that they wouldn’t pass the law school laugh test. This one has been circling the Twittersphere this week, and it’s so stupid I decided to address it.

 

The contention is over Jack Hyles on a FEW occasions telling his church members to close their Bibles while he spoke to them. To the IFB critics on the #Oldpaths hashtag, “Close Your Bibles” = “Don’t Search the Scriptures”.

Ironically, these same critics fail to mention how many times Hyles told the crowd to OPEN their Bibles-something like…every service.

I’ve never seen so many that desperate to attack another view or person that they have to resort to such childish and amateur attacks.

The reason Hyles had people BRIEFLY close their Bibles-AFTER THEY READ THE SELECTED PORTION OF IT- (Furthermore…Um…hello? If you were asked to close your Bible, that means IT WAS OPEN), is because many people would flip through pages while he was talking, which means you’re not listening to the pastor, and are distracting the person next to you. Did these critics expect Hyles to just read and not say a word after that? Or just read nothing but the Bible for the entire hour? Why don’t we see that kind of criticism and expectation leveled against every other church in the world? As I’ve constantly pointed out, the IFB is the most criticized denomination in America for their so-called “legalistic standards” by a crowd that attempts to impose more standards on us than Obamacare and OSHA.

When I pointed out that Jesus closed the book after reading 2 verses (boy THAT would have sent the Expository Police into a tailspin. Today’s IFB critic would have crucified Him for THAT alone) out of Isaiah in Luke 4:18-20, the issue was no longer that closing the book was wrong, but that telling someone else to close it was. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  Scripture and verse? If the issue was closing the book at all, then it would have been wrong for Jesus to do so. So to avoid the foot-in-mouth position, these critics have to make their own Pharisaic criteria to justify their accusations. and then change the original onus of their argument.

If you wanted to read and study the Bible instead of listening to what the preacher was saying, why bother going to church at all? Do us all a favor, if that’s your attitude, by all means PLEASE STAY HOME so the rest of us can listen to the preacher without having to stand up to see over your nose.

Dr. James A., PhD

Because of spammers and trolls, I often have to browse through my recent followers list on Twitter and block accounts every day. On May 27, 11:00 am, CST, I saw an account listed as “young1” and it had a provocative profile pic of a girl that could not have been more than 6-9 years old. When I went to visit the page to block it, I was in HORROR at the pics immediately visible. It was GRAPHIC sex acts being performed on LITTLE CHILDREN. I will spare the readers any further description.

I reported the account to the FBI Twitter page as well as the Twitter Support page.  Twitter replied,

Thank you for your report. We do not tolerate child sexual exploitation on Twitter and partner with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) to ensure that appropriate law enforcement agencies are notified when such content is located. We will review the content you have reported as soon as possible.” Case # 33196225

As of 5:32 pm, CST, the account has NOT been removed. In fact, some of the Tweets on the account were from May of 2015. So not only has the account not been removed within several hours of myself and many others reporting the account, it has obviously been there for OVER A YEAR.

How does Twitter “not tolerate child exploitation” when the most vile accounts like this are left to lure children and the most disgusting online predators? Twitter has time to filter content and shadow ban conservatives and Christians, but leaves an account up with graphic content of children as young as 5-6 years old?

 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6

Dr James A, PhD

I’m beginning to think anyone that listens to James White is as brainwashed and lacking in proper cerebral oxygen flow as the liberal anti-morality mafias. White is simply a flat-out nutcase. And I really don’t care how many of his followers criticize the manner in which I address his character because he treats those who disagree with him in the EXACT same manner, if not worse. White normally takes what he considers the “radicals” of KJVO advocates, and uses them to broad-brush the entire group. He tries to use the “gotcha” moments to paint the worst caricature of any KJVO believer. White is one of the most dishonest and disingenuous critics I have ever encountered.

On 5/19/16, White discussed a video by Brian Denlinger that claimed James White was a Jesuit. Now I agree with Brian that James White is a Jesuit, but not for the reasons that Brian gives such as his book The King James Only Controversy being endorsed by Norman Geisler, who graduated from Loyola University-a known Jesuit college- in the late 1960s. However, where White sticks his foot in his mouth is that in the video, White admits that he always wondered about Geisler’s Jesuit connections, and that it bothered him. He also attributes Geisler’s rejection of Reformed Theology to Geisler’s training at Loyola (William Craig and Geisler both graduated from Wheaton, so does White attribute Craig’s rejection of Reformed Theology on Wheaton? White just did the exact same thing he accused Brian of. So should we attribute White’s rejection of the KJV on his degree from Fuller Seminary!). Did anyone catch that? Of course not. White’s followers rarely think through anything he says. If you KNEW Geisler was so influenced by a Jesuit university that it affected his view of your precious Reformed Theology, why would you have him endorse your book anyway? 

Anyway, on to the issue.

At the 1:10:00 mark, White made his normal spew against King James Only believers, with the exception that this time, he qualified that not all King James Only believers are “cultic”, which is quite ironic because that’s not what he said just a little over a month ago when he addressed yours truly on his radio show over the racist issues and once on what started as a joke I made about his bike riding stats that White took to a new level of crazy.

I challenged White to debate that KJVO advocates are cultists, and posted for all to see, and that my debate partner would be a KJVO Calvinist. Of course, White would never accept such a challenge because I win the moment I walk in the door with a person who holds to the same 1689 LBC confession that he does. So White has to modify his rhetoric to fit the topic of the day. So how does White “prove” that there are “KJVO Cultists”?….here it is….ready!!!

Because Peter Ruckman and Sam Gipp make the KJV CENTRAL to their theology, and believe if you don’t believe and use the KJV you’re going to hell!!!

Here’s an excerpt from Sam Gipp’s Answer Book , Question #35, that proves James White is a bald-faced liar.

QUESTION: Can someone get saved if you are using a bible other than the King James? ANSWER: Yes.

EXPLANATION: Generally, the facts surrounding the gospel of Jesus Christ and the simplicity of salvation are found intact even in the grossest perversions of Scripture. It must be remembered though that the Bible is a weapon in the hand of the Christian. See Hebrews 4:12, Job 40:19 and II Timothy 3:16. It is also food that a new Christian might grow properly. See I Peter 2:2. It is in these areas that new bibles are weakened. In fact, the very verses given above are altered in many new versions, thus weakening Scripture. It is therefore possible to get saved through other versions, but you will never be a threat to the devil by growing.

Anyone who has ever read a few of Ruckman’s books knows he has NEVER said that a person who does not use the KJV is “going to hell”. Ruckman has given testimony on several occasions of entering Catholic homes and using their own Bible’s to lead them to Christ. The only thing White is ever consistent about is consistently foisting straw man arguments on to KJVO advocates.

Furthermore, White also made the comment that Ruckman, Gipp, etc…never “debate” Roman Catholics. Here’s Peter Ruckman debating Catholic apologist, Karl Keating . White seems to make “debating” the criteria for spreading the gospel, even though Paul makes it clear that it’s PREACHING (1 Cor 1). So I guess we could say that since James White never preached in the streets like Ruckman did (even at 93 years old), he’s a phony.

To add more fuel to the fire, White said that KJVO Baptists don’t have philosophy degrees. I have an earned PhD (not honorary) from Calvary Christian College & Seminary. Furthermore, I know quite a few KJVO Baptists with earned PhD’s (Waite, Sorenson, Brown, et al), and linguistic scholars who have demolished White-among other modern version proponents-regarding textual criticism (Pickering, Letis, Robinson). However, this is an interesting critique since White criticizes William Lane Craig, Jerry Walls, David Allen, and Leighton Flowers for their emphasis on philosophical attacks on Calvinism.

Thus we have White lying about Ruckman’s and Gipp’s position on the KJV, lying about Baptists with PhDs, lying about KJVOs debating Catholics, ad nauseum… how does anyone take this guy seriously? Of course, I don’t really expect White to repent & retract his lies. He will ignore it, repeat it again some time in the future, and his followers that harass us will find a way to excuse it. What a shameful crowd.

So while White is bragging about debates (Romans 1:29) he does once or twice a year, in luxury hotels with accommodations and air conditioning, he’s slandering those who debate with unbelievers in the  streets of Miami, Pensacola, Chicago, Detroit, New York City, etc…. every day.

 


   

Dr James A, PhD (Originally Posted Through Dr James Ach’s Twishort)

I’m used to seeing people like James White attempt to rewrite history, especially when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church and Augustine, Anabaptists, and Waldensians, but this statement by Colin Maxwell takes the cake.

Maxwell writes that Bob Gray Sr in including the accomplishments of American’s that happened to be Calvinists is demonstrating an inconsistent position in claiming that Calvinism is a lie. In other words, if you claim that their THEOLOGY is wrong, then you must accept that every good deed that they do in the name of their theology is a concession to the correctness of the theology. With that logic, if an atheist saves a person from drowning, we must then accept his philosophy that there is no God. His goodness deprives us of the right to critique his beliefs.

Ben Franklin maintained Deist views. Do we then espouse to Franklin’s Deism because of what he did for American freedom? Colin Maxwell is making some of the most ridiculous leaps in common sense and logic I’ve ever seen (Now keep in mind, at this point we are still talking about HISTORY: I have to say that now before some pious idiot points to what I said and claims “Look, see! Dr Ach is talking about philosophy and logic without mentioning the Bible”. If you can show me Ben Franklin in Scripture then I’ll edit this).

But what is the most ATROCIOUS part of Maxwell’s missive is his claim that DL Moody and Billy Sunday were Calvinists.

First of all, Maxwell completely contradicts his own theory by claiming that “all four were Calvinists”, only to later state that Spurgeon, not Moody, commented on Moody’s “SCENTED Calvinism”. Again, we don’t deny there are things in common between Calvinism and contra beliefs. But there are also similarities with Muslims and Christians, ie., both are monotheistic (belief there is only one God, it’s the nature of God that is in dispute, not that there’s only one); but that doesn’t mean that everyone that believes there is only one God is a Muslim. That’s EXACTLY what Maxwell is trying to claim here. And even then, his evidence is based on what someone else assumed about Moody instead of pointing to anything that Moody himself actually said about Calvinism.

To even put Moody and Spurgeon in the same category is laughable considering the amount of heated debates they had over the issues of grace. At one point Moody even accused Spurgeon of encouraging converts to “sin their way into the Kingdom”.

One of Moody’s most popular quotes AGAINST Calvinism is “The elect are the whosoever wills, the non elect are the whosoever wonts”. In arguing with Calvinists, Moody said, ” “I want to talk about the word believe, the word receive, and the word take. Now who will come and take Christ as Saviour?

With Calvinists desperate to establish historical relevancy to the infant church and historical supremacy in the modern church will grasp any terminology that hints at the appearance of their dogma and claim it as their own regardless of context. If someone in AD 200 wrote that they thought a cat was predestined to eat mice, a Calvinist would take that phrase as proof the person was a Calvinist. The very reasons that folks like Bob Gray DO quote the works of many who did admit they were Calvinists is because we recognize THEY WERE INCONSISTENT yet maintained truths that were NOT CALVINIST. One may quote something Spurgeon says about the failure of works in getting one to heaven without relying on what Spurgeon thought about election. I can agree with the former and disagree with the latter without affirming Spurgeon’s Calvinism. But, according to Maxwell’s logic (and many other Calvinists) if Spurgeon and I both believed in tying our shoes before we walked in them, that means we’re both Calvinists. However, as we seen with Islam, that logic can not be applied consistently and it is the failure of Calvinists to acknowledge this difference that contributes to many of the good things that Calvinists DID espouse to going unnoticed because of the perceived need to put distance between Calvinists and their opponents.

Relying on Spurgeon to define Moody’s beliefs is erroneous. They were contemporaries and Moody spoke for himself, and clearly opposed Calvinism as a whole, and specifically Spurgeon’s views on it. Yet must we concede to the Calvinists who insist that all who oppose Calvinism are Arminians? I vehemently reject the conditional security of Arminianism, I reject their Pelagian view of original sin and I reject their modern attempt to adopt a theology that robs God of His foreknowledge (Open Theism), yet because I also reject Calvinism, I am nevertheless still branded as an Arminian as if those are the only two options. That is how Calvinists attempt to confuse the issues and rewrite history; by using dishonest means and false weights and measures.

If Billy Sunday, the METHODIST, DL Moody and even Charles Spurgeon preached the way they did back then in today’s society they would be branded as heretics by ALL Calvinists, including Maxwell whether he admits it or not (he certainly spends enough time writing against the things that Spurgeon affirmed, and supporting the things that Spurgeon renounced, like Limited Atonement).

WIthout clear proof that Moody and Sunday were Calvinists, and in the face of clear statements and beliefs they held to the contrary, it is extremely dishonest and disingenuous to parade these men as Calvinists. But this is what we’ve gotten used to from liars like Maxwell, and unfortunately a large host of other Reformers.

Dr. James A, PhD

James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries (example) and his ilk have made repeated claims that Donald Trump is evidence of the judgment of God on America for our wickedness. There’s no question our country has shown the fullness of Amorite iniquity, but this has got to be one of the most illogical statements he’s ever said for the following reasons:

1) When God gave Israel wicked leaders, it was normally in the Northern tribes where the entire population had given themselves over to wickedness and rebelled against the laws they were bound to. There is no precedent for God JUDGING the wicked with the righteous. Genesis 18:25, Psalm 18:26.

2) Did God judge America and give us Bill Clinton, and then bless us by giving us George Bush, Jr, and then judge us again by giving us Obama? What did America do better to “deserve” getting blessed between Bush Sr, only to be judged with Clinton, then blessed again with Jr, and then judged again with Obama? If Donald Trump is the judgment of God on America, how on earth do you explain Obama? If the church and country as a whole has been in a consistent downgrade, can someone please explain those intervals of conservative Republicans in between the Democrats, and what possible reason God may have had for the back and forth?

3) Hello? TRUMP ISN’T EVEN PRESIDENT!! How on earth is God using Trump to judge America when the man hasn’t even won the election? Does White know something the rest of us don’t know? Ironically, there’s more talk of judgment on America viz Trump then there is if Hillary gets elected. Someone has truly forgotten to lock the stable doors.

Probably the biggest reason for this blunder is that White and his ilk who’ve repeated this mantra do not have a Biblical eschatology, they are Amillennialists. Therefore they reject the Biblical view of the rapture, and that God will not be judging the church with the rest of the world, including any “judgment” on the United States, particularly when there are still more than 10 righteous people (Genesis 18) fighting to preserve our heritage under natural law (what some deem Jeffersonianism), and winning souls to Christ. This is just another example of the kind of warped mentality you get from the Calvinist amillennial crowd.

_______________________

I have some very serious issues with Trump. The transgender bathroom comments he made recently are very disturbing, but at this point, it’s Trump or Hillary. Here’s an interesting take on it from Geoffrey Grider ~Why a Bible Believer Is Supporting Trump and The Real Reason Why Donald Trump Was Chosen