Archive for December 9, 2013

In addition to our expose of Fred Butler’s non-sense in our recent article, How James White Helps Spread Islam, we bring our readers attention to some additional sinister slander that Butler has made against Laurence Vance, popular author of several fundamentalist publications.

In a radio interview hosted by “Theology Matters”, Fred Butler claims that all “KJVOs hate the doctrines of grace” and claimed that Laurence Vance was one of just such people. Butler opined that Vance’s book, “The Dark Side of Calvinism” was an eerie looking book with pentagrams on it. First of all, Laurence Vance’s book is called, “The Other Side of Calvinism”, not “The Dark Side of Calvinism” which was written by George Bryson.

Now keep in mind, in our recent article cited above, Butler referred to Chris Pinto’s research as “sloppy scholarship”.

More…

On Butler’s Hips and Thighs website, where he links to this radio interview, he rebuts a blogger who points out some of Fred’s inconsistencies. Butler replies as follows,

Curious that you think there isn’t a falling out, because folks who are more aware of the situation say otherwise. But I could really care less. Needless to say, in the first edition of his anti-Calvinist rag, Vance opens his fifth chapter with a long odd ball study on the number 5 and how it represents death and how the 5 points of Calvinism equate death.

The following is from Laurence Vance’s FIRST EDITION:

CHAPTER 5: THE FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM

The doctrines of Calvinism are usually defined and discussed as the Five Points of Calvinism. These five points are the sum and substance of the Calvinistic system: the distinguishing mark which separates Calvinists from all other Christians. This is stated in no uncertain terms by all Calvinists.

Vance then goes on to cite several popular Calvinist theologians who agree with his opening statement. Not one mention of a pentagram and a comparison to the 5 points as synonymous with the number of death. Butler mentioned this in context with a comment about Gail Riplinger, whose book, “New Age Bible Versions” DOES have a sinister look to its cover. Thus it is obvious that Butler attempted to lump Vance in with Riplinger whom he knows that even many other KJVO are not in agreement with.

In a review of books on Calvinism, Butler writes in 2007 the following about Vance (and actually got the name of the book right this time),

    Thus, in order to assuage the swell of Calvinistic teaching surging through out the Church, several books have been published as a wall of defense against what is perceived to be grievous error that has flooded the congregations of God’s people.  Oddly, the authors of these polemics roam diverse theological territories in American Christianity.  For instance, Larry Vance, a King James Only, separatist fundamentalist, wrote The Other Side of Calvinism, a book that is saturated in conspiratorial nonsense and radical, historical revisionism.

Anyone that has ever read Vance’s book, The Other Side of Calvinism, knows that what makes this such a classic work on Calvinism is the lengths that Vance goes into quoting from primary source material of Calvinist authors and theologians. His book has literally thousands of quotes and excerpts from hundreds of Calvinist authors so that no detractor of Vance could ever honestly say that he misrepresented Calvinism. There’s not one single hint in Vance’s book of any conspiracy theories. Every rebuttal Vance makes against a tenet of Calvinist doctrine begins with the assessment of something  Calvinist themselves wrote.

Considering that Laurence Vance has a PhD in HISTORY and theology, the burden of proof should be on Fred Butler to show where Vance “revised history” in his book. It is obvious that Fred Butler has never even read this book.

We have shown on this website numerous times the debate tactics that Butler employs against his detractors and these accusations against Laurence Vance are no exception. Fred Butler has shown that he is willing to lie, and recklessly misrepresent those he disagrees with to paint the ugliest possible picture of anyone he considers antagonist to his views. And to think this guy works for John MacArthur at “GRACE to you”. As much as I loathe most of MacArthur’s theology, I at least give him credit for not having the nastiness and lying tactics of one of his employees.

Fred Butler and James White’s portrayal of King James Onlyist is just downright evil and dishonest. Although we don’t agree with Calvinists, we don’t stoop to the level of brandishing our detractors with the same hateful and lying rhetoric as Butler and White. Anyone that looks at the side of our website can see that we even recommend a counseling agency that are CALVINIST in doctrine (IBCD). One of my text books in Bible college was Wayne Grudem’s (a Calvinist), Systematic Theology, and Arthur Pink’s Sovereignty of God. After leaving Judaism, I spent several years in a Presbyterian church and read every book I could find on Calvinism, beginning with Loraine Boettner’s, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. In all, I have probably read 120-125 books written by Calvinist authors. It just pains some Calvinists that a person could disagree with Calvinism so they must not have truly studied it (as James White so readily accuses Dave Hunt). Yet to deliberately misrepresent WHY a person disagrees with Calvinism position as Butler has done is an egregious wickedness.

But some things that Butler is right about, I absolutely HATE doctrines that are created in synods, confessions and creeds. I make no apologies for my stand against Calvinism, nor do I sugarcoat it, but there are at least several Calvinist friends that I have in which we get along great, and agree to disagree on Calvinism. Fred Butler has a very distorted view of reality, and an obvious total inability to represent the views of his detractors with honesty even if he doesn’t agree with them.

Perhaps if Butler spent more time actually reading what he rebuts, instead of consulting his Wookie dictionary to see if Chewbacca has an opinion on the matter, his assessments of his critics wouldn’t be so full of flagrant fouls. When was the last time Butler got off of his swivel chair, put his light saber down and won a soul to Christ? I believe Butler would rather suck up to so-called “scholars” so that he can feel the warmth and embrace of the Iammyowngod club, tickle some ears in hopes that perhaps someone will praise him and send him free tickets to the next Batman movie.