I prefer that he keeps his snark and stops whining about the snark of others. That is my method. I dish it out, but I also don’t act all offended and self-righteous when it is dished out to me.

I had typed out a long post, but accidentally lost it, so instead of responding again lengthily, I will wait for the specifics. You said several outright wrong things in this one post which are apparent to anyone who listened carefully to the podcast. The podcast was vetted prior to my airing it by someone who is familiar with me pretty well, and the assessment was the exact opposite. Heck, one of my pastors is going to listen to it, and I hazard a guess the response will be the same.

I didn’t make any nauseating sounds either… where in the world did you get that? I think you are really exaggerating, but I do not want to shackle your critique. Record it, and I will air it, and respond. Or better yet, do you want to get on Skype, and challenge me personally and I will respond and air it?

Yes I was disgusted with White in many ways by the end of the show. I said in the show that molinism and Craig pushes his ugly button.

He actually insinuated in the show that Craig believes that he doesn’t need the Holy Spirit to do apologetics. That is disgusting. I hope that would disgust you too.

Let me know how you want to proceed.

BTW, do you know the context of that Craig quote about hyper-calvinism (which is a total red herring to this show by the way) because I suspect it is not what it is made out to be. I believe I heard the original show a while ago, and it was in the context of double predestination…. WHICH CALVIN HELD. So Craig was saying in that context, he sees no difference. IF I RECALL CORRECTLY (I would love to have a link to Craig’s original show if you have it) between HC and C. When Craig’s quote is taken out of context it makes it sound way worse than it was. It is very uncharitable to read the absolute worst into a soundbyte of one’s opponents. Remember my rule, if you think your opponent just said something really retarded, it is more likely that you misheard him.

Craig can be imprecise, I agree. He is imprecise in the way that might call an oval the same as a circle, but not so imprecise that he would call an oval a square. But Craig could be Hitler and that doesn’t excuse bad behaviour towards him. He started it or he does it too doesn’t fly with the Moms of America, and it shouldn’t fly with Christians. Anyone can be kind and fair towards their friends. White is grossly unfair to Craig and molinism. It doesn’t matter if Craig is unfair to Calvinism. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

I have several other shows planned dealing specifically with White, for the reason I said on the show (which then puzzles me why you asked why I did this show since I said why on the show itself.). I suspect you didn’t listen carefully, and that’s okay. You will be required to when you quote me exactly to give the specifics.

Don’t think I am mad or offended or anything. Writing is a poor medium at times to communicate thus my invitation to “call in” as it were. Or record something and send it to me. Or do it in writing. Your choice.

Did you run out of good material because I don’t get why you pursued this topic? I understand emotional attachments to previous doctrines that have been cherished and then dropped when they no longer hold true. I was once a dispensational arminian myself. Now I am glad to believe historical Calvinism and preterism. No hard feelings towards those views but neither will I rush to their defense because of my history.

Something else related to the show. White says nobody else plays the other side and gives an adequate response. True and you defended Craig not needing to. Yet if Craig can take cheap shots like saying Calvin was a hyper Calvinist and he doesn’t see the difference between Calvinism and hyper-calvinism then he ought to be required to get out in public and defend himself instead of hide behind a microphone. He says he doesn’t debate Christians and has the audacity to say things like that…..well then he should be held accountable and there is no better man than James White to do it.

If you want more specifics I will be glad to go back through the show and give quotes comparing White to Warren although I won’t be able to type the “good grief….nauseating sounds” that were directed at White.

I realize you said you agreed with him 99.99% at the beginning of the show but by the end of the show it didn’t seem to matter. You seemed more than disgusted with him.

Again. I can’t say enough good things about the show. I wish there were more people waving the banner for sound eschatology like yourself and sound soteriology like james White. I just feel like a fly was buzzing over your head and you got distracted. Peace, Love, and Apple dreams to you. Really. I mean it.

I understand White’s frustrations in such nonspecific criticisms. Be specific. I was VERY specific.

I too am very busy, so this is my last post on this until I post my response. thank you for the time you have given and for your work in Islam, it is a light in a very dark place in the world

I do not know why you are asking this. I affirmed it, and, obviously, since I noted, repeatedly, “later on Craig will say this…” etc., it is obvious I listened to it. When I got back from my ride, I looked up the book, found the 2001, and given the presence of both WLC and Boyd, assumed that was the book. Again, a very minor and completely understandable error which was corrected rather quickly thanks to the chat channel.

I must protest here in brief and will expound in full that although I was indeed mistaken as to Dave Hunt v David Hunt, that only soften the extreme of which you accused Craig, it does not by any stretch absolve it. You still accused Craig of being so daft that he didn’t even know that a co-author wasn’t a Calvinist… come on Dr. White, seriously…… I will expound upon that in my audio. I will shoot you an email when I have posted it.

I repeat what I have said a few times now: Dr. Craig is not accurate in his identification of Reformed theology. Seriously, if he can say “Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist,” is it really that difficult to understand my concern? I knew what David Hunt’s views are (simple foreknowledge), and so my comment made perfect sense. But may I add that since you listened to the Reasonable Faith podcast yourself, did you catch Craig saying that the two Reformed authors actually ended up saying the same things? Yet, if you look at their respective positions, they are not the same at all. Craig puts them in the same camp even though they clearly have different views. He even ends up saying Boyd takes a compatibilist perspective (something impossible for an Open Theist, of course). So yes, I am quite comfortable questioning the accuracy of Craig’s identification of “Calvinists” even though I was wrong in this specific instance: he was not referring to David Hunt, whom I knew not to be Reformed (not Dave Hunt).

Expounding about how you addressed issues you always address is a red herring. We don’t disagree on most of the issues. It is how they are done.

An honest and fair appraisal of the hour long program would indicate that, of course, it was focused upon 1) playing a large portion of Craig’s own comments, 2) reading from his own book on the relevant issues, and 3) critiquing Molinism for the highly problematic and simply false system it is. Likewise, the direct attacks upon Reformed theology launched by Craig, and his host, were noted and responded to.

I am sorry you do not like my “tone.” I am sorry you attribute to me arrogance, etc. There is nothing I can do about that. You interpret my passion about these issues wrongly. I hope and pray your audience extends you more grace. But with this, I have invested far, far more time than I should have.

James White

I have no problem with Dr. White saying WLC has misrepresented Reformed Theology in the past. He has. I have no problem with Dr. White saying that WLC can be daft on what Reformed people believe.

I DO have a problem with Dr. White accusing WLC of not being able to tell an Arminian from a Calvinist, that is beyond stupid.

That is the accusation that I believe Dr. White should apologize for. It was, well, mean. There is no justification for it. The other items are fair game…. I don’t disagree there. I have never said that no criticism is warranted, I am saying that we can take it too far. One can be right and make themselves wrong by their comportment.

WLC is daft in his treatment of preterism, my specialty so I commisserate. But I would NEVER accuse him of not being able to tell a dispensational futurist from a preterist.

Do you see what I mean?

I think you’re misunderstanding Dr. White’s concern about WLC. He’s not saying that WLC is daft in his treatment of Calvinism, but that he’s glib and unfair in his treatment of Calvinism. This is the same WLC who is now featured in the Radio Free Geneva intro saying that Calvin was a Hyper-Calvinist.

-TurretinFan

I am not trying here to be pedantic, but I truly want to represent you correctly… am I correct in understanding that you are indeed affirming that you listened to the podcast, minus the closing comments and adverts, PRIOR to your webcast, most likely while riding on one of your exercise bike rides?

The GPS is not necessary, but some of the energy it takes to do that would be most welcome. I am getting fatter than my doxie, and my doxie is mistaken for a pot-bellied pig.

I am a paralegal as my primary occupation and during the week often work ten to twelve hour days. I will try to post a response as timely as I can.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I must protest here in brief and will expound in full that although I was indeed mistaken as to Dave Hunt v David Hunt, that only soften the extreme of which you accused Craig, it does not by any stretch absolve it. You still accused Craig of being so daft that he didn’t even know that a co-author wasn’t a Calvinist… come on Dr. White, seriously…… I will expound upon that in my audio. I will shoot you an email when I have posted it.

You are focusing on issues (and you and I agree on many issues, I am Reformed) but I am answering your challenge that you often issue when people criticize your tactics. Expounding about how you addressed issues you always address is a red herring. We don’t disagree on most of the issues. It is how they are done. And no matter how much hay is made about my admitted mistake on David Hunt/Dave Hunt, the fact remains you accused WLC of something more than stupid, and you never apologized for it. I apologized here just in this thread three times each time a mistake of mine was discovered. Why can’t you apologize for that accusation? That really bothers me. It seems proud IMHO.

2) Yes, I listened to the entire podcast. What evidence do you have that I did not? It is only 24 minutes in length, but, I had the entirety of it right in front of me as I played the materials. I even noted during the show comments that were yet to be heard. How could I know that if I had not listened to it? I seem to recall that I had listened to it on a 55 mile bike ride prior to the webcast. I have the GPS readout of the ride, if you need that.

3) Clearly, I did not catch that the book was GOING to come out, I assumed it was a book that was already available, and then I took the time to look up the title, found one which included both WLC and Gregory Boyd. I have subscribed to the RSS feed of the program for quite some time. I do not listen to every single episode, but I normally do.

4) The issues I focused upon in this webcast were IDENTICAL to the concerns I had raised for years, and IDENTICAL to the issues I raised publicly at the presentation I made at Trinity Reformed Baptist Church, less than a mile off the campus of Talbot/Biola ( http://youtu.be/6SNtuo7kGro ) a full year earlier.

I am sorry you did not like the presentation. I am sorry I did not realize a new book was coming out, and assumed the 2001 book, with two of the same authors, was the one being discussed. I do believe Dr. Craig extends little to no effort in accurately representing the Reformed view, and I documented that at least five times in this very webcast by playing his very own comments. However, I contend that:

A) the materials I played on the DL accurately represented Craig’s views, and his comments about Reformed theology;
B) the criticisms I leveled at his presentation of Molinism were accurate, both biblically, as well as accurate to the sources I cited, including his own published works.

Therefore, I would ask you:

1) Was the focus of the program on the key issues relating to divine sovereignty and the nature of God’s relationship to time?
2) Did I misrepresent Craig’s teachings on Molinism? If so, where?
3) Are these issues not central to the topic of how one does apologetics, and is that not a recurrent theme of my program, and my ministry?

I stand by my criticism of the WLC podcast and the philosophy/theology he presented therein.

James White

The David Hunt I was referring to was, in fact, one of the four contributors to the 2001 book, and yes, I assumed that was the book referred to in the webcast. I had good reason to: half of the authors were the same between the two books! WLC and Gregory Boyd contributed to both volumes. And, btw, if you wish to fault me for turning the podcast off once it got into the closing comments, adverts, etc., well, what can I say?

This paragraph appears to be saying that since you didn’t listen to the closing comments and adverts that it is understandable that you confused the books as two of the authors are the same. Is my understanding of what you are intending to communicate correct? If it is not correct, what are those several sentences intending to communicate?

Yes, I do have confidence that Craig would know the view of someone who was a co-author with him on a collaborative project. I am well aware of his other deficiencies. Are you accusing him of being so bad that he would think the David Hunt in that book is a Calvinist? Seriously?

And Dr. White, admit it, you didn’t listen to the podcast you critiqued by WLC. Why is that so hard to admit?

I was able to admit my misunderstanding, why can’t you admit you critiqued a podcast you didn’t listen to in full? And when I say in full, I am not including the closing comments and adverts. Let’s exclude those. You didn’t listen to the whole thing minus the closing comments and adverts. Why can’t you admit that?

PS: If you think I am being irresponsible and sinning against you, contact me privately at idrankthekoolaid@mac.com, and I will put you in touch with the elders of my Church. I spoke to an elder before doing this podcast.

While I have your attention, how far back do you keep your chat room transcripts? Something happened a while back (you were not directly involved) that I want to see if my memory is correct. Can you do a search for deedeewarren and send me the transcripts for my last two visits?

If you are wondering if you know me in any other way, you might remember I transcribed the Son of God, Lord of Glory tape (it was tapes at that time) for you. That is one of the best tapes I have ever heard.

I would like to clarify one thing here you said before responding further:

nd, btw, if you wish to fault me for turning the podcast off once it got into the closing comments, adverts, etc., well, what can I say?

Are you claiming you listened to the whole podcast except for the closing comments and adverts? If that is not what you are claiming, what is the point of that statement?

This is precisely the kind of statement you would expect Caner to answer. I do hope you answer it. I would like your answer before commenting further because it certainly seems to me that IS what you are claiming, but I want to ask you if it is.

You seem very focused on my comment that Craig identified two of his fellow authors as Calvinists. Are you seriously going to defend Craig’s accuracy in identifying Reformed beliefs? Have you listened to the quote I provide from him in the opening of Radio Free Geneva? Wherein he explicitly states that he doesn’t know what the difference between a Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist is, and that he thinks Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist? Join this with his Hitchens comments, and the many misrepresentations we documented a few years ago on the DL when we went through his entire presentation on soteriology, and you would have more than sufficient ground to understand the statement. BTW, in looking at those very authors, one is clearly Reformed. The other, however, holds a view that one would have to strain a bit at to fit into a meaningful or historical Reformed moniker.

In any case, all I can say is I hope your listeners will be more generous in listening to you than you have been in listening to me on this particular subject.

James White

It’s the AJ here (”arrogant jerk”). How are you? I was directed to your recent podcast by someone who seemingly has been engaging someone relating to part of my critique of WLC, specifically, relating to his very shallow and very poor representation of the compatibilist position. I have to wonder why it is so few folks are offended by Craig’s comments about Calvinists (the only “false” group he could think of in his debate with Christopher Hitchens—coming to his mind before Roman Catholics or Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons, I guess) but, if someone dare point out that WLC is promoting an old (and now abandoned) Romanist philosophy that turns God into something far less than the personal and sovereign Yahweh of the Bible, well, we are baaaad.

In any case, I wanted to provide DeeDee Warren with a little bit of info that she might wish to take into consideration in possibly withdrawing what seemed to be her primary objection to my comments. First, please note that when one searches for the book being discussed, the first one you come across is this:

http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Foreknowledge-James-K-Beilby/dp/0830826521

Now, if you will listen carefully to what I actually said (not what you ASSUMED I said), you will note that I said “David Hunt,” not “Dave Hunt.” Just an oddity on my part? No. Look at the authors of the book. One is David, not Dave, Hunt. As the description says, “David Hunt of Whittier College weighs in on the simple-foreknowledge view.” Notice I mentioned the simple foreknowledge view as well. Why? Because, of course, there is more than one David/Dave Hunt in the world, and I well know the difference between David Hunt, who teaches philosophy at Whittier College (he is currently on leave) and Dave Hunt, the elderly sage of the Berean Call. I well know Dave Hunt would never be able, by simple lack of training and background, to engage in such a discussion, and I can’t imagine any publisher asking him to do so. So, the reality is, all this “do you really think WLC is so “retarded” as to think Dave Hunt is a Calvinist?” stuff was, of course…completely off mark. I properly identified the person I was talking about, and, unfortunately, you jumped to the wrong conclusion. The David Hunt I was referring to was, in fact, one of the four contributors to the 2001 book, and yes, I assumed that was the book referred to in the webcast. I had good reason to: half of the authors were the same between the two books! WLC and Gregory Boyd contributed to both volumes. And, btw, if you wish to fault me for turning the podcast off once it got into the closing comments, adverts, etc., well, what can I say?

Now, I am sure I could gather together a whole lot more to say if I wanted to put aside my current projects and go back and visit an old WLC podcast, and one of my own. But I have no interest. The above is more than sufficient to explain that sometimes, just sometimes, we all hear things badly.

James White

I learned something new, I didn’t know there were two Dave Hunts. Dave Hunt came on my radar with the What Love is This book.

If I wrote a book with someone that was definitely not a Calvinist, I would hope that if someone thought I was saying they were a Calvinist, they would not jump to the conclusion that I was that idiotic. WLC is not likely to confuse an Arminian for a Calvinist. He is likely to confuse a hypercalvinist for one, but not an Arminian. And that is the problem. I just think White was eager for cheap shots and did not give any benefit of the doubt.

I thank you soooo much for that information. I didn’t mention in my podcast that I thought it was the WLIT Dave Hunt, but it was. Thus, on my next podcast, I will post that clarification and my mistake, though it only softens my concern somewhat, the core does remain.

And please don’t forget the main point… White did not listen to the podcast before critiquing it. If he did, I doubt he would have done the majority of what I criticized. He would have caught that it was a different book, and I think he would have caught WLC saying God is responsible for everything and not claimed that WLC did not say that.

I have a huge problem with one Christian publicly critiquing the work of another without first reading (or listening in the case of a podcast) at a minimum the whole program.

It saddens me that no one who has expressed for White will concede that this is obviously what he did. Or I could pull a stunt and claim that although he listened to it, he still made those mistakes…. but that would be wrong…. and uncharitable, like saying WLC doesn’t know what his co-authors are.

I realize that doesn’t address all of your concerns, but perhaps it makes Dr. White’s mistaken surmise about WLC a little more reasonable.

I will be in meetings at work until this evening.

wow

But to answer your question, since I know I have a habit of that exact typo I should have proofread, so that was wrong on my part, thus my apology to you

I am typing on an iPhone and am sight-impaired

I will try to avoid that again

now will you answer the question? sans your hostility?

when you have NOT listened to the program you are critiquing

would your answer be the same?

I hate to say it but Bob that is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time.

I really don’t agree with your comment that short people have no reason to live.

If you didn’t say that, you can’t complain since I have no
obligation to read what you say before critiquing it, or do I?

Is it proper to publicly and stridently critique another when you have listened to the showyou are critiquing.

Please answer

Do you think it is proper as a teacher to publicly critique someone before listening to what they are talking about unless you preface your comments with “well I haven’t had a chance to listen to this but here are some limited comments….”

Do you understand what arrogance it takes to accuse Craig of thinking Hunt, the author of one of the worst antireformed screeds EVER, is a Calvinist? I can’t fathom it.

Thanks
Ralph

Please deal with my points than a strawman. There are people right now choking on their egg mcmuffins at someone claiming that my criticism was that someone was harsh.
Harsh is my middle name though I have mellowed somewhat as I got fatter.
When it c

Okay, I believe I can answer your unanswerable question(s):
Ten people hear the gospel, but only two respond with faith. Why?
Is it because they are the only two who chose faith?
Did the two do something to merit salvation?

The answer to both questions is a resounding no, even from a molinist/arminian perspective.

All men are totally depraved and incapable of coming to Christ. But the Holy Spirit works on the hearts of everyone drawing them and enabling them, overcoming that depravity if you will, without regenerating them. The reason that the other 8 didn’t answer is because, some never will of course. But the others may not have been ready yet. The Holy Spirit isn’t finished working on their soil… So the two who responded didn’t merit anything. Paul specifically said faith is not works. If no one is capable of even having faith without the Spirit drawing them, how can the person who responds take credit?

I started out a Calvinist, and like you, found questions that could not be answered. To me these were greater and much more significant that the questions you posited.

Money quote:
Jesus to Lazarus: Lazarus, come forth!!
Lazarus to Jesus: No thanks, you don’t know what its like to live with those women!

I totally relate to your thoughts!
I struggled with AOG and CCC’s teachings for years. (from the mid seventies to the late eighties), but when finally I got to read their basic teachings on salvation (courtesy of the internet), I totally balked and ran like Joseph! In short their is no freedom in Christ in those doctrines and they could all do well to read the book of Galatians very slowly and prayerfully and step away from the bad acid.

Just thought I’d let you know there, this is a great post! Thank you very much for it, all the glory to God!