James White's Egomania
If you had any doubt that "Dr." James White was a egomaniac, this should put your doubt to bed. He now welcomes comparisons of himself to Chuck Norris and Jack Bauer!A Calvinist Flyswatter reader once said, "One suspects that (James') fan base consists of imbalanced 43 yr old single males who dwell in the cavernous climes of their parents' basements."
Ya gotta wonder.
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For more on Brother James,
Sunday School with James White;
Evangelism: Tom Ascol and James White vs. Charles Spurgeon;
(James White worshipper) Alan Kurschner has egg on his face;
The James White 'Born Again Before Faith' White Lightning Distillery;
The odd logic of James White;
Bob Ross: "Railing on Apostle James?"; and,
James White and Rossphobia
posted by Charles @ 3:11 AM
9 Comments:
bob and charles,
guess what? tom ascol has said that i cant post anymore on the founders blog. i guess when the truth is being shown and it hits too close to home, then you close the mouth of the messenger. what do yall think?
several times, he would not show my posts. he would not allow my answers to the five pointers to be shown. what does this say about him?
you know, cult leaders dont like for thier followers to be shown the truth either. they dont like thier followers to see truth and logic either.
oh well, my days at the founders blog are over. God bless you fellers.
volfan007
Thanks for the post Charles!
I was worried that we were going to have to wait a full 10 days since your last post about James White.
Lighten up. Have some fun. Go do evangelism or something more productive than be obsessed with James White and sucking up to Bob Ross.
One might suspect that you are an imbalanced 43yr old single male dwelling in the cavernous climes of his parents basement, typing about james white. Probably more often that White fans.
BTW, Jack Bauer wears James White pajamas.
volfan007, Hello!
You said, guess what? tom ascol has said that i cant post anymore on the founders blog.
I'm not surprised. Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry) is a church splitting conspiracy. They are terrified of anyone who might expose the conspiracy.
James White goes it one further. He doesn't allow comments from anyone else on his blog.
Charles
volfan007,
give us an example of what he won't post.
BARRED
volfan007 said...
guess what? tom ascol has said that i cant post anymore on the founders blog.
Don't worry about that. You are welcome here, and believe me, you will get read more here by appreciative readers than you would find on the Founders. And don't worry -- many of the Founders will be reading your comments, also.
Many of them "camp out here" just trying to catch either Charles or me in some type of blunder.
ON JAMES WHITE
Bob to Charles:
Actually, Charles, James' apparent approval of what seems to be an effort at humor shows some degree of improvement in James' attitude.
A few years ago, before James adopted Hybrid Calvinism and was on "better terms" with me, he rebuked me for using humor. He seemed to be so "nerdy" at that time he had no room for humor. I suppose since the current item focuses on James, the humor is OK. I hope this shows a little development in his persona.
QUESTIONS ABOUT JAMES
Jeffro said...
Why the obsession with James White? Does he scare you boys? It seems that every other post is about James White and how he is the antichrist or something....
The "obsession" -- if you wish to characterize it that way -- has to do primarily with James White's attempt to speak and write as representative of "Calvinism" when in fact James -- whom I have known personally since before he lost his hair -- represents the "Reformed" palabber which is in reality non-creedal HYBRID Calvinism -- which is a mixture of (1)Creedal Calvinism on the sole monergistic agency of the Holy Spirit in the New Birth with (2) the Hardshell-Shedd-Berkhof-Frame-Sproul phantasmagoria of "born again before faith," or "regeneration before faith."
James, as a "person," is irrelevant other than his being a participant in advocating false doctrine. His name could be "James," "Tom," "Scott," "Gene," or some other, but if he advocates Hybrid Calvinism, then his teaching may come in for some "knocks" by The Calvinist Flyswatter.
We are given to "swatting" all "flies" which carry this "disease." We are sort of like "flypaper" -- the flies get "stuck" and can't get loose.
It does not matter to us if the "fly" is "Reformed," a "Founder," a Seminary professor, or is identified by some other appellation or position, he is promoting heresy if he advocates Hybridism, teaching that one is "born again before faith." We do not spare due to "celebrity" status. We swat "flies" of "celebrity" just as we swat lesser known "flies."
And FYI, I have been "obsessed" with opposing this heresy for about 50 years, and plan to continue doing so as long as I am able.
The only "fear" I have in relation to James is that I fear he will never come to the knowledge of the truth on the New Birth, and may even wind up as an outright "Hardshell." I have seen this happen before -- such as the case of America's #1 Hardshell, Lasserre Bradley Jr., who at one time in the 1950s was a Creedal Calvinist.
The fact is, James has already preached in at least one of the Hardshells' churches. That is not a good "sign." See --
James White Preaches for Hardshell Baptists March 9, 2006 on the Flyswatter:
http://calvinistflyswatter.
blogspot.com/2006/03/
james-white-preaches-for-hardshell.html
may i suggest that you allow all posts without reviewing them first. it's a lot faster.
volfan007
MURRAY vs ASCOL ON EVANGELISM
OF MODERN "CALVINISTS"
Charles said...
Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry) is a church splitting conspiracy. They are terrified of anyone who might expose the conspiracy.
On the current Founders' blog, Charles, Tom Ascol is defending the notion that the Founders are committed to evangelism. Here is his remark:
>>
What we "Founders types" lack is not a commitment to evangelism but a commitment to shallow evangelism that thinks you can save a soul for $48 dollars a month or results in vastly more "converts" that show no signs of life than those who do. We do stand against the kind of evangelism that fills our churches with unregenerate members. But we do not stand against biblical evangelism.
When I read this, I recalled the contrasting comments of Iain Murray.
Murray, director of the The Banner of Truth Trust, the Scotland-based publishers of writings by many Calvinistic and Puritan writers, expressed very serious observations about the lack of evangelism on the part of the "reformed" Calvinists of this age.
In the book, SPURGEON v. HYPER-CALVINISM, Mr. Murray writes in his Preface as follows:
>>
As a Puritan once said, 'The devil does not allow the wind of error to blow long in the same direction.' In the 1960s it seemed to many of us that Spurgeon's continuing significance had to do with his witness to the free-grace convictions of the Reformers and Puritans over against the shallow and non-doctrinal evangelicalism of our day. Thirty years later that witness remains relevant and yet it is apparent that the recovery of doctrinal Christianity is not necessarily our chief need today.
In many churches there has been a real increase in knowledge and a resurgence of Calvinistic belief has occurred across the world. The word 'forgotten' is happily far less applicable to Spurgeon than it was forty years ago.
But it may well be that the time has come when we need to be MUCH MORE FAMILIAR with a rather different emphasis in Spurgeon.
While I know of no evidence that Hyper-Calvinism is recovering strength, it would appear that THE PRIORITY WHICH SOUL-WINNING HAD IN SPURGEON'S MINISTRY IS NOT COMMONLY SEEN TO BE OUR PRIORITY.
The revival of DOCTRINE has scarcely been matched by a revival of EVANGELISM.
While not accepting the tenets of Hyper-Calvinism it may well be that we have not been sufficiently alert to the danger of allowing a supposed consistency in doctrine to OVERRIDE THE BIBLICAL PRIORITY OF ZEAL FOR CHRIST AND SOULS OF MEN.
Doctrine without usefulness is no prize. As Spurgeon says, 'You may look down with contempt on some who do not know so much as you, and yet they may have twice your holiness and be doing more service to God.'
The danger with Hyper-Calvinism is not so much what it believes, but that IT DOES NOT BELIEVE ENOUGH. By bringing light in the controversy of the 1850s Spurgeon has left a vital testimony and one as 'immensely important' now as it was then.
>>
That was NOT written by Charles or Bob Ross, but it is from Iain Murray, the man who is probably most responsible for the "Founders" movement getting started than any other, as he influenced Ernest Reisinger so greatly.
Whil Ascol gives "lip service" to being committed to evangelism, "where's the beef?"
The only "growth" to speak of in the Founders' movement is comprised of proselytes it has made to the theological system we prefer to call "Hybrid Calvinism" since it advocates "born again before faith."
"Evangelism" seems to be the least of the Founders' practical concern, interest, and effort. Its main emphasis is on a so-called "reform" effort to get more proselytes to the "born again before faith" heresy.
Post a Comment
<< Home