James White and Rossphobia
The blogosphere is abuzz about "Dr." James White's debate challenge to Dr. Ergun Caner. Caner has not accepted which has caused some Calvinists to question his courage. Caner is the dean of Liberty Seminary and is a converted Muslim who debates Muslims. Let me repeat that: Caner is a converted Muslim who debates Muslims. Whatever his reasons for not accepting White's debate challenge, a lack of courage is not one of them. Others have also refused White's challenges for good reasons.In the meantime, "Dr." White, who loves to challenge others, has refused to take up a challenge from another Calvinist, Bob Ross. White seems to have a severe case of Rossphobia, or the fear of Bob Ross. In case you have not heard of Bob, he is the owner of Pilgrim Publications, the company that publishes all of Charles H. Spurgeon's sermons. Bob is an accomplished debater and on more than one occasion has debated those of the "Church of Christ" persuasion.
Bob Ross is a Calvinist but has some problems with James White's view of regeneration before faith. Ross has also taken on The Founders a time or two. He is also no fan of Dave Hunt; you might say he's an equal opportunity Calvinist. You can read some of Bob's articles on his web site,
Selected Writings of Bob Ross.
Bob recently wrote an article, WHITE SMOKE AGAIN, which I am reprinting here in full.
From: Pilgrimpub@aol.com
Subject: WHITE SMOKE AGAIN [02/25--2005]
FROM HIS ARIZONA TEEPEE, CHIEF JAMES SENDS UP MORE OF HIS CONFUSING SMOKE SIGNALS [02/25--2005]
Today is my birthday -- the 71st. One of my readers sent me some humorous stuff this morning -- I suppose it was for a Birthday Greeting (?).
It consisted of more confusing smoke signals from the Arizona Reservation of Big Chief Tangle-Tongue Exegete (James White), the foremost Tomahawker and Smoke-Stoker of the "We Were Born Again Before Faith" tribe of "Super-Sized" Hybrid Calvinists.
Chief James has a daily Smokesite called a Blog from which he often stokes confused theological smoke signals, and today's smoke signal involves yours truly, as follows:
>>And I guess there is some fellow named "Charles" running about every single blog he can find posting something about Bob Ross (go figure--have to feel sorry for someone who invests their lives in such pursuits). I just checked Steve Camp's blog and read some of "Charles'"comments. Evidently whoever he is he's upset that at some time, years and years ago, I defended John MacArthur against Bob Ross' less-than-fair attacks. That would explain why Ross has since then attacked me on the ordo salutis. Despite Ross' behavior, and his unwillingness to even accept my own profession based upon the LBCF, I have refused to argue with the man. He did a great work many decades ago in printing Spurgeon's materials, and for that past work I have simply said, "Lord bless you, Bob," and left him to rail if he chooses to do so. There is no arguing with someone who says, "Well, you say you believe that, but you really don't."
>>http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1267<<
BOB'S COMMENT:
The situation with Chief James is, it seems that in his own noggin he is simply "never wrong" -- at least, not on anything of substance -- not even when he puts his foot into his mouth.
In the case of John MacArthur and the Sonship of Christ view, James scolded me right roundly for my critiquing of MacArthur's former "incarnational sonship" view, and when MacArthur later saw the error of his way and came out publicly for the Confessional view of Eternal Sonship for which we stood, it left poor James "in a pickle." He had "egg on his face."
Now, in retrospect, instead of simply acknowledging the error of his way, James tries to "explain away" the fact that he put his foot in his mouth in trying to defend MacArthur. Someday we hope he will be conscientious enough to simply say, "Sorry, Bob, I was wrong to say what I did," and James' mind about me will be much more at ease.
As for the idea that we have ever "attacked" Chief James, we have never attacked anything related to him but what we believe to be his confusing smoke signals, and we believe we have dispelled his smoke in various articles.
As for James' ongoing crusade in behalf of Hybrid Calvinism on the matter of the New Birth --
For the benefit of my own readers who may wish to refresh your mind about this Hybrid Calvinism -- which consists of a mixture of Hardshellism and Presbyterianism on the New Birth -- advocated by James White, I refer you to the following website for a few of my smoke-repelling articles about the Big Chief's Hybridism:
Selected Writings of Bob Ross
>>http://writingsofbobross.tripod.com/1toc1.html<<>James White and the "pre-faith regeneration" Hybrid Calvinist heterodoxy:
ABRAHAM BOOTH VS. PRE-FAITH REGENERATION THEORY OF "HYPER" AND "HYBRID CALVINISTS"
AN ALLY OF WHITE
BACKDOOR PELAGIANISM OF THE REFORMED
BRO. JAMES IN SALT LIKE CITY
CHARNOCK vs SHEDD BERKHOF and Followers
DEBATE JAMES WHITE
FAITH AND REGENERATION
GETTING THRU TO BROTHER WHITE
HUNT-WHITE DEBATE A SUMMARY
JAMES WHITE REVISITED
JAMES WHITE'S LATEST COMMENT
JAMES WHITE'S SENSE OF HUMOR
MONERGISM AND INSTRUMENTALITY
MORE ON JAMES WHITE'S BLOG
OTHERS CONTRASTED TO WHITE ON LAZARUS
PRE-BIRTH REGENERATION
REFORMED or CALVINIST
REGENERATION -- A MAJOR ISSUE
REPLY ABOUT JAMES WHITE'S COMMENT
THIEF ON CROSS vs HYBRIDISM
WHITE FAILS TO EMPHASIZE MEANS
WHITE PERPETUATES WEBSITE ERROR
WHITE RE-HASHES DEBATE
WHITE'S BLOG FOGS THE AIR
WHITE'S FAULTY TEACHING
WHY THE CONTROVERSY
posted by Charles @ 11:49 AM
12 Comments:
Spit at you? It's just the facts here, James. No water fights.
What would we talk about? You running from Bob Ross? Your "Dr." degree from the correspondence school?
How about the Bible? CAll and talk about the Bible. I will be tuning in.
CONCERNING JAMES WHITE
Charles said,
"White seems to have a severe case of Rossphobia, or the fear of Bob Ross."
James had what might regard as a "hissy" back in 1997, when he tried to come to the aid of John MacArthur by alleging -- among other things -- that "your rendition of John's position is not up to snuff, shall we say, with reference to accuracy" (email, Nov. 12, 1997).
In a series of emails, James referred to the "consistent, solid teaching of John MacArthur over a long period of ministry." etc.
But the fact is, over John MacArthur's long period of ministry, it can be easily documented that at least three major changes have been made -- on (1) "infused" righteousness, (2) "incarnational Sonship," and (1) toleration of Eutychianism in his church's statement of faith .
For each of these changes made by John, I admire and applaud him. On the Eutychianism in the church's statement of faith, we were later informed by John's close associate, Phil Johnson, that Eutychianism was "never held" by John himself, but the statement of faith was drafted in the past by "some Talbot Seminary professors who taught at the Talbot extension on our church campus prior to 1987" (11/19/97 email).
That James was evidently blind to all three of these aberrant teachings by John and the church's statement of faith is rather inexplicable considering the fact that James has a long string of educational attainments listed on his website.
On the primary "incarnational sonship" issue, James evidently lumped that matter into the category of what he referred to as "non-essentials." He wrote, "I'm going to spend a few moments thanking the Lord that I'm not right about everything, and feel no need to skewer those who disagree with me on non-essentials" (Nov. 14, 1997 email).
While I somewhat admire James' evident simplistic zeal to defend John MacArthur's basic doctrinal integrity, I came to realize that James was perhaps not the "theolog" which we had been led to think, for withal his emphasis on "exegesis," James was also rather exiguous. His most recent exhibition of the latter was displayed in the debate book he did with Dave Hunt. It was not so much Hunt's debating prowess as it was James' weakness which was significant.
James does not indicate in his writings that he has much of a problem dealing with cultists and other heterodoxists who are so aberrant, but he would probably be somewhat cramped in a confrontation with someone who was acquainted with confessional Christianity.
On his "pre-faith regeneration" theory, for example, in a public debate James would most likely be easily "tar and feathered" by anyone with merely an elementary knowledge of the Confessions of Faith. -- Bob L. Ross
http://writingsofbobross.tripod.com/1toc1.html
SIGNIFICANCE OF DR. DAGG
ON REGENERATION
Charles said,
"Bob Ross is a Calvinist but has some problems with James White's view of regeneration before faith. Ross has also taken on The Founders a time or two."
In the light of the material I recently posted from the late Southern Baptist professor and president at Mercer University, Dr. John L. Dagg, I think the brethren of the Founders Ministries have a very serious PROBLEM -- if they are going to go down the Pedobaptist "pre-faith regeneration" path of James White and R. C. Sproul, disciples of the Louis Berkhof-W. G. T. Shedd view.
Dr. Dagg not only teaches that the WORD is the Holy Spirit's instrumentality in regeneration, but he also has FAITH "preceding" in what the Pedobaptist theologians refer to as the "ordo salutis." The "ordo salutis" refers to the device of stating the supposed "order" of what takes place in regeneration.
Berkhof, Shedd, and their adherents deny that the WORD is instrumental in the act of regeneration, and they teach that FAITH comes AFTER one is already born again. They teach this in the case of INFANTS as well as ADULTS.
Dr. Dagg, on the other hand, teaches that the WORD is instrumental in regeneration, and that faith "PRECEDES" in regeneration. Dagg takes this view because he teaches that the "production" of saving faith itself is efficiently accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit using the instrumentality of the Word -- which, by the way, is the CONFESSIONAL VIEW OF CREEDAL CALVINISM. Regeneration is AT faith, and that faith is produced by the SPIRIT'S using the WORD.
Inasmuch as Dr. Dagg is one of those identified as one of the original "Founders" of the 1800s, and since his Manual of Theology is on the Founders Ministries' website, don't you think the Founders have a "first class" problem if they play the tune of White-Berkhof-Shedd-Sproul on "pre-faith regeneration"?
I thought it was perhaps significant that in a Founders' article on regeneration by Founders Board of Directors member, Bill Ascol, the material which Brother Ascol quoted from Dr. Dagg does not include what Dagg's statement that faith "precedes regeneration." The Ascol quotation stops just short of where Dagg makes that statement. (See http://www.founders.org/FJ02/article2.html for Ascol's quote and see http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/bk7c3.html#sec4 for Dagg's presentation).
I just wonder how "James the Exegete" would handle that issue in a debate with someone who defended Dr. Dagg's position? -- Bob L. Ross
JAMES WHITE said...
Hey Charles: when you find the courage of your alleged convictions, the number to the Dividing Line is 877-753-3341. I find lots of brave souls who hide behind keyboards and spit at me: few have the heart to face me personally. Hear from you soon?
Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:27:48 AM
BOB TO CHARLES:
I wonder where James has been March 4? Has he posted any comments? Has he crawled under his keyboard, maybe?
Has my presence on your blog made this place a "No-Zone" for James?
James is trying his dead-level best to carve out for himself a reputation as a "debater" who whups up on the "Arminians," but I wonder how he would fare against a Confessional Calvinist? Could he successfully defend Fort Pre-Faith Regeneration?
I saw somewhere that he said he has had many "debates," all of them with debaters who are not Confessional Calvinists, but he has had no debate with a Confessional Calvinist. Wonder why?
Could he defend his Hybrid Calvinism against Confessional Calvinism? If a Confessional Calvinist paid to go on his Cruise, do you think he would condescend to debate with a Confessional Calvinist?
Do you think James will ever really establish himself as a legitimate, respected debater if he does not take on a Calvinist who rejects his "born again before faith" palabber? -- Bob L. Ross
MORE WHITE SMOKE AND WHITE LIGHTNING
Dear Charles,
At first glance at James White's website, I thought there might be a case forthcoming of a recantation by James of his aberrant teaching on "new birth before faith." I enjoyed reading the first part -- the London Confession and the quotation from Spurgeon -- but then when James commented at the end, my expectation was more or less devastated.
It appears that nothing has changed. James is still "in denial," and is evidently still wed to his "new birth before faith" teaching.
It is unfortunate that James has become so rattled and unravelled that he has to resort to ad hominem remarks, making accusations, and even alleging dishonesty. When one has to stoop to that sort of "polemics," he loses his credibility.
James -- in pursuit of his obvious desire to become known as a debater -- evidently pays for some opponents to go on cruises with him so they can debate and James can further embellish himself as an "apologist" and "debater."
In my vain thoughts, I was tempted to think that James might invite me to go on such a cruise for a debate. Do you think, Charles, that this might be "in the cards"? -- Bob
Bob Ross wrote, "In my vain thoughts, I was tempted to think that James might invite me to go on such a cruise for a debate. Do you think, Charles, that this might be "in the cards"? -- Bob"
Not a chance, Bob! However, if you do get invited, bring me back some of those fancy shrimp on ice!
I bet James has a great time "defending the faith" while eating all those fancy shrimp. Wonder if he wears that Scottish kilt while at sea?
Charles
CHARLES said,
Wonder if he wears that Scottish kilt while at sea?
BOB'S COMMENT:
I am Scottish myself, and they have a county Ross named for our ancestors. So I could get my family's kilt, and perhaps James and I could dance to the beautiful music of the bangpipes!
Dear Bob
I like your style, though I suspect we would have areas of doctrinal divergence.
But, on point....
Where did "Dr" James White obtain his PhD? Was it Outback Steak House? Was it en absentia et dementia? Technical Career Institute?
The overriding ethos of whatever he writes is one of suffocating self-promotion. He ran away from the discussion list on CO-URC when it was demonstrated that his "exegesis" of Hebrews was a "right chaffy work". One suspects that his fan base consists of imbalanced 43 yr old single males who dwell in the cavernous climes of their parents' basements reading poorly constructed A.W. Pink tomes.
Sincerely
Your Reformed and Paedobaptist Brother Brian
Charles et all,
Amazing that I found this blog. For years I had my concerns with White, especially since the whole PF and CBF debacle. Insane mud slinging from behind and mp3 and an ip address really turned a lot of us off.
The more I looked for who this guy was the more I found that the opinion was vast and widespread as to how condescending and elitist he was with all of his detractors, debaters and people who simply didn't agree with him. I buried these perceptions along with White and pursued other more important issues.
Nevertheless, after two years and like a bad dream, in looking for Caner and any information about muslim apologetics I happened the see the internet litter created once again by White and his Defamation League. He just can't let it go!!!!
My counseling background and years working for children's home showed me that this guy yells for attention. Many of the dysfunctional kids I worked with displayed the exact same behaviors White does. The only difference is that my kids didn't know greek.
Well, curiosity got the best of me and I googled to see what White has been up to and as the previous entry states, (White Smoke)he is still at it. All you have to do is google keywords "James White" + "Arrogant" + "Condescending" as your algorithm and its amazing to see the results. Although he has done many good works the negative output has outweighed the positive.
If you put together all the discussion board messages, blogs, pdf's, email messages still stored on servers, you see that he indeed has created waves. However, none of them could be even close to being considered edifying to the body of Christ. He'll probably mention this on the DL to get his reassurance from his peeps (again, classic behaviors) nevertheless it still remains sad that he cannot and will probably not see beyond his own smoke.
nagging thomist, I just read your post as well as the other posts in this thread. You attack Dr White's character many times but do not once deal with any actual issues. You never once refute any of his arguments.
You are resorting to what is called "ad hominem" or attacking the person and not his argument.
Ad hominem goes like this:
White says:
The Bible says this.
You either can't or won't reply with Biblical exegesis so you respond: You are just mean and arrogant, a self promoter!
Ok, so let's Say White is mean, arrogant, ugly, condescending, kicks his dog for no reason and isn't a very nice guy all around.
So what about his beliefs? Are they wrong Biblically?
James White is a man. He is not perfect. I am sure he struggles with pride etc just as everyone else (that includes both of us) But does that make his arguments wrong?
Deal with the issues Biblically. Do not resort to ad hominem.
Ad hominem is nothing more than a negative form of self promotion.
Rather than promoting yourself in a positive manner by raising yourself you seek to take others such as White down and thereby making yourself look better.
In actuality, ad hominem in this case points the finger of pride and an unloving attitude right back at your sir.
In closing, I urge you to reconsider your statements.
Realize that Dr White is a sinner just like you and me and deal with his arguments, not his personality.
Note: My first post didn't post so I will try again, if they both eventually post then I apologize.
nagging thomist, I just read your post as well as the other posts in this thread. You attack Dr White's character many times but do not once deal with any actual issues. You never once refute any of his arguments.
You are resorting to what is called "ad hominem" or attacking the person and not his argument.
Ad hominem goes like this:
White says:
The Bible says this.
You Can't or won't reply with Biblical exegesis so you respond: You are just mean and arrogant, a self promoter!
Ok, so let's Say White is mean, arrogant, ugly, condescending, kicks his dog for no reason and isn't a very nice guy all around.
So what about his beliefs? Are they wrong Biblically?
James White is a man. He is not perfect. I am sure he struggles with pride etc just as everyone else (that includes both of us) But does that make his arguments wrong?
In closing, I urge you to deal with the issues Biblically. Do not resort to ad hominem.
Refute his arguments, not his personality.
I
Post a Comment
<< Home