Posts Tagged ‘JD Hall’

James A. ThM

Is Karen Swallow Prior demon possessed?

There’s no other (or better) explanation for why Karen Swallow Prior (“KSP”), professor at Liberty University, and Research Fellow of the Southern Baptist Conventions Ethics Committee (“ERLC”), consistently endorses LGBTism and Roman Catholicism then that she is demon possessed. Prior recently published a statement on the LGBT website, Level Ground, excusing her sin explaining why she supports Level Ground’s “brave vision” (bravery is an oft used “buzz word” of the LGBT community for “coming out” or as applied to “Caitlyn” Jenner, attempting to convert oneself into a different gender).


Before I discuss her excuse, I’m going to defer to the Pulpit & Pen website for a comprehensive list of documentation against KSP that stems from support of socialist animal rights activism, feminism, and a constant endorsement of other LGBT causes and Catholicism. And we need to say a word about “tone”.

Much of what JD Hall and contributors at Pulpit & Pen have written on this matter are largely ignored because of his “tone”. Sometimes those with discernment and good common sense try to warn others about a problem, and the caveats get brushed off. Sometimes satire and sarcasm are used to make a point (See Elisha’s treatment of the men at Mt. Carmel in 1 Kings chapter 18-19, Paul confronting Peter to the face in Galatians 2:11-13, and naming names of his detractors, 1 Tim 1:18-19, 2 Tim 2:17 ).

It’s unfortunate that JD Hall, nor many of the rest of us who see the problems with KSP, don’t have the kind of grace that our critics have. I apologize for not being as pious as my self-righteous fans, most of whom consist of anonymous accounts that harass me all day long from literally hundreds of accounts, all to complain about tone and tactics. I have great theological differences with JD Hall, and writers at P&P, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that he has discovered some malware in the SBC infrastructure, and folks are using “tone” to avoid addressing the issues merely because they dislike him personally. I have seen some of the most ridiculous defenses  of KSP and SBC leaders over issues Hall and others have raised. When studying trial strategies in law school, we learned about the “Twinkie Defense” which sought to exonerate a defendant’s actions based on the sugar buzz obtained from a Twinkie. Essentially, the Twinkie made him do it. Defenders of KSP, Russ Moore, Rick Warren, Ed Stetzer, Thom Rainer, Ronnie Floyd, et al, are offering Twinkie Defenses to clear and obvious cases of theological brutality and compromise.  I have seen some of the most relativistic rationalizing from professing Christians that I’ve ever witnessed, and it’s pathetic that people care more about their idols in SBC leadership and their blog reputations than standing for Biblical truth.

Let’s just be honest and frank, it wouldn’t make a difference what “tone” is used when confronting (or trying to) leaders in the SBC. This evangelical intelligentsia is not to be questioned. Any challenge to their royal and imperial elitism risks having the Southern Baptist KGB snuff out the trouble making proletariat with an endless barrage of funeral mourners crying about tone. After all, these “good, godly men” couldn’t possibly have any motive  ($$$$) to deceive anyone despite the fact they are millions of dollars in unexplained debt, and maintain a book selling business that profits off of heresy.

So JD Hall is a jerk. OK, we get it. It’s been emphasized thousands of times. He’s a jerk, I’m a jerk, everyone that opposes the SBC is a jerk. Duly Noted. Our tone is rotten, and we should work on it. Check. Thanks for praying for our “bad attitudes” and pointing out our flaws every minute of the day for the sole purpose of enabling your idols to continue chipping away at churches in preparation for the greatest ecumenical siege to date (Daniel 9-11, Revelation 13-18). We’re not as loving as we could be, not as soft-spoken as Mrs Cleaver, and perhaps sometimes have the tact of an elephant, but that doesn’t excuse these people from leaving it in the middle of the room. But we all know that “tone” is a buzz word for “you have a critical spirit for disagreeing with anything my hero says or does”. Yes, sometimes we get in bad moods, maybe even more often than not, but some of us genuinely care about all of you and see the dangers ahead. If a homeless drunk is yelling that a shark is in the water, I’m not going to just laugh at him because he’s inebriated. I’d at least want to make sure I’m not about to get my foot eaten off. The SBC has some sharks in their midst, and if you get your eaten alive because you were more concerned about the watchmen’s appearance and form than WHAT HE SAYS, it’s your own fault.


From the very outset of the article, after affirming that “we all have divisions”, Karen offers the following bullets as justification for her support of Level Ground, 

This is why I share Level Ground’s passionate commitment to its extraordinarily brave vision to:

  • Help communities foster relationships between people of differing positions (within and outside the church walls)
  • Elevate the public discourse in the midst of disagreement
  • Encourage reconciliation instead of division
  • Embody Christian discipleship as we encounter a diversity of beliefs

Elevate Public Discourse?

This is the “death by dialogue” discussed by Kevin DeYoung in his book on homosexuality [Unfortunately, Kevin has been silent about KSP even though many attempted to get a response from him when The Gospel Coalition began publishing articles by KSP]. Gay advocates seek to neutralize theological rhetoric against the abomination of homosexual practice by harmonizing our languages in a univocal voice of dialogue over “issues” (always a relative term) turning it into equivocal banter. If we can just somehow “talk” we’ll all get along without the “unnecessary” division. It’s a stall tactic of the LGBT community to put Bible believers asleep while LGBTs chip away at our laws, morals, and foundational beliefs.


The only reconciliation to be had is the LGBT’s repentance before the cross of Christ. What KSP is doing to promoting a social reconciliation that allows a person to be comfortable in their sin while living among other Christians without division, and perhaps through your generosity in not describing their lifestyle as sin that needs to be repented of they’ll eventually come to your way of thinking and convert after the ten thousandth “conversation”. Division is precisely what Scripture intended: “I came not to bring peace, but  a sword” Matthew 10:34; “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” Romans 16:17: see also 2 Cor 6:14-17, 1 Cor 5:11.

Embody Christian Discipleship?

Again, embody Christian discipleship? On what planet did KSP get this notion that a person living in unrepentant kingdom excluding sin (1 Cor 6:9-11) can possibly “embody Christian discipleship”? Karen Prior has to give Level Ground an apriori grant that they are even Christian in order to make this bold and heretical statement.

Remember when we were kids and mom and dad or the teacher questioned us about something bad, we could “truthfully” tell them what they wanted to hear to keep us out of trouble and it wasn’t a lie as long as we kept our fingers crossed behind our backs! That is precisely what Karen Swallow Prior is doing. She is telling those watching that she opposes homosexuality, while her fingers are crossed behind her back endorsing not only homosexual activist groups, but speaking engagements at Jesuit colleges endorsing Catholic ideas (KSP is an admitted Jesuit teacher). More people have come out of the closet affirming their gayness, then I have seen turn from their sin (one of her students wrote an article about his coming out in the Atlanta after a long “conversation” with Karen Prior). Karen is setting the tone for the homosexual community to use her as the face of the church’s views on LGBTism, which helps the LGBT community avoid having these conversations with apologists who force them to confront the contradictions between their lifestyle and the Bible.

When KSP attends these events, she is not addressing homosexuality as an abomination (or even sinful), she is not discussing Genesis 2, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Judges 19, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 Cor 5:9-11, 1 Cor 7, 1 Tim 1:10-11. Not at all. Her premise for discourse of sexuality is Pope John Paul’s “theology of the body”. With trembling hands and quivering voice, she whispers that it’s not perhaps the healthiest choice and says “my church views it as prohibited” (which is not the same as making an argument as to why you believe that). But as we’ve seen with the capitulating of Pope Francis on a plethora of issues, any theological  positions from the Roman Catholic Church can change with the next Pope (as “infallible” as he is!), and we’ll give it a few more years (maybe even shorter) before KSP follows in the footsteps of David Gushee and Julie Rodgers, those who once professed to believe in Biblical marriage and slowly began compromising (like KSP is doing now) until eventually coming all the way out of the closet. We believe this is by design. Call it conspiracy theory if you must, but there’s just far too many “coincidences” of professors entering conservative Christian colleges, gaining the trust of Bible believing Christians, and then capitulating for such a pattern as this to not be considered someone’s deliberate and calculated conniving (and its interesting that KSP is at Liberty University, once a staunch defender of morality with its “Moral Majority”. Anymore, you rarely hear it’s legal arm, American Center for Law and Justice, discussing the LGBT agenda. We even reached out to Jay Alan Sekulow for comment on this and received no reply).

And let’s face it, if Level Ground was really interested in encouraging meaningful and truthful “dialogue” about homosexuality, they would have invited the “go-to” men like Dr. Robert Gagnon , Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. James White, and a host of many other popular authors with a recognizable polemic against homosexual practice.

The kind of compromise we see from KSP, and those like Russ Moore who enable her, is exactly what leads to doctrinal degradation which ultimately has a destructive effect on our entire culture. The LGBT community does not set the standard for civility, discourse, dialogue, or theology. In the face of clear and convincing evidence that KSP and her loyal sycophants are making Catholicism and LGBTism more palatable to conservative Christians, it’s painfully obvious that they are either grossly incompetent at best, or demon possessed at worst.

My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a Reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant; and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope;” Part of  The Jesuit Oath.


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:


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.


Karen Swallow Prior retweeted Daniel Mattson

So proud of my friend, . Follow him!

Karen Swallow Prior added,


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


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“.


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)).


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.



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




kspfeminism - Copy




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



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


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!


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.


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.


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 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