So Little Time ...

"You worship the God of Humanism". That's what Johnny Calvinist said to me. If he changed just the last three letters of his profound statement he might have impressed me. "I worship the God of humanity", I reply. I think that stumps him and he returns to the 3rd round of the UFC championship bout. He will be back to ensure his victory. I wait with bated breath.

Nopes and Nots

This is brief.

Universalism ... nope

Annihilationism ... nope

Arianism ... Not

Liberal-Emergent ... Not for me

Open Theism ... nope

New Wave ... No way

Egalitarianism ... Nah

Calvinism .... well, I'd have to succumb to all of the above first.

Neo-Calvinist Apologetics ... I can hardly stand the suspense of the next thrilling moment.

One of the recent neo-Calvinst devotees on CARM had the following to state that I think deserves a special mention and recognition of achievement.

"Wasn't it a group of people that was opposing the Calvinist by writing the TULIP to present to the courts of the Dort or Worms. 
I think I'm right on that one or at least I'm close. Correct me if I'm wrong on this historical moment."

Tom's Calvinist School of Theology

Tom's Calvinist School of Theology

Tom, an outspoken Calvinist critic on the internet, had the following to state recently.

One thing that the life of Clark Pinnock demonstrated is that embracing Arminianism is often the first step one takes on the Highway to Hell.

This is an opportunity for Tom to have an unedited platform to expound on his version of Arminian thought, at least for a while. Should his thoughts tread on the soft sensibilities of small children and pets I might reconsider but for the time being Tom is being afforded full adult rights.

Tom, the floor is yours ... tell me about hellbound Arminian theology.

Updated: Tom is keeping really busy with his internet engagements adding color to the anonymous James White mouthpiece Turretin Fan perpetual posts attacking Dr. Ergun Caner so he might have little time to take out of his busy apologetics schedule and teach us anything about Calvinism anytime soon. Woe is us.

Taking up a tin can collection for the goat herding ministries

Well after a month since Liberty University settled the Ergun Caner matter to their satisfaction, the handful of antagonists who flamed this war in league with their Muslim bedfellows continue to resurrect the issue and repost the same stuff over and over. Some things never change .... "MY inconsistencies are mistaken misrepresentations and YOUR inconsistencies are LIES!!!!". 

The God Haters

During my recent experience with the "Sky Betty" goddess worshippers and its accompanying group think mentality, one of the adversaries took issue with the description of these souls as "God haters". At first I dismissed the notion as not well thought out by the fellow but thinking further on the matter, I recognized his point. Here are his comments.

Anyway, I think the term "God haters" could only really apply to Satan worshippers, and I would be surprised to find any of them on this thread. I've met one or two over the years, and they are some of the saddest individuals ever. They are not pagans, or anything like it, they are Christian heretics. You have to first buy into the cosmology of the Christian belief system, and then reject it, saying "Lucifer Was Right - Darn You Anyway, God!"... Pathetic. … There are no "God haters" here, Mr. Mallett, just people who see the universe and the Divine differently than you.

In a carnal sense, he is right. For the man who sits comfortably in his unbelief, there is no recognizable hatred of God from his perspective. He cannot relate to such an identifier and naturally rejects anything that challenges a nature he only sees as good. Natural man believes he is good or at least he is able to convince himself in the face of undeniable evidence otherwise so to refer to him as a "God hater" surely evokes a defense mechanism, a challenge to be met with whatever turns the accusation. Unfortunately, the response is vitriolic more often than not and therein is the rub. The Bible instructs us that such natural men are at enmity with God and we can witness this all around us. Indeed, it was demonstrated with the offense taken at the mention of Christ in the discussion I am referring to. Yet was it wise for me to state such a thing? Directly to the man or woman I would have to state no however I refer to such as God haters only in the confines of this theological endeavor, a semi private enclave of ecclesiastical and ecumenical discussions and thoughts. The natural man who seeks this out, however, doesn't take the time to realize that nor would he be expected to. He found a statement made by myself and ran with it. I might have done likewise. Yet, to fellow Arminians and others who understand the theological issues involved, I can state natural man is a God hater and be well understood. I can suggest a portrait of the face beneath the façade of civility that is both revealing and frightful and while the theologically inclined man would grasp its implications, the carnal man suffering unknowingly from unbelief takes offense. In the context of theological discussion, natural man is a God hater. On the evangelical field, natural man is a soul in need of redemption and one for whom the LORD Jesus Christ gave His life. Knowing this truth, I made a mistake and can understand the fellow's objection to "God hater". A wise preacher once stated something to the effect that if you tell a man he is going to hell, he is just as likely to tell you to go to hell. I forgot that in the midst of sparring and allowed meat to spoil, so to speak, for lack of milk.

Sky Betty Worshipper Attacks Sky Bubba God of Abraham

Once in a while one of those crazy discussions pop up that just demands a little introspection. While reading and posting on a small, very liberal weekly social paper recently, I seem to have encountered the wrath and indignation of one of the local "God haters". This particular paper draws a lot of interest among atheists, agnostics and those generally inclined to despise religion, especially the faith of Christians. So when a recent letter excoriated a local Catholic affiliated hospital for refusing to violate it's particular religious policies and beliefs, it was certainly expected that a local chorus of antagonists would join in and find fault where there was any to be found and mostly where none was to be seen. There was certainly no disappointment in that regard. Asheville, NC, the community in which this discussion was centered, is known locally as something of a magnet for crackpot types. Perhaps it isn't the general agnosticism and unbelief that fuels these reactions as it is the voraciousness with which the "God haters" beat upon anything identified as of Christ. The story line of the letter was the indignation that a Catholic hospital would not perform a tubal ligation or sterilization following the removal of an ovarian cyst. Now, I might disagree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on this matter but it's not my hospital and I do not set policy for them. For that matter neither does the patient who made the original objection. This leads me to the title of my post.

One of the more vocal of the antagonists found the occasion to turn a discussion of the hospital's decision away from whether it was appropriate or reasonable given their religious beliefs. In place of that, the commentator launched into a caricature laced diatribe attacking everything associated with the "male dominated" "Sky Bubba" God of Abraham, whether it was Jewish, Christian or Muslim. Well, as a Christian, I expect most of the conscience seared world in that part of the country to take every opportunity to attack anything associated with Christ or religion in general. What I didn't expect and I don't really know why this would surprise me given the community was that the antagonist has embraced the pagan and heathenish notion of worshipping an unknown Goddess of some sort, undefined as it is. While slandering and libeling the Christian community as having a perverse and immoral attitude and practices toward women (all of which is rather absurd and unfounded), this person was embracing pagan religion and not disclosing (either though ignorance or design) the horrific abuses women and infants suffered through its many ancient derivatives. Human infant sacrifice and rape were not at all uncommon in several pagan "goddess" societies. Archeologists have uncovered evidence at the site of ancient Carthage of mass infant graves. The practice of rape in the course of sexual ritual has been documented over the years. The heinous practices of the various goddess worship cults since the dawn of mankind overwhelm any comparison to the offenses of men and women acting under the banner of Christendom. Most of those who claim to worship some undefined goddess are really doing nothing more than toying with their imaginations. If they comprehended what those societies represented and practiced, few could with good conscience embrace such but then, we are dealing with seared consciences in this matter, real, hardcore haters of Christ.

In any event, I am left with the self described image of the antagonist who posits her pagan goddess (Sky-Betty?) against her caricature of God as "Sky Bubba" while decrying the religious rights of an organization dedicated to the merciful care of the sick and injured. It reminds me of the crafty retort "God is Dead – Nietzsche 1882 … Nietzsche is Dead – God 1900". I would be curious to know how many facilities for the sick, injured and elderly "Sky Betty" has established over the millennia. 

Perhaps It Is Time to Throw James White under the Bus

With Liberty University concluding its inquiry into James White and his Islamic bedfellows crusade against Dr. Ergun Caner, the results of that inquiry are not sitting well in some of the schismatic Calvinist camps. While I have no doubt White would be satisfied with nothing short of a summary dismissal of Caner from his employment along with LU prostrating itself before the White shrine, it seems LU took the appropriate Christian action by removing Caner from the Dean's post while allowing him to continue serving the LORD as a professor within the Seminary at LU. There is no doubt Dr Caner has been humbled by this experience and both he and LU will need to work to ensure each has the other's trust as well as that of the student body at LU. It is certainly expected that Dr. Caner's commentary and work going forward will be scrutinized heavily and that can only be a good thing. He is a fine apologist with legitimate credentials. What neither Dr. Caner or Liberty University need be concerned with are the near rabid frothing and carnal mudslinging dressed up as moral indignation that seem to be the hallmark of White's constant crusade. White has referred to Liberty's decision as an evangelical whitewash. He goes further in slandering and libeling the University by referring to its decision as "… obtuse, confusing, political language (that) has provided the basis upon which a cover-up has now been launched in Caner's service". White is essentially so disturbed with himself for not succeeding in destroying Dr. Caner he has resorted to calling Liberty University and its leadership nothing other than a pack of liars. While I do not think Liberty is concerned with Mr. White's indignation (and they certainly should not be), his fellow Calvinists should be greatly concerned. This is a man who wedded himself to Islamic enemies of Christ because of his personal feud with Caner over the past few years. He is a man who has consistently misrepresented the beliefs and faith of that many and greater body of Christ.

Given his penchant for aberrant doctrine, in particular his determinist Calvinist views, I am only surprised that he would consider it his God inspired duty to continue his personal vendetta in light of God's ordination of Liberty's decision (assuming White's doctrine is even remotely correct). In White's myopic theological world view he is kicking against the shins of God and he hasn't the modicum of sensibilities to recognize it. It is time to throw the carnal ministry under the bus, theologically speaking of course.

Triabloke Cartoon Network

Mean, angry and unloving A.M Mallett wrote a while back on the Triabloke Cartoon Network ...

The quandary exists among both Calvinists and Arminians. For the Arminian, the tension is with explaining why one turns to the LORD and another resists. We do not know. However, with the Calvinist, the antinomy is irreconcilable. Divine determinism is excused from responsibility. From the Arminian perspective, the Calvinist conflict between divine determination and human accountability does far more damage to God's character and goodness than our lack of comprehension for why a man resists the grace of God and another does not resist.


The Triabloke cartoon character says to another Triabloke cartoon character ... "This here is an infamously bad argument against Calvinism. We better censor and delete it before anybody reads it."

Breaking News …. Well, not really.

Breaking News …. Well, not really.

Triabloke calls A.M. Mallett mean, angry and unloving and infamous for bad arguments against Calvinism. Oh woe is me. It's not on the 6 0clock tonight.


update: Triabloke Cartoon Network Accuses Christian of using illegal drugs

A Triabloke Molests 1 John 2:16

A Triabloke wrote the following that I thought was interesting.

Some Arminian epologists have been using 1 John 2:16 to argue that in no sense can the origination of a sinful action be determined by God. That is because John says those things don't come "from" the father. 

That is an odd statement. While I certainly cannot account for all Arminian arguments regarding the passage, I do not think I have ever encountered that argument. The source for the statement was not provided so I can only work with the Triabloke claim which strikes me as a straw man set up solely for the purpose of burning in some perverse joy. Here is the passage in full context.

"I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." (1Jo 2:12-17 AV)

Rather than a discussion of the Calvinist philosophy of determinism, the passage in question is contrasting the carnal desires of the world with that of the love of the Father. Wesley framed verse 16 as:

…The desire of the flesh - Of the pleasure of the outward senses, whether of the taste, smell, or touch. The desire of the eye - Of the pleasures of imagination, to which the eye chiefly is subservient; of that internal sense whereby we relish whatever is grand, new, or beautiful. The pride of life - All that pomp in clothes, houses, furniture, equipage, manner of living, which generally procure honour from the bulk of mankind, and so gratify pride and vanity. It therefore directly includes the desire of praise, and, remotely, covetousness. All these desires are not from God, but from the prince of this world…

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/1John.htm#Chapter+II

While some Calvinist eisegesis practitioners may wish to make hay over a far fetched application and strawman of their own construction, they tend to look foolish doing so. The contrast between the world (outside of Christ) and abiding in Christ is what is intended with the passage. It is how most Arminians understand the passage and teach it.

 

Jimmy White Mumbles Again

What is it about this man who claims Christ that he continues with his perverse ministry of discord? His blog has been little more than an Ergun Caner hate fest with absolutely nothing of Christ to speak of. It now equates Peter Lumpkins with Alexander the coppersmith, an ungodly blasphemer noted in scripture. He posted the following recently that deserves some comment.

Can an atheist speak truth? If he says "2+2=4" is the statement less true than if a Christian said the same thing? Many Christians have been saying a Muslim could not possibly be saying something that is factually, really true. But this kind of epistemological bigotry is neither biblical nor rational. Christians should be people of truth in all spheres of life. In the following video I discuss the prejudice that has been expressed by every person who has refused to consider the facts and instead has defaulted to the "A Muslim said it, therefore, it must not be true" defense. I provide two further examples of errors on the part of Ergun Caner, both of which were pointed out by...GASP!...a Muslim! I should have caught them myself, they are pretty basic, but I missed them. If they had been pointed out by a Christian, would they be more, or less, mistakes on Caner's part? Think about it.

Link to post

Let's think about it. Not only does White misrepresent the objections many Christians have with his recent and years long obsession with bringing Ergun Caner down, but he refers to such souls as bigots and by inference irrational. Perhaps the man is not nearly as bright as he thinks himself to be and he actually believes the tripe he has presented. I suspect another reality here. White knows full well why many Christians object to the manner of his current crusade. It is not because everything Muslims state must be wrong. Instead what leaves a poor taste in the mouth is the truth that White and several of his cronies have crawled into bed with Islamic apologists and enemies of Christ in order to further a blood feud. White has displayed a personal animosity toward Caner evident through his almost cultic obsession with demeaning the man publicly on his blog. I believe this was fueled by White's umbrage over the lack of a debate with Caner some years ago, the lack of which was due to White's withdrawal rather than Caner's. I think this has been a festering sore point with White since. All that aside, there is no excuse for this public crusade allying internet Calvinists and Islamic enemies of Christ for the purpose of shaming another man who claims Christ. Caner may very well be guilty as charged and Liberty University should hold him accountable if such is the case. However, Christians are not bigoted and irrational for feeling disgust with the manner in which White, a sectarian zealot if ever there was one, is conducting himself in this manner.

Repentance is called for in this matter and by no means strictly in the Caner household should the charges be true. White has become an embarrassment to the body of Christ with his ungodly alliances. After repentance, an apology is called for.

Censored by a Triabloke … drat, what will I ever do?

I generally avoid wasting bandwidth at a couple of internet sites run by some of the knuckleheaded extreme Calvinists out there. Marc Carpenter's "Outside The Camp" craziness and the Triabloke blogspot site run by a guy named Hays are a couple of them. Occasionally I will browse and toy with a response to a comment but I generally do so with fairly low expectations of receiving anything of merit to note. I jumped into the comment section of the latter site to reply to an inquiry made by a poor visitor who seemed unaware of what lurked in the Triabloke bushes.

He wrote:

Is there any mystery to the relationship between God's sovereignty and human action?
As you know, W.L. Craig cited Turretin to show that Reformed theologians are "self-confessedly left with a mystery." When I read your material, I get the impression that you don't think there is any mystery involved.

I replied with the following:

The quandary exists among both Calvinists and Arminians. For the Arminian, the tension is with explaining why one turns to the LORD and another resists. We do not know. However, with the Calvinist, the antinomy is irreconcilable. Divine determinism is excused from responsibility. From the Arminian perspective, the Calvinist conflict between divine determination and human accountability does far more damage to God's character and goodness than our lack of comprehension for why a man resists the grace of God and another does not resist.

I guess it was too much to throw at the poor soul because Hays censored my remark to avoid giving him that kind of dangerous information. It's too bad the guy who made the inquiry didn't have an email or blog contact. I would have avoided the post.

Kangaroo Attacked By Angry Observer

Ben (kangaroodort) over at Arminian Perspectives linked into a Calvinist "critique" ( Triablogue: Captain Kangaroo ) of one of his posts I thought was interesting. It is unfortunate that our Calvinist brother chose such a sanctimonious manner in addressing Ben's well thought out address. I am not sure I can take the time to respond in this spat but it is a sad reflection on the state of Calvinist apologetics to witness such a callous disregard for scriptural humility. It is my hope that we Arminians can reflect on this example and take the high road in our methods and seasoning lest we find ourselves measured by the same response given to brother Ben.