Friday, August 01, 2008

"White Lightnin'" strikes again

WHY IS WHITE COMPLAINING --
NON-REFORMED WON'T DEBATE?

I saw a reference on James "White Lightnin'" White's blog to an Internet video wherein he is once again offering a refutation of an item by Norman Geisler.

I decided to watch it, and it seems to be more of a "commercial" for James' book, The Potter's Freedom, than anything else, and perhaps a plug for shirts bearing the A&O logo.

He starts out on the video wearing a orange-red cap, and later he changes to a green cap. I have no idea about the "why" as to the caps. He is also wearing a shirt with the A&O logo on left side of the shirt, which are marketed by Carla Rolfe. Carla also markets a "dog shirt" with the A & O logo. I don't know if James gets a cut on the sales of the merchandising by Carla. (I could use a couple of those dog shirts for my two dogs, if the price were a little less).

James even claims that a church where he recently spoke was formed because of his book. Since the book is not an evangelistic or soul-winning type book, I suppose the church must have been formed by members who were already into the type of "Reformed" theology which James presents in TPF. In fact, on the video, James claims he is a defender of "the whole realm of Reformed theology."

James does indeed advocate and promote the Pedobaptist Reformed view on "regeneration," teaching that one is "born again before and without faith in Christ" (Examples: The Potter's Freedom, pages 84, 288). We have taken note of his heresy on this blog in the past.

James accepts the Pedobaptist (baby baptizers) Reformed view on the new birth in contrast to the Baptist view of our Baptist Confessions and our notable Baptist forefathers. He has adopted the view of Pedobaptists such as Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul, Frame, and others who advocate the idea that "regeneration precedes faith," according to the so-called "ordo salutis" developed by Pedobaptist theologians of years ago.

Awhile back, I looked in the index of The Potter's Freedom, and noticed that James has no "exegesis" of the great passages which Baptists are accustomed to using in teaching the necessity of the means of the Gospel or Word in regeneration. For instance, no emphasis on John 6:63; 1 Corinthians 2:4, 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; 1 Peter 1:23.

The absence of such passages in White's book is consistent with his "pre-faith regeneration" theory. Wonder why James chose to bypass exegesis of these and similar great passages which reveal the place of the Word, the Gospel, and the Truth in the Holy Spirit's work of the New Birth? Was it because these passages overthrow the Pedobaptist theory that "regeneration" is a "direct operation" that takes place before and without the Spirit's use of the instrumentality of the Word in the new birth?

The "funny thing" about James' video, however, is his saying that he would "love to do some debates with those who are the most strident in their denunciations of Reformed theology."

According to James, the non-Reformed won't do it, and he mentions the names of Norman Geisler and Dave Hunt as among those who have refused to debate him.

James apparently thinks that no one remembers that we here at the Flyswatter have been "strident" in our denunciation of the Pedobaptist Reformed heresy of "born again before and without faith in Christ," and that we have offered to debate the issue with any of the advocates of the Reformed view. Somehow, however, we don't seem to qualify to debate James. He apparently prefers "easy pickings." Instead of debating the issue, James has chosen to avoid us as far as possible, and has tried to discredit us by certain denigrating devices of his choosing. He will never "win his spurs" as a debater if he is only going to engage those whom he regards as "easy pickn's."

I can't speak for Charles, but as for me, I would be delighted to go out on one of James' cruises and debate him or anyone of his choosing on the Reformed view of "born again before faith."

Another "funny thing" about James' video is his statement that Geisler's book, Chosen Yet Free, has served to "make more Calvinists than probably almost any book could have." Unfortunately, James does not give the names of any of the alleged converts to Calvinism, so we are just left "hanging" as to who is so naive that they would adopt White's version of "Calvinism" after reading Geisler's book. If the book makes so many "Calvinists," we wonder why James does not promote its sale on his website?

Don't hold your breath if you are waiting for James to debate on the Reformed view of "born again before faith."

NOTE: James White has hoisted another video, and you may read my reply to him in the COMMENTS section of this thread.

13 Comments:

At Saturday, August 02, 2008 1:17:00 AM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

WHITE EVADES DEBATE
. . . AGAIN


James White, as usual, has in effect refused to consider a debate on the Pedobaptist's so-called "ordo salutis" which teaches that one is "born again before faith." See his video HERE

James objects to my using quotation marks for the words "born again before faith in Christ" as if I was attributing those words to James as a quote. Readers of this blog know that when I refer to the "pre-faith regeneration" theory, I am accustomed to use "born again before faith" for that, for it is more distinct, in my judgment. James teaches the heresu that one is "born again before faith in Christ," which he expresses in other terms which mean the same thing.

Despite his objection, James does not deny that he teaches that a sinner is indeed "born again before faith." His words are, "regeneration must take place first" (page 84, The Potter's Freedom). In other words, being "born again" takes place "before faith in Christ," and James does NOT DENY that this is precisely and exactly what he teaches.

He vainly tries to align himself with the 1689 Baptist Confession, but he fails miserably, even altering the wording of the Confession while he pretends he is reading it.
What a travesty!

He also again perverts 1 John 5:1 in the name of "exegesis" -- which we have before revealed to be White's eisgesis on this blog in past exposures of White's error. On this passage, go to this link:
First John 5:1


For new readers, if you wish to read some of my past critiques of White's erroneous "Reformed" teaching, go to the following links:

Writings of Bob Ross

Here are a few of the articles which deal with the "born again before faith" heresy and with James White which you will find at the above link:

ABRAHAM BOOTH VS. PRE-FAITH REGENERATION THEORY OF "HYPER" AND "HYBRID CALVINISTS"

AN ALLY OF WHITE

BACKDOOR PELAGIANISM OF THE REFORMED

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

I disregard all of James' denigrating remarks about me personally, just as I do when I deal with Campbellites, Ruckman, and others who seem to enjoy this type of palabber. You know the old saw about "sticks and stones," and that's about all it is when James indulges in that type of balderdash.

 
At Saturday, August 02, 2008 8:02:00 AM, Blogger Mitchel Sliwa said...

Could you please explain to me what Paedobaptism has to do with soteriology?

I am not a paedobaptist and I think it is an erroneous view of baptism.

I am failing to see the connection of the theology of baptism and salvation.

Thank you
Mitch

 
At Saturday, August 02, 2008 7:08:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Brother Bob, Hello!

I have long said that James has ROSSOPHOBIA (also known as the fear of debating Bob Ross).

He backed out of a debate with Caner. He had a chance to debate Ruckman but blew it. He won't even get close to debating you, Brother Bob.

James is all blow and no go. He must be falling behind on donations and book sales and is trying to drum up more support from his followers.

Charles

 
At Saturday, August 02, 2008 7:11:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Brother Bob, Hello!

James' book caused the formation of a church? I wonder if it instead caused a CHURCH SPLIT which is what most of our Reformed / Founders friends refer to as a "church plant".

Charles

 
At Saturday, August 02, 2008 9:06:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

BABY BAPTISM
AND SOTERIOLOGY?

Mitchel Sliwa said...

Could you please explain to me what Paedobaptism has to do with soteriology?

"Paedobaptism" or "Pedobaptism" (take your choices on spelling) refers to the baptism of babies (infants).

From the Pedo perspective, such baptism of infants is to be practiced as a "sacrament" supposedly "ordained by Jesus Christ." See Westminster Confession of Faith, Article 28

According to Pedos, the children of believers are included in the "covenant of grace" and as such are "covenant children" which inherit the "promise" of regeneration. Infants, therefore, are presumed to be "regenerated" either before birth or shortly thereafter, and are to be baptized and received into church membership.

This is the primary method by which all Pedobaptist churches maintain their memberships, and it explains why they usually do not engage in evangelism. Their
"evangelism" is basically the baptizing of babies. Check this item: Presbyterians

Baby baptism is not "optional" with Pedobaptists, for it is considered to be a "great sin" to condemn or neglect it.

If you want to hear a brief refutation of the Pedobaptist misuse of Scripture to justify infant baptism, check James White's video of August 2, 2008. Click Acts 2:39.

 
At Saturday, August 02, 2008 9:23:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

JAMES "EVANGELISTIC" BOOK

Charles said...


Brother Bob, Hello!

James' book caused the formation of a church? I wonder if it instead caused a CHURCH SPLIT which is what most of our Reformed / Founders friends refer to as a "church plant".


I was amused to hear James say his "Potter's Freedom" book was an "evangelistic" book. That says a lot about what James considers to be "evangelism," doesn't it?

As for your question, James did not give the details, but it would not surprise me to hear that it was just another case of a "split" and the few proselytes got together to form one of these Hybrid Calvinist Reformed type church "plants." If its "evangelism" is the type found in James' "Potter's Freedom," it will have to survive by means of proselyting Arminians to Hybrid Calvinism, or probably decease. Remember what became of the churchthat was "reformed" by Ernest Reisinger, Founder of the Flounders?

 
At Saturday, August 02, 2008 10:24:00 PM, Blogger Mitchel Sliwa said...

You said : "According to Pedos, the children of believers are included in the "covenant of grace" and as such are "covenant children" which inherit the "promise" of regeneration. Infants, therefore, are presumed to be "regenerated" either before birth or shortly thereafter, and are to be baptized and received into church membership."

I hate to be silly, but did you actually read the article? I am not a Paedo, but hold to the London Baptist Confession of 1689 (as does Dr White). The article no where says that all persons who are given the "sacrament" of baptism WILL be regenerated. If it does please document it. If I am not mistaken, it actually says the opposite.

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

I would direct your attention to the part where it says "yet grace and salvation are NOT so inseparably annexed unto it". This means grace and salvation are NOT attached to baptism. It clearly states that just because a person is baptized it does not ALWAYS follow that the person will be saved or regenerated. It is possible to baptize a non-elect baby. This is why I reject paedobaptism. However, the westminster does not teach what you said it does. You are in error.

Having said that, baptism has literally nothing to do with a persons view of soteriology. It is unfair to say "the paedobaptist view of regeneration". I am a credobaptists (as is Dr White) and I believe that regeneration preceds faith. My view of baptism differs from my presbyterian brothers, but our view of soteriology is the same.

You said: "This is the primary method by which all Pedobaptist churches maintain their memberships, and it explains why they usually do not engage in evangelism. Their
"evangelism" is basically the baptizing of babies."

Perhaps you have not met many good presbys, I know many who do street evangelism with me. It is not fair to broad brush a denomination as someone who "doesnt engage in evangelism". This is simply untrue, and also undocumentable. Perhaps you should read the book published by presbyterians on evangelism. Its called "Jesus the Evangelist". They actually did a whole conference on it. http://www.ligonier.org/publishing_reformationtrust_latest_jesustheevangelist.php Once again you are in error...

In Christ,
Mitch

 
At Sunday, August 03, 2008 2:51:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

TOO MUCH "WHITE
LIGHTNIN'"?

Mitchel Sliwa said...


I hate to be silly, but did you actually read the article? . . . The article no where says that all persons who are given the "sacrament" of baptism WILL be regenerated.

Where did we "say" that? We simply said what you can read in Pedobaptist theologians who discuss infant baptism, such as Shedd and Berkhof. See my article of August 2, especially the quotations from Dr. Shedd.

I think you need to "drink" something besides that "brew" distilled by the WHITE LIGHTNIN' DISTILLERY & MFG. CO.

You also say, This means grace and salvation are NOT attached to baptism.

You seem to have read very carelessly. The Article says baptism is "not so inseparably annexed"
to baptism, etc. Dr. Shedd explains, however, that while the act of baptism itself does not "confer" regeneration to the infant, it is "a sign" that the infant "has been" or will yet be regenerated. "The actual conference of the Holy Spirit may be prior to baptism, or in the act itself, or subsequent to it" (Dogmatic Theology,
Vol. 2, page 575).

Dr. Shedd adds, "So a baptized child, in adult years, may renounce his baptism and church membership, become an infidel, and join the synagogue of Satan; but until he does this, he must be REGARDED as a member of the church of Christ" (Vol. 2, page 577).

You also say, It is not fair to broad brush a denomination as someone who "doesnt engage in evangelism".

I think our words were "they usually do not engage in evangelism." This obviously did not refer to all Pedos "without exception." Finney, for example, was a Presbyterian who was an evangelist, reaping many professions of faith from Presbyterian church members baptized as infants, who had been "regarded" to have been "regenerated" as infants. Of course, many of the Pedos hate Finney for his getting so many "regenerated" church members to profess faith in Christ.
See FINNEY

You might like to see the article we had on Presbyterian stats:

Do Presbyterians Survive by Infant Baptism?

 
At Monday, August 04, 2008 12:54:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

WE NEVER "ATTACKED" ANYONE ON SOVEREIGNTY
OF GOD


The "strawman" that James White has ALWLAYS used when he has written about me is that "Bob Ross attacks . . ."

This time, he accuses me of "atacking those who promote the sovereignty of God in salvation."

The fact is, I have NEVER once attacked anyone who promotes the sovereignty of God in salvation. I have simply RESPONDED to something some persons have either said or written which, as I understand them, is contrary to either facts or Scripture.

The recent alleged
"attack" on James was simply a RESPONSE to his claim that those who are "strident" against so-called "Reformed" theology "won't debate." He only named Norman Geisler and Dave Hunt who "won't debate" the matter with him.

I simply responded by pointing out that we on the Flyswatter have been "strident" against "Reformed" theology for over two years, and several times we have offered to debate any one or group of the "Reformed" advocates, but we have had no responses. We did have one "challenge" from Pastor Scott Morgan of Georgia, which we accepted, but Scott never followed up on the challenge.

Our RESPONSE to James's allegation is alleged by James to be an "attack." This has always been James'
"standard operational procedure" towards us.

In fact, back in the early 1990s when we were actually on "good terms" with James and had even promoted some of his books in our magazine and bookstore, James sent me some very nasty emails in which he accused me of "attacking" John MacArthur.

The truth was, however, we were simply responding to John MacArthur's own attack upon the Eternal Sonship of Christ, not an attack on MacArthur himself. In due time, as most of you know, MacArthur recanted his attack on Eternal Sonship and affirmed the creedal view for which we stand.
MacArthur on Eternal Sonship

But James, instead of recanting his nasty emails to me, tried to justify himself, even claiming that he had "never" agreed with John MacArthur on Sonship! See What Does James White Believe on the Eternal Sonship of Christ?

Ever since then, anything we have said about James has simply been a RESPONSE to what James has said or written -- just as in the most recent case.

We have never "attacked" James -- we have only RESPONDED to his errors and other palabber. We did not attack James recently, but simply responded to his comments about no one being willing to debate him on "Reformed" theology. That may be so about Geisler and Hunt, but it is not true about us. James finds more "convenient" reasons for not debating us than the idea that we won't debate.

So much for the "Freak Show" at White Lightnin' Distillery in Phoenix.

 
At Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:38:00 PM, Blogger paul said...

I think James responded to your use of quotation because he (wrongly) assumed that you meant to quote him. Maybe you "should" scale back your "use" of quotes so that you refer to "actual quotations" from other people or "works". If you want to indicate that you disagree with the use of a particular term, which seems to be the reason you usually use quotation marks, you can most likely reword your sentence to indicate your disagreement without needing quotation marks to make your point. Just a suggestion for clearer, more effective communication. Take it or leave it as you wish.

 
At Friday, August 08, 2008 11:54:00 AM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

WHITE AND QUOTATION MARKS?

paul said...


I think James responded to your use of quotation because he (wrongly) assumed that you meant to quote him.

I doubt that very much. James was just nitpicking for lack of anything more effective to say. While James is wrong about some things, we have never accused him of being that dumb and stupid.

The fact is, James himself uses quotation marks in much the very same way as my article. For example --

In his book, "The King James Only Controversy," pages 4, 6, James White attributed a view on inspiration to Peter Ruckman which Ruckman does not teach. Ruckman does not teach that God "re-inspired" the Bible in 1611, as alleged by James who used quotation marks on "re-inspired."

Ruckman has published a few hundred books and booklets, and magazines, and you will never find where he said the KJV was "re-inspired." He doesn't even believe that idea, much less ever used the word itself about the KJV. It was James White's own concoction.

Ruckman laughed James off the field, and James backed out of debating Ruckman.

Consequently, all the palabber James said about my use of quotation marks applies just as much against James, and even more so. I at least properly represented James's view, while James misrepresents Ruckman's view.

That is one of James' problems in polemics -- he apparently does not realize that he has a double-standard, and what he applies to others does not apply to himself. Some call this practice duplicity, or double-tonguedness, or hypocrisy. I prefer to call it "White Lightnin'."

 
At Monday, August 11, 2008 1:43:00 PM, Blogger paul said...

Bob, thank you for your kind reply. James may indeed be incorrect in his use of quotation marks as well, but even if that is the case, it should illustrate all the more the importance of not using quotation marks in a way that gives the impression that you are quoting something when in fact you are using them to convey tone. Regardless, we all ought to be more concerned about the truth of who God is and the salvation that he has provided through Jesus than we are about the proper use of quotation marks.

 
At Saturday, August 16, 2008 11:16:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

QUOTATION MARKS
paul said...


James may indeed be incorrect in his use of quotation marks as well, but even if that is the case, it should illustrate all the more the importance of not using quotation marks in a way that gives the impression that you are quoting something when in fact you are using them to convey tone.

My use of quotation marks on this blog in reference to the "born again before faith" idea is so common, and James White is so familiar with my usage, it is sheer pretence on James' part when he accuses me of "quoting" him falsely. He has been aware of what has been said on this blog for well over two years, not to mention his being acquainted with my emails when I have referred to "born again before faith."

Whenever I quote anyone on a specific and significant point, I give the reference. As for James, I have given the references to his very heresy which equates to "born again before faith." James is just brewing some of his "White Lightnin'" when he tries to divert from the subject by spinning about my use of "quotation marks." James is one of the biggest "spinners" you will ever read.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home