Posts Tagged ‘norman geisler’

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.

James White responded to this article on the Dividing Line and our response to *that* response is here which replaces this. White never replied to our rebuttal but we are leaving this mess of an article up for now as a point of reference since it is referred to in White’s response as well as ours.

UPDATE 9/7 This article will be AMENDED but not RETRACTED IN FULL due to the response offered by James White. There will be issues deleted, and issues added that James did not respond to, and of course, we will TRY (no promises 🙂 to be more gracious in our response to James White’s video than he was with ours. We promise to use a spell checker this time before publishing the edit so that Mr. White doesn’t have a heart attack over KJVOs that misspell words.

We do note that James White repeatedly and erroneously attributed our grammatical errors and citations what we admitted in the very beginning of the article that we could be wrong about to our being King James Onlyist. As if being a King James Onlyist determines the outcome of how an article is written grammatically. 

James also neglected to respond to the comments from his sister.

We will also be adding or rather asking James White to answer the question that was posed to him by Peter Lumpkins regarding his teaching at Golden State.

We also note that James White failed to notice the articles we have hosted on here from Will Kinney that address some of White’s errors cited against the KJV since bragged that this is the first KJVO site that never mentioned his book “The King James Only Debate”. As much as we digress in catering to his ego here, we actually do have references.

White’s response to this article is here. It takes a few minutes to get passed all of his self aggrandizement before you actually get to the response so be patient. 

UPDATED: We have updated this article with new information at the bottom, and comments that give a defense of the Caner issues. We could really give 2 flipped pickled eggs about Ergun Caner’s issue, what we are concerned about is James White’s hypocrisy, and now statements made from his own sister about intimidation regarding her sexual abuse allegations against their parents.

The following may be total speculation on my part, and may be refuted at some later time, of which I will gladly retract what I am about to write, but a pattern I have noticed from James White, popularly apologeticist and debater, has become quite disturbing.

*James White debated Ergun Caner, a teacher and president at Liberty University, over the issue of Calvinism [Accordingly, this information will be amended as there has been no evidence of an actual debate. A supporter of James White erroneously labeled a video link as “Ergun Caner vs. James White On Calvinism” but it is merely excerpts of a sermon by Caner. James White claims that Caner changed the rules for the debate 12 days prior to the debate, so White canceled from fear that Caner would again change the rules hours before the debate was scheduled. I have not heard the other side of this excuse but seems to be the second or third time we have heard such excuses, ie. Peter Ruckman where White did not post the final letter sent to him by Ruckman]. In 2010, James White later went on a personal witch hunt to dig up dirt on Caner which led to a large controversy over the veracity of Caner’s testimony that he was actually raised in Turkey as a Muslim as he has claimed for several years, a matter of which 3 years later, White is still addressing [1]I have watch White’s videos on this, I have also read Dr. Norman Geisler’s exhaustive response [2] . Both sides have compelling arguments.

But what concerns me most is James White’s MOTIVE for searching out this information? James White has an extensive history of debating Muslims, and thus should have been (and likely was) aware for quite some time that Caner was also among the noted scholars that debated Muslims. Yet White’s attack on Caner seems to have come only AFTER his debate with White on Calvinism. [3]

White published a book titled “The Potter’s Freedom”, a response to Norman Geisler’s book, “Chosen But Free”, Geisler’s refutation of Calvinism. Geisler then published a video response to White’s book titled “Why I Am Not A Five-Point Calvinist” . White is now accusing Norman Geisler of covering up for Ergun Caner and demanding that Geisler remove Caner from his position in Geisler’s ministry.

White also had a debate with Dave Hunt over Calvinism, and White later accuses Dave Hunt of misrepresenting Calvinism and being dishonest about his knowledge of the Reformers. One James White support even goes so far as to accuse Dave Hunt (now deceased) of refuting Calvinism due to a Jesuit conspiracy. [4]

Now here is my question for James White.

With all the controversy that he stirred over Ergun Caner, and the amount of evidence that he amassed to argue his case, enough to demand that he resign his position, how is it that James White remains SILENT about the lawsuit and allegations against C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries (“SGM”) involving the cover ups of dozens of sex crimes and abuse cases?? SGM is undoubtedly one of the most popular Calvinist movements in the United States, and several of C.J. Mahaney’s cohorts are also collegues of James White (Mark Dever, Albert Mohler, Ligon Duncan). Some of SGM’s own staff published accusations against C.J. Mahaney. [5] .

With such a high-profile lawsuit and accusations against one of the most popular Calvinist groups extant, it would be foolish to think that James White was/is not privy to these matters. And yet from what I have been able to find (or rather unable to find) is any response from James White whatsoever about the abuse at Sovereign Grace Ministries. I have spent hours upon hours scouring the internet for a response from White and have found none.

James White was eager (3 years in the running now) to oust Ergun Caner for being dishonest about where he was born and demanding that those whom he serves with in ministry denounce him, but when it comes to his own camp about SEXUAL ABUSE, James White is SILENT.

Can anyone explain this??

UPDATE: We have also learned from other sources that James White’s sister has called him out intimidating her for her allegations of sexual abuse at the hands of their parents. She states in part:

I was born into the same family as my brother, James R. White. Our parents were both victims of abuse as young people. They carried those scars as people in those days did: silently. Silently, and without resolution, because no one talked about those things. You just toughed it out and did the best you could.

After spending a lengthy time working through the sexual abuse that my father subjected me to for years, I had to confront my brother with the truth.

“my brother James was hostile, defensive, and threatening. He warned me to “watch what I said” about my parents. He also made a very feeble comment about hoping he could “help me” someday” http://abbaslittlegirl.blogspot.com/2009/04/out-of-darkness-cross-i-carry.html

And her follow up story here: http://abbaslittlegirl.blogspot.com/p/out-of-darkness-rough-draft.html

We have found at least one response from James White but does not appear to address his sisters sexual abuse allegations. What is odd though is White repeatedly refers to his sister by her married name, and as “Mrs Bonds” instead of “Patty” or “My sister” and refers to the Catholic priests he mentions as “FR” (for “Father”).

 

_______________________________________

Those reading this should also consider reading the following: