James White irc chat

[_Steve]

Well, Darin, I guess you know now what it feels like to try to communicate with ideologues, rather than learners.

The specimen you pasted above is the first and only exposure that I have had to that channel—or to any other Calvinist chats sites, other than Matt Slick's, yesterday (or today—I forget which). I don't plan to deliberately expose myself to more of that type of thing (my HAZMAT suit is at the cleaners). The grief I felt while viewing such attitudes by people who regard themselves as Christians was only slightly mitigated by the comfort of knowing they were not championing "our side." In speaking to various groups in the open air and on campuses, I have encountered the phenomenon of the "embarrassing supporter." I should think that any spiritually sensitive Calvinist who happened to read that thread would feel profound embarrassment in finding his views so unattractively adorned!

If this forum ever begins to look anything like that one, in terms of juvenile behavior and good-ol-boy cronyism, I will not be returning here either! There seems to be a stream within evangelicalism that thinks Jesus is looking for people with the right clichés, rather than for those who have a humble and teachable spirit and a heart like His. I tend to forget that the former kind of "Christian" is out there, because my work keeps me mostly in the presence of the latter. I have not (at least in the past twenty years or so) had much association or affinity with the former.

If I were somehow associated with that ministry, I would be terrified that an unbeliever might read the thread and conclude that Jesus is in any sense similar to these who claim to champion His cause. Some of the posts about James White, and certain other ministers, at our own forum have made me similarly uncomfortable, but, in general, I have never sensed that our forum attracts very many who are locked into piranha-feeding-frenzy-mode. I hope that our participants will learn a lesson from merely sampling the aroma emanating from the above excerpt, and that the fear of God will grip them so that they might, before speaking of others, consider themselves, lest they also be tempted (Gal.6:1).

Many years ago, I came to realize that there is a phenomenon in the realm of spiritual maturity which corresponds to "the terrible twos" in the realm of child development. A two-year-old child seems to think, since he has learned to waddle across the room without falling, and knows how to hold his own spoon, that he is now one of the masters of the universe—and that, though he does not yet know so much as to change his own diapers, he is nonetheless "wiser in his own eyes than seven men who can answer sensibly" (Prov.26:16).

In the spiritual life it is much the same. Usually, at the beginning, the new believer has a measure of humility, knowing that he is a complete novice in a marvelous world of unfamiliar spiritual realities and yet-to-be-learned theological truths. However, if he has a competent instructor, he soon gains a rudimentary mastery of the main doctrines of his group and of the clichés most commonly used to champion the party line. He is now, in his own mind, a full-fledged Jedi knight!

If you wait long enough, the spiritual two-year-old will outgrow this attitude, unless he remains permanently surrounded by others, including his teachers, who have decided that this is a heady and satisfying place to camp out permanently. It is frightening‚ and humbling to remember that most of us were just like that too, in the early years (and some of us—Lord, is it I?—may still be there, more than we know!).

I suppose I should be happy that chat channels like that one exist to collect all of the Christians who share such a mentality. People with infantile attitudes can play together in their own sandbox with others of like maturity. When they want to talk and think like adults, there will always be room for them by my fire.

I thought interesting that someone at that channel thought to pay me the compliment of suggesting that I would not tolerate here someone raising the kinds of questions that you were raising there (and I would thank the person who said that, if he happens to visit this thread, for the desire to think better of me than is justified). It might be an eye-opener for some of those folks to visit this forum, and to see the kind of questions that we are not threatened to have people raise in our midst. I guess people who view Christian truth as something fragile and vulnerable need to be careful about letting anyone shake the packaging.

If I were ever to visit that channel in the future (which I have no intentions of doing), I fully expect that I would find some of my salient lines from this very post cited there for ridicule. One of life's great lessons to be learned, however, is that insults, when they come from certain sectors, are a variety of compliment.

[Guest]

Good reply Steve.

I confess that I have said things about Matt Slick and James White on this very board that I should not have said. My apologies for anyone who read them, and I pray the Lord give me wisdom and understanding in these matters.

Lord give me a humble teachable spirit is my prayer.

[_darin-houston]

Good points, Steve, and I repeat what Brody says. However, there are some "grownups" who have learned to be more civil, but have retained that "dark spirit" in my opinion. They feel that Truth is more important than Love, and while that would itself be an interesting discussion, it makes me cringe when leading evangelical preachers, authors, and "leaders" (unnamed) who will stand together on national tv to represent the Protestant evangelical position can say unabashedly and with elaboration that Roman Catholics are the most "ripe" crowd for evangelism because they know the bible, but have "no idea how to become saved." (note recent programs about E.C.T. on The Ankerberg show) The joy with which they pridefully expound their doctrine even against other Christians in public is just as nasty of an aroma, I think, as the sophomoric banter in these chat rooms. It seems we have such a different view of things that it is hard to reconcile even in those points of agreement.

It really would have me quite depressed about the state of the body of Christ if I didn't have the blessings of some very rewarding relationships and examples of a loving extended Christian family these days, not least of which is the often diverse views but otherwise agreeable individuals on this forum and our upcoming gathering of people united only in their love for Christ and appreciation for for what this ministry has done for them.

[Guest]

<Tur8inFan> <slamreadw> darin: AOMin is charging you with holding the canon open, and that's not orthodoxy; it denis the
+sufficiency of Scripture.

I don't know who wrote this but this language reminds me of the Inquisition. You know, the time when open dialogue was not allowed but blind adherence to certain creeds were enforced.

Steve wrote

It is frightening‚ and humbling to remember that most of us were just like that too, in the early years

You can count me in as well. I didn't espouse Calvinism, but if Darin was not blindly adhering to one of my pet doctrines I would likely having been cheering the detractors on.

This raises a question. How should we interact with a brother whose faith is largely based in certain clichés and not simply in Christ? What if that person is in leadership?

For example:

Through my study of Church history I've come to understand that there were many well meaning Christians in the early Church who held an Arianistic view (some estimates have it at up to half of the Church). A couple of months ago I was dis-fellowshipped from a bible study group (led by a well educated Christian apologist) because I refused to categorically state that none of them could be Christians (even though I clearly stated that I think Arianism is wrong). Rather than truly engaging me in dialogue (verbally or by email), I was simply told that I'm not orthodox and told not to return.

BTW Darin....he clumped me in with the Mormons as well !

On a side note, he (the Christian apologist) formally challenged my faith via email. While I was in the middle of typing my response I took a break and decided to listen to a local Pastor's message on the Internet that he preached the day before. It was coincidently dealing with Arius and Athanasius (what are the odds of that!). He was pointing out how we can fall in love and have allegiance to our theological constructs instead of Christ himself. I'll include the link to the message (the most relevant points are in the first 15 mins)


http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3 ... sermon.mp3

[Guest]

Thanks for this excellent link. I have been following this discussion and debate closely because we have young adults that are delving deep into Reformed Theology and have been surprised at . . . how can I say . . . the dogmatic attitude it has produced within them. Personally, it is great to see them thinking in theological terms, but have been slightly alarmed at the absolutist attitude. This teaching on Athanasius and Arius really speaks to this issue. Looking at there site seems to hold a good source of material too. Thanks and really blessed by this site.

[Guest]

If I were ever to visit that channel in the future (which I have no intentions of doing), I fully expect that I would find some of my salient lines from this very post cited there for ridicule.

I just wonder whether it was those very attitutes in people, that our Lord had in mind when He spoke in his teachings of casting one's pearls before s----? It makes one wish that He had also told his disciples what to do if the s---- should come right into the house in which you are sharing your pearls.

[Guest]

There are a couple of terms used in this debate:

Monergism - in Christian theology is the theory that the Holy Spirit alone can act to bring about the conversion of people.

Synergism - According to Calvinists, Synergism is the view that God and man work together, each contributing their part to accomplish regeneration in and for the individual.


Maybe we should coin a new term:

Boanergism – The common desire of one camp to call down fire from heaven on the other destroying those God intends to love. (see Mark 3:17 and Luke 9:53-56)

[Guest]

Jude 1:3 3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

Proverbs 30:5-6 5 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. 6 Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Greetings,
This last Saturday I was out working in my yard and stopped for some lunch. While I was in I thought that I might drop in on our chat channel at AOMin.org. I immediately found an exchange already in progress between some of our channel regulars and darin. I scrolled up to get some context and was surprised to find this person advocating an open canon and lost books of scripture. So I scrolled back down and joined the discussion.

While Darin has posted the entire lengthy log in one post he also sectioned off his exchange with me in 2 other posts here. It is in those 2 posts where he leaves out his commentary before that established the grounds for my commentary. I will now add it here for anyone who may find it relevant. Btw, I have removed comments from others that were not directed to this discussion.

My comments are in red and darin's are in blue

<AOMwrkg> there is a topic?
<AOMwrkg> lol
<Floggy> same as always AOMin. Religious stuff
<darin> yes, the authority and nature of scripture.
<slamreadw> darin: all we want to know is what value does the canon have in your life?
<AOMwrkg> it seems that you are not satisfied with God's word......isn't that you topic?
<slamreadw> is you're going to talk about Scripture
<slamreadw> why don't you say what it means to you
<slamreadw> or what it should mean.
<AOMwrkg> therefore the question to you is: whar role does the current canon play in your thinking?
<slamreadw> (right)
<darin> No. Someone asked me if I believed in the inerrancy of Scripture. I gave my explanation of my definition of inerrancy, and people questioned whether I believed the canon was the whole word of God and the dictated word of God.
<slamreadw> can you forget everything and just answer a simple question?
<AOMwrkg> otherwise how are we to understand your concerns
<darin> hold on -- gotta type.
<darin> I believe the canon is a fallible collection of infallible texts. (can't remember who to attribute the quote).
<slamreadw> Srpoul
<slamreadw> Sproul
<slamreadw> Then we are in agreement.
* AOMwrkg tends to cut to the chase......he doesn't like chasing his tail
<darin> Though I would distinguish "infallible texts."
<AOMwrkg> btw, that didn't answer my question
<slamreadw> But the implication is different between us, I believe.
<darin> which question?
<AOMwrkg> it seems that you are not satisfied with God's word......isn't that you topic?
<AOMwrkg> therefore the question to you is: whar role does the current canon play in your thinking?
<AOMwrkg> otherwise how are we to understand your concerns
<darin> no -- (recognizing you're trying to avoid my line of questioning) but, satisfaction needs defining. What do you mean by "satisfied?"
<AOMwrkg> you want more
<AOMwrkg> I read up......that is the impression that I get from what you wrote
<darin> AMEN! I want more and all I can have of God's Word. Do you read commentaries?
<AOMwrkg> I am asking a specific here of you
<solafide> the word "more" needs to be qualified
<AOMwrkg> can you not answer it?
<darin> I did answer it. I want more and all I can have.
<AOMwrkg> if I understand you then........
<AOMwrkg> it follows.................
<slamreadw> So it is your contention that God would give you the desire for all of God's Word and withhold it from the church for thousands of years intentionally??
<AOMwrkg> that you are not satisfied with what God has already given
<AOMwrkg> so my question is.......
<AOMwrkg> what role does the current canon play in your thinking?
<darin> You keep using that term "satisfied." Are you satisfied with the amount of grace provided to you? or do you desire more?
<darin> To answer your repeated question of the canon...
<AOMwrkg> IF YOU WANT MORE.......THEN WHAT YOU HAVE ISN'T ENOUGH
<AOMwrkg> HOW IS THAT NOT CLEAR
<solafide> more of what?
<AOMwrkg> scripture
<darin> The current canon is probably not perfect -- I have questions (as did many before me) as to the authenticity (or need for) Jude. The canon is an artificial construct -- a useful collection blessed by other fallible men with some credentials to be trusted...(let me finish)
<AOMwrkg> k
<darin> I believe the present collection is generally trustworthy and accurately reproduces the writings of the apostles (and others close to them) to whom Christ left authority to discern His teachings and...
<AOMwrkg> k
<darin> expound on His truth. I believe there are likely many letters of Paul and others and many oral presentations that are lost to us....
<slamreadw> So it is your contention that God would give you the desire for all of God's Word and withhold it from the church for thousands of years intentionally??
<AOMwrkg> wrap it up.....I get where you are coming from
<darin> I believe that these would be helpful and fit the 2 Tim 3 definition even if that is a refernce to OT scriptures...
<darin> (am I through?)
<darin> ok...
<Floggy> would those letters or oral presentation contain different teachings?

Please note that now 2/3rds of the dialogue has now gone by and darin characterizes it with......

[regarding additional apostolic teachings beyond NT]

So much for context.

We continue where darin begins his quote.......

* AOMwrkg takes charge
<AOMwrkg> sir.......
* Floggy bows out and takes a seat
<darin> different? probably so -- but not contradictory. if contradictory, then yes we would have to evaluate which was more credible/
<AOMwrkg> you are not a bible believing christian and you need to repent
* parkerstdy suggests darin focus in on AOMwrkg
<darin> say what?!
<AOMwrkg> I think I am clear
<AOMwrkg> you have stated it yourself
<darin> is there a moderator, here? Did someone just tell me I am not a Christian?
<AOMwrkg> note the @ in front of my nick
<darin> (new to irc)
<AOMwrkg> you are not a "bible believing" christian and you need to repent
<darin> If so, then I must dismiss myself.
<slamreadw> darin: just answer my question
<AOMwrkg> you sit in judgement of God's word
<AOMwrkg> that is arrogance beyond what I can see belonging to someone who holds it dear
<AOMwrkg> therefore you are not a bible believer
<slamreadw> darin: AOMin is charging you with holding the canon open, and that's not orthodoxy; it denis the sufficiency of Scripture.

And this is where he chooses to end the above quote. But wait, there's more......

<AOMwrkg> not just open
<AOMwrkg> he questions Jude
<Tur8inFan> AOMwrkg => keep in mind that Darin is a guest visiting from Steve Gregg's board
<Tur8inFan> for what it is worth
<slamreadw> darin: the beliefs you hold redefine Christianity, hence the harsh criticism.
<Tur8inFan> perhaps you'll cut him a little slack about unfamiliarity with our rules here
<AOMwrkg> I don't care where he comes from.....questioning books of scripture is way beyond what even Steve would stand for
<AOMwrkg> I am not kicking him
<AOMwrkg> just pointing out the logical conclusion of his claim
<AOMwrkg> If one questions the veracity of the canon......one is not a believer of that canon
<AOMwrkg> and he clearly did that above
<MDHughes> What Aomin is saying I think is that Darin is free to stay as long as he obeys channel rules, but due to the nature of this channel and its passion to defend the truth, he should be prepared to have his ideas challenged here.
<AOMwrkg> consistency in belief and practice
<AOMwrkg> if Jude doesn't belong in canon.......why not go after Ester
<AOMwrkg> what's next?
<AOMwrkg> why stop there
<MDHughes> Are we talking about once-disputed books?
<AOMwrkg> no......he disputes them now
<AOMwrkg> it
<AOMwrkg> Jude
<AOMwrkg> and thinks that we are missing stuff too
<AOMwrkg> that isn't a "bible believer"
<AOMwrkg> plain and simple
<AOMwrkg> and is an arrogance that I tremble to think of
<Greg> well AOMwrkg, look at it this way: :-/
<solafide> darin: are you going to respond?
<AOMwrkg> call it like it is when you see stuff like this folks......dancing around with this stuff simply avoids the real problem
<AOMwrkg> well, lunch is over...I gotta get back to work
<AOMwrkg> l8r

Now let me be clear here. This is not a calvinism vs arminianism issue. This goes to the root of biblical christianity itself. For those of you who think that I was harsh to darin, I would first submit that when I was an arminian I would have heaped hellfire and brimstone on him as well. I made my profession of faith before I ever heard of calvinism and immediately learned to love God's word. I will not now nor did I then stand by and be silent when someone comes into my presence and sits down in the seat of judgement over what the Holy Spirit has breathed out. That is what happened on Saturday in #prosapologian.

For those of you who think this to be some sort of hate speech on my part. I take no joy in pointing these things out. But I am compelled by scripture to do just that and to be clear about it. I will not beat around the philosophical mulberry bush over scripture.

Darin, anyone who tells you that your arguments allow for you to be a "bible believer" is simply avoiding conflict. One is not 90% sure of scripture. We don't get to take the "I believe the bible, pretty much, for the most part approach" and then claim to embrace it. You are still yet a bible skeptic and your own words above bear that out. If someone truly cares about you they will tell you when you are in danger. That is what I did on Saturday. Those who choose to "look away" are akin to those who "don't want to get involved" when they see someone in trouble.

Proverbs 27:5-6 5 Better is open rebuke Than love that is concealed. 6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.

I don't know why you chose not to continue the convo. Perhaps if you had you might have understood the logical inconsistency of your position and why those who love the bible would not consider you "like minded." Neither do I understand why you chose to ignore Dr. White's numerous attempts to discuss the matter with you. It saddens me to think that you just came over looking for fodder and found it in my rebuke.

Galatians 4:16 16 So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?

Steve, I was hopeful that you would stand with me on this issue even if you don't approve of my tactics. I am sorely disappointed to read your evaluation of the matter above. I wonder, would you compare so many of the famous arminian preachers of the early 20th century to 2 year olds as well? I think they would have made me look like a walk in the park. My simple reply to you is that I love God's word and will not apologize for being biblical.



God Bless,

Richard C. Pierce
President
Alpha and Omega Ministries

[_Steve]

Richard,

Thank you for joining us here. You are welcome here.

I would not agree that questioning the openness of the canon is antithetical to being a Bible believer, since being a Bible believer means you believe what the Bible says, not what people say about the Bible. The idea of a closed canon, by definition, is something that people say about the Bible, not something the Bible itself says.

The simple truth is, the Bible never tells us whether the present canon is correct or not, so that one can believe in every word of scripture without having one opinion or another about whether the canon is open or closed. Please show us where the Bible tells you the canon is closed, and we will have to accept it.

The difference between you and Darin, in this matter, is that he believes what the Bible says, and you believe things the Bible does not say—namely, that the present canon is closed. This is a tradition of men. Making it a defining issue for orthodoxy is very Roman Catholic of you.

Now, since you folks at AOMIN do not exhibit a knack for understanding what people who disagree with your traditions are saying, I will clarify my position. I will speak for myself, though it seems, from what Darin wrote, that he would agree with what I am about to say.

I accept as authoritative everything written by the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles. These two categories would encompass virtually every book of the Bible. In addition to those categories, I accept as authoritative the things written by companions of the apostles, and published under their supervision (Meaning Mark and Luke). This now includes every Old Testament book, and every New Testament book, with the possible exception of Jude, whom we do not know to have been an apostle nor a close companion of the apostles, though either may have been the case.

It so happens that Jude does not teach anything that contradicts the apostolic writings, so I accept his doctrine without qualms. I do not follow him, however, in his acceptance of Enoch as an inspired book (if that is what he is suggesting in vv.14-15).

Apart from this, there is nothing in our present canon that I would not take as an absolute authority for God's people. I accept no authorities outside of these books as being the "word of God" in the sense that these books are. Therefore, I will embrace no doctrine or mandate that cannot be derived from these 66 books (which is my only reason for rejecting Calvinism).

I look for no new books for the canon. However, I agree with Darin that, were we to find another genuine book from the hand of the apostles, it would have a right to its place in the canon on the same basis that informed earlier Christians to include Romans and Galatians. To deny such a writing that place would be to allow a wooden canon, based upon tradition, to decide what books can be authoritative to God's people—instead of accepting the authoritative writings for what they are, and letting their existence decide what our canon should include.

This seems so obvious, once you begin to think outside the box without fear that God will stomp on you as soon as you begin to let the evidence lead you to the truth.

I don't expect (or even intend) to sway you to my way of thinking about anything, but, you have a choice between accepting the pat answers of your traditional camp, or searching the scriptures with an open mind and a teachable heart. If you do the latter, you may end up right where you are theologically, but you'll never know until you stop settling for shallow and agenda-driven answers and learn to think critically.

Scholarship and thinking are separate disciplines, though they certainly should greatly overlap. What I have found, in 38 years of ministry, is that scholarship usually means learning from your teachers what their teachers taught them, and then propagating those ideas another step to another generation. Thinking is the exercise of examining those things which you are taught, analyzing the arguments and weighing evidence, without worrying whom you will displease if you discover something on your own.

Thanks again for your input.

[_darin-houston]

Wow! is about all I can say --

First, is "having questions" salvifically equivalent to "disbelief "?!

I would have been more than interested in a dialog as to how those questions can be addressed (as no doubt they have been by others, hence its inclusion in the canon); however, I presented Jude only as an example where I knew there had been doubt expressed by many before me who were no doubt bible-believing Christians.

My main point was not even doubt as to the reliability of our present canonical texts, but rather to the possibility that other texts (if present pre-canon) might have been included if available. If we were to discover them now, does somehow the timing of their discovery render them incapable of apostolic authority?

Basically, the only point I was trying to make (and remain convinced of) is that the authority of the bible to my mind is derivative of the authority of the apostles and not to the canonical authorities. The authority of the available canon rests on their reliability as attested to by those before me, but it is open to my mind as to newly discovered texts which should be subject at least to as rigorous a review as the present canon. However, if other letters of Paul were to be found, for example, I would hope that scholars could agree as to their authenticity and then I would have even more guidance than I presently have as to God's word.