This afternoon, I checked James White's website where he writes blogs [website articles] [http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=386] to see if anyone had relayed my recent email to him, and if he had perhaps reacted to it. There is now some sort of "smoke" [White?] rising from his website chimney about the matter. Rome isn't the only chimney that can fog "white" smoke into the air.
Brother James has sometimes implied that he is a qualified debater, but if we must judge of his abilities from the blogs he has written about issues I have raised both last year and more recently, he still has some room for improvement.
It is not the mark of an adept debater or polemist to attempt to discredit an adversary by the use of misrepresentation. One only discredits himself by resorting to diversionary ploys.
Brother James has discredited himself even in the headline of his blog, erroneously stating that "Bob Ross Supports and Encourages Anti-Lordship Viewpoint."
I will give Brother James or anyone else $100 for every statement I made in my recent email which "supports and encourages the anti-lordship viewpoint."
"Lordship" was not even discussed in my email. As a debater, James should have learned a long time ago that first-and-foremost one is to deal with the "proposition," and not be guilty of what logicians call "ignoratio elenchi." James was obviously simply trying to divert attention away from the main issue which I raised in my email. In other words, he was merely "fogging the air."
Again, James can earn another $100 if he will produce one word I said in my email which dealt with and "helped out" the "view of faith" of Zane Hodges style Arminians. He simply sent more smoke from his chimney by this remark.
James could have spent his time and words much more appropriately if he had at least attempted to address the issue about which I wrote, if he wanted to blog about it. I doubt that he would have been able to blog better than his lame blog of a year ago, but at least he would not have revealed that he has the inclination to "blog off into the wild blue yonder" onto some other issue. This is the mark of a "novice," not of a mature polemist.
Furthermore, Brother James professes to adhere to "1689 London Confession," but if and when he sets forth a view of the New Birth which is consistent with this Confession, we will be among the first to congratulate him, and will be happy to do so. The view he now advocates is more in line with the Hardshell Baptist view of regeneration than with the London Confession.
Brother James also seems pleased to be identified with the non-creedal view of regeneration advocated by Pedobaptists Louis Berkhof and R. C. Sproul, men who also hold to the fantasy that infants are regenerated in fulfillment of an alleged "covenant," their being the offspring of believers. James does not seem to "cotton" to our suggestion that he "borrowed" his view on adult regeneration from such sources, but I did not discern that he differs with them other than on the "infant" regeneration issue.
Permission granted to copy and use this article.
Send your snail-mail address for a printed Price List.