James White irc chat

[_darin-houston]

I highly encourage folks to spend some time with the James White audience in irc chat. If you've never done it before, it's quite easy.

http://www.aomin.org/articles/chat.html explains it.

If you're savvy, the instructions there are helpful. If not, ignore it and just follow this link to an online version of the chat client.

http://www.justpete.ca/proschat/

They need some balance. If you stick it out for a few minutes, they'll quit being sacrastic and engage you in thoughtful dialog, but if you just sit and listen to them, you'll be pretty disgusted by their disdain and contempt for non-Calvinists.

(White does show up there from time to time, and typically monitors it while on the air).

[Guest]

I just got off the "just pete" site. I did stay with them and discussed the debate briefly. Then Dr. [something] talked about how "they" misunderstood Matthew 23:37, and suggested that in context it didn't mean that Christ wanted to save them. Then I asked what, according to his understanding, Christ meant by saying, "How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings?". Dr. [whoever] responded by saying, "I didn't sign on today to do exegesis".

[Guest]

Hi,

The "DrO" (sometimes DrOakly) you are talking about was James White. I have been there many times, and have been thouroughly disgusted at some of their comments.

I will not go into detail, but I have gone on as a "non believer" at times to see their presentation of the gospel, and I was being VERY kind and VERY respectful, and often I just heard things like "well he is really being drawn huh"? ( as in, I just didn't understand because I wasn't elect). or "he just doesn't have spiritual discernment", among many other snide comments.

As a side note, Matthew 23:37 is so simple a child can understand it, and it needs a Good amount of "twisting" to give it any other meaning than what is simply says. Just like James interprentation of John 3:16-being that John 3:16 is just talking about Gods "elect". Again, it really needs "Twisting" to make it say what it simply does not say. And he does this under the banner of "proper exegesis"? *sigh*

In Christ, Greg

[_darin-houston]

I was just told I was not a bible believing Christian and needed to repent by the moderator, so I dismissed myself. I have the full transcript if anyone is interested.

I believe AOMwrkg is known as AOMin and assume he is on James White's staff.

[regarding additional apostolic teachings beyond NT]
<Floggy> would those letters or oral presentation contain different teachings?
* AOMwrkg takes charge
<AOMwrkg> sir.......
* Floggy bows out and takes a seat
> 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


> say what?!
<AOMwrkg> I think I am clear
<AOMwrkg> you have stated it yourself
> is there a moderator, here? Did someone just tell me I am not a Christian?
<AOMwrkg> note the @ in front of my nick
> (new to irc)
<AOMwrkg> you are not a "bible believing" christian and you need to repent
> 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.

[Guest]

Lovely dialogue. I had considered visiting that message board, but it seems there is something more resembling Christian fellowship here. I'll stick with our forum. If they want to join us here, they are welcome.

[Guest]

Their attitude there is pitiful. Don't bother.

[Guest]

<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

It is ironically possible that when we are quick to judge others we are guilty of this very thing

Jas 4:11 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.

[_darin-houston]

Unfortunately, it got no better once Dr. White popped in. I was away from home, but I scanned through the chat log and caught Dr. White suggesting I was a "future Mormon" and challenging me to defend my comments from this board.

Rather than respond in channel to Dr. White, see my open letter to him here:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=2421

[_darin-houston]

Here is a log of the conversation before I got kicked off.


<yoopertrol> Steve Gregg said that Paul didn't say how we got elected, has he read Romans
<Tur8inFan> no, Steve Gregg doesn't own a Bible
* Tur8inFan is joking

<Tur8inFan> Steve Gregg has an audio series on Roman 9
<Fibster> I lost all interest in Gregg after the first ten minutes of his tired and eisegetically infused attempt at an
+opening statement
<Fibster> but other than that he did a good job
<Tur8inFan>
<yoopertrol> actually when I went to Calvary Chapel they skipped over passages they didn't like or reinterpret to serve
+their purposes
<Tur8inFan> I was turned off by the anti-intellectualism
<Tur8inFan> paraphrase: "If you just read your Bible without a PhD, you'd agree with me."
<Fibster> yeah... that was just lame
<Fibster> how does one expect to be taken seriously beyond comments like that ?
<Fibster> see, here is the funny thing
<Fibster> if one believes that the Scriptures are knowable and clear
<Fibster> then will not solid exegesis produce an answer?
<Tur8inFan> one would think
<Fibster> and if that is true in the affirmative, then no one can create a case using sound hermeneutics that will refute
+the truth since it is well.... the truth
<Fibster> hence, why IMO 99% of those with wrong doctrine can never and will never 'win' a debate
<yoopertrol> I read the bible with out a phd and I don't have any problems, but I also get help from James White,
+R.C.Sproul, New American Comentary etc
<Fibster> they must always resort to fallacy, sophistry, specualtions, and all manner of logic silliness in order to
+construct their case
<yoopertrol> you can do pretty well with the help of conservative commentaries
<Tur8inFan> well - and frankly Gregg then tries to use hermeneutics
<Fibster> 'tries' being the operative word
<Tur8inFan> recall how he made the argument that we should use more full statemetns to interpret less full statements
<Fibster> ... "as long as they match my presuppositions..."
<Tur8inFan> Now, his application of that was faulty and presumptive - but he did try to use methodology
<Tur8inFan> so - his initial disparagement of intellectualism is undermined by his attempt to use intellectual tools
<yoopertrol> how can you use hermeneutics the way he tries to when you don't use concordances for help if you can't read
+the original languages
<Tur8inFan> youpetrol - good point - and frankly even trying to use a lexicon from a concordance can be dangerous if one
+doesn't understand translation principles
<yoopertrol> I've been meaning to get Strongs for NASB
<Tur8inFan> I've seen some bizarre arguments made by people whose knowledge of Hebrew was limited to being able to read
+Strongs
<Tur8inFan> it's a handy tool, don't get me wrong
<Tur8inFan> but you have to know how to use it
<Tur8inFan> otherwise, like with a bandsaw, you are just endangering yourself

<yoopertrol> you need the help of a good commentary to find the historic context, a couple of years of biblical languages
+wouldn't hurt either
<yoopertrol> I have a reform study bible which is very helpful
<crewbear> doc has better music than Steve Gregg
<Tur8inFan> Study Bibles can be helpful - commentaries are great - and the local elders have an important role too
<Tur8inFan> crewbear: you don't like whistling in the darkness?
<crewbear> its knda bland
<yoopertrol> my pastor has a doctorate and doesn't mind people picking his brain

<crewbear> well gregg just lost me

<crewbear> it took 30 seconds
<ann> lol crew
<ann> I thought it was only me - non-native speaker
<Tur8inFan> if someone stopped listening to Doc after 30 seconds, you'd probably criciticize them for not giving Doc a fair
+hearing
<crewbear> he said "you wont be a calvinist if you just read the bible without being trained in theology"
<Tur8inFan> yeah - that was pretty off-putting
<crewbear> but thats what happened to me
<crewbear> i didnt know from Calvin when I first learned the doctrines of Grace
<ann> Tur8inFan: don't forget that most ppl here listened to Doc commenting on Gregg last year, long and many DLs

<darin> anyone interested in discussing the "merits" of Steve's points? or just ad hominem?

<Tur8inFan> ann: do you think it is most people? It could be. I wascertainly one of them
<yoopertrol> I became a Calvinist when I started reading the bible in historic context
<ann> Tur8inFan: most of 3pros
<Tur8inFan> darin: what did you think was Gregg's strongest argument?
<crewbear> is gregg an open theist?
<yoopertrol> did he have one
<crewbear> cuz he sounds a little like one already
<Tur8inFan> Crewbear: I think he's just inconsistent
<ann> he admitted that he is in favor of it
<ann> he called it "openness"
<Tur8inFan> I thought he was referring to human openness to God
<Tur8inFan> That's not open theism
<Tur8inFan> (maybe I recall incorrectly, though)
<ann> first part, from Thursday - I may be wrong, I was driving while listening
<crewbear> ann that is what I am listening to
<yoopertrol> I find it interesting that they open to every thing but Calvinism and Covanental theology
<crewbear> greggs opening statement
<Tur8inFan> I'll have to relisten to the thursday section - the friday section is fresher in my mind
<ann> ok crew
<ann> so how is everybody today?

<darin> he says the "open view" has some scriptural support, but he doesn't ascribe to it.
<darin> he also admits that Calvinism has scriptural support, but on balance he thinks it is wrong -- the critical spirit here is a bit much to endure.
<ann> every heresy has "some" scriptural support
<darin> true enough
<crewbear> "believing is not a meritorious work"
<crewbear> uh huh
<crewbear> why does one man believe and another not believe?
<ann> darin-hous: are you an Arminian?
<darin> does it matter to the discussion?
<yoopertrol> I was surprised that he is willing to admit that there are othe views of Revelation than the dispensational
+view
<darin> he is strongly amillinial
<ann> I think it does
<darin> I would have to say no then
<crewbear> i will say this ....
<crewbear> gregg was at least fair in his representation of calvinism
<darin> is there a non-calvinist that any of you are aware of that has any degree of respect in your camp?
<yoopertrol> Dave Hunt and George Bryson have said that Calvinism is unbiblical
<ann> <darin> I would have to say no then <-- -is it the answer to my question?
<darin> ann, yes
<ann> thank you
<darin> ann, though not "arminian" I am probably a 0 point calvinists
<crewbear> lol
<ann> so, "what" are you?
<darin> would you guys call NT Wright an Arminian?
<crewbear> we would call wright a liberal
<crewbear>
<Tur8inFan> Darin: we're skeptical of the "new perspective on Paul"
<crewbear> skeptical is a ... generous ... description
<Tur8inFan> Darin: are you a Christian?

<yoopertrol> it's been my observation that some armians are shocked when they find out that there are lot of very
+intelegent people who disagree with them

<crewbear> darin what do you think an arminian believes?
<Tur8inFan> Darin: are you a Christian?
<darin> Sorry - I was out for a minute -- I'm skeptical of his views of justification - but, are you carrying Piper's water, or have you read his material yourself?
<ann> "Wright does not believe God's righteousness is anything that he can give or that can be transferred to a believer.
+The believer is simply declared righteous because he is now a covenant member."
<darin> As to what I am -- I'm a Christian, saved by God's never-failing grace.
<crewbear> darin can we ask what church you attend?
<Tur8inFan> (or even just generally what kind of church)
<crewbear> type not name
<darin> Actually, he does not believe that you are "only" declared righteous -- he believes the term "justification" does only refer to the declaration of righteousness. However, he does believe you acquire righteousness, but only that it is not God's imputed rightesouness.
<darin> He is hard to categorize -- so am I.
<crewbear> darin can we ask what type of church you attend?
<darin> I attend a large Baptist church who is not a confessional "Reformed" church, but is predominantly Reforemed by membership. I am a minority.
<crewbear> ic
<crewbear> thank you
<Tur8inFan> thanks, Darin!
<darin> Do you believe God's very righteousness is imputed to you? A judge declares one not-guilty, but the defendant does not then share in the characteristics of the judge (at least not by that act of declaration).
<Tur8inFan> yes
<Tur8inFan> The righteousness of Christ is imputed to those who trust in Him
<yoopertrol> it's called grace, darin
<darin> So, you have every aspect of God's righteousness imputed in your character at this moment?
<darin> I believe in Grace
<Tur8inFan> if by "every aspect" you mean something beyond both Christ's active and passive obedience, no
<Tur8inFan> and if "in your character" you mean something other than "forensically," no
<darin> I benefit from his active and passive obedience, but do I share in the qualities of God in equal measure? I don't think so, and that's all Wright says. This is not NT Wright forum.
<Tur8inFan> That's obviously not ALL NT Wright says
<darin> Of course not, but I'm just saying he doesn't carry it to the extreme his critics accuse him of doing.
<Tur8inFan> but you certainly are not required to defend him here
<yoopertrol> we as sinners can't have any righteousness with out imputation
<Tur8inFan> his writings are out there in the public record
<ann> http://www.monergism.com/directory/link ... rspective/
<darin> of course, especially since I disagree with his views of justification -- I just want to see poeople characterized correctly.
<crewbear> i havent heard Gregg make an argument from Scripture yet
<ann> crew - and you won't, at least not in the part 1
<crewbear> its been 30 minutes
<yoopertrol> he won't, crew, that's not in the nature of Calvarite theology
<darin> you haven't been listenting, but I agree this has not been a good mechanism -- he's mostly been responding to mischaracterizations or clarifying points of hermeneutical criticism and the like. I look forward to interchange on specific texts.
<darin> Of course, if White won't let him avoid the myopic view of single texts in isolation, we may not get very var.
<ann> that evil White
<darin> not what I meant, but I'll try to avoid (such comments)
<ann> constraining ppl to exegesis
<darin> no, constraining people to narrow form of exegesis.
<ann> excuse me?
<crewbear> darin do you also hold with NT Wright that scripture is not innerrant
<darin> i don't think he believes that -- if so, then no. I do have a different view of innerrancy than some of my friends.

<Tur8inFan> <darin> no, constraining people to narrow form of exegesis. << huh?
<yoopertrol> in there statement of faith and doctrinal statements ther is not even one scripture stated to substantiate
+them

<crewbear> darin you think that NT wright holds to inerrancy?
<klet> lol
<darin> yes
<darin> depends on what you mean (by inerrancy)
<crewbear> so what do you think inerracny means?
<darin> I don't believe the bible is a magic book of teachings.
<crewbear> neither do I
<crewbear> neither does anyone here
<crewbear> what do you think inerrancy means?
<yoopertrol> it means that the original manuscripts were inerant, the problem arises in how they are translated
<klet> inerrancy has a meaning - a definition. Wright doesn't agree with that definition - hence he doesnt believe in
+inerrancy. Its that simple
<darin> I believe the OT prophets wrote inspired by the Spirit to wright the very words used. I believe the NT writers were rarely speaking the "words of God" though they were inspired in their understanding of spiritual matters, but writing to real people in a real context as apostles, not prophets.
<darin> inerrancy doesn't have a commonly understood meaning -- there are some subtle points of disagreement among evangelical scholars.
<klet> shifting sands...
<darin> not at all
<darin> give me an example

<yoopertrol> i prefer to use conservative translation which are more literal instead of using dynamic which read their own
+meanings into the text(isogesis)
<klet> if inerrancy has no definition, then I agree totally - N.T Wright believes in inerrancy


<crewbear> darin the book of romans .. is it the word of God?
<darin> it contains the very word of God in a sense, but it is not God speaking through prophets, but through a man with inspired understanding.
<crewbear> "in a sense" means what?
<darin> I believe the truths are True and reliable. I explained what I meant by "in a sense."

<Tur8inFan> Darin: when the prophets said, "Thus saith the Lord" were they saying the truth?
<crewbear> I believe the NT writers were rarely speaking the "words of God" though they were inspired in their
+understanding of spiritual matters,
<darin> yes, and speaking the very words of God, unlike the NT
<crewbear> is that what you meant by "in a sense"
<darin> yes

<crewbear> do the words of Paul in Romans have the same authority as the words of Isaiah?
<darin> There is a difference in the Epistles and Jeremiah, don't you think?
<darin> not the very words, but the truths, yes
<darin> to the extent there is no tetual variation, anyway
<Tur8inFan> do the truths have a separate existence from the words?
<darin> yes
<Tur8inFan> how is that possible?
<yoopertrol> crew, peter said that paul's writing were equal to scripture
<darin> so?
<crewbear> yoopertrol correct
* ann scratches her head and wonders about transmission of truths without words

<crewbear> so does an exegete have to separate wheat from chaff in romans?
<darin> not without words, butt he same truth can be transmitted with a number of different words

<darin> I'm not trying to duck - but it's time to take my 2 year old to the butterfly museum. I'll be back.
<Tur8inFan> ttyl Darin!
<yoopertrol> there isn't a lot of nuance in romans, crew

<ann> <darin> not without words, butt he same truth can be transmitted with a number of different words <----- so
+why do we have the specific words in the Scripture? Accident?
<crewbear> two year olds grow up, no matter how much you tell them not to

<crewbear> "Not slightly dead. Not mostly dead"
<TQuid> On what basis does one determine what is, or is not God's Word in Romans? Just curious.
<crewbear> lol
<Tur8inFan> apparently Darin is AFK for a bit

<Tur8inFan> actually, much of what Darin has said could be reconciled to a Reformed understanding of inerrancy, cleaning up
+a few loose statements

<Tur8inFan> but it could also go far far the other way
<tjs> yoopertrol: I'm sorry
<klet> <TQuid> On what basis does one determine what is, or is not God's Word in Romans? Just curious. <---- this is
+a question that demands an answer

<TQuid> It's the old, "The Bible contains" the Word of God problem.
<crewbear> TQ thats what I was trying to find out if he meant
<annwrxout> silly pastors, spending their lives exegeting words - so much work in vain...
<crewbear> he had to leave before he would answer
<klet> Paul often thought he was speaking the words of God

<annwrxout> and here we learn that the words are just accidental

<crewbear> ann well in sense he was right
<crewbear> God's Holiness exists apart from our words to describe it

<annwrxout> this is too much for me - I better go and lose some weight

<crewbear> Gregg was actually poretty nice to doc
<annwrxout> but but ... there are only old ppl here!
<Ragnar_> i'm not though

<yoopertrol> I wonder why arminians who came late to the game have the nerve to say that Calvinist are in error
<tjs> the audacity

<yoopertrol> arminius, ragnar not armenia


* katybo just started playing the james/gregg debate ....day 2

<klet> Im not into self abuse, so I'll give the gregg/White 'debate' a miss

<yoopertrol> I'd like to see just one non calvinist use a new argument

<tjs> arrogance becomes you
<yoopertrol> I'm not being arrogant, just stating my observations
<tjs> which happen to be rather arrogant
* tjs shrugs
<tjs> just stating my observations

<yoopertrol> are you Arminian, tjs?
<klet> why is it arrogant - these arguments have been around a long time
<tjs> yoopertrol: nope

<yoopertrol> what did Gregg say that was new, tjs?
<tjs> I wasn't addressing what Gregg said
<Fibster> tjs was just judging your heart, not necessarily commenting on the debate
<klet> well said fibster!
* tjs feels judged
<yoopertrol> I've listened to other Calvinism/Arminianism debates and I never hear any new arguments, even out of Gregg
<Ragnar> tjs: are you judging them for judging you? Why are you so judgemental?
<tjs> Ragnar: I'm a sinful man

<crewafk> [10:13] <tjs> arrogance becomes you <-- you made this statement but have been very circumspect about explaining
+it
<Fibster> judging, as in discernment and observation is not the same as judging as in claiming to know a person's motives
+(heart) or in codemning them
<crewafk> what did you mean?
<Reformerz> Gregg sounds to me like a person who has collected so-called Calvinistic proof-texts and has an arminian book
+he reads from that gives stock arminian answers.
<tjs> I found the statement arrogant, I don't know anything about yoopertrol and would never claim any motive good or evil
+at this point. I apologize for making an observation.
<Reformerz> Nothing at all spontaneous. Just reading stock answers.

<Fibster> The anti-Reformed mindset is that of the hypothetical objector found in Romans 9. It is the default or 'natural'
+mindset of man; hence why Scripture directly addresses our predisposed 'human' way of thinking and seeks to correct it.
<yoopertrol> I've heard the stock answers from Bryson and Hunt, it doesn't improve Greggs arguments when he uses them
<Fibster> The anti-Reformed mindset (soteriologically) is that of the hypothetical objector found in Romans 9. It is the
+default or 'natural' mindset of man; hence why Scripture directly addresses our predisposed 'human' way of thinking and
+seeks to correct it.
<Reformerz> Here's something that shows God's sovereign choice (whether salvific or no) fm Luke 4.
<Reformerz> It's tuff stuff. They wanted to throw Jesus from a cliff:
<Reformerz> "23 And He said to them, ?No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me, ?Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we
+heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.?? 24 And He said, ?Truly I say to you, no prophet is
+welcome in his hometown. 25 ?But I say to you in truth, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the
+sky was shut up for three years and six months, when a great
<Reformerz> famine came over all the land; 26 and yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to Zarephath, in the land
+of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 ?And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none
+of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.? 28 And all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage as they
+heard these things; 29 and they got up and drove Him out of the city, and led Him

<Reformerz> tuff stuff.
<klet> Ode to flood
<yoopertrol> Arminians just can't stand being told that they had no part in their salvation

<klet> Him out of the city, and led Him ----- and there too
<Reformerz> LOL
<Reformerz> and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city had been built, in order to throw Him down the cliff.

* katybo really likes Dr O's opening statement

<Reformerz> Did I hear the moderator, yesterday, confuse the names of Dave Hunt & James White --- "Dave White"?

<Chris> lol
<klet> Dave White...that would be one confused dude!

<Timios> What are your thoughts on the debate so far?
<Reformerz> I only heard the 2nd part. It sounded like canned arminian responses to me.
<Timios> Hardly canned. Steve is an unusual thinker and a deep thinker in my estimation.
<Reformerz> It's interesting, though.
<Reformerz> He sounds like a smart guy.
<Timios> I heard it live. I can't wait to hear the sessions next week.
<Chris> Steve has provided no positive presentation for his position yet.

<Reformerz> But the responses seem all too familiar to me, after having read the same things in so many arminian books.
<Chris> Yup.
<Timios> On the session I heard, he couldn't resist responding to Dr. White. So he hasn't really made his initial
+presentation yet.
<Chris> They only new stuff I was hearing was purely philosophical.
<Reformerz> No, just responses.
<Chris> But he conceded John 6.
<Reformerz> He's doing that Monday.
<DrOHome> I'm going to do Acts 13:48 and then the "Big Three" on Monday.
<DrOHome> Start with 2 Peter 3:9, then 1 Timothy 2:4, then Matthew 23:37
<DrOHome> Take them out, and then we can start doing direct interaction if they want....
<justlurx> w00t~!
<Reformerz> heh. They always get 23:37 wrong.
<Timios> Who gets 23:37 wrong, and in what way?
<DrOHome> ~nas Matt 23:37
<Gutenberg> Matthew 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I
+wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. (NASB)
<parker> is that the foresight of Felix passage?
<Chris> Ah yes.
<DrOHome> They skip "your children"
<Reformerz> armies. misidentifying Jerusalem as all the inhabitants thereof.
<DrOHome> They try to make the passage say that God wanted to save the very ones who were unwilling.
<DrOHome> Which is not what the text says at all, specifically, or in context.
<DrOHome> This is not an expression of salvific intent, but of judgment upon those who stand in the way of the proclamation
+of God's message.
<parker> acts 13:48
<Reformerz> Who killed the prophets? The spiritual leaders.
<DrOHome> Acts 13:48 I will demonstrate his utter misapprehension of the text, and the falseness of his "self-disposed"
+translation.
<Reformerz> and the sanhedrim were trying to thwart Jesus.
<Timios> So in what way did Christ "want to gather her children under His wings"?
<Timios> So in what way did Christ want to gather her children under his wings?
<DrOHome> The context is of noting the constant resistance of the leaders all through the history of Israel, pointing to
+how they treated the prophets before.
<Reformerz> They tried to stop him from preaching to the people.
<Timios> On the basis of your understanding, what is your answer to my question?

<DrOHome> I only dropped by to upload a workout.
<DrOHome> I did not sign on to do in-channel exgesis today.
<Chris> lol

<Jym> richard simmons?
<annNew> have at it, DrO
<annNew>
<Timios> Well, I need to leave now. Great to chat with you all today.

* DrOHome detects smells and bells....

<Reformerz> anybody deal with Timios before? What's his angle?
<Tur8> just: I guess that is the same Darin as is currently in channel =>
+http://www.wvss.com/forumc/images/avata ... 3a818a.jpg
<Reformerz> arminian?
<Tur8> I am greatly disappointed that Super Sola Scriptura did not accept my plea with him to lay off the attacks on
+Calvinists and on James White. I am just informing our other participants that I have followed up on my threat to him, and
+have banned him from the forum.
*** Signoff: Ragamufin (May the Lord be with you all)
<Tur8> That last line is from Steve Gregg - which I think shows a good attitude towards the matter

<justlurx> Tur - I was pleased to read that folks have questions and in other areas of the forum have commented that Doc
+isn't the mean guy they have heard about

<FrInk> he isn't a big ol meanie!?

<brigand> Well, I hope that the debate continues in the same respectful manner.
<justlurx> I hope so too

<Reformerz> First civil debate I've heard in a long time.

<justlurx> it's a natural tendency for our flesh to jump and take us down the "he's mean" or "he's stupid" path when in
+disagreement with someone
<Reformerz> oh, brigand, that's right.

<justlurx> or rely on sarcasm....... and dang it! sarcasm is something I am good at. I should have known it was a sin
<JenOPCer> 10 hail Calvins for you!

<darin> back from the butterflies -- son's napping.
<Floggy> Hello darin-hous! Welcome to #prosapologian!

<Tur8inFan> wb Darin!

<darin> someone was asking me about inerrancy
<Tur8inFan> yes - a bunch of folks were
<darin> do you believe in the infallibility of the canon?

<Tur8inFan> what does "infallibility of the canon" mean?
<Lane> people*
<darin> do you believe that there can be no other epistles or other texts considered to be scripture and that none of the recognized ones can fail to be recognized as canonical?

<darin> I don't worship the bible -- I worship Christ, and believe that the NT is a reliable record of Christ and those truths given to the apostles and applied to various circumstances and churches in their day.
<darin> If Jude were proven to be non-canonical, it would have no bearing on my faith.

<darin> just to elaborate on my earlier points that folks assumed I didn't want to discuss further.
<Tur8inFan> Darin: The bigger question is, how does one know which books God inspired?

<darin> I don't believe God inspired "books." I believe he inspired people (as for the NT). To the extent they contain the teachings of the apostles, historically, that's good enough for me.
<darin> If we had more of them, I'd prefer it. If they were alive today, even better.
<darin> It is the apostolic authority of their teachings that I consider authoritative.
<Floggy> darin-hous: are you saying that the bible does not contain all their teachings?
<darin> Of course not!! How could it? they went around the known world teaching and preaching and discipling.
*solafide* hello?
<darin> I mean, of course it does not!
<darin> If someone could prove with historic certainty (or less) that a new letter originated from Paul, I would find it just as authoritative as Scriture as Romans.
<Floggy> so, the bible does not contain all apostolic teachings. teachings you just said had authority. Is the bible not
+sufficiant?
<Tur8inFan> Darin: I'm guessing you're the same Darin-Houston that contributes on Steve Gregg's web bulletin board
<Tur8inFan> am I correct?
<darin> That's a different question -- sufficient for understanding the basic truths of God? yes, I think it is -- sufficient to my preference or for more perfectly understanding? no.
<solafide> Darin: what denomination are you from?
<darin> Yes, I am the same

<darin> answered before -- not sure why it's so important here -- I grew up Methodist, but have attended a large Baptist churh for 15+ years
<darin> My church is very reformed in its leadership these days, but confessionally open to various orthodox understandings of soteriology.
<darin> Floggy, what if Christ returned for a day and held a press release (hypothetically). Would you care what He said, or rely on the transmitted texts of the NT?
<Floggy> heh...
<Tur8inFan> those aren't mutually exclusive optinos
<Floggy> he already had one. Its called the Scriptures
<darin> Not a fair response -- that's a given -- what if He did again?
<Tur8inFan> When he was here the first time, he encouraged people to compare his teachings to Scriptures - he'd want us to
+do the same thing again
* Floggy nods at Tur8inFan
<Tur8inFan> In fact, people come around all the time claiming to be Jesus (David Koresh, for example, but there are many
+others)
<darin> fine, but would you feel it was redundant? or would you hang on his every word, hoping for clarification of something that was before obscure or in dispute?
<darin> (we're assuming for the moment, there's no question it's actually Christ).
<Tur8inFan> I'm not sure I'm willing to grant that assumption
<darin> why not?
<Floggy> sorry for my lack of attention darin-hous....kinda distracted on my end
<Tur8inFan> because Paul said an angel from heaven might try to teach another gospel
<Tur8inFan> or rather
<Tur8inFan> what would seem to us to be an angel from heaven
<darin> fine, but this is an intellectual exercise - I'm not trying to assert that He will.
<Tur8inFan> we need to test the spirits
<Tur8inFan> and the test is Scripture
<darin> aren't you all critical of Arminians being anti-intellectual?
<Tur8inFan> not all Arminians are anti-intellectual
<Floggy> ok...not so distracted...at the moment...
<darin> fine, let's change the facts -- assume I have a time machine and can go back to the first century. Same question.
* parkerstdy peers in the channel and runs away at the mention of a time machine
<darin> no takers?
<parkerstdy> Floggy: do you want to share the gospel in #apologetics?
* Floggy invented a time machine...he just hasn't done it yet

<darin> would no one give all they have to hear the very words of Christ from his own lips expound on Scripture?
<Tur8inFan> not the rich young ruler!
<darin> I mean any of you people!
<Tur8inFan> I would like to think I would be delighted to be one of Christ's disciples, learning at his feet
<Tur8inFan> it would not be easy
<Tur8inFan> I think we all would
<Tur8inFan> (or at least most of us)
<darin> Then, there's some sense in which you would agree that Scripture is less than complete?
<Floggy> no
<darin> Then, you wouldn't care to hear further expounding from Christ Himself, given the opportunity?
<solafide> he's already left us with what we need
<darin> That's not the question. Minimal need is not the question.
<Floggy> I don't have the opportunity, darin. No one does. We have the scriptures. Gods grace teaches his people through
+them. thats all we have.
<darin> We also have the Holy Spirit, but that's not the question. If we could ....
<Floggy> we can't
<Tur8inFan> Darin: I'm not sure how you think that Scripture's completeness and our desire to know more are incompatible.
<darin> What if we found a transcription of Christ's Sermon on the Mount?
<Floggy> no one will ever completly know the scriptires.
<Floggy> are you claiming that you know all that the scriptures teach and need more?
<darin> Of course not -- I'm suggesting, the text of Scripture is not the complete story -- it is sufficient, but not enough. I want to live according to all that Christ taught, whether in our canon or not.

<solafide> the canon is not open
<darin> Who closed the canon?
* slamreadw is ironically studying Bruce's Canon of Scripture at the moment
<Floggy> it is sufficient, but not enough. <--- what? point of tension!
<darin> FF Bruce was known to have said he wished we would uncover more letters of Paul.
<slamreadw> Who wouldnt?
<slamreadw> I wish I had all the original documents, the dozens we've never had a chance to read.
<slamreadw> What does that have to do with the sufficiency of Scripture?
<parkerstdy> if the lost letter to Corinth...still doesn't affect perspicuity of the canon right?
<darin> Sufficiency is not the question -- I acknowledged it's sufficient.
<slamreadw> Does all the of the writings of the apostles have to be codified in order for the believer to have what is
+necessary for the Christian life>
<slamreadw> ?
<Floggy> yet you're demanding more
<darin> perspicuity is not the question, either.
<slamreadw> What's your definition of sufficient.
<slamreadw> ?
<solafide> darin: you aren't clarifying your terms
<darin> I haven't used any terms of distinction. Just simple questions to prove a point I may never get to make because no one
+is willing to engage them.
<slamreadw> flog's right, you can't just say "sufficient" and "not enough" in the same sense
<slamreadw> and you seem to be.
<slamreadw> Before any argument can take place, you have to define your terms.
<solafide> darin: you're being quite ambiguous
<darin> I have, on the other hand, tried to avoid your own terms of distinction.
<slamreadw> That's first-week high school debate class
<darin> No -- my questions are quite clear.
<slamreadw> uhmm
<slamreadw> So why isn't anyone understanding them?
<darin> First week of debate you learn basic retoric and logic -- just going down a path of examination -- just because it's a fundamental skill doesn't make it irrational or unfair.
<darin> What term does someone need to understand (that I first used?). If you use them in your response, it is you who need to define them.
<slamreadw> I'm not responding to anything,
<slamreadw> but there's nothing I could possibly respond to, since I have no idea what you mean by sufficient
<darin> then, your colleagues. I didn't first use sufficient -- it wasn't a part of my dialogue.
<slamreadw> Then what use are the Scriptures?
<slamreadw> What are they good for?
<darin> Huh?
<AOMwrkg> good questions
<Floggy> ~nas 2tim 3:16-17
<Gutenberg> 2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for
+training in righteousness; (NASB)
<Gutenberg> 2 Tim. 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (NASB)
<darin> We must deal with first premises before we can address points like sufficiency. that's what the socratic dialog is aimed at.
<AOMwrkg> whar role does the current canon play in your thinking?
<darin> If you want to change the topic, then fine.
<solafide> yes.. I'm well aware of the dialectic
<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."
<slamreadw> But the implication is different between us, I believe.
<AOMwrkg> btw, that didn't answer my question
<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?)

<Floggy> would those letters or oral presentation contain different teachings?
* 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> (I'm 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.
<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

<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> 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

<Galat5_1> In some of our cases, anonymity is better. The past can be a drag. Thank God for His marvelous Grace.
<Greg> amen

<crewbear> darin-hous has returned ic
<pquick> earlier, haven't seen him in the last hour or so
<annlrx> but he is here
<pquick> he might be lurking
<Tur8inFan> I think he's mostly logging
<crewbear> ann did the discussion on scripture go any further with him/

<Tur8inFan> but maybe he just left th ecomputer on
<crewbear> (grrr)
<annlrx> Tur8inFan knows better
<Tur8inFan> there was a little bit more
<Tur8inFan> not much
<Tur8inFan> he wants an inspired message - not inspired words

<Tur8inFan> and he is not big on Jude's canonicity
<Tur8inFan> from what I heard
<crewbear> how does he separate message from words

<Tur8inFan> he and AOMin crossed swords, and he suddenly stopped posting, though he was not banned or kicked

<Tur8inFan> crewbear: good question
<Tur8inFan> I asked something similar
<crewbear> what did they cross swords about?
<Tur8inFan> I think it was about the canonicity of Jude
<pquick> he said certains books being non canonical -- And AOMin said he should repent

<crewbear> why did he think jude was non-canonical?

<pquick> he didn't. the discussion didn't get into details

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

<Greg> so... am I the only person have a hard time following what steve gregg is saying in response to doc? I'm trying, our
+of respect to him, but man.... that Ephesians 1 stuff gave me a headache. will have to listen again i guess... i really
+want to follow his line of reasoning.
<DrOakley> It is very tortured.
<annlrx> Greg - you are in a crowd of others
<DrOakley> It is much like Molinism: how does one claim to believe the Bible and yet not believe what it says?
<annlrx> don't feel lonely

<DrOakley> Well....you subject the text to a thousand qualifications.

* DrOakley needs to get to the office....
*** DrOakley is now known as DrOHome

<pquick> Doc is back, and got filled in on darin-hous
<DrOakley> Yes, I guess that's the nick.

<pquick> at first I thought he was RCC, wanting to talk like that about the canon

<DrOakley> http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=2405
<ph0ntir3d> he just said
<ph0ntir3d> there is no evidence......
<ph0ntir3d> umm
<ph0ntir3d> ?
<ph0ntir3d> then why are you debating?
<johnMark> Doc, wow! Talk about strawmen.
* ph0ntir3d hugs Dr. White
<parkerstdy> our friend darin-houston is on there

<ph0ntir3d> Dr. White: was this his first debate?
<Ragnar> no

<DrOakley> lol
<DrOakley> no

<DrOakley> I am compelled to respond to something James White said during today's program (4/4).
<DrOakley> He opened the show stating he used a "consistant Hermeneutic". I am sorry, but when he said that my eyes just
+rolled to the back of my head!
<ph0ntir3d> ?
<ph0ntir3d> Gregg?
<DrOakley> Hey Darin...you up to defending what you have written on SG's board?
<ph0ntir3d> oh
<annsleeps> sounds like this person has an empty space between his eyes and the back of his head
<DrOakley> I know Steve wouldn't want us to turn this into a "bash James" thread, but I wish James White wouldn't turn so
+much to sarcasm and negative tone. It's not that big of a deal, but it's fairly typical -- he suggests they reduce the 12
+minute sessions to 8 minutes and then after the show he feigns integrity by suggesting he not comment further on the
+debate but then repeats his complaint
<DrOakley> that there was "SOOOO little time" and that folks "will just have to" do their own research into his points made
+briefly on the debate.
<Algo> DrO he have to nail him on the "irrelevant" accusation.
<DrOakley> I suggested lowering the times to pick up the pace of the conversation, nothing more.
<Algo> That was very wise.
<parkerstdy> which made sense to me
<DrOakley> And there is little time to get to all that needs to be gotten to.
*DrOakley* Feel free to comment.
<Algo> I listened to pt 1 and 2 twice today.
<klet> DrO, the reason an enemy is called an enemy is because they dont have your best interests at heart
<ph0ntir3d> What was the subject of this debate?
<Algo> DOG

<Algo> Doctrines Of Grace

<DrOakley> Evidently Darin is in Houston, but Darin isn't in channel....
<parkerstdy> haha
<Algo> DrO dod you have a link for what you are discussing?
<DrOakley>
+http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... 0c53d19836

<klet> DrO, the critics are usually silent when their target is in da house
<DrOakley> Darin there seems to think I was being disingenuous...for no particularly good reason.
<DrOakley> AOMin was telling me Darin has some pretty unorthodox views of Scripture.
<Ragnar> well, that's it for me
<Ragnar> I'm going to bed
<Ragnar> nite folks
<DrOakley> Questioning the "relevance" or Jude, for example....looking for new books of Scripture, etc.

<parkerstdy> yea he was arguing all these hypotheticals for a soft canon

<Algo> I think the guy named Brody has been on Gene Cooks program.
<parkerstdy> <darin> Of course not -- I'm suggesting, the text of Scripture is not the complete story -- it is
+sufficient, but not enough. I want to live according to all that Christ taught, whether in our canon or not.
<klet> Im hoping we uncover Paul's systematic theology

<DrOakley> Wow.
<DrOakley> There's a future Mormon there...
<DrOakley> I surely don't expect anything I have to say to have an impact on someone with views like that.
* parkerstdy nods
<klet> the gnostic gospels might hold a special appeal for Darin, they try to fill in some gaps
<parkerstdy> yea when he started appealing to "what if we have a time machine to visit the first century" I pretty much
+stopped paying attention and AOM stepped forward
<parkerstdy> I think alot of people will benefit from this debate though. I got to a non-reformed Baptist church and I'm
+going to get a group together to listen to them and discuss the texts mentioned
<parkerstdy> *go
<DrOakley>
<klet> make sure they use a bible with Roamns 9 and John 6 still in it
<klet> Romans even
<parkerstdy> haha for sure...I hit em with Romans 9 a few weeks ago at Bible study and you would think I had told them I
+was Stalin or something
<klet> we should weep over the fact that the pwe sitters arent being preached the full word of God
<JenOPCer> the what sitters?
<klet> that was meant to be 'pew'
<parkerstdy> amen to that klet
<parkerstdy> my preacher claims he's a 4.5 Calvinist
<JenOPCer> oh ok
<parkerstdy> which really just means he won't admit he's a 5 pointer to anyone but 5 pointers
*** LaneAway is now known as Lane
<parkerstdy> as if inconsistent soteriology is more attractive
<klet> I avoid the calvinist label, I prefer to call myself a follower of christ, perhaps even a biblicist
* DrOakley super-glues the label to klet so he will stop hiding from reality.

<pquick> I have actually taken some time off specifically to listen to these shows coming up on Calvinism.
<pquick> It's really not a question, but my main "beef" with Calvinism is their supposed high regard for the sovereignty of
+God and "solo scriptura" when it seems they have to go outside of certain scriptures to support their dogmatic
+presuppositions on the atonement
<parkerstdy> pquick who said that?
<pquick> another guy at Steve Greggs forum
<klet> yawn factor: max
<parkerstdy> did he say solo scriptura?
<pquick> one of them said Doc is not consistent. He tells Gregg that all means everyone in one place, but in another place
+all means "some/elect" -- oh yeah, that's inconsistency for you
<pquick> yeah, I think he meant sola tho, not sure, maybe he did know the difference
<pquick> What I mean by that, is that they (in my assessment) clearly have to "TWIST" and "tweak" some of the clear
+passages on the atonement i.e. John 3:16, 1 TI 2: 3-6, Heb 2:9, 1 John 2:2 etc. just to fit their bias. In my view, this
+is clearly adding to scriptures that are as clear as they can be and are in no need of "interpreting". Like this goofy
+"two wills of God" doctrine! I personally see little fear of God in twisting clear scriptures i
<pquick> But this seems to be things that "WOF" teachers do that they soo quickly condemn (rightly so) and point their
+fingers at and cry "scripture twisting", yet again, in my view, they are just as guilty of doing themselves.
<klet> they are struggling with a little concept known as 'context'
<pquick> yeah the two wills of God sure is goofy, John Piper and Doc sure are goofy alright
<JenOPCer> when I was being confronted by the reformed doctrines I constantly accused them of stretching things

<klet> John 3:16 is interesting, it says Jesus died for believers, i.e not evryone
<pquick> I think Steve Gregg refuted (from his view) the two wills as written by Piper, so Greggs followers chime right in
<klet> so john 3:16 is a great verse teaching....limited atonement!!

[Guest]

This is an example in how almost all so called christian boards and chats have degraded. Its a fool's paradise