James White makes a fool out of Ergun Caner....

That's how it goes. Advertisement pays the hosting bill in many cases. All the things we enjoy seeing James White do (debates and such) all cost money. We recently sent a group of teens to the Kaleo conference in Macon GA. Had to pay conference fees, hotel rooms and such. We had to have a little fund raising to cover the costs.

Rippon, I don't want to get into the things I see differently than White in this thread as it would certainly lead to a hijacking. :laugh:

 

Please answer the questions I posed Amy.

 

Ergun Caner aside - the portion of the debate shown with Shabir Ally was wonderful. I must admit that is what I like to see. People sharing, challenging, and clarifying information.

 

I am not saying that mankind comes to God without any input from God. I do not believe, however, that some are ordained to be saved and some ordained to eternal damnation.

I believe God has ordained that through the preaching of the Word of God, man can respond to the gospel. I don't understand all aspects of this since I don't have a full understanding of God. By the way, neither you nor anyone else has total understanding of this either.

 

Apparently, not on the BB. :smilewinkgrin:

But you make a good point. This is why some theologians will not debate White or have a debate on this issue; it can become divisive.

 

Yes and I feel that God doesn't want the church divided and it seems to be so much today over this controversy. The Apostle Paul said in many of his epistles that we should be united, and of course this doesn't mean we drop truth or what we believe is truth to unit. I feel we must come together in love and trust in God's ways and realize we all put a little of our own spin on our favorite doctrines. Can't the Calvinist be happy about the Arminian coming to faith and the Arminian joyful about the Calvinist doing the same. For many years I never knew of the Calvinistic doctrines, but I'm sure my salvation was not diminished because of it. We all become more enlightened (sanctified) as we walk with Christ and we must not belittle those who are not as far along and we must realize that many have a better grasp of truth than we do. We just need to filter out the wolves in sheep's clothing; the true heretics that bring false teachings (not Calvinists or Arminians).

 

Thanks for that. Not seen that before.

 

I think James did a great job all the way around. THat Caner feller is a clown in my opinion.

 

Amy,
Do you have a specific quote of where you think DR.White misrepresents non cals? Bearing false witness is a sin. Dr,White does not attack strawmen.

 

Allan, Could you give any examples of this? If you make a charge publically,you should offer some evidence of it.
I have never seen him do this,and have been to 5 of his debates.

 

Yes, it is a sin.. and one that he himself is noted for being guilty of, like many believers on both sides of the fence.
And yes, he has been known to attack his own strawmen of what 'he' thinks others believe.

His misrepresetions can often be found in his statements like "Arminianism is a man-centered theology" amongst others. This is an opinion based upon ones own theological assumption and therefore, not of necessity, a fact.
While I disagree with Arminianism, the theological view behind it is not man-centered as opposed to Christ-centered. Let me clarify sometning however, when I say Arminianism I am refering to historic and Wesleyian Arminians. Not the new weird junk you find with word-of-faith garbage, name it and claim it, sideshow wanna-bes (?sp)

Another he has stated is that Arminianism (which basically anything not Reformed) is "based upon traditions" and therefore not scripture.. Again another falsehood.

There are others but the point is.. he is guilty of 'misrepresentation'.

But as I said much ealier in the thread, ..Yes, Mr. White does on various issues, mostly however it is when he is trying to put them or certain views/doctrines down or in a negitive light.
This isn't what he 'typically' does but he has been known to it.

 

That is not to something to hard to find brother.

I have been to 1 of them.. and listended to many others, read quite a few of his books..

The charge is public knowledge.. not a secret.

However I do not go so far as to say that is what he constantly does, yet he has been know to do so.

 

James White is well-prepared in his debates. He presents the views of his opponents with accuracy. That's public knowledge. Someone like Dave Hunt doesn't do his homework -- he misrepresents. That's why Mormons and Roman Catholics do not respect him.

 

Allan,
I am not sure I fully understand what you are saying. You say this:
1

noted by who? I have heard Roman Catholics refer to him as the noted anti-catholic,James White....on catholic family radio.
But I have not heard of any christian speak poorly of him. You have not established that he is guilty of anything.
2

Allan...Dr.White usually responds to direct quotes from individuals. He does not speculate philosophically about what others might say.He speaks openly,and as a matter of record he many times has invited an objector to speak live on his radio program or has ocassionally played a you tube clip of an actual objector and answered them.
3

Many believe Arminianism is man centered in that it starts with man,mans will, mans faith, mans works. It is good that you are not in agreement with arminianism. But this alone does not supply any evidence of what you are saying.as a matter of fact, the very next statement you post;
......

For you to make such a charge is your opinion based upon your theological assumptions ! Allan we all make judgements based on our theology. Your assumption is that arminianism is not man -centered.
You are free to hold your point of view,as Dr.White is free to hold and express his point of view. That does not establish anything except that you view the issue differently.
4

we agree here:thumbsup: Wesley would reject this modern trash.
Also there are christians who have a simple God given faith who serve the Lord. Their theology might have "defects" as some of the anabaptists in church history, but we will wait for the Lord to sort them out.
5

There is a clear division scripturally between the two views.Both are not correct. There is no moral equivalence or blending of the views.
One view lets the bible speak, the other lets men redefine the context
of the verses offered to a point where it is no longer the word of God being spoken of in actual context.
A perfect example of this is when you hear people say.....My bible says,God is not willing that any perish,and then the wrest a scripture out of context such as 2Pet3:9

As if the sinner sends himself to hell.Jesus clearly is very willing that many perish. Mt 7. Mt 25.
6

Again I do not think you have established this at all. You might not agree with his teaching,but it is accurate.
7

Error is to be opposed and put down. It is hard to speak well of error. Paul spoke very sharply of many false teachers and teachings.
I am sure many accused Paul of mis-representations .
21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

 

1a. Then it is apparent you are only listening to those who praise him.

2a. You are making an argument based soley upon a program where he is asked a question and he responds. This is not the only venue from which he speaks. If this is the only exposure you have had to him, then I can understand why you don't know these things.
2b. I never said he wasn't courteous.

3a. The evidence is in the statement made and therefore factual.

Just because 'many' wish to call it such does not negate the fact of their misresentation of the view as though it is indeed an uncontestable fact.

3b. Now your catching on.. To state I THINK something is something.. is quite different that making the statement, something IS someting.

3c. Exactly.. so we must be careful to acknowledge what is opinion and what is factual. Mr White in this point.. is not factual and therfore misrepresenting the facts about their beliefs.

5a. First, who states theirs is absolutely THE truth. I don't know any Reformed person who assumes they know it all or that what they know is the exhaustive truth but even leave room for the potential they are wrong.

Secondly, the above is not really true. They both hold to the same immutable truths, where they differ is in mechanics of some of those truth. It is the mechanics of each view that have difficulty being reconciled 'together' not the immutable truths. Also there are scriptural issues that BOTH sides can not properly deal with scripturally regarding their views, and thus each view has some biblical problems of their own to some degree or other.

The truth here is that there is a divide, yes. But it is theologicall and not so much scriptural, since both get their views from the scripturs.

5b. And just which view is it that 'redefines' the context?
I can say seemingly without question that the reformed twist many of the scriptures out of context. Yet you would state the very same about me So who gets to decide who's is the only right view?

The issue is actaully what is more in-line with ones theological view. and necessarily what is deemed by some as scriptural. These are not one and the same though some tend to 'assume' they are.

I would assume you would agree with me that scripture determines and defines ones theology, but theology does not however determine or define scripture. Yet I have had quite a few from the reformed side tell me otherwise (even a couple on here).

5c. First, I agree the 2 Pet verse it used often out of context as proof text by group though it is easy provable to show this passage is dealing with believers only here. The one I have found most Reformed have contextual trouble with 1 Tim 4:1-8

But with respect to 'your' comment of it:
Of course Jesus clearly is 'willing' that many perish, but scripturally they perish because they choose not believe/recieve the truth.
Does scripture in the OT not state God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked?
Does the NT in 2 Thes. not state that they (sinners) received (Greek - to take to themselves) not the love of the truth that could SAVE THEM, and IT WAS FOR THIS REASON God sent them a strong delusion to believe the lie BECAUSE they did not believe?
Does not scripture state that that not all who are called will come (Prov 1:23,24-33

... I can go on and on BUT this is the point.. is it scriptural (the using of scripture) or is this actually more about theology.

How can it be accurate when the evidence speaks against it.
The very definition of misrepresent is:
"1. To give an incorrect or misleading representation of."

Of which Mr. White does and has been known to do.
He tells his opinions of what he thinks as fact regarding other peoples views.
If what he states is not what the person or group actaully hold to in either theology or philosophy of that view, then he is guilty of misrepresention.
In his sermon "Was anyone saved at the Cross" he state this about when he was a 4 pointer on cusp of being a 5:

6a. He understand of unlimited atonement was already incorrect, so I can understand why it was an issue. However he postsits this same thought regarding the unlimited atonement view as though it speaks for all who hold it. That is one of his strawmen, and is also a misrepresentation of the view those who hold to unlimited atonement. It is not accurate. It is a poor generalization of what is held.

Or statements like this in his conclusion of the same sermon concerning evangelism:
When the Apostles preached the Gospel, they did not say, “Christ died for all men everywhere, and it is up to you to make His work effective.”

Name anyone mainstream, Arminian (historial or Wesleyain) or non-cal, who would dare make such an statement. Again, he typically misrepresents when he is trying to put another group or view down. He isn't being factual nor presenting their actaul view but is side-stepping the truth to make his point seem more valid.

Again, his mispresentation is not a secret, but publicly seen and known. Again, I don't state this is the way he typically speaks of or two others but he has been know to misrepresent views of others.

7a. Sorry, not even close.
I agree that error is to be put down. Though Paul didn't misrepresent these individuals nor was he accused of such, he stood against them as did the churches who agreed with him. These two issues are like comparing apples and trees.

 

Come again? LOL. Your ungrammatical riddles are a wonder to behold.

How can one get their views from the Bible yet those views are not theological?

Did you mean to say not necessarily...? If so, as I said above, their views are indeed theological. All regenerate people derive their theology from the Scriptures. Some unfortunately base their views to a lesser degree on the Bible than they ought. But hopefully, as their walk with the Lord matures their theology will depend more and more on His Word.

You are engaging in double-talk. Before you seemed to disagree with that proposition. Which is it?

As you said before --Scripture defines and determines one's theology.

And as I said before -- our (Cals and non-Cals alike)theology is based on Scripture.

I know you aren't a Calvinist and you bristle when told that you are an Arminian. But you do not hold to particular redemption. You can't avoid the implication that you hold to unlimited atonement. Do you insist that before James White became a full-fledged Calvinist that he did not actually adhere to the unlimited atonement view?

No, you're just feeling conviction. James White is coming too close for your comfort.

 

Interesting statement. If Allan is feeling conviction, is it a forgone conclusion that he will now become a full five pointer, or is it possible that even though the Holy Spirit is convicting him (assuming that Rippon is accurate), the convicting work could fail?

 

Attention sic-ophants, James White has his heart set on a fierce "Canari yellow" spandex outfit. Buy it for him here:thumbs:

 

You obviously aren't a cyclist.

 

My statement:"No,you're just feeling conviction. James White is too close for your comfort." should have been followed with a smiley face. But there is a measure of truth in my comment. A lot of folks are annoyed at Calvinistic preachers/teachers only to find themselves in agreement later on.