Recently Dr. Elisha Weismann wrote an article about James White where he detailed the flaws of James White’s amillennial heresy, as well as questioned why White would schedule a debate in Africa (when the trip actually begins in London) and was still advertising for the necessity of funds to cover the trip. Elisha asked why would White not “count the cost” before “building his trip”? It was an honest and legitimate observation that White turned into a conspiracy theory.
To this James White responded on his website that Elisha was a conspiracy theorist simply because our website is KJVO. White stated, “Of course, this is a KJV Only site, and KJV Onlyism produces the most wide-eyed forms of vitriol and slander on the Internet, so we should not be overly surprised”. So once again, White while appearing to be pious, attacks a person’s intelligence and even lumps them into a conspiracy theorist category merely because they believe in the King James Bible. White accuses KJVO of being the most vitriolic on the internet, and yet every radio show he plays snippets of the now deceased Dave Hunt, taking statements Hunt said out of context to mock him. White himself even admitted on his 9/5/13 broadcast that many consider him obnoxious. They are probably all conspiracy theorists, too!
But who’s the real conspiracy theorist here? Are KJVO folks the only ones that oppose Calvinism and James White? Did not Norman Geisler write an endorsement on the cover of James White’s “The King James Only Controversy”? and yet Geisler also wrote a book about Calvinism called, “Chosen But Free” to which White responded with “The Potter’s Freedom”. Dave Hunt wrote a book on Calvinism and Hunt is not KJVO. But according to White, all who defend the KJVO are conspiracy theorists.
By the way James, we don’t believe in aliens, chemtrails, or zombies.
Ironically, White has promoted an upcoming speech about Ergun Caner which he calls, “The Great Evangelical Cover Up”. White has accused Norman Geisler of covering up the allegations against Ergun Caner about his truthfulness of being born in Turkey among other things. According to James White, the small handful of people that have defended Caner constitute a black eye on the entire apologetics community, and amount to an “evangelical cover up”. Thus according to White, the entire church is involved in a conspiracy to cover up Ergun Caner’s story.
So who’s the real conspiracy theorist here?
White further attempts to defend the Council of Nicea as if it wasn’t actually Roman Catholic. According to James White, the deity of Christ was not TRULY defended until the council of Nicea, as if Paul, Peter, John, Polycarp, et al, never defended the Trinity prior to this council. It took a GOVERNMENT SPONSORED council to tell the church the real truth about the deity of Christ. The council of Nicea which also led to the production of the Nicene Creed defending baptismal regeneration as well (“we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins”).
Anyone that has actually spent even a minute of time can see the Canons of the Council of Nicea are the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church. But of course, White as a staunch Calvinist, needs to defend the murderour acts of Augustine, Martin Luther and John Calvin since they relied on the fact that heresy was punishable by death under government law. Somehow White must justify Calvin’s illegitimate theocracy and so he must rewrite and revise history to disassociate the Council of Nicea from the Roman Catholic Church in order to make a bogus connection of succession between Calvin and the followers of Augustine that emanated from the Council since that is the earliest date one could show for any historic evidence for most of the beliefs held by Calvinists.
Thus, White’s following statement about debating Roman Catholics means absolutely nothing to us.
Well there you go! Don’t worry about all those debates with Roman Catholic apologists! No, no, that was all a cover, you see! Unless you present KJV Onlyism, you are actually a Jesuit! See, there isn’t a fact on God’s green earth that can stop a conspiratorialist from reaching their goal.
Just because White debates Roman Catholicism does not mean he isn’t a Jesuit himself. In fact, that is part of the Jesuit Oath.
My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant, and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope.
You have been taught to insidiously plant the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace. To take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means.
You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and the judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men, for the Pope’s sake, whose servants we are unto death.
A person that debates Roman Catholicism and yet affirms the texts created by their scholars (Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf) and then attempts to cause the rest of Christianity to believe that the Council of Nicea was not actually Roman Catholic thereby having his followers actually accept the Canons of Catholicism is the most dangerous form of double-tongued apologetics.
While we do not subscribe to every conspiracy theory published on the internet, there are some conspiracy theories that have quite a bit of validity. Americans especially should understand that. Anyone that believes that John Kennedy was killed by a lone gun man with a magic bullet is nuts. The Bible describes in great detail how Satan creates an international conglomerate that will eventually unite the world against Christ (as they attempted to do in Genesis 11 under Nimrod). You don’t get world leaders to give up their national sovereignty and patriotism to the control of a one world dictator without some kind of elaborate conspiracies to bring that to fruition. It is people such as White and many others that scream the loudest against conspiracy theories that are truly the most dangerous hucksters because they are putting Christians to sleep about the realities of the soon return of Christ and the chaos that will precede it. And yet in the process of White’s vilification of all KJVOs being conspiracy theorists, White concocts a few conspiracies of his own against his detractors.
Do Right Christians 
I am a conspiracy observer; I do not believe that I know all and see all, but I do think that it’s obvious people are working together to bring about that World They Choose, and that certainly includes all religion under Roman Ecumenism. I truly believe that this is why Calvinism was dredged up, along with the mega churches and their connections to Purpose-Driven and Emergent , as I believe that the Charismatic Movement’s abuses are intended to serve the same end. Those two movements are the two prongs of “Dominionism”, by the way; the charismatic ones even say we are to basically “sit” on Seven Mountains of Influence or Culture! The “Calvinists” I talk to online show no fear of God, not only stonewalling the moral implications of Calvinism, but even to the point of maltheist blasphemy against the moral nature of God. This is a movement to deconstruct monotheism and rid the world of Jesus, the Bible, and the monotheistic God: the One who is judge and redeemer. Calvinists create a false flag attack on Hod’s loving, moral nature, creating a god whose cruelty is intolerable, taunting people with “his” loveless callousness: the Westboro Baptist Church as “typical” Christians. Anyway, I see these things and I do believe they are the result of conspiracy. Like you, I don’t believe all conspiracies I hear about; many are disinformation, created deliberately to discredit the whole idea through association, overkill, and so on. Ultimately, it is Satan’s conspiracy, anyway; we war not against flesh and blood.
To attack Calvinism in a short comment here is too generalised. People who love to attack calvinism also love to quote Charles Spurgeon who was a staunch Calvinist. Dr Jonathan Edwards, also a Calvinist is famous for “Sinners in the hands of an angry God”. Do you love to sing “Rock of Ages”? Its author Ausgustus Toplady was a Calvinist. There is a long list of Calvinists who were very evangelical and their preaching saved many souls. When accusing John Calvin of the execution of a man, you need to check your facts more carefully. That man, Michael Servetus was tried and executed by the Town Council. Calvin was only a theologian and was not on the Town Council. He tried to persuade Servetus to stop speaking blasphemy against God. The modern reformed Calvinists in USA are full of unsaved people because many of them are just as liberal as other church groups. John Piper one of their leaders has rock music, promotes mysticism and charismatic gifts, lets Rick Warren the new age Christian leader speak at his conference and promotes famous catholics from history in his books. I cannot prove it but I think he may be a catholic infiltrator/Jesuit. James White too, may be one. It cannot be proved, but look at their fruit!
Well first of all, this isn’t the only article we have on Calvinism so it’s not an isolated article on the critique of Calvinism. If you look to the left of the site, there’s a category section with 18 articles on Calvinism. We also have a forum at the top of the site, “Calvinism’s Other Side” that addresses that subject alone. But I do agree with you it’s certainly not easy to summarize in one comment. “It’s heresy” will suffice 🙂
I rarely read Spurgeon, or Edwards. Sure, there are truth claims in those who hold unorthodox teachings: a Muslim can argue for the existence of God and the concept of monotheism, a Buddhist can argue that good works are preferable over evil works, but I would not advertise or endorse either of them as fundamentally sound preachers.
I would also say that many of the 19th century Calvinists were inconsistent Calvinists, i.e., their beliefs as practiced were not always consistent with Calvinism in theory or philosophy. Some Calvinists would not really consider them Calvinists. If you’ve ever heard James White, he doesn’t believe that any ex-Calvinist was ever a true Calvinist in the first place. There are also those who are less than 5 point Calvinists (Amyraldism). This, too, is a position that White (and many other Calvinists) repudiate. You are either a 5 pointer or not a Calvinist at all. Many Calvinists like to point to men like Spurgeon and Carey, when in truth, today they would not really consider them true Calvinists. It is mere convenience that Calvinists cite these preachers to show some kind of association with evangelism to avoid the accusations that Calvinism discourages soul winning. But if you really look at what Calvinists today call evangelism, compared to the evangelistic Calvinists of the 19th century, they are entirely different birds. Evangelism in most Calvinist churches is no different than the life-style evangelism of liberal evangelical churches. In fact, Calvinists like JD Hall and White criticize the fundamentalist approach to soul winning.
Now on Michael Servetus, we have an article on that as well-Calvinists Defense of John Calvin on Michael Servetus Peter Lumpkins has also written several articles against James White’s defense of Calvin on the Servetus issue.
Hassell & Hassell,
James White Historical Hooey Part 1
James White Historical Hooey Part 2
To Greg,
I agree with your comments here and do think that you may be correct in thinking James White is an infiltrator, to willfully compromise the faith. I have found he does speak with a forked tongue, in my research concerning James White I found he received his MA from the MA from Fuller Theological Seminary, This so-called “christian institution” has been controlled by the Mason’s for decades, and one can surely realize this institution is a supporter and leader in a “One World” religion.
For me that is PROOF enough, look into the history of this Apostate organization, and who has gone there to study “the word of God”, I say this sarcastically. I am a true believer that our dear Lord and saviour through the unction of the Holy Spirit is our teacher, and that so-called “Bible schools, colleges and Universities are a “hang-over” from the Roman Catholic church and it’s traditions.
Also I utilize and study only with my King James Version bible, I did a comparison of other bibles with the KJV back in the late 90’s and found them desperately wanting so I threw them out.
The Lord bless you all…..
How “reformed” are any Protestants, when their Roman Catholicism remains in their Filioquism (doctrine of the Filioque within their doctrine of the Trinity), and their Trinitarianism is Augustinian and Roman Catholic, not Biblical [not following John 15:26 and Acts 2:33].? So to accuse James White of being a Roman Catholic is to accuse the same thing of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley, as well as the majority of Evangelicals, who follow the Protestant Reformers in their Filioquism.
Do we follow Wesley here? No Arminians here. Luther? The man that approved of persecution of Jews? Thanks for the analysis because I have no problem agreeing with you that Luther and Wesley (who denied eternal security) were just as heretical as James White and most of the Reformers. Since the gates of hell are said to never prevail against the church, when was the church ever UN-formed to require the need to be RE-formed? To RE-form “THE” church, is a tacit admission that somehow the RCC was THE church in the first place, and therefore needed reformed because of her heretical doctrines.
So while the Reformation certainly helped open doors for religious civil liberties, and an emphasis on faith alone and Scripture alone, they did not go far enough, and did not practice what they preached, and to this day, still do not. Calvinists are certainly not “sola scriptura”, because to be an ACCURATE Calvinist, you are expected to know the writings of the Reformers and the Confessions and Catechisms. Since Calvinism “is” the gospel according to most Calvinists, one would need to understand the creeds and confessions first before truly understanding the gospel which means that the traditions of men take precedence over the Bible. That’s hardly solo scriptura. Any time one disagrees with a Calvinist or critiques their doctrine, the first thing a Calvinist utters is “you don’t understand Calvinism”.
And neither do Calvinists practice faith alone. Calvinists definition of faith is a definition of works. No honest and consistent Calvinist will claim that salvation is by faith in Christ. I can give you quote after quote from Calvinist/Reformed authors that confirm this.
James White promotes the “Bibles” of Rome, and the dogmas of a man who was on the Roman Catholic payroll from 1521 to 1534, long after he began lobbying against the RCC. Yet the logo used for John Calvin’s college in Geneva was the IHS Jesuit symbol, which is no surprise, since Calvin’s best friend and classmate through college was Martin Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus, b/k/a, the Jesuit Order. Part of the Oath of the Jesuit Order is “to an Arminian be an Arminian, to a Protestant a Protestant, to a Calvinist a Calvinist“. The RCC doesn’t mind criticism against it by its Jesuits so long as the Jesuit in place does his job at causing confusion about the doctrines of Christ and the inerrancy of Scripture.
John Calvin was used by the RCC to create a false-dichotomy among the churches. Much like in America where BOTH political parties play both ends against the middle, the voter is left the impression that there are only 2 parties to choose from, and thus eliminating the possibility of an independent party taking office. The practice in church history has been no different, Augustine or Pelegian, Lutheran or Erasmus, and after the Reformation, Calvinist or Arminian. In fact, most Calvinists will claim that if you are not a five point Calvinist, you are an Arminian, no such thing as simply a Non Calvinist. The impression is to cause you to believe that only those 2 options are right or wrong, and so long as you avoid the one in the middle, both sides have done their job, whether knowingly or unintentionally. Calvin’s was intentional and I believe White’s is as well. Calvin’s job was to make sure that nobody had an option between either believing Luther, or believe the RCC. Calvinism was needed to throw off the balance of the Reformation, but neither Luther nor Calvin threw off all of the RCC doctrines (whether it be the Eucharist [Calvin believe the Holy Spirit was spiritually present in the communion], persecution of ‘heretics’, or the Dominion Theology of the RCC (commonly now referred to as Covenant Theology or Replacement Theology with a few minor alterations).
We are neither Protestant, Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist or Arminian.
Very good article. I appreciate you quoting part of the Jesuit oath. Very informative.