James White, April 27, 2022April 27, 2022, Church Fathers, Church History, Exegesis, Mormonism, Offense, Personal, Reformed Baptist Issues, Road Trip, Roman Catholicism, Simply Silly, The Dividing Line, Theology Matters, Thomism Since I am in Cedar City, Utah, I started off the program with a discussion of the decline of Mormonism, its reasons, and how we need to be praying to be used of God to bring light to the darkness. Then I had to dive into some of the amazing things being claimed, asserted, and just plain lied about regarding the rise of this new form of “Reformed Thomistic Scholasticism” in our day. Responded to Richard Barcellos’ accusation that when we submit scholastic terminology and frameworks to biblical analysis and standards we are engaging in “self-poping popery.” Yes, that’s a direct quote. Also went back to John 17:5 to see if τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον still means “the glory which I had with you” or whether somehow it had become “the glory predestined to be given to my human nature.” I also promised to link to Augustine’s interpretation of John 17:5. See here. In opposition, see Calvin, A.T. Robertson, Matthew Henry, and many others.
[embedded content]

Couldn’t avoid a few brief comments on the Steve Lawson issue that came to light today at the start of the program. Then I read through an eleven tweet thread written by Samuel Costner back on 8/31 regarding the Crusaders and my supposedly abandoning the younger generation by refusing to go along with the lionization of these Roman Catholic military expeditions. Covered a lot of stuff including answering the question, “Well, if not the Crusaders, then who should we look up to?” and “What does it mean to fight for the Kingdom of God today?” More than 90 minutes in length today.
[embedded content]

This morning Dr. Frank Turek of CrossExamined.org posted a short video clip from one of his many public speaking engagements. You have to give Frank credit, he goes out there and takes the questions. That is appreciated. But the inconsistencies in the answers are why we have often had to comment on what is being said. In this video he responds to an audience question (which itself contained errors of fact and thought) by stating what we might call the “standard” synergistic objections to Reformed theology. So we provided a rebuttal, along with a reiteration of the fact that we would be happy to “cross examine” Frank, and be cross examined by him, in formal, public debate. Many people who saw a tweet I posted suggesting such a debate said they would really like to see that happen. I am doubtful, but, you never know!
[embedded content]