Fred Butler’s LIES About Laurence Vance

Posted: December 9, 2013 in Calvinism, King James Only Debate

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”.


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:


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.



  1. fivepointer says:

    So. Is it your contention that Vance DOESN’T believe the number 5 is the number of death? And that I am making it up that he revised his later editions?

    • drjamesa says:

      Even if he did ( and I am talking to him now ) how does that tie into what he wrote about Calvinism and relevance to the KJVO controversy? You simply attempted to use it as an attack to make others think that all KJVO are conspiracy theory nuts. It was/is a blatant ad hominem attack that has no truth to it.

      Secondly, even if he did have it in his first edition, which was almost TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO, wouldn’t that be the right thing to do by revising later editions to eliminate it if it wasn’t accurate? Have you changed any of YOUR views in the last 25 years? (like say, KJVO).

      Thirdly, considering that your assessment of Vance’s book was reviewed in 2007, and Vance’s original release was in 1991, it is obvious that you never read or saw the original publication. Furthermore, you failed to mention it as an example of “full of conspiratorial non sense” in your review which I would find it highly ironic that you would fail to make that connection if your allegations were true.

      If you are going to slander Laurence Vance on his book about Calvinism, then show something from his book ABOUT CALVINISM that misrepresents Calvinism, instead of attempting to inoculate your followers from reading it by trying to get them to pass it off as some weirdo conspiracy theory book.

  2. fivepointer says:

    Ha. You’re such a joke. Showed you wrong and now you’re trying to back peddle and change the goal posts. I did show you something from his book. A bizarre case of numerology where 5 is the number of death, like VANCE and JESUS, I suppose. Why did he remove it? Does he still believe that. Ask him those questions and get back to me. Me and Chewie aren’t expecting a retraction anytime soon.

    • drjamesa says:

      You showed me nothing. What I do in debates and arguments when I’m right about my opponent, is show that even if what they say is right, they are still in the wrong. I did not concede anything and in fact, even quoted from Laurence Vance’s book from chapter 5 in the article. Thus I showed first, that you were wrong, and did so by quoting from Vance’s book. Then secondly, I followed up with an assessment of your logic even “IF” what you said was right, and somehow that translated into a tacit admission of your point. Thus, not only is your “scholarship” and research sloppy, so are your debating and reasoning skills.

      Just saw your little tweet. As I said, this is NOT in Vance’s book, not even the original which I quoted from. Furthermore, you said nothing in the radio interview as this being in a older edition 25 years ago, but said it as if it was CURRENTLY in Vance’s book. Furthermore, you said that you read it yourself. Thus it is obvious where you actually got your information from, a blogger who wrote something just a few months ago in July of 2013 (which explains why you never mentioned this in 2007). The blogger also says Vance’s book has 460 pages. He is obviously not referring to The Other Side of Calvinism 🙂

      Also, your 2007 review says that Vance’s book was “SATURATED” with conspiratorial non-sense. So you are using a small paragraph that you claim was in his book, and claiming that is a SATURATION of conspiratorial nonsense in an 800 page book? Science fiction movies have truly clouded your judgment.

      And of the 800 plus pages in Vance’s book, the one thing that you pick on is something he allegedly said about the number five? Really? Typically, when I critique a book, I find several points of contention, and write about what’s actually relevant to the content of the book or article. I don’t make the major point of contention some rabbit trail that is not even what the book is about. But, that’s the typical anti KJVO mentality, find the something small to harp on, and make the minority into a majority issue (also a typical communist liberal tactic in politics).

  3. drjamesa says:

    Oh, and just for giggles, here’s a link to a REFORMER website that believes that the number 5 represents death. 🙂

  4. David says:

    Brother James,

    I am real late in saying thank you for your article on Fred lying about Vance. I was the one who brought his lies to his attention. When I read your article I was glad that there are other Christians out there guarding the truth and fighting error. I visit your site often. Your articles are sound and very needed for the body of Christ. I will be send Fred a copy of Joey Faust’s book on the History of King James Onlyism and Jack Mcelroy “Which Bible would Jesus Use?”

    God bless brother,


    • drjamesa says:

      All glory to God and thank you brother.

      Butler probably wont read it and if he does, he’ll probably scan it and look for specific sections that are in agreement with other arguments that anti-KJV users have accused KJVOs of using, and center a response around only those sections. This has been a predictable pattern in Butler’s writing style. Brother Vance thought it was rather comical.

      I have not yet read Mcelroy’s book. I seen it advertised, but have been so busy with other projects I have not go around to ordering it yet, and might wait for it to come out on audio or Kindle.

      For the Calvinists, they should ask themselves, “Which Bible Did the Reformers Use?”. It wasn’t the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus 🙂

  5. James Ralph Miller says:

    Excellent. I read Vance’s book. The best book I have read next to the Bible itself. For the first time in my Christian life I am at perfect peace now that I am on the other side of CALVINISM. I know for certain that I was elected IN Christ before the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God who saw my faith in Christ and that I would not resist but have faith in Him which came from hearing the Word and then regenerated by the Spirit through the incorruptible seed the Word of God. God is NOT a fatalistic God who determined both good and evil, but merciful God provided and desired salvation for all.

Leave Godly Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s