Why Does James White Debate?
Brother Bob Ross may have the answer as to why "Dr." James White debates so much.I seem to remember reading something about those who were "teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain." Titus 1:10.
Discussing the "house take" and offering a "substantial sum" for a debate with James? Does this mean that "for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam" (Jude 11)? After all, overseerers are to be "not fond of sordid gain." (Titus 1:7).
I don't know why, but these verses came to mind when I read Bob's comment. Maybe James can do some EXE-GEETIN' on these verses and tell us what they really mean. I hope they don't apply to Brother James. I really do.
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BUYING DEBATERS?
Bob to Charles:
One might think, Charles, that making a small "business" of debating might not be very lucrative; however, I suppose if one really works at making it something of a "cottage industry," it might at least help "make a living."
I noticed the following on James White's website, written by a gentleman who evidently is sort of an "agent" to entice selected opponents to debate James White. This was an offer said to have been made in October 2005 to Ergun Caner:
>>
If you agree to participate, you will be given 50% of the house take for the evening. As our attendance last year in Seattle was approximately 800, this should be a substantial sum. Round-trip air-fare for you and your wife, hotel and meals while at the Safety Harbor Resort will be gratis. Please let me know if you are able to participate in this event. Soli Deo Gloria, Michael O'Fallon President Sovereign Cruises LLCwww.sovereigncruises.org mike@sovereigncruises.org877-SOV-CRUISE
>>
Fifty percent of $20 or $25 a head times 800, plus all expenses and meals, is a tidy little sum for debating, don't you think, Charles? I'm surprised James does not have more "takers" for debates than he does, what with all those perks offered opponents.
I suppose James also gets a chunk of "the take," in addition to probably selling quite a lot of his merchandise (books, cassettes, videos, dvds, etc.) to those in attendance. He is quite the entrepreneur. He might eventually even rival Peter Ruckman as a notable entrepreneur of self-produced religious products.
posted by Charles @ 6:45 PM
21 Comments:
JAMES ON PAUL
Bob to Charles:
I noticed the following remark, Charles, on James White's blog in which he seems to compare his debating with the Apostle Paul's disputations in Acts 17, 18.
>>
I wanted to write and ask this well respected individual just who today was doing what the apostles did in engaging even those who "spoke against" the faith in public disputation (Acts 17 and 18, for example)?
>>
If James is here implying that he is doing what Paul did, I wonder, Charles, if Paul got 50% of the "take," with room and meals provided?
And do you think Paul had a Cruise company agent who solicited opponents for Paul to debate?
I also wonder if Paul demanded a certain amount of time before he engaged in the public disputation in Acts 17, 18, otherwise he would withdraw from the disputation?
Uncialman said...
With all rightly due respect,sadly, the conclusions that you have reached in regards to Dr. White's "take" is a bit misinformed.
The cost of airfare, hotel, ballroom rental, rental of audio equipment etc. certainly gobbles up any overage that Alpha and Omega's side receives.
You mean James is like Peter Ruckman who says he "gets no royalties"?
Poor James! All that work and sacrifice for no compensation? It seems to be "Unfair Labor Practices" when the opponent gets thousands plus free perks and James goes off with naught! Maybe you could get the opponent to settle for 25% and James could get 25%?
CONGRATULATIONS, BRUCE
brucewright said...
It's evident you just like to make noise. You show no fear of God in slandering his servants. I'm sure this will never get posted because you are dishonest and fear the truth.
Congratulations, Bruce. And some people thought you could "never be wrong"?
You've ruined your reputation!
JAMES WHITE COMES DOWN
AGAINST SPURGEON'S SERMON
Bob to Charles:
I noticed, Charles, that James White has seen fit to publish a certain writer's critique of C. H. Spurgeon's sermon on "Jacob and Esau." It seems that Spurgeon was not sound enough for the likes of Apostle James and Don Hartley.
White introduces Hartley's critique by referring to Spurgeon's "inconsistencies that we can detect on an exegetical and theological level."
This is just another manifestation of James' distancing of himself from Spurgeon's views, while still trying to somehow utilize him in certain instances.
Not that we think Spurgeon (or any one else) is beyond possible criticism, Charles, but one wonders why James White is critical of Spurgeon when this is such a contrast to his past attitude about John MacArthur when I critiqued J-Mac's view on Sonship as well as his view on the ground of Justification. J-Mac has since recanted both of those views, for which we are thankful.
James attacked me when I wrote about J-Mac's creedal heterodoxy, and said J-Mac's teaching was "solid teaching." Of course, we went over this in an earlier post on this blog.
Flyswatter archives, April 2, 2006: "What Does James White Believe About the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ?"
James continues to demonstrate that he is more of an "appallingist" than an "apologist."
Brother Bob, Hello!
He says of Spurgeon, "as an exegete this is inexcusable."
Amazing! Especially since neither Jame White nor his sycophant is in the same league with Spurgeon on any level. It's like comparing a blade of grass to an oak tree.
This post by James takes his arrogance and egomania to a new level.
If he ever stopped and looked in a mirror I believe he would see a Diotrephes looking back.
Charles
all i ever see are most five pointers being criticial of every body and everything. they act like it's thier job to correct everyone. overly critical spirit and negativism may be one of the consequences of fatalism.
bob,
i wish that ascol and white would debate you. you could take them both on, bro. with one arm tied behind your back.
from the hills of tn,
volfan007
JAMES & SPURGEON
Charles said...
Brother Bob, Hello!
This post by James takes his arrogance and egomania to a new level.
I believe Spurgeon's books will still be published, read, and influencing Christianity long after Brother James' books show up at garage sales "25 cents" each.
JAMES & TOM DEBATE BOB?
volfan007 said...
i wish that ascol and white would debate you. you could take them both on, bro. with one arm tied behind your back.
James has never debated a Creedal Calvinist, and Tom says he has never debate.
I do not think James would debate a Creedal Calvinist on "Regeneration," for James is much too satisfied with the Shedd-Berkhof-Sproul "Reformed" notion that one is "born again before faith." He might risk the loss of some of his disciples if he were to expose his view to what the Confessions teach on that subject. You may have noticed on this blog how Hybrids Scott Morgan and Gene Bridges have gagged on the Confessions, not to mention our Baptist theologians.
James has all the anti-"Arminian" arguments down pat, but he is ham-strung for arguments against Creedal Calvinism on "Effectual Calling." Even Dave Hunt was able to confute James on "born again before faith" by simply using some of Spurgeon's remarks.
SPURGEON
Timotheos said...
If Spurgeon were alive upon the earth today . . .
I do not really get the impression, Timotheos, that you are well enough acguainted with Spurgeon to even imagine what he might or might not say about anything.
But let me assure you, Spurgeon is very much alive today by means of his sermons and books, and is probably more widely read than any other Christian author, living or dead.
A few years ago at the Christian Booksellers Convention, I personally did a tally of the several hundred publishers who had exhibits at the Convention, and found that more of them had something in print by Spurgeon than any other author, living or dead. This included all of the major publishers. Moody Press' first and all-time best selling
book is Spurgeon's "All of Grace."
Over the years, I have noticed that critics of Spurgeon have "come and gone" -- and they seem to go much more readily than otherwise. I recall that the last noticeable critic of Spurgeon who ventured to publish against him passed away not very long after he began publishing his critiques of Spurgeon.
Spurgeon's critics and their criticisms just don't seem to endure. Notice the item Phil Johnson has on his blog about Jospeh Parker. Who today cares to read Joseph Parker, or even knows anything much about him?
I "hitched my wagon" to Spurgeon when I was 18 years old, and have never had any reason to unhitch. You can have all my other books, but not Spurgeon's.
"PULPIT CRIMES"?
Bob to Charles:
Did you notice, Charles, that James White and his debate "agent," Mike O'Fallon of "Sovereign Grace Cruises," are having a Conference in Orlando called "Pulpit Crimes"?
Besides James White and Tom Ascol, the speakers include the following:
Burk Parsons, a Presbyterian minister at Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Florida, who has the master of divinity degree from Reformed Theological Seminary.
David T. King, graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary, Pastor of Dayspring Presbyterian Church in Forsyth, GA.
Don Kistler, a book publisher and a member of the Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
Three of the five are identified with the churches of the Reformed "baby regenerationist" mythology advocated by the likes of Shedd, Berkhof, Frame, and R. C. Sproul.
Considering the "criminal" theological teaching of all five speakers about the New Birth, "Pulpit Crimes" seems to be an appropriate description for this Conference. Certainly, the "criminal" phantasmagoria of "born again before faith" which steals away the truth of our Confessions of Faith on "Effectual Calling" will not be condemned and prosecuted by this "rogues gallery" of theological "felons."
DEBATE ATTENDANCE
Bob to Charles:
On Tom Ascol's blog, I noticed the following in a couple of posts by Mike O'Fallon, James White's "debate agent" --
>>
The ticket sales to the homosexual community have basically out numbered sales to conservatives by a two to one margain. . . .
Again, so far, the amount of homosexuals attending this debate outnumbers the conservative evangelicals 2 to 1.
>>
According to what we have formerly read by O'Fallon, Mr. Spong (James's opponent) will be paid quite handsomely for his appearance in defend of the vies of the "homosexual community."
It seems that James and Mike are willing to "tap" into any source of income to sponsor a debate. But what I wonder is, Will James give a report on the "converts" he makes at this debate? Or the "converts" that Spong makes?
I had a phone call from a gentleman, and he asked if I was going to "attend the debate"! I would not walk across the street to attend such a debate, not to mention traveling from Houston to Orlando and buying a ticket! In fact, you could not pay me to attend.
In case you didnt know, morons, the house take is the offering!!
In cse you didnt know, Ergun Caner was more than welcome to sell his own books, and add that to his house take. Same for James. Your ignorance makes you blind.
What was Brother Mike O'Fallon saying in regards to money? Simple: we'll split our offering with you, and your meals, airfare, and hotel will be taken care of. This applied to both sides of the debate! I'm sure you are aware that you look like a massive hypocrite, and just overall very ignorant.
I'd really love a response to this.....
PULPIT "CRIMINALS"?
Bob to Charles:
No doubt, Charles, some of those who visit this blog may think it is rather a harsh thing we have said about the Reformed "baby regenerationists" whom James and Tom are having on their "Pulpit Crimes" Conference.
But I thought of what Spurgeon said about these Reformed types, as he was no less harsh in his remarks in his book, Come Ye Children, page 22:
>>
But it is written, saith one, "that the promise is unto you, and to your children." There never was a grosser piece of knavery committed under heaven than the quotation of that text as it is usually quoted.
>>
This was Spurgeon's repudiation of the Reformed heresy as to their "covenant children" teaching, and we say "Amen" to his denunciation. Baptists have no business embellishing ministers who perpetuate such heresy.
NOT THAT NAIVE, ARE YOU?
Anonymous said...
In case you didnt know, morons, the house take is the offering!!
You are really, really naive, anonymous, if you are such a sucker as to believe that! Is that what James White and Mike O'Fallon are putting out, or did you just conjure that up yourself? I believe you must have, for I give James more credit than to spin such a yarn.
THE "TAKE"?
Anonymous said...
In case you didnt know, morons, the house take is the offering!!
Is that what James White told you, anonymous? I don't think so . . . James has a "blind spot" or two, but he is not that stupid.
ABOUT SPURGEON
IN REPLY TO timotheos
I really don't seem to get your point, timotheos.
No one here is presenting Spurgeon as a "pope" or an "authority" above what is revealed in Scripture, which seems to be the drift of your comments. We follow Spurgeon in his belief that Scripture is our "final authority," not any man.
Your criticism bears a striking resemblance to those criticisms often made by those who object to creeds and confessions as "man-made." They prefer their own creed, and somehow fail to think of it as "man-made," too.
Likewise, some may prefer other persons over Spurgeon, therefore they want to remind us that Spurgeon was, after all, "only a man" -- evidently forgetting that the men whom they approve of, or follow, are also "only men."
What we have sought to do is show the CONTRAST between Spurgeon's views/practices and those who are arbitrarily "using" Spurgeon for their own embellishment -- when in fact they are far from holding Spurgeon's views in general, and in many particulars.
We do not suppose we are qualified to say that Spurgeon was "right" on everything, nevertheless I do believe he was "right" on so much more than perhaps most of those who are "using" his name in such a way as to be guilty of misuse. We shall continue to demonstrate such contrasts when the occasions arise.
DR. MOHLER AND JAMES DOBSON
Bob to Charles:
I heard Dr. James Dobson on the radio today (11/03/06, and he said he was saved at age 3, in a Nazarene (Arminian) church, when he responded to the "invitation" to come down to the "altar," and ask the Lord for salvation.
Don't you think such a testimony, Charles, certainly is rather incongruous with the things we read and hear from the "Reformed" camp of Hybrid Calvinists who oppose just about every one of those particulars -- early conversion, Arminian church, public invitation, and use of the altar?
One of the most "peculiar" things related to Dr. Dobson's testimony is that it comes from a man who is head of the "Focus on the Family" organization which has Dr. R. Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Seminary as one of the Board members.
Evidently, Dr. Mohler regards Dr. Dobson as a bonafide Christian despite his "Arminianism" and profession of faith via the invitation and altar.
I wonder what Hybrids like Scott Morgan, James White, and Gene Bridges would say about Dr. Dobson's testimony?
You guys are mean and cutting for the sake of being mean and cutting.
Shameless: "I wonder, Charles, if Paul got 50% of the "take," with room and meals provided?"
AND THEN...
"Poor James! All that work and sacrifice for no compensation? It seems to be 'Unfair Labor Practices' when the opponent gets thousands plus free perks and James goes off with naught! Maybe you could get the opponent to settle for 25% and James could get 25%?"
Ha ha... "If only James would accept MORE money then I'd actually have a REAL reason to pummel him on my blog all the time!"
You guys tick off a 2-point Calvinist Southern Baptist.
--ALAN
TICKED OFF
Rhology said...
You guys tick off a 2-point Calvinist Southern Baptist.
You understated it. We have been known to tick off some who have more "points" than two!
As for being "mean and cutting," we certainly intend would be surprised if Hybrid Calvinists thought of us in any other way. Hybrids are known for viewing anyone who is critical of Hybridism as being "mean and cutting." Especially if they are disciples of James White.
WHITE vs SPONG
Bob to Charles:
Did you notice, Charles, the reports by James White and Tom Ascol about the White-Spong debate?
I did not get the impression that very much was accomplished. Since Spong was paid to serve as James' "guine pig," I suppose Spong was content to "take the money and run."
Ascol says "God built James White to debate," but I wonder why God gives James such anemic opponents such as Spong and the "inept" Caners [had that debate occurred]? Ascol says Spong is "inexplicably uninformed," and that would make "Ned in the First Reader" look like a great debater, wouldn't it?
Did you see any reports of any "gay" person's changing his practices or making a profession of repentance and faith?
James reports that he is now at sea, and says he has "Beethoven playing on my iPod, and I'm playing chess against...my computer." He seems all excited about wearing his Scottish kilt [skirt] and is posting photos, and says, "Here is my lovely wife and I [sic]after the formal dinner on board last night."
Although I did not see a photo posted yet, I suppose James must have been in his kilt.
Pradoxically, James went from debating Spong on homosexuality to getting all excited about wearing a skirt!
SPONG, A PEDOBAPTIST
Bob to Charles:
The White-Spong debate, Charles, would have furnished an excellent opportunity for White to expose the heresies of Pedobaptists, and I wonder if he took advantage of it.
We have pointed out on this blog how that the pedos (baby baptizes) teach the heresy that the "covenant children" (those born to believers) inherit the promises of the alleged covenant, including regeneration in early infancy, either before, at, or soon after baptism. While the pedo sects may differ on how or by what means this takes place, they all are committed to the idea that the children born to believers are "regenerated" in infancy.
I suppose this must have been the case with Bishop Spong -- he was "born again" in babyhood.
He is a good example of the heresy of "baby regeneration" and its potential for mischief.
I wonder if James White confronted Spong on the heretical nature of his sect's teaching about "baby regeneration"? Probably not, since it might have offended some of James' "Reformed" cohorts in pedo grime.
Post a Comment
<< Home