Posts Tagged ‘James White’

kspwicked - Copy

By J/A and Dr. James Ach

“And unlike abortion, gay marriage remains an act rooted in love….In the case of same-sex marriage, our work is just beginning. We must now repent of the injustices we have perpetrated on LGBT people”. Karen Swallow Prior, Gay Marriage, Abortion, and the Bigger Picture.

“WHAT INJUSTICES? Calling homosexuality sin? calling them to repentance?” James White, July 16, 2015.

This is probably the most awkward post we have ever written. It involves some major concessions toward a person that we have long held as a theological adversary. We had 27 articles on this website and a few others that ripped JD Hall of Pulpit and Pen apart, not including probably several hundred tweets between at least three of us that help with this site. It got to the point where we were attacking what JD ate for breakfast if there was something about the way he said it that was objectionable. Although JD Hall has raised a number of very important issues, we gave our tacit approval to those he attacked by contributing to his character assassination, even though we agreed with what he was saying against men in the Southern Baptist Convention. In other words, we were attacking JD Hall in the midst of his pursuing issues that we ALSO opposed. We could have taken this opportunity to also join with those who have thrown Hall under the bus, but there’s much bigger issues that Hall has raised that simply should not, can not be ignored.

Most of all, although we have never directly accused Hall (or James White) of being responsible for the death of Braxton Caner, we tied together enough circumstantial evidence to give that impression. We regret that and sincerely apologize. Moreover, we have a certain “hunch” that the facts of that “suicide” are not what the mainstream has been told. Although we can not, for legal reasons, make any public statements about our suspicions, we can say with a pretty good degree of certainty that JD Hall did NOT have anything to do with Braxton’s death and without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary it was wrong for us to give the impression that a man was guilty of murder. JD did show remorse and repentance over his interaction, but then apparently recanted. But after much reflection, what did people expect? His expression of repentance was turned into murder confession by his opponents. What person with a ministry, wife and children on the line would not defend themselves given Ergun Caner’s propensity for suing his enemies?  And Hall didn’t sue those who accused him. 

Do we regret Hall’s attitude? Yep. Do we still despise Calvinism? 95% (we do like street preachers like Miano, Colin Maxwell, and Chris Dean, even though we will continue to debunk Maxwell’s ideology on a regular basis 🙂 ). Will we fight over KJVO issues with Hall, and his friends, Fred Butler, James White? You bet. We are not defending JD Hall’s attitude, his brash tactics, and most of his methods (not like ours have been any better), but we do share his frustration with Christians who seem to like crab diving in sand dunes-face first. John Wesley (Non Calvinist) and Jonathon Edwards (Calvinist) still agreed together against many of the vices that plagued the church as a whole even though they had sharp differences in their theology. There will of course, always be a modicum of separation because of those differences, but we are living in a time where laws are quickly evolving that are eroding personal liberties, and we will agree with these men on those issues necessary to help insure our continued ability to preach the gospel without hindrance, at least to the extent we are able in America (although not so much in Israel for Brother Ach).

Since the recent Supreme Court decision approving sodomite marriages, cultures around the world are on a fast track to hell in a hand basket, and very few Christians are standing their ground. As much controversy as their has been between Calvinists and “Arminians” (an unfortunate designation used to describe anyone who is not a 5 Point Calvinist), the only visible fist-shakers are the fundamentalists, which include IFB, and Calvinists. What JD Hall has in his favor is that his tract record against compromisers is impressively accurate, particularly in the areas regarding Louisiana College, Brewton-Parker College and Ergun Caner, and Lifeway Christian Books, to name just a few.

This week, Hall unloaded another bomb against the the Southern Baptist Convention’s (“SBC”), Ethics and Religious Commission (“ERLC”)  in an article that identified English professor at Liberty University and ERLC member, Dr. Karen Swallow Prior (“KSP”), as a gay affirming research fellow appointed to the commission by Dr. Russell Moore. We want to save room to state our own findings so we won’t rehash many of the facts already presented elsewhere, but there have been a number of other articles excusing “defending” Dr. Prior (if you can call them defenses*), and then rebuttals offered by Hall himself, as well as James White and Robert Gagnon. We personally believe that White’s recent response has the most accurate description of the root of the problem, we are not even going to bother trying to improve on it. If you refuse to take the time to listen to this presentation, you are not qualified to defend Karen Prior! (Her crowd gets to make up their own standards, so we’re making up ours!). We apologize if you don’t get enough context here if you like to shop at one store, but we lose readers after 2,000 words, and there’s some things we really want the readers to see that will make you question Dr. Russell Moore’s sanity.

The Basic Facts Against Karen Swallow Prior. It’s Much Bigger Than We Imagined

Keep this in mind: Karen Prior is a teacher at a BAPTIST college, and a member on an ethics committee in a BAPTIST convention; a Baptist commission that has holds to a complementarian view of the home and gender roles, but of which KSP is opposed to (1). In addition to the facts already presented by Pulpit and Pen, we have the following issues against KSP:

KSP TAUGHT AT A JESUIT COLLEGE

In a magazine article where KSP opines about her opposition to nuclear weapons (not a very conservative view there, but I digress) she admits that she taught at a Jesuit college. She also refers to a Catholic priest as “Father” (See Matthew 23:9), and discusses how she started a Feminist group. The Episcopal church she attended was also a gay-affirming church.

A few years and many more abortion protests later, I was starting a local chapter of Feminists for Life, attending an Episcopal church, heading up a small private school in the inner city, teaching at a Jesuit college, and reading the poetry of Father Daniel Berrigan, the famous Vietnam-era anti-war activist who was now being arrested for protesting abortion

An article from the Feminists For Life website reveals some interesting beliefs of the foundation,

“I am a liberal. I believe in a comprehensive, government-funded social welfare network, national health insurance, more spending on foreign aid, and a reduced military budget. I am also a liberal Jew. I believe in a symbolic interpretation of the Bible and support women’s and marriage equality within Judaism.” Sharon B. Long, Metamorphosis, Feminists for Life

As of this moment, FoF is still listed on her Facebook page as a point of contact, and as far as 2012 she was still referring followers there,

Feminist does not (should not) necessarily mean pro-choice

In her book, “Booked”, she dedicates the third chapter, “God of the Awkward, Freckled and Strange“, to a Jesuit priest named, Gerard Manley Hopkins.

*In an article posted by Reading Acts, a “top ten” list of books are suggested by KSP to “challenge Christian thinking”. Two of these ten books, are pro-Jesuit (The Sparrow, Mary Doria Russell, and Silence, by Shusako Endo)

KSP has quite the affinity for the Jesuits.

KSP RECOMMENDS HER FOLLOWERS FRIEND PRO-GAY CATHOLICS (2)

Karen Swallow Prior retweeted Daniel Mattson

So proud of my friend, . Follow him!

Karen Swallow Prior added,

KSP GIVES PRAISES TO THE POPE OF ROME

Why I Love Pope Francis’s Radical (Not Really) Take on the Gospel via

KSP would also agree the Pope should do more to help with nuclear weapons.

Pope Francis: Do More To Ban Nuclear Weapons

And apparently, KSP needs to make sure the air is clear  what the Pope said about Iraq,

What Pope Francis really said about the crisis in Iraq via

KSP WAS A SPOKESPERSON AND ORGANIZER FOR A CATHOLIC ABORTION PROTEST GROUP

We are glad that KSP opposes abortion. However, good works do not excuse associating with the whore of Babylon. According to Mother Jones Magazine (a Catholic publication) KSP was the spokesperson and organizer for the Catholic group, Spring of Life. KSP is currently a member of a pro-Catholic protest group called Consistent Life.  This group was initially “Seamless Garment” in honor of the Pope’s “Seamless Garment Theology“.

KSP IS AN ACTIVE FEMINIST

As noted above, Karen is an active professing feminist. Although KSP attempts to reinvent classical feminism, her slant on her Christian feminist views are simply evangelical syncretism. See an excellent short article by John MacArthur exposing this.  and for further detailed rebuttals, read Wayne Grudem’s, Evangelical Feminism, and the  review of said book by Albert Mohler.  We’re not going to spend a lot of time making a case against her feminism here as our target audience are those who should already be familiar with it, and know why there’s no place for it in a Baptist church, let alone an ethics commission.  And as noted afore, the president of the ERLC himself has previously written against it.

What is disturbing about her feminism is that she associates with other feminist groups that promote humanism, such as the group she belongs to, Ladies of Liberty, of which promotes the radical Indian humanist feminist group, Nurmukta (see screenshot below, (2)).

CONCLUSION

We are going to issue a part 2 to address the pathetic excuses that have been offered in defense of KSP. Karen Prior’s actions are a perfect example of the growing danger of ecumenism creeping into the churches. KSP embraces an emergent church philosophy that is rhetorically dishonest in it’s appeal to her followers using emotional and semanitcal manipulation (which has even included her accusing JD Hall of “attacking” her because she is a woman, here and here)  While she claims to oppose homosexuality (like Obama claims to support the Constitution as Hall pointed out), she gives those who identify as such (or those who attempt to merely move semantical goal posts by exchanging “gay” for “same-sex attraction”) every indication that they do not need to repent, call their sin what it is, an abomination (I have yet to see Karen refer to homosexuality as such), and disassociate from all of it’s labels, rhetoric, and those who support it. Karen uses the very language of the “LGBT community” -including their condemnations of the church- in a sort of confused approach/avoidance, ambiguous way, which gives implicit approval of their means of expression, the very means they consistently rely on to manipulate supporters, the media, and gullible Christians.  Karen’s excuses have rendered passages such as 1 Corinthians 5:11 meaningless.

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

 Abstain from all appearance of evil.” 1 Thessalonians 5:22

 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” Ephesians 5:11

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” 2 Corinthians 6:14-17

KSP is permitting gays to be comfortable and accepted in their lifestyle when they need to be ashamed and convicted before God-like the rest of us. Luke 13:3-5, Romans 12:20-21. God did not sit in heaven scratching His head, “Son, we need to come up with a different plan for ‘gays'”.  She gives credence to the idea that the Christian witness is only meaningful if we capitulate to their nuances first, and just “play nice” (although ironically, one of her oft quoted defenders was “Turretan Fan”, a theonomist that believes in the death penalty for homosexuals. Not only is that not very “loving” but KSP herself opposes ALL forms of the death penalty, other than those defending her of course). Why does a thief, a drunkard and a murderer express shame and guilt over their sin, but a homosexual must be apologized to for having been offended by “hate speech”? Why do homosexuals get classifications that no other sin gets to have? Why isn’t criticism against chronic adulterers or serial fornicators called “hate speech”?  So many anomalies among the “gay community” that Karen has no meaningful and challenging polemic for.

The modern movement to allow homosexuals into churches without repenting of homosexuality is unscriptural. Bible believers are not “homophobic” any more than they are “adulteryphobic” or “thiefphobic” or “lierphobic.” They do not hate homosexuals. They simply believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin before God and that men must repent of sin in order to be saved.” David Cloud, The Emerging Church and Homosexuality

Yet it is not merely KSP’s unbiblical coddling of homosexuals that is a problem, but also her associations with the biggest enemy of the church outside of the devil himself: ROME. From an admitted background in a Jesuit education system, Karen has endorsed, recommended, suggested, the works and friendship of numerous Catholics from Jesuit priests all the way up to the antichrist pope himself. She is being used to build bridges in the ERLC and Liberty University (and among her followers and fans elsewhere) to Vatican City, and none of her followers and defenders are even blinking an eye at this. [New Addition] In fact, in 2014, Karen promoted a Catholic article that called for others to stop referring to Catholicism as a false gospel:

ksptweetcatholicdefense - Copy

That is terrifying.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Revelation 18:4

kspdrmoorepope - Copy

 

 

 

 

 


 

*We have already addressed one of her defenders, Rory Tyer, here, “Did Jesus Really Eat With Sinners?”

One of the recent more popular objections offered by KSP’s defenders is that she was at a Lesbian Gay Film Festival (just sit on that for about 5 seconds and carry on) to “evangelize”. What her “evangelism” consisted of was reading a chapter out of her book, “Booked”, which received quite the accolades-from pro- gays! (such as Jon Merritt) One such attendant notified us that no gospel message with a demand for repentance was given, although this person refuses to “go on record” so we will have to chalk that up as hearsay, but there has been no evidence that KSP was invited there to give the gospel, nor that she in fact, did. One has to wonder how a Christian who professes to oppose homosexuality even gets invited to such an event in the first place. Again, let that resonate: Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. I surely can’t see them inviting David Cloud, or James White, or Robert Gagnon.

We also had a Twitter war with Chris Bolt, whose view we thoroughly debunked regarding his obfuscating attempt to make James White’s debates in a mosque synonymous with Karen’s reading from a book at a gay FESTIVAL. You would think that any half witted moron could tell the difference between a FESTIVAL which is the celebration of an event or idea, and a DEBATE where the gospel is being vigorously contended and argued for against those who would probably rather chop White’s head off. Of course, we do have our own opinions about White’s Calvinism and textual issues that he presents to Muslims, but White still presents an orthodox view of the gospel, that we have to agree, would result in a persons salvation if they believed it and turned to Christ in repentance.  We need to state that here because there’s going to be KSP defenders attempting to point to our other articles opposing Calvinism, White in particular, as a red herring to avoid the issues against KSP.


 

EXHIBITS

The screenshots I was given were of graphics that were created out of twitter snips onto a word doc. So I am simply posting what I have that contains those screenshots as I was not given the individual smaller pictures. Totally unprofessional looking, I know, sue me .

1. swallowmoore - Copy

 

(2)

 

kspfeminism - Copy

 


 

UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES

Debunking KSP’s “I Meant Different Kinds of Love” Excuse

LOVE: Karen has responded on another blog about what she meant by “gay marriage is rooted in love”. Although her defense is still gay-affirming, this is her excuse explanation:

As far as what I meant about gay marriage being rooted in love, I never imagined that anyone who has even a mild interest in Christian theology and doctrine would be unaware of the different kinds of love. I honestly did not know that pastors (let alone so-called discernment bloggers) existed who do not know this:

First of all, if Karen wanted others to understand her sentiment as a reference to “other” kinds of love, why didn’t she just say so? I mean, if she expects theologians to understand there are different kinds of love, shouldn’t we expect an English professor to make her statements clear? Moreover, was her target audience theologians? I mean, come on, if this information is something known to theologians, must we assume that everybody is aware of the four distinctions in Greek of love? So either her target audience consisted of theologians, or she’s being rhetorically dishonest. We have to assume that as an English professor she would expect her target audience to interpret her intent in the manner in which every day English speakers would read it, not how a theologian knowledgeable in Greek would construe it.

However, even giving her the benefit of a doubt (which we are not wont to do here), which love is she referring to? because all of the “other” loves in the Bible that are related to sexual relationships are always in the context of a 1-man-1-woman relationship. So was Prior claiming that she meant gay marriage is rooted in agape (ἀγάπη) love? I would hardly think that if Karen knows anything about Greek, and the various types of love that she pawns this excuse off on, she would at least have the decency not to attribute the strongest expression of love to homosexual relationships.

Did she mean philia (φιλία) love? If that were the case, then she couldn’t have qualified a conversation about sexual relationships among gays, not even same SEX attraction, because phileo is never intended to convey the concept of attraction, not even toward male toward female and vise versa. So we know she couldn’t have meant phileo love. Plus, the comment was about MARRIAGE which kind of rules of mere friendship and “celibate committed same-sex relationships” altogether.

Did she mean storge (στοργή)? the kind of affection shown in a parent/child relationship? Awk-ward!! [squeaky voice]

And finally, eros (ἔρως), used mostly to describe passionate and sexual love, between a male and female. However, if she means eros, is she granting homosexuals permission to claim their “love” is rooted in a Biblical expression of eros? She couldn’t have meant a perverted expression of eros because that just simply doesn’t exist in the Bible. Why didn’t she clarify that she meant to express that “their acts are rooted in a misguided and misunderstood version of love”? Wouldn’t something along those lines been a little less ambiguous than “gay marriage IS an act ROOTED IN LOVE”?

Karen has shot herself in the foot with her excuse. Even taking her explanation at face value, it doesn’t clarify her position any better than it did the first time she said it without the qualification. In fact, if anything, it makes her statement even worse. However, given that she deferred to this excuse, isn’t she then obligated to state which one she meant instead of just leaving us hanging waiting for the sequel?

Nevertheless, don’t believe for a second that she really intended to say “Oh, I really meant different kinds of love”. She had every opportunity to clarify her statement the first time. She said exactly what she wanted to say by using the rhetoric of the “gay community” which is kind of obvious by the fact she also used their condemnations (that the church needs to repent of its injustices toward them, another unqualified quip).

But let’s give her a chance to clarify this blunder. Tell us Karen, if you meant “different kinds of love”, WHICH ONE?

UPDATE JULY 28, 2015

KSP retweets a gay-affirming website, Q-Ideas, who is hosting her articles

morekspgay

 

And here’s an excerpt of KSP praising the hell-rejecting Rob Bell on “Love Wins” and a few other heretics (including the pro LGBT advocate, Rachel Held Evans),

kspbell - Copy

Dr James Ach and J/A

Recently on the Dr. Drew Show, where the theme revolved around “transgenders” with James White as a guest, Dr. Drew began the show with a clip of Steven Anderson ranting about Bruce Jenner, praying that Jenner would die and go to hell. Of course, it’s not uncommon for liberal media personalities to use the most extreme examples of professing Christians to provoke an emotionally charged irrational response against the conservative Christian crowds that raise the most objections to issues such as homosexuality and transgenderism. Although, Dr Drew didn’t use Anderson any differently than James White uses Anderson to portray King James Only advocates.

Let us first say on behalf of all independent fundamental Baptists (IFB) of all stripes, that NONE of us recognize Steven Anderson as a bona fide fundamental Baptist. He has virtually nothing in common with any IFB denomination, and has been openly hostile of every IFB minister and ministry from Peter Ruckman, Bob Gray Sr., David Cloud, D.A. Waite, Jack Moorman, Phil Stringer, Jack Chick,  to Fellowship Tract League, William Grady, Sam Gipp, Lester Roloff et al , and that’s just about every known “leader” so-to-speak in modern fundamental “circles”. The above names have sharp disagreements with each other, but Anderson hates them ALL. Anderson is an anti-Semitic, hermeneutically challenged anomaly that in our opinion at DRC is on someone’s payroll to make Baptists look like complete idiots (above and beyond some of the dumb things we’ve done amongst ourselves). In fact, not only do we deny that Anderson is IFB but have a standing joke that Anderson is actually a closet Calvinist.

But, to save the day on the Drew show, James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries gives the Christian side of the transgender debate. Frankly, White did a fairly good job at keeping the topic on topic in light of the red herrings and strawmen being thrown at him from the stage (including an unnecessary pejorative jab by Dr. Drew, “That’s what the Duggars told their son” when White stated we need to listen to what God says about His creation), and given the hand he was dealt against the clearly stacked deck held by the house, he actually did manage to accurately describe the Christian perspective of God’s design and purpose for the male and female to a hostile crowd. I think he could have been a little more thorough, but in fairness, he probably got more chances to offer what he DID get to explain than the producers wanted to give him.

White made it quite clear that Steven Anderson’s brand of Christianity is not reflective of genuine orthodoxy. We agree, but this is where we have a contention with Calvinism. We don’t think honest Calvinists can be consistent with their theology when condemning people like Steven Anderson because their theology maintains the exact same sentiment.

Here’s a simple question we asked Calvinists on Twitter: Did Christ die for Bruce Jenner? Not one single Calvinist tried to answer that.

Calvinists have long held that God doesn’t love everybody. In The Sovereignty of God, A. W. Pink,  wrote, “God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody.”

In a written book-format debate with Dave Hunt, James White stated,

Surely it is part of modern evangelical tradition to say, ‘God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,’ but providing a meaningful biblical basis for this assertion is significantly more difficult.” Debating Calvinism, p.265

White also made a near 2 hour video on John 3:16 in 2006 attempting to show that God doesn’t love everybody.

John Calvin wrote,  “It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world.” Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God p.148. R.C. Sproul stated that, “The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect”. Sproul, Chosen By God, pp 206-207.

There are not very many exceptions in Calvinism when it comes to the question of God’s love for all. Those who do attempt to make an exception (such as John MacArthur, “Does God Love Whom He Does Not Save?”) merely attempt to move the goal posts a little down the field by deferring to a different kind of love for the sinner than for the elect, but the outcome is still the same, God didn’t love the unelect enough to keep them out of hell so not even MacArthur can claim his views are any different than his compadres. (We’ve addressed the issue of different kinds of love, and Calvinists usage of “rain on the just and unjust” argument here).

Not only do most Calvinists concede that God does not love everyone, but the remaining consensus among them is that if He does not love everyone, and didn’t elect you, then He hates you!

James White writes about Romans 9:13, “No matter how one understands ‘Jacob have I love but Esau have I hated’ , this verse alone should be enough to refute such an errant view of God’s love.Debating Calvinism, p.268 (emphasis added). Notice that White contrasts “hate” verses any opposing view as being an “errant view” that God would love all. James White also denies being a hyper-Calvinist (a denial that is defended by Phil Johnson), so this view can’t be blamed on “hyper Calvinism” (although we vehemently deny that there is any such thing. The eventual results of infra-, supra- or sub lapsarianism and their various modifications are all inconsistent and lead to exhaustive determinism and fatalism).

Paul Washer says that, ” ‘God hates the sin but loves the sinner’ looks good on the back of a t-shirt, but that’s not Biblical”. In fact, Washer even offers an erroneous interpretation of Psalm 5 as a contrast to the universal love taught in John 3:16.  John Piper dittoes this sentiment in “God loves the Sinner But Hates the Sin? July 30, 2013.

Now what Calvinists will normally do at this point after you’ve proven point after point, with quote after quote (and I do have many many more) of just what their trusted leaders have affirmed on these issues, is attempt to justify their position while ignoring the fact that just 5 minutes ago they were denying that any Calvinist ever held to these views.

But this all leads to one final conclusion…

Calvinists have no grounds on which to condemn Steven Anderson’s view of Bruce Jenner.

Calvinists have no grounds on which to condemn Steven Anderson’s view of Bruce Jenner. Calvinists have always freely condemned any person that does not bear the fruit of the Spirit as a person who is either unsaved or was never saved in the first place (which is still unsaved). In fact, White and JD Hall have said such about Ergun Caner and Peter Lumpkins and several other ministers in the SBC, and White has even hinted that anyone who rejects Calvinism is not a Christian (and Hall blatantly said so). Certainly if they can reserve that judgment on professing Christians, is there any doubt what the Calvinist view of Bruce Jenner is? White has confirmed on more than one occasion that homosexuality is a gospel issue (and we agree, though for different reasons which we’ve addressed in Westboro Baptist Calvinists). Thus the only alternative is that Bruce Jenner is clearly not one of the elect, and not predestinated for salvation, but is in fact, non elect.

Since Bruce Jenner isn’t elect, then God hates him. That’s the only consistent position a Calvinist can take on this matter. They can’t claim “Well we don’t know” because they’ve certainly said they DID know about many others who were/are professing Christians (White has even claimed that *I* am unsaved) . Therefore, there is no meaningful difference from the Calvinist theological position that God hates Bruce Jenner and has predestined him for hell, and Steven Anderson’s comments that he hates Bruce Jenner, and hopes he goes to hell. At least Anderson is honest about his views as wrong as they are. The views of Steven Anderson and the views of Calvinism as a whole are exactly the same when it comes to people like Bruce Jenner. In both views God hates the sinner and wants them to burn in hell. If there is a difference, it would merely be that God, according to Calvinism, reprobated Jenner before time, and Anderson is praying for God to hasten His judgment for it in time. Calvinism continues to maintain its credibility by being consistently rhetorically dishonest about what they believe.

_____________________________

See also Leighton Flowers, Did God Determine Homosexuality? For additional thoughts on how consistent Calvinism would actually blame God for Bruce Jenner’s condition. Although Leighton did not specifically mention Jenner, one can use the same logic that Leighton used and simply replace the terms “homosexual” with “transgender”. This comment will make more sense to you after you read his article.

And,

Are You A Calvinist In Your Preaching On Homosexuality? From friend of Dr. Elisha,  Boaz Baptist.

Dr. James Ach and J/A

While perusing the Twitter page of Leighton Flowers of Soteriology 101, I viewed this interesting exchange between Flowers and James White wherein White asks Flowers if he believes that the apostle Paul could have resisted his salvation during that infamous event in Acts 9 on Paul’s way to Damascus. One of White’s responses is actually a little shocking for a Calvinist, and is a tacit admission that grace is not irresistible as Calvinists claim. But I’ll get to that in a minute!

First, let’s address whether or not Paul’s conversion in Acts 9 was an example of irresistible grace (“IG”). When Calvinists can prove that God saves everyone the way they claim he saved Paul, only THEN should Acts 9 be used as a proof text for IG.

There are several things to notice about the experience Paul had in Acts 9:

*Lord what will you have me to do?” Acts 9:6

If grace was irresistible, why would it be necessary for Paul to ask what he must DO? Shouldn’t that have already been taken care of through irresistible grace?

*”Who art thou Lord?” Acts 9:5

Since when does a person who is irresistibly converted need to ask who Christ is? Yes, Paul said “Lord”, but “there are lords many” (1 Cor 8:5) and Paul had not YET understood that it was THE Lord or lords that he was talking to (Phil 2:9-11, Rev 19:16). It is even arguable whether Paul was even saved at all during this particular exchange, and was not technically saved until later considering the context of Acts 22:16. Now granted, it wouldn’t make sense for God to call someone if He knew they weren’t going to be eventually saved, but one must understand the importance that “ordo salutis” (order of salvation) plays in Calvinism. (Calvinists themselves often use this exact same logic when explaining the calling of Cornelius in Acts 10.) The timing of Paul’s salvation means quite a lot considering this is used as a proof text for IG. It also shows that God actually DOES elect those for service those whom He knows will choose Him (1 Peter 1:2), something the Westminster and London Confessions reject (* See notes below).

*It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” Acts 9:5

Notice Jesus said it is hardbut not impossible for Paul to kick against the pricks. If IG were true, this statement from Christ would be false because it WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE for Paul to kick against the pricks. (Kicking against the pricks was a farmer’s term for describing the resistance of a goat or cow when trying to milk them.) This is where we now arrive at James White’s surprising statement about this event.

____________

A heart of stone will endure anything if its love of self and its desires is strong enough. [Emphasis Added]

____________

So James White’s response to Flowers’ explanation that sinners rebel and become hardened in their rebellion , not because of arbitrary reprobation, was to assert that those with a heart of stone, like Paul, will ENDURE ANYTHING if their sinful self wants to kick at God bad enough.

WAIT A MINUTE!! HOLD THE HORSES! Did you catch that!

First of all, Since when has a Calvinist ever shown the Bible offers a DEGREE OF RESISTANCE? Either you are hardened from eternity from ever choosing God (whether by deliberate choice of God or “passing over”, the results are the same) or you have absolute freedom to choose. But in this case, we are talking about someone whom Calvinists claim was elected unto salvation. How then can it be said that Paul’s heart of stone caused his resistance if grace is irresistible? If grace can not be resisted, does it really matter HOW HARD Paul’s heart was? If grace was as irresistible as White claims, then Paul wouldn’t have and couldn’t have “endured” in a Jacob vs Angel of the LORD (Genesis 32) style battle. If Paul truly fought until he couldn’t fight anymore, THAT’S EVIDENCE OF HIS RESISTANCE. White’s response has just earned him a trip to the ER to repair his foot from a self-inflicted bullet wound.

Paul’s Testimony

There is also Paul’s own testimony to King Agrippa in Acts 26:19 “Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision”. Paul’s own version of his testimony shows that he very well could have disobeyed Christ, otherwise claiming that he was not DISobedient would be meaningless.

Some Calvinists rely on Galatians 1:15 where Paul utters that he was separated from his mother’s womb and called by God’s grace as proof of irresistible grace, but Paul is not describing his salvation experience but what God called him for, which was to be a light to the Gentiles: “To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood” Galatians 1:16.

Those involved in this conversation raised the issue of Jonah as similar to Paul’s conversion. However, Jonah was already a saved man. Thus God did not have Jonah swallowed to saved Jonah, but to save Ninevah (an entire article can also be written on how the story of Jonah completely debunks Calvinist compatibilism and election from Jonah chapter 3:7-11 alone). God imposed a COMPELLING action upon Jonah FOR SERVICE (Matt 12:41, Luke 11:32), not an IRRESISTIBLE one for salvation. God imposed a COMPELLING action upon Paul FOR SERVICE, not an IRRESISTIBLE one for salvation.

Paul’s encounter with Christ was certainly unique. Nevertheless, something should be kept in mind. Such unique encounters are the exceptions, not the normal means God uses on a regular basis. That is an important fact to remember when attempting to use exceptions to include an entire class. In other words, you can’t use Paul’s exceptional encounter as the example of how God saves everyone even if Paul was converted the instant he was blinded (which again, the evidence shows that he WASN’T..not yet). I have yet to encounter any honest Calvinist who has testified that their conversion included bright lights followed by 3 days of blindness and a visible sighting (1 Cor 15:8) of the Lord Jesus Christ.

James White asked “So God would have had to go to Plan B or C”. Well James…YES! That’s exactly what He DID do when Jerusalem as a whole rejected Him (Matthew 23:27-29), He went to plan B and SENT IT TO THE GENTILES TO PROVOKE THE JEWS TO JEALOUSY! Romans 11:11-14.

_______________________________________

* “II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.” Westminster Confession, Of God’s Eternal Decree, Chapter III, Section II.

Calvinists are known for inventing theological definitions that are not in Scripture, but it seems James White is now inventing terms that are neither Scriptural nor sociologically supported, at least not in the way he attempted to define (or lack of defining thereof) “culturally black church” on his October 23, 2014 podcast from the Alpha & Omega Ministries. We did not jump on this  until we heard  both sides of the issue. But after discussing the matter with “Fresh Word” we decided this needed to be published.

Most of White’s followers didn’t blink an eye, but one follower noticed the faux pas, and said something to White about it. In response, James White brushed this black man off as being “hyper-sensitive”.

I might have listened to my last DL. “you’re not likely to hear the gospel at culturally black Baptist Church” -Dr James White

What’s unique about this is that “Fresh Word” is not a James White critic, but an avid supporter of White’s ministry.

White defended his remarks by claiming that:

And what passes for the “black church” is more often a social club and a political base than it is anything else.

White followed this conversation up on October 27, with a podcast on his website, and the clean up is MUCH DIFFERENT than the first time he discussed it and had his “Freudian Slip”.

PROBLEM WITH WHITE’S EXPLANATION

White attempted to clarify that what he was referring to was the kind of “black church” that is politically motivated and not gospel motivated.  Although he didn’t mention Al Sharpton, or Jessie Jackson, in which we would AGREE that such “ministers” use the “race card” as a political and social tool disguised in religious rhetoric, White did nothing to prove that such was the case with the subject (Shadid Lewis) in which he was referring to. White’s ONLY criteria was that the church was black, and that an apostate man left the church because the preacher picked up a saxophone.

I described what Shadid experienced—if you want to take offense and identify with some guy breaking out a sax during his….sermon” and jamming with the band as a fine example of the Christian church…hey, I can’t stop you!

So in other words, if the church is predominately black, then it’s CULTURALLY BIASED. I wonder what he says about the churches that his Calvinist friend Voddie Bauchum speaks at (See photo below). Apparently, White doesn’t know that much about black churches. It is not uncommon for black preachers to “break out” in song in the middle of a service or play along with a choir, even in black Baptist churches. Whether White likes or agrees with it or not, there ARE cultural differences between blacks and whites (thanks to the restrictions that white Calvinist slave owners-among many others- imposed on them, and their treatment in America where they were not allowed to identify with American culture), and just because a black implements something in their church that is CULTURALLY DIFFERENT from a white church doesn’t mean you use that difference to distinguish what is or is not a gospel-preaching church.

What James White did was broadbrushed ALL black churches as culturally biased based on the testimony of one man that he deemed an apostate, and the only evidence White offered to identify even THAT church as a non-gospel church was….the preacher picking up a saxophone. Now, as odd as that may be, to someone who doesn’t understand the climate of that church or culture, that does not prove that it is not a gospel believing or preaching church. At most, it would cast credibility on the church/pastor’s ability to conduct their service “decently and in order” according to 1 Cor 14:40, but by no means is an indicator that the church is not gospel-oriented. As White himself even admitted, it may be a bad EXAMPLE of a Christian church, but that doesn’t mean that the church itself was not Christian-at least White never proved otherwise.

Again, James White’s ONLY TWO CRITERIA for identifying this particular black church as a non-gospel church was that:

1. It was black (clarified by the fact that he repeatedly referred to these churches as BLACK churches).

2. The preacher used a saxophone in the middle of the service.

Yes, James White attempted to add criteria for clarification SEVERAL DAYS LATER, but the problem is that he never used his follow up criteria and linked any evidence that such was the case with his initial description of black churches. White did not prove that the initial church he was referring to was a race-based church, nor did he prove that even Shadid Lewis description of that church was meant to convey that -although we would have to expect a professing Christian turned Muslim would not necessarily offer a fair description of ANY church, let alone any black church. But then again, it was White that made it a racial issue. Shadid Lewis’ perspective was not color vs color, but Bible vs Quran.

Considering that Genevan Calvinists and their Dutch East India Company made  enormous profits off of the slave trade for hundreds of years (two notorious Calvinist slave owners were Jonathon Edwards and George Whitefield-and please spare us the bogus “indentured slaves” rebuttal nonsense), in cooperation with Freemasons (Anderson) churches built in Africa for these Calvinists to capitalize on the Masonic/Calvinist sponsored apartheid, and their bragging that God gave them providence over the blacks, is it any wonder that we would see such staunch Calvinists reflecting that same sentiment today? We saw just a little bit more into what James White really believes with this slip of the tongue October 23.

Part of the congregation listening to Dr Voddie Baucham. 

Not only is this a predominantly black crowd, but it is specifically

African themed.

African Christian University

Dr James Ach and J/A

In a few recent articles*, we have exposed Calvinists for using dishonest rhetoric to maintain credibility among churches and the Christian community at large. James White, of Alpha & Omega Ministry, shows us again how Reformers-as many modern Calvinists refer to themselves as-employ the use of misleading lingo in order to stay relevant in a culture already blown about with every wind of doctrine.

White often claims to have coined a term “Theology Matters”, and we would certainly agree with that. So far so good. But the problem is that theology is not the only important thing to God, and we doubt White would disagree with that; in fact, he would probably retort that if one’s theology is right then a proper character should follow, and we would agree with that, too. However, we must emphasize that character is important because Calvinists don’t seem to think that they need to tell the truth about what they really believe in, or risk being viewed as mean, unloving, cultish, as well as expressing a view of God and “love” that most people find detestable and unacceptable.

White posted the following quote on his website with a picture of what presumably is a man who attacked four police officers in New York.

Theology Matters: Graphic Example

Callisto1947_2014-Oct-24Combine a wrathful God, a strict law, capricious forgiveness, no emphasis upon justice and equity and the fulfillment of God’s law as reflected in His nature, with the fatal exclusion of a Mediator who can show us God’s mercy and love and grace in perfection, and here is the result. Few things prove the truth of this more clearly: THEOLOGY MATTERS.

At face value, the above quote seems innocuous and theologically sound. The problem is, is does this reflect what Calvinists and James White actually believe? And if not, then why continue using rhetoric that is unsupported by Calvinist theology? Let us explain some points here that support our accusation.

Justice and Equity?

Equity (meyshar, Prov 1:3) is  a legal term. When Roman and English jurisprudence was developed, judges sometimes ran into problems in the court room of deciding an issue of law where there was no clearly established rule or governing principle. The Hebrew concept of meyshar was the wisdom of a mediator to bring justice that made the parties involved whole or “leveled the playing field”. Solomon demonstrated this kind of wisdom in suggesting to divide a disputed child in two (1 Kings 3:25). In American jurisprudence there is a federal statute  at 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that allows for legal actions “at law AND EQUITY [action in law, suit in equity]” that permits a court to grant relief using discretion that the strict letter of the law may not cover.

Applying this principle theologically, however, is problematic for Calvinism because equity is used to exercise discretion in “gray areas” or adiaphora (matters in Scripture that have no clearly defined rule where morality can not be proscribed by simply pointing to a verse on “that” specific issue).  If God had “determined all things whatsoever come to pass” as the Calvinists confessions claim, equitable discretion is not possible. Calvinism is not known for claiming to color outside of the lines of moral responsibility; it’s either black or white. It’s a governing principle behind much the Calvinists who employ Nouthetic counseling.

Yet I don’t believe that Calvinists themselves have really thought it through when they claim to believe in justice and equity. They can usually “defend” the justice of God-in their own way-but I’m not sure if Calvinists really understand the inconsistency between Calvinist determinism and the principles of equity. The concept of equity is completely incongruent with Calvinism because it permits God to “change His mind” as He did with the Ninevites in Jonah 3:8-10. Calvinists assume that God doing anything differently than what they perceive has already been determined would be an adherence to Open Theism. Although this is an absurd claim, it’s one that shows that Calvinists develop their Biblical views around their philosophy, instead of developing their philosophy around the Bible. If Jonah said God did something other then what He said He would do, and did so because of a response that depended upon human repentance, then the serious Bible student has to begin with what Scripture says, and build on that, not what some creed or confession claims and then interpret Scripture based upon said traditions.

White also explains theodicy in terms of “permission”. God restrains evil and permits a certain amount of evil for His glory. However, it is erroneous to hold that God determines all events and yet at some point in time grants permission for event to take place. Permission implies that an event in time COULD HAVE happened differently had it not been for God’s permitting it to happen otherwise. Yet if all events have already been determined, then the concept of permission would be redundant to Calvinist theology, and gives the Calvinist the same problem as equity.

With The Fatal EXCLUSION of a Mediator

Do not Calvinists claim that sinners are determined to live in and by the nature that God has given them? Why then expect sinners to act differently? If God determined that Cain would kill Abel, why should anyone be surprised that Cain committed murder? Why not thank God and rejoice for causing these sinful creatures to do His will! These murderers are doing exactly what God wants them to do because He determined them to do so, or at least (if you don’t claim to be “hyper Calvinist”) He gave them a nature that He never intended on saving, and of which will never be able to do anything other than the evil it has been programmed to carry out (this compatibilist explanation for human responsibility is how Calvinists avoid the so-called [and quite imaginary] “hyper” Calvinist label, although the results inevitably still leads to exhaustive determinism. The “hyper” term is a sleight-of-hand trick to make you stop looking at the inconsistency, if you stop thinking about the contradiction and focus instead on the imaginary scarecrow called “Hyper” then presto, problem solved!).

So yes, we certainly agree with White, that when Christ is excluded, men do heinous things. But, according to Reformed theology, these sinners are really acting in perfect obedience to God because they are doing precisely what He has fitted them to do. So why do Calvinists complain so much when sinners are being obedient to God? In fact, I’d say sinners are far more obedient to God than most Christians. At least Flip Wilson can honestly say that God gave him the nature and desires that he has if Calvinism is true. What’s the Christians excuse? If God determines the blasphemy of the sinner, does He also determine the recalcitrance of the saints? I mean, after- all, doesn’t Eph 2:10 say that the believers works are ORDAINED?

..Who Can Show Us His Love And Mercy

And now we arrive at the pet peeve I have against Calvinism. STOP TELLING SINNERS ABOUT GOD’S LOVE WHEN YOU DON’T MEAN IT OR BELIEVE IT. No honest and consistent Calvinist believes that God loves everybody. Consistent Calvinism maintains that Christ died ONLY for the elect (particular redemption or limited atonement). James White debated Dr. Michael Brown on this very issue. White has plainly stated that God does not love everyone, and admitted that it was the question of Christ’ intention on the cross after reading Palmer’s “Five Points of Calvinism” that led him to become a “full 5 pointer”, in the which if Christ’s intention was to save everyone, then everyone would be saved, but since everyone isn’t saved, then Christ must not have intended to save everyone. Although his reasoning here is backwards (not to mention fails to distinguish provision from application) because it forces Christ’s intentions to be based on an a posteriori hypothesis making the outcome prescriptive, it provides insight into White’s mens rea in committing the spiritual felony of uttering false information to prospective converts.

Of course, when the Calvinists are cornered on the issue of God’s love, they will use misleading rhetoric by spelling out that God loves people differently (an argument that White used against Dave Hunt***). But if even that is what they believe, then why not just say so instead of mixing the love of God in general terms with the wrath of God as if the contrast has a salvific meaning to a sinner?. When you see “love of God” used in contexts like what you see above, and in such general terms, it sure doesn’t sound like the Calvinist is trying to tell the sinner ” Oh by the way, God doesn’t love every one …..equally”. Why don’t they just be honest and tell them that God merely sends a gardener to water their lawn (“rain on the just and the unjust” **). Now I personally have a problem with someone that tells me that they love me even as a friend or “providentially” or hate me, and then waters my garden, but that’s the non sense Calvinists expect us to swallow when they attempt to explain Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election. They expect you to believe that God hates the sinner but shows love at the same time by watering his garden. That’s not love, that’s Bipolar Disorder. But, they know that most of the world has a common understanding of what love is, so to accommodate the listeners they use dishonest rhetoric to avoid having their motives questioned for using “funny language”.

We can debate the theology of preterition or atonement ’til the cows come home, and neither of us will budge. So we don’t expect White or other Calvinists to change their views, we are just simply asking them TO BE HONEST IN THEIR PRESENTATIONS. Tell people what you REALLY believe first and forthright instead of using dishonest and misleading rhetoric that you think and believe they will understand only to later on send them an April Fool’s post card with a map to the golden chain of redemption on the back.

This is probably a big reason why Calvinists ALWAYS claim they are misrepresented and misunderstood. It’s partly because they can’t be honest about what they really believe. One has to wonder is this part of the Calvinist ploy to take over Baptist churches and colleges? Conquer by deceit? It certainly smacks of just more similarities between Calvinism and Islam (in addition to Islamic views on sovereignty, determinism, election, love and responsibility). But if Calvinists genuinely expect to have meaningful dialogue with their opponents, then they need to start being forthright and honest about what they truly  believe about their theology, because as much as theology matters, so does character:

Ye are our epistles written in our hearts, known and read of all men. 2 Cor 3:2

_____________________________________________

God loves sinners and desires that they be saved.  ~Paul Washer”

God hates sinners” Paul Washer

 STOP LYING!!!!!!!

_____________________________________________________________________________

*Watch The Language-Recognizing Cultic Rhetoric Used By Calvinists

**Calvinists claim that this (Matthew 5:45) is an example of “providential” love, that God provides love for sinners in His “providence” for them. However, Jesus used this story to explain a REDEMPTIVE love-“that YE MAY BE THE CHILDREN OF YOUR FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN”. Christ does not speak of a different kind of rain. Jesus didn’t say that the “elect” get fresh mountain water but the unelect get rust water. THE WATER THAT BOTH JUST AND UNJUST GET IS THE SAME, JUST AS THE LOVE HE SHOWS IN HIS OFFER OF REDEMPTION IS THE SAME. The Calvinists have focused on the analogy as if Jesus was giving farming lessons, instead of examining this passage in the actual context of which Jesus was trying to express; why a person needs to offer forgiveness beyond what is expected (like the publicans).  Given the context of WHY Jesus said what He did about the rain, there’s just no excuse for the kind of bad “exegesis” that Calvinists force on this passage to impose a philosophy upon the text that is simply isn’t there. Christ is not speaking of any so-called ‘providential love” here, and Calvinists need to stop acting like that’s what this verse means.

*** “And the love God has for His own people, the elect, is different than the love He shows to the creation in general or to rebel sinners outside of His grace in particular.” (James White/Dave Hunt: Debating Calvinism, p.268)

“There is no basis in the Bible for asserting that God’s love knows no levels, kinds, or types.” (ibid, p.267).

By Dr. James Ach and J/A

Tony Miano is a Calvinist among the crowd of Calvinists that I usually pick on, but he is an inconsistent Calvinist that does not act like the majority of his cohorts, so I don’t pick on him very much. He is not a bully and tends to avoid much of the vitriolic confrontations initiated by the likes of Fred Butler, JD Hall and that crowd [UPDATE: this has recently began to change. Since Miano has become more cozy with the likes of JD Hall, his attitude has become increasingly vitriolic]. I appreciate that Tony is one of the few professing believers-Calvinist or not-that actually preaches in the streets (and was actually erroneously detained in England for taking a Biblical stand against homosexuality, or rather, for simply answering a question about it [Considering Cameron’s recent UN speech, don’t expect England to change on this anytime soon]) and even though I disagree with his doctrine,  he is one of the few that anyone could use to prove that there are at least SOME evangelistic Calvinists.

But, public preaching of heresy is still heresy, and I can’t compliment someone’s efforts if they are holding to a false gospel, and while Miano may not have intended for his article to be taken that way, that’s the only conclusion that one can leave with, and hence the necessity to refute it.

Miano wrote an article about Christians Hating Adoption by comparing the attitude that some earthly parents have toward adoption as an alternative to abortion, to Christians who also despise God’s work in Biblical adoption. It was this Twitter comment describing his article that caught my attention:

“Christians who despise God’s monergistic work in #adoption should examine themselves to see if they are in the faith.”

In other words, if a person does not believe the Calvinistic explanation of HOW God saves people, they are not really saved. It is not enough to simply repent and believe the gospel, but you must also understand the mechanics of how it works in order to be saved. Now despite the fact that even Calvinist theologians themselves have argued for centuries about predestination, preterition, election, whether or not God actively chooses some to heaven and simply “passes over” the non-elect, or whether he purposely selected those damned to hell (see differences between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism), Miano would have to take sides against some of his favorite Reformed theologians and declare that one of them is not saved if having a thorough understanding of how God works is a prerequisite to receiving grace.

There are a number of problems with this. First of all, how does an unregenerate person who can not, as Calvinists admit, “receive the things of the Spirit of God” according to 1 Cor 2:14 and be expected to understand the dynamics of salvation BEFORE HE IS SAVED? Miano puts a condition on salvation that according to even his own theology is impossible for the sinner to achieve.

Secondly,  Tony uses the term “Christian” in the present tense. If the person is in fact a Christian, then it is not possible that he can lose his salvation at some later point because he has not come to a thorough understand of how salvation works. Of course, if Tony is an Arminian then we’d have to argue about his views of conditional security (which in reality, all Calvinism leads to conditional security anyway if you understand the Reformed view of perseverance, but we’ve addressed that problem elsewhere).

Now I would agree with Tony that a person could have believed in vain (1 Cor 15:2), but that’s not the impression that Tony gives. Although I do note that Tony added “professing” Christian at the end of his article, and there is no Scriptural evidence that believing in vain had anything to do with failure to understand the dynamics of the doctrines of soteriology, but about a person’s unwillingness to accept the narrative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the sufficient payment of our sin that satisfied the wrath of God, and is obtained by repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 26:20 (And the very fact that in Acts 26, Paul mentions doing “works meet FOR repentance” shows that repentance and works are not the same thing. Thus in God’s eyes, the command to repent is not viewed as a “work” that has salvific value. Romans 11:6, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:2-7).

LIFE PRESERVER ANALOGY

Tony takes exception to the “life preserver” analogy, which was made popular by Norman Geisler in describing the free will of the person to respond to the gospel. Miano, as most Calvinists, reject this analogy on the grounds that a dead person can’t reach out to grab a rope so the analogy is fundamentally flawed on its premise  according to their view of Ephesians 2. The problem with that critique is that it is equating spiritual death with the physical, a subject we have dealt with in refuting James White’s message about Lazarus (See, Could Lazarus Have Said No?)

If a dead man can’t reach out for the rope, than a dead man can’t call upon the name of the LORD either to satisfy Romans 10:9-13 either. Neither can dead men hear the gospel. If the Calvinist argues that God wakes him up to call upon him, then you have God waking up the person to reach for the rope, but then if the person in the pool is dead, and has been revived by God, why then would he even need to grab the rope at all? He’d be saved before he was saved…AH…but Calvinists actually believe this point-that a person can be regenerated prior to salvation. This is the Reformed way of getting around verses in Acts (e.g. Acts 10-11) where a person demonstrates seeking God (a premise that Calvinists reject is possible according to their view of Romans 3 and Ephesians 2 on Total Inability resulting from God-ordained depravity) prior to being saved.

THE FREE WILL OF THE PREACHER CONUNDRUM [J/A]

Tony’s theology (and really, most Calvinists) ignore the fact that there is still something required of the sinner to be saved, he preaches it all the time: repent and believe. Now here’s what Tony and all Calvinists miss;  Can God save the person without your command for them to repent? Not normally according to Romans 10:14-17  because that’s just not how God chose to do it . Calvinists readily admit this fact and confess that God uses human instruments as the means to gather his elect. But then that still brings you back to square one. If man is used as an instrument in gathering the elect which is necessary for the sinner to hear the words that save (John 6:63), then it’s STILL NOT MONERGISTIC. Although the Calvinists will argue that the sinner himself was made to repent and believe (a whole other heresy) they can not account for the synergistic acts of the preacher which is a requirement for that person to hear the gospel and be saved.

If you disagree, then read Ezekiel chapters 3 and 18 and see what happens to the sinner when the watchman DOES NOT give them God’s message, and then ask yourself this question: If the sinner’s destiny is determined, then why does God hold the watchman accountable at all?

 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him [notice that the stumbling block comes AFTER the sinner’s refusal to turn, not based on some decree made in eternity before the world began], he shall die: BECAUSE thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.” Ezekiel 3:18-20

[*This is in reference to Israel, but the means of salvation should be consistent with eternity if Calvinist soteriology is to be taken seriously. Although you will quickly see the Calvinist who is normally Covenant Theology oriented become a Dispensationalist when trying to explain this passage as it relates to the free will of the watchman]

Furthermore, Calvinists often contend that God controls even the means of the salvation process (that’s the whole point of monergism), but they have overlooked something crucial: does God control the preacher? For a Calvinist to be consistent, they would HAVE to say yes, otherwise they breach the golden chain of redemption because if God uses the preacher as the means of bringing the gospel to the sinner, then for the entire process to be truly monergistic, God must also control the preacher as well as the sinner and the sinner’s reactions. But here’s the problem, PAUL SAID THE PREACHER HAS FREE WILL:

 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. 1 Corinthians 9:16-17

Thus, Paul gives 2 different scenarios, each of which he can freely choose from. Yet this is contrary to what Calvinism teaches. Paul makes it clear that God does not control the means of salvation which means that even if the relationship between the sinner and God were solely monergistic, without any counterfactual conditionals, the relationship between God and the preacher IS NOT and since that is a necessary step in the sinner hearing the gospel (Romans  10:14-17) the entire Calvinist house of monergist cards falls apart at the free will of the preacher. Regardless of whether you believe the sinner’s fate is predetermined or he actually has the ability to reject the gospel of his own volition, any Calvinist explanation must answer this conundrum. (We will address the Reformed heresy of the secondary causation fallacy when someone brings it up, although this somewhat scratches the surface.) The autonomy of the preacher/watchmen is a death blow to monergism.

SORRY- INSUFFICIENT CREDIT

The statements made by Miano are actually a classic strawman that Reformers use against non Calvinists, i.e., that we think we are actually taking credit for our own salvation if we confess that we called upon the name of the Lord for salvation and willingly choose to repent and believe the gospel as an obedient libertarian free will act. In other words, Calvinists think that a person who is rescued from a heart attack goes around town bragging that he saved himself from his infarction instead of giving credit to the heart surgeon that saved his life.

Was Paul taking credit for his salvation when he said “I was NOT DISOBEDIENT unto the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19), or when he said ” I know whom **I** have believed”? 2 Tim 1:12.  One can not be both determined to act and describe their actions as being freely committed and be true at the same time. To be obedient unto the gospel is both a command (2 Thess 1:8) and a decision one must make of his own volition (John 8:24-the Bible is FULL OF “if” statements regardless of how much Calvinists reject them, “if” you do not believe, you die in your sin, etc..).

Furthermore, if, as Miano says, that the person is not saved who believes this way, does he all of a sudden forget about his monergism when he admonishes that sinner to EXAMINE HIMSELF? If the person is merely a professing Christian, and not “a possessor” then isn’t that person in the same boat as the sinner Miano preaches to on the street? still in his sin and unregenerate? How then can that person “examine himself”? It seems that along the way, Miano has forgotten to be consistent with his monergism! (And yes, I am aware of 2 Cor 13:5 which has nothing to do with this context, and is an often misquoted verse. Focus!)

MIANO’S MISUSE OF ADOPTION

The problem with using adoption to support Tony’s story is that he is comparing physical adoption of INFANTS not yet born to spiritual adoption which can occur at any age of a person’s life. Does Paul use physical adoption as an analogy in Galatians 3 and Romans 8? Yes, of course, but not how Miano is using it to prove that since an infant has no say so in who his physical parents are that it automatically follows that the subject of adoption in Galatians has no choice in who is spiritual Father is, and if Tony (and any Calvinist) were aware of the requirements for adoption used in Paul’s analogy of the schoolmaster, they would see how erroneous this analogy is. The synergistic relationship between the pupil and the schoolmaster debunks any theory that the adoption process was one of a determined and irresistible status.

Adoption is a beautiful concept that guarantees the believer’s salvation and security, but it is no more ordained against the persons will than a Jew was saved because he was an Israelite (John 1:11-13, Matt 3:9, John 8:39). Like the prodigal, the son can waste away his inheritance willingly (1 Cor 3:11-15), but can not jeopardize his parent/child relationship, the father will always be his father. The New Testament does not use adoption to emphasize the “how” of the salvation process, but the why of salvation’s permanency. 

Although Tony seems to equate disagreeing with despise, I DO despise any ‘doctrine’ that adds to the not only Paul’s clear explanation of the gospel in 1 Cor 15, but also it’s simplicity  (2 Cor 11:3). I also despise strawmen that are erected to mischaracterize the beliefs of many born again soul winners. If this is what Miano preaches on the streets to lost sinners, then it is a false gospel, or at least displays a gross inconsistency on what is required to be saved, and what is expected to be secure.

I have quite a few debates over the issue of whether or not James White, author of the King James Only Controversy, actually shares the same sentiment as his heroes Westcott & Hort, who proclaimed that the Textus Receptus underlying the King James Bible was vile.

James White and his defenders claims that White only hates King James Only exclusivism, not the King James Bible itself. Although we beg to differ, there’s picture perfect proof of this now with James White’s recent reply on Twitter to a person asking if White would sign his KJV’s.

White KJV Burn - Copy

White did try to “clean up” a little after realizing it was probably too late to delete the comment because there were too many responses to it already, and he does so by this crazy reply:

BTW, my comment had nothing to do with the KJV…it had to do with FREEZING TO DEATH. 🙂

OK. Considering that James White lives in ARIZONA, I highly doubt he is ever concerned about “freezing to death”, and the weather had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the initial question nor his initial response. If he’s referring to Norway, well it’s 77 degrees there. He can’t blame it on being a “Jack Hyles” version either, remember, his clean up statement was about “freezing to death” not about the edition of the KJV. James White has always been a good professional liar, but I expected a little better of him in his clean up attempt because *that* one was pathetic.

Now even though James White’s hand has been caught in the cookie jar, he will likely figure out additional ways to spin this, the number one being that he will call us dooky faces for being King James Only advocates, and utter something along the lines of how incapable we are of reason and rational thinking, the usual pejoratives…

…but it’s James White’s own words that clearly demonstrate that he would prefer to burn the KJV “for warmth”.  Do you think he would have said that about the NASB or ESV? I’m sure Muslim ‘scholar’ Shabir Ally just texted White, “that’s right, burn em.. burn em..”

 

___________________

Waiting to see how many people catch the “January” reference. Averages about 30-35 degrees F for U.S. citizens (we use C in the east) Better bring LOTS of KJVs for that freezing 35 degree weather. And of course, White’s rebuttal will be he’s so used to Arizona that anything below 70 is a freeze advisory. Anything to burn them KJVs I tell you 🙂

CALVINIST DISHONESTY ON VIDEO & “DECISIONISM” THE REFORMED STRAW MAN AGAINST FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST SOUL WINNERS

443700176_PantsOnFire1_answer_1_xlarge - CopyOne of the greatest condemnations against Calvinism aside from all of the great books, sermons, and lectures refuting it, is the Calvinists themselves “in action”. It is my contention that no person can truly be saved under the following examples of Calvinistic “evangelism”, and if this is what Calvinists cling to in order to prove that Calvinism does not destroy meaningful evangelism, then I feel sorry for any of their “converts”. We are going to watch some Calvinism in action by 2 notable Calvinists: Rhology and JD Hall, and show you how what they do in these videos is completely different from what they preach. As Dr. Jerry Walls says, that Calvinists maintain credibility by using misleading and dishonest rhetoric that their theology does not support, we are going to watch this sad-but-true FACT in action.

But first…

Calvinists often accuse fundamental Baptists of offering hearers a less than Biblical gospel presentation by claiming that we merely tell a person to “ask Jesus into your heart” and “just pray a prayer” to be saved and THAT’S IT. We then confirm them, baptize them (perhaps) and then shout “glory” for their salvation. It’s as if they think Baptists never explain the problem of sin, repentance, salvation not being by works, the death-burial-resurrection of Christ and the need for faith in Christ alone, and simply tell a potential convert, “here, pray this magical mantra, repeat after me, and call me in the morning” and wallah, that’s IFB soul winning in a nut shell. This is quite possibly the worst straw man fallacy ever brought against the fundamental Baptists.

Calvinist Paul Washer calls it “Decisionism” because in Reformed theology a person “totally depraved” does not have the ability to make a decision for Christ, thus it is not a valid confession for a person to profess that they have called upon the name of the Lord to be saved since that is a theological impossibility within Reformed soteriology.

Reformer Tony Miano utters a similar sentiment, “No person was ever saved by praying a prayer-ever” (Although Scripture says otherwise*).  Again, these accusations are primarily directed at independent fundamental Baptists whom the Calvinists are in competition with because it is the IFBs that have built their churches “from scratch” while the Calvinists merely steal their church members with VERY FEW exceptions among Calvinists (like Tony Miano) who actually “take it to the street” and preach. Although I do admire the “open air” preaching of men like Miano, a false gospel -x- the valiant effort of a public sermon still equals a false gospel, and it’s not rightly called “evangelism” if the message does not lead to the salvation of a person’s soul, and the Scriptures are emphatic about the fact that if you do not CHOOSE Christ and MAKE A DECISION for Him, you are NOT SAVED. John 8:24, Isaiah 65:12, 1 Kings 18:21, Matthew 23:39.

We are at this point going to assume that our readers are either educated Calvinists or knowledgeable Non Calvinists or Arminians so that we don’t need to include all of the arguments about whether repentance comes before faith and salvation, whether God grants it apart from the freedom of the individual or a lengthy debate on the flaws of compatibilism and how it always leads to hard determinism proving there is no difference between Hyper Calvinism and all other forms. Why make this point now? Because these are going to be the first objections Calvinists reading this are going to send  me: “Why didn’t you cover this or that?” (you know, the ones that tell the officer, “Why didn’t you get the guy ahead of me?) so I’m getting it out-of-the-way now that this is intended to be a short article that points out some of the hypocritical and dishonest measures used by Calvinists when they actually attempt to put their beliefs into action. Now let’s watch!

VIDEO ONE-RHOLOGY

Our first video comes from “Rhology”, a notable Reformed blogger that gets a few frequent mentions from James White, JD Hall and other popular Calvinist authors, posted this video debating some protesters at Hobby Lobby. We brought the video time stamp to about the 24:34 minute mark so the watcher doesn’t get bored with a professing Christian trying to force an unsaved person to make sense of their moral depravity. I’m sure his objection will be that it was for documentary purposes so any harm done to a few in failing to raise the gospel question first is just collateral damage to ensure a proper documentary.

Notice that the male subject, after being insulted by Rhology at the 14:00 minute mark, states something about God giving us “free will”. Now any Calvinist who is thoroughly steeped in their theology ON PAPER and AMONG THEIR FELLOWS would NEVER say what comes next out of Rhology’s mouth:

“Well, God gives us free volition [????], there’s a little bit of a debate on that BUT THAT’S NOT IMPORTANT”.

First of all, what is FREE volition? Isn’t volition itself a voluntary act of the will? and if it’s a voluntary act of the will isn’t it by definition free? So either Rhology is completely ignorant of the very terminology that he demands others get right, or he got nervous and fell into redundancy by accident. We’ll let the professional grammar Nazi himself explain that.

Secondly, since when is the debate about free will not important to a Calvinist? There’s not one single forum or debate group ANYWHERE where the subject of free will is NOT THEE NUMBER ONE debate issue among Calvinists and their opponents aside from the question of God’s responsibility and authorship of sin and evil. HE JUST LIED TO THAT PERSON. Not only did Rhology claim that it wasn’t important, but he began AGREEING WITH HIM that we all had “choices” which Rhology knows good and well is NOT what he truly believes. Rhology theologically speaking would only believe that any choice that man has is based upon whatever nature God has determined him to have, but he knows good and well that the man he is talking to doesn’t speak that language (Farse-ic), so he capitulates to rhetoric that he himself does not truly believe. And if you quote Paul “I became all things to all men” I will web-slap you.

This is just one classic example among many of a Calvinist being dishonest by not being forthright about what they really believe in with others.

VIDEO TWO-JD HALL 

Our second video comes from JD Hall where Hall has made a “come to Montana” video in just under 7 minutes, and shows us fundamental Baptists the “right way” to give a gospel presentation. What is really sad and frustrating is so much of what JD Hall says about the poor standards and lack of morality and discernment among other professing churches is dead on. There’s times I’ve listened to Hall and was cheering him on “Get em JD, get em”, and then shaking my head at the rest. There’s nothing like digging into a good piece of meat only to find it hasn’t been cooked all the way through.

Now JD Hall recently stated,

JD Hall ‏@PulpitAndPen 3h

@MosesModel If we count as public profession answering “What did you do” with “I invited Jesus in my heart” to congregational applause. 😉

So what does Hall consider a valid public profession then? Well, fortunately we have it on video and from his own mouth. The first man on the left simply says, “I got my salvation today” and NOT ONCE does Hall make any reasonable effort to confirm this or probe further. Hall simply asks, “So you THINK you got your salvation today, so now what do you need to DO?” REALLY? How is this any less effective than JD accusing Baptists of “just praying a prayer”? This man never once called upon the name of the Lord to be saved which **IS** in the Bible (Romans 10:9-13), and never confessed that he believes Jesus died, was buried and rose again from the grave and that He is God in the flesh: things that are BASIC fundamentals in the gospel presentation (1 Cor 15:1-3).

The second person Hall makes a very brief reference to (the gentlemen in the Nike sweater) and simply says the man is a sinner saved by Jesus and not once did this man ever agree with anything other than that he violated some of the ten commandments. Simply confessing that you have sinned isn’t saving faith. Now some might point to Luke 18 where that’s all the publican said, but there’s one huge difference: the publican said “God be merciful to me a sinner”.  Not only did the publican CALL, but there was an obvious Subject to his call:  God.

Thus, Hall confirmed these man’s salvation in less than 7 minutes, who made no real profession of faith, AND HE HAS THE NERVE TO CRITICIZE FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST SOUL WINNERS? Even a person who is limited in their soul winning practice to the “Romans Road” gives a sinner 3x more information than what was given to these people by Hall. Perhaps Hall should contact a local independent fundamental Baptist church and tag along some night to see how a TEENAGER gives a more thorough presentation of the gospel than he did.

CONCLUSION

This is Calvinist dishonesty in action. Many a Calvinist (like J.I. Packer) will tell their listeners “OF COURSE I tell them God loves them” knowing that they don’t really believe that; knowing that what they really mean is that God providentially loves them, but does not love them in any sense that the person’s they are speaking to understand the term “love”. And so too, here, Rhology simply agrees with the man’s definition of free will knowing that not only is that an important distinction between Calvinism and all other forms of theology-of which he lied to this man about its importance-but is a demonstration of Calvinism utilizing the “accommodation theory” -the theory popularized by the anti-King James ‘scholars’ Semler and Greisbach that it is OK to lie to your congregation if you don’t think they will understand you due to their perceived lack of ability to comprehend any technicalities of your theology or philosophy. (Both of these men rejected the deity of Christ but their textual criticism theories are still followed by men like James White, Daniel Wallace, et al, but that’s another article!). This is a practice that is CLEARLY utilized by Calvinists today.

It is NEVER OK to lie to a person in presenting the gospel to them. Romans 9:1,James 3:14, 1 Tim 2:7, Col 3:9, 2 Cor 11:31. The ironic thing about this “accommodation” practice among Calvinists is that Calvinists are the first to rail against using “means” in salvation presentations. The famous quote by John Ryland to William Carey resounds here, “Young man sit down, If God be pleased to convert the heathen He will do so without your help or mine”. Carey was bucking against the Calvinist belief that means could not be used in attracting converts, which shows William Carey was not really a Calvinist though he adopted SOME of the Calvinist beliefs. But isn’t the use of restraint from explaining the full context of what you believe to a potential convert a “means”? If it is “not important” for you to tell the sinner what you really believe, are you not using a “means” to accommodate him and his “level” of understanding? If the Calvinists were consistent on this point, they would not judge the man’s level of understanding  giving their view that so long he God has not yet “granted him repentance” he remains incapable of comprehending the gospel anyway, so  that again begs the question(?): what difference does it make how honest you are with the person? If God has “chosen” this person to salvation, then God’s truth will not abound more or less through your lie. Romans 3:7.

But these are  perfect examples of why Calvinism is an unfaithful, and untrustworthy, and dishonest theology, and today we have seen it on video. Calvinists regularly interact with others using rhetoric and language that their theology does not support and of which they themselves do not believe, but they do so to maintain their credibility as apparent professing believers.

___________________________________________________

*The following are verses that show clearly people who PRAYED or were TOLD TO PRAY to obtain salvation.

Pray from Websters 1828 Dictionary:

42212 pray PRAY, v. i. [L. precor; proco; this word belongs to the same family as preach and reproach; Heb. to bless, to reproach; rendered in Job 2. 9, to curse;
42213 prayer PRA’YER, n. In a general sense, the act of asking for a favor, and particularly with earnestness. 1. In worship, a solemn address to the Supreme Being,

The very first message that Jesus told the UNSAVED MASSES on proper communication with the Father was called PRAYER. Matthew 6:9-13.

Luke 18:13-“And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.”

Acts 8:21-22-“Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.”

Acts 10:2-4– “A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

Now Cornelius prayer did not result in immediate salvation, for it still required that the truth of the gospel be told to him , and Acts 11:13-14 is clear that he was not saved until AFTER he had met with Peter. So this not only shows that a sinner had the ability to call on God before he was saved, but that God heard his PRAYER contrary to all Calvinist contentions otherwise.

Now for our Greek Onlyism readers, you will search in vain trying to parse a fundamental semantic difference between epikaleo and proseuchomai in any attempt to make ‘prayer’ appear different than ‘to call’. The Calvinists petty arguments on these points actually serve to PREVENT a person from coming to Christ because they eliminate the necessity of CALLING ON GOD for salvation.

 

By Will Kinney

 Lie Number One – We now have older and better manuscripts.
 

 

James White’s tells us in his book, The King James Only Controversy, on pages 152-153  “Every one of the papyrus manuscripts we have discovered has been a representative of the Alexandrian, not the Byzantine text type” and “The early Fathers who wrote at this time did not use the Byzantine text-type” and “the early translations of the New Testament reveals that they were done on the basis of the Alexandrian type manuscripts, not the Byzantine text-type” and “the early church fathers who wrote during the early centuries give no evidence in their citations of a familiarity with the Byzantine text-type”. 

 

These are such huge whoppers I could not believe he actually wrote this totally false information in his book.

 

There is tons of evidence that even the early papyrus manuscripts, all of which came from Alexandria Egypt, were a mixed bag and there are many Byzantine readings found in them where they agree with the KJB readings and not the Westcott-Hort Alexandrian copies of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

 

Furthermore, concerning the church Fathers, John Burgon compiled over 86,000 citations and quotes of the church Fathers and found that not only did the Textus Receptus readings exist, but they predominated.

 

The early versions like the Old Latin and Syriac Peshitta contain numerous textual readings and entire verses from the Traditional Text of the Reformation bibles that are not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and thus, are omitted in many modern versions.

 

Even Dr. Hort, of the famed Westcott Hort critical Greek text, said: “The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century.” (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92—as cited by Burgon, Revision Revised, pg 257).

 

Dean Burgon, in his book The Revision Revised, immediately comments: “We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament, —the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, in short – is, according to Dr. Hort, “BEYOND ALL QUESTION the TEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.”

 

In other words, at the very time Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were penned, the Byzantine texts were already the predominate texts of the Christian church!
[EDITORS NOTE: We are currently doing research with some friends on the validity of the date of Codex Sinaiticus since it’s veracity had been called into question as a modern forgery by a documentary produced by Christ Pinto titled, “Tares Among the Wheat”. Although this matter was debated between James White and Chris Pinto, and then follow up exchanges were made post-debate, there have been studies done, particularly by Steven Avery, as well as my brother-in-law, Dr. Elisha Weismann, that have discovered some damaging evidence against the dating of the Sinaiticus, believed to be a 4th century manuscript. Steven Avery has labored countless hours pouring over the quires of the Sinaiticus, and has found some interesting anomalies, some in particular which include 9th century minscule correction marks by correctors proving such corrections could not have been made by 4th or 5th century scribes. We will keep this site updated on this issue when all of the studies are complete]

 

Somebody is Lying

 

Contrast the quotes from James White with the quotes found in the 1982 edition of the NKJV. Keep in mind that these NKJV textual scholars are NOT King James Bible onlyists, but they have been to the same seminaries and had access to the same information James White and Dan Wallace have. Yet their conclusions are THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what these modern Vatican Version promoters tell us.

 

In the preface of the NKJV, which was translated by some of the same men who worked on the NIV, it says on page vii “The manuscript preferences cited in many contemporary translations are due to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of these documents.”

 

“However, in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the autographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability.”

 

“On the other hand, the great majority of existing manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none are earlier than the fifth century, MOST OF THEIR READINGS ARE VERIFIED BY ANCIENT PAPYRI, ANCIENT VERSIONS, AND QUOTATIONS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. This large body of manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. It is the Greek text used by Greek-speaking churches for many centuries, presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, of the New Testament.”

 

Then on page 1231 the NKJV editors say: “The Byzantine Text. This text was largely preserved in the area of the old Byzantine Empire, the area which is now Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia. OVER EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT of the extant manuscripts belong to the Byzantine text type. Also, from the oldest to the most recent manuscripts of this type, there is greater homogeneity than among the manuscripts of any other text type. The King James Version is based largely on a Byzantine type Greek text.”
Lie Number Two – Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Are The Best Manuscripts
Most modern version promoters who keep repeating this Mantra have no idea what these two so called “Oldest and Best Manuscripts”, upon which today’s modern versions are based, are actually like.  I have done a fairly extensive comparative study of these two manuscripts proving that they not only differ from the vast Majority of remaining Greek texts, but also from each other. There are many concrete examples you can see here, but this is just a sampling of what you will find.

 

The character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts – the so called “Oldest and Best Manuscripts”
Mr. Burgon states on page 11; “Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): – the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substituted, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. IT IS IN FACT EASIER TO FIND TWO CONSECUTIVE VERSES IN WHICH THESE TWO MSS. DIFFER THE ONE FROM THE OTHER, THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE VERSES IN WHICH THEY ENTIRELY AGREE.”
 

SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 – “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away”; Luke 10:32 – “And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.”; 17:35 – “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”; John 9:38 – “And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.”(omitted in Sinaiticus original and P75, but found in Vaticanus and P66);  16:15 – “All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.”; 21:25 – “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”; and I Corinthians 2:15- “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” and 13:1b -2 – “I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not – (charity, I am nothing).”

VATICANUS (B) omits Matthew 12:47 – “Then one said unto him, Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, “For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast”, is omitted in B, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaiticus and the majority of all Greek texts. Yet B omits Luke 23:34, “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”, while it is retained in Sinaiticus and this time kept in the NASB, ESV and NIV. But James White does not believe it is inspired Scripture and says he would not preach on it. Go figure. Vaticanus also omits the entire verse of 1 Peter 5:3 but it is found in Sinaiticus and the Majority of all manuscripts and Bible translations – “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

Lie Number Three – We Are Getting Closer To The Original Autographs

 

Some critical text scholars are a little more honest about this than others.  
Forever Settled – A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible.

 

The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, “The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, PURPOSELY INTRODUCED THAN IN ANY OTHER BOOK.”

 

As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was “MORE THAN EVER, AND PERHAPS FINALLY, UNSETTLED.” (Caps are mine)

 

Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that “the ultimate (New Testament) text, IF THERE EVER WAS ONE THAT DESERVES TO BE SO CALLED, IS FOR EVER IRRECOVERABLE.” (Caps are mine)

 

Later (1941) Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of the New Testament text, delivered the following, judgment: “In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, WE DO NOT KNOW the original form of the Gospels, AND IT IS QUITE LIKELY THAT WE NEVER SHALL.”

 

H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. “In general,” he says, “the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, according to its nature, MUST BE AND REMAINS A HYPOTHESIS.”

 

Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. “The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL IS WELL-NIGH IMPOSSIBLE.”  Grant also says:  “It is generally recognized that THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE BIBLE CANNOT BE RECOVERED.”
Lie Number Four – Erasmus Was A Catholic, so the King James Bible is also a Catholic Bible.

 

It is a proven fact that modern versions that are based on the UBS/Nestle-Aland ever changing Critical Greek text like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. are the new “Vatican Versions”.  See “Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET are the new “Vatican Versions”

 

Here you can see the documentation of this fact from right out of their own Nestle-Aland critical Greek textbook, the UBS homepage and the Vatican’s own website.  Then go on to Part Two where you can see the literally thousands of words that have been omitted from the Reformation Bibles in all languages (including the older Catholic bible versions as well) and are omitted in these new “Vatican Versions” and the MODERN Catholic bibles too.  They are ALL based on the same Vatican supervised “inter confessional” texts.

 

 Here is just a sample of what you will see –

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us:

“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STIP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament.”

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not “definitive” – it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely “a stimulus to further efforts”.

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
This from their own site –

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_pro_20051996_chrstuni_pro_en.html

Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible

“Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. TOGETHER WITH THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT PUBLISHED THE GUIDELINES FOR INTERCONFESSIONAL COOPERATION IN TRANSLATING THE BIBLE.” (1968; new revised edition 1987).

The Erasmus Was A Catholic Argument

So once the modern version user sees all this documentation, they usually come back with “Well, Erasmus was a Catholic and that makes the King James Bible a Vatican Version too.”  What these people deliberately choose to ignore is the fact that Erasmus himself criticized many of the Romish doctrines, but he tried to reform the Catholic church from within. The King James Bible translators did not primarily use the Greek text of Erasmus at all, but rather those of Beza and of Stephanus. And more importantly, NO Catholic bible version has EVER used the Greek text of Erasmus for their translations.

In fact, the Council of Trent (1545-1564) branded Erasmus a heretic and prohibited his works. In 1559, Pope Paul IV placed Erasmus on the first class of forbidden authors, which was composed of authors whose works were completely condemned.
But guess who one of the chief editors of the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical Greek text was. It tells you who on the opening page of the Nestle-Aland Critical Greek textbook; it was the Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini.
Lie Number Five – We Now Have More Knowledge About The Bible
The truth of the matter is that with the widespread use and acceptance of these modern versions the level of Biblical Illiteracy has reached scandalous and epidemic proportions.  Read more about this here –
 
A recent Gallup poll reveals “Americans revere the Bible–but, by and large, they don’t read it. And because they don’t read it, they have become a nation of biblical illiterates.” How bad is it? Researchers tell us that it’s worse than most could imagine.Fewer than half of all adults can name the four gospels. Many Christians cannot identify more than two or three of the disciples. According to data from the Barna Research Group, 60 percent of Americans can’t name even five of the Ten Commandments. “No wonder people break the Ten Commandments all the time. They don’t know what they are,” said George Barna, president of the firm. The bottom line? “Increasingly, America is biblically illiterate.” 

Multiple surveys reveal the problem in stark terms. According to 82 percent of Americans, “God helps those who help themselves,” is a Bible verse. Those identified as born-again Christians did better–by one percent….Some of the statistics are enough to perplex even those aware of the problem. A Barna poll indicated that at least 12 percent of adults believe that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. Another survey of graduating high school seniors revealed that over 50 percent thought that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife. A considerable number of respondents to one poll indicated that the Sermon on the Mount was preached by Billy Graham. We are in big trouble.The larger scandal is biblical ignorance among Christians. Choose whichever statistic or survey you like, the general pattern is the same. America’s Christians know less and less about the Bible. It shows.” (End of article portions)

The Lord Jesus Christ tells us in Matthew 7:17-20 that a good tree brings forth good fruit and a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit, and that “by their fruits ye shall know them.”

The King James Bible has consistently brought forth good fruit for over 400 years now, while the imposter versions come and go almost as fast as the seasons change. The KJB has been used of God to convert multitudes of lost sinners into Bible believing children of God. It was used to begin the world wide missionary outreach, and is the only Bible still believed by multiplied thousands of blood bought saints of God to be the complete, inspired and inerrant words of the living God.

By contrast, the influx of the modern Bible Babble Buffet versions has produced more confusion, Biblical ignorance and unbelief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures than at any time in history.

Lie Number Six – Professional Liars Who SAY “I believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God.”

There are an number of well known men today who promote these new Vatican Versions who still like to put on a pious pretense of being Bible believers. Men like James White, Dan Wallace, Doug Kutilek, James Price, John MacArthur, Hal Lindsey and others who will stand in the pulpit or affirm in their writings “I believe the Bible is the infallible words of God.”  

And yet if you ask these same men where we can get a copy of this infallible Bible they profess to believe in, they will NEVER tell you.  Why? Simply because the do NOT believe that any Bible in any language you can actually hold in your hands, read and believe is the very inspired and inerrant words of God actually exists.  

The polls themselves tell us in no uncertain terms that the majority of professing Christians today do NOT believe in the inerrancy of the Bible – ANY Bible.  

For more documentation on this see – “The Bible is NOT the inspired and inerrant words of God.” 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/thebiblenotinspired.htm 

Why do so few Christians today believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God?

 
Pastor Michael Youseff’s Message on His “Leading The Way” program. The title of todays message was “The Bible, The World’s Most Relevant Book – Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:
 
85% of students at America’s largest Evangelical Seminary don’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
 
74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
 
George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.
 
Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, “The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy.”
 
“WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world … compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life” (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).
Regarding the REAL beliefs of some of these men like James White, John MacArthur, Hal Lindsey and Dan Wallace, see these studies taken from their own words and videos regarding the Bible version issue.
James White – The Protestant Pope of the new Vatican Versions 

 

 

Hal Lindsey – Answers Which Bible do you use and Why

 

 

John MacArthur – Pastor and Teacher with NO Infallible Bible

 

 

Dan Wallace is a Nut!

 

 

And finally “Stop Lying About It!”  What the Bible Babble Buffet Versionists Really Believe about “The Bible”

 

By the sovereign grace and mercy of Almighty God and our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, I and many thousands of other Christians DO believe God has acted in history to give us a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible and we don’t have to lie about what we really believe when we affirm this.  AND we can tell anybody who wants to know where to get a copy of it for themselves. It is called the King James Holy Bible.  Accept no substitutes.  
All of grace, believing The Book – the King James Bible.
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”  Luke 8:8 
“Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.”  Jeremiah 15:16  

By Dr. James Ach and Dr. Elisha Weismann

As independent fundamental Bible believing Baptists, we avoid most other denominations due to several doctrinal differences that we believe mandates separation from such believers. However, we still acknowledge many of the truths that some of them espouse to, and still consider many of them Christian brothers and sisters. Nevertheless, there are times when the actions of some churches and their leaders and supporters have an impact that affects us all.

We started this website after the scandal surrounding former pastor of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Schaap, was arrested and convicted of child molestation. While we were still in America, we saw how the scandal affected the credibility of many Baptist churches across the US. Baptists had doors slammed in their face when out door knocking, and several new Facebook groups (“Do Righters”) were started that gained thousands of followers, and many of those groups are now a virtual haven for atheists and skeptics. One man’s actions turned several thousand people into critics, skeptics, atheists, and fundamentalist bashers. (We have dealt with facts beyond that generalization elsewhere, so don’t go into a tizzy about commenting us that it wasn’t just Schaap.)

The scandal surrounding Ergun Caner is beginning to have the same effect, even here in Israel (thanks to James White constantly reminding the Muslims about it for the last four years). Although it has not been so prevalent a topic as we have seen in America, there have been more than one occasion when we have attempted to witness to Muslims in Jerusalem where Ergun Caner has been brought up. It has already been dangerous enough with some of the work we have done (and hence why our personal information has been kept private) without the problems faced with this added scandal.

In our opinion, if Ergun Caner was to be tried in a criminal court with the testimony given by him in videos, and publicly written statements by him, he would be convicted of perjury.

We fear that many of his supporters are supporting him out of the fear that since the majority of his attackers are Calvinist, that it will somehow lend credibility to them as a group if Caner concedes to their accusations. Now those who follow us on here know we are just as much opposed to Calvinism as most of Caners supporters, and we are by no means a fan of James White, who has been undoubtedly the loudest opponent against Caner. But, James White has a point, and regardless of his other faux pas, I believe it is to the detriment of all of the churches involved to ignore this issue’s importance. Anytime any popular “religious” leader is involved in a scandal, it is always used as fodder against the rest of the church. Now we can’t be expected to police every little action or stupid thing some pastor or church member does, but we need to at least address the ones we can, especially when they have the potential to ruin the reputation of Christians on such a large scale.

We are going to view the following facts as we would have when we were both working in the legal field.

The Investigators Defense

This is probably the number one defense that others have offered for Ergun Caner. The problem with this is that, to our knowledge, we don’t know who the investigators were, and specifically, what they were looking for. Investigators always begin with a “hunch” which often leads to additional evidence. Or, they have a few very specific questions and suspicions that are the hallmark of the case, and the investigation begins by building a view based upon certain facts relevant to what the investigator believes is necessary to prove the case.

If the investigators were not specifically looking for deliberate lies, then their ultimate findings will be “we find no fault”. Furthermore, it also depends on which lies they were looking at. If the only matter they investigated is whether Ergun Caner was untruthful about the date of his arrival in the United States, then a simple acknowledging by him that a mistake was made would lead an investigator to conclude that their was no deliberate misconception. But we don’t know what they were looking for. 

As an independent investigator, I would have to conduct my own review of the facts and questions if the full report from the previous investigator is not available or disclosed. I could not simply rely on the conclusion without knowing how they arrived at their conclusion, because I need to know whether or not those conclusions can survive cross-examination in court. Investigators some times have biases, and I need to be able to prove my investigator a credible witness before I put him on the stand.

Therefore, we could not simply rely on the conclusions of these investigations without knowing their qualifications for investigating these kind of matters, what evidence they considered, and what kind of questions  they asked.

Apparent Cover Up of Information

This matter above all else, is what sold us on the scandal. When we first located Ergun Caner’s bio, this is what is now posted on his website, and pay close attention to what we have highlighted in bold:

Ergun Caner is a Professor & Apologist at the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School in Lynchburg, Virginia. Raised as a devout Sunni Muslim along with his two brothers, Caner converted in high school. After his conversion, he pursued his call to the ministry and education. He has a Masters degree from The Criswell College, a Master of Divinity and a Master of Theology from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Doctor of Theology from the University of South Africa. [1]

However, we decided to use a website that maintains a permanent cache of information on websites. The following was Ergun Caner’s biography in this same section as above as follows from July of 2009:

Ergun Mehmet Caner (B.A., M.A., M.Div., Th,M., Ph.D.) is president of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School at the Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Raised as the son of a Muslim leader in Turkey, Caner became a Christian shortly before entering college. Serving under his Chancellor and President, Jerry Falwell Jr., Caner led the Seminary to triple in growth since his installation in 2005. A public speaker and apologist, Caner has debated Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and other religious leaders in thirteen countries and thirty-five states. [2]

The first issue to notice is

a) Caner’s initial bio stated he was raised the son of a Muslim leader IN TURKEY. This information is removed from the recent bio. If the contention was that Caner simply lived there for a short time, or merely visited there, why not correct the mistake by revising the bio to read “was raised in Ohio, and born in Sweden”. Why doesn’t the current bio reflect where he was actually born? It is common to include place of birth in bios, and he had already listed it once, but not only is the information now different, but any information about his birth place is totally missing from the bio altogether.

b) The original states that Caner has debated Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and other religious LEADERS in 13 countries and thirty-five states.

(i) One of those who he listed as debating was Shabir Ally, although he has at least now conceded that he never met Ally. But we find it highly unlikely that with as popular as Shabir Ally is in the Islamic community, that a person who claims to have been raised a devout Muslim and speaking Arabic would confuse his name with someone elses. That would be akin to us being raised Jewish confusing Moshe Dayan with Chaim Weizmann, or claiming to have debated James White when it was really Norman Geisler.

(ii)There is not one single report, video, audio program, witness of any debates or formal debates. Others have defended this statement as simply that he may have had an argument and mistook that for a debate. As a person trained in apologetics, we find it hard to believe that he could misconstrue what “debate” means, and considering that he listed it as a credential on a biography, it is simply too illogical to conclude that he did not intend to convey that he  had actually had formal debates, just as he said, with religious leaders in 13 countries, and thirty-five states.

We have also seen that lawsuits that have been filed demanding the removal of videos and internet articles. Why remove them if the truth about your testimony is actually in those videos? If they were “doctored”, then leave them there because they would serve as exemplars to any future “doctored” videos. And, if they were “doctored”, then simply produce the original. Filing a lawsuit, and claiming that videos were doctored implies you can produce the original testimony. Otherwise your complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Why not produce the original testimony and compare it with the “fake” videos? That would shut James White up permanently (well, maybe not permanently).

There are a number of other anomalies in what we have seen. And keep in mind, this is not based upon ANY information from James White or his crowd. It is no secret how we here, as King James Only Bible believers view White’s views and vise-versa. This is based on our own independent research. These facts alone that we have presented would be enough for us to obtain a warrant for probable cause if we were to try this as a criminal case in court, and deliberate embellishment was a crime.

Now we have clearly shown on here how biased James White has been, the cruel antics of his followers and down right vile tweets, and White’s selective prosecution of those outside of his Calvinist circle (see our article titled “Where was James White” and “Response to James White”) [UPDATE/CORRECTION-Since JD HALL has clarified that he did not intend to state that Al Mohler was complicit, we will be removing those argumentative points when we get a chance] However, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and even though we believe White to be broken in several places doctrinally, he’s right on this one.

If you believe that Calvinists have a bad habit of twisting simple commonly understood terms like “love” “all” “world” etc..then don’t do the same thing to Ergun Caner’s testimony. Would we expect White or Hall to ever repent or apologize for any of their actions? I doubt it, they haven’t so far, and probably never will. But if you want to prove that these Calvinists are dishonest and use misleading rhetoric to the detriment of potential converts, then stop giving them an excuse to point fingers at those of us who oppose their doctrinal views and are trying to engage them in a battle for the truth. Will White and others use it against him forever if he concedes? Probably. White still uses out-of-context quotes from Dave Hunt even after the man has been dead for quite some time now. But who cares about their opinions? It is right to either correct their errors, or confront the accusers and set the record straight, not because James White and his ilk say so, but because it’s simply the right thing to do before God. Caner can still have a productive ministry just as David did, but not if he keeps avoiding this matter, and others continue enabling him to do so.

I understand this will not earn us any brownie points, but the name of our blog is Do Right Christians. Doing the right thing is doing the Godly thing no matter what it costs, and let God sort out the fallout. We are not going to compromise what we believe just because we might lose a few friends over it. And if that’s why any of you are afraid to admit the obvious, then who do you fear more, God or men? Acts 5:29