Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Will the real James White please stand up?

In this bizarre fray with some in the Lordship Salvation camp... in which a emerging perosn who "does not beleive in truth" was arguing for a pure biblica view of truth and pointing out that many Christians have infused Platonist Realism and other modernistic views, I had unfortunately confused Jim W. with James R. White. He surprised me with a visit to my blog and commented on this article.

I did there and will once again apologize for that unfortunate mistake and also am very thankful that Jim W. is NOT James R. White. It seems that the real James White has a ton more class and can show much more grace.

So, James I do once again apologize for this and hope that you will accept my apology and any thing I did say to or about you in good spirit as I did not mean any malice toward you. As I stated to you I do not agree with you on some points, but in no way do I not consider you a brother in Christ. Noted again I am not a Calvinist yet I am not anti Calvinist.

James R. White made mention of this on his blog... so I am semi famous... again... LOL!

07/25/2007
On My "Issues" and Other Stuff James R. White
I fine-tuned my Google Blog Search gadget and got rid of all the references to basketball and politics. As a result, I found this article by "iggy" from Billings, Montana. Thankfully, iggy later admitted his error, and recognized that there might just be more than one person on the Internet with the initials JW, or "Jim W.," etc. If I'm going to comment on a blog somewhere, I will almost always identify myself with the signature (developed back in the 1980s for use on our BBS) of "James>>>" along with our website, www.aomin.org. If the comment system uses nicks instead of names, you will often see DrOakley or a variant thereof (my nick in our chat channel). For someone who makes himself so easily available, I have no reason to hide when commenting out there in the blogosphere, as rarely as I do that.

The rest of the article is here.

Thanks again James for your gracious spirit. Though like I mentioned before I would like to here your perspective on Lordship Salvation.

Blessings,
iggy

5 comments:

James said...

Greetings iggy:

As to the issue of whether it is God's intention to conform all of His elect to His image, so that, as Scripture says, without holiness, "no one will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14), I debated Robert Wilkin on the subject in 2005...well, sort of debated. There was no cross-examination (a mistake on my part), so it wasn't much of a real debate on that level, and I felt his behavior at the debate (including his use of photographs in his presentation that were intended to be mocking) further detracted from it. Be that as it may, the mp3s are available at www.aomin.org. To be very, very brief (and hence run the risk in our modern age where feelings are paramount of causing offense), I believe the Hodges/Wilkin teaching that repentance is not part and parcel of the gospel message, and that a person can be saved without repentance, is one of the most destructive teachings to have infected the evangelical church, and it is central to why "evangelicalism" today is far better called "post evangelicalism." It is, in my studied opinion, nothing less than the antinomianism of old, and as such, I warn against it regularly, and very strongly.

Well, you did ask. :-)

James>>>
www.aomin.org

iggy said...

James,

I too think that there is a danger in certain things that Hodges/Wilken bring up... My contention is that to accept Jesus as "Lord" is a good starting place, but in itself overlooks that Jesus Himself called us, brothers...

I also note often that to just accept Jesus as "Lord" limits ones view that Jesus is to be our very Life as it is His Life we live and not our own after we profess our belief.

Though i am not "legalist" in the actual words one must use as that would negate myself from salvation... (another story, another time) I see that one must come to the end of their own self and in that die... in that way it is a submission to Jesus and equates Him being "Lord".

Interestingly, the word Christ is a transliteration of Greek which is a transliteration of a Hebrew word that meant... King.

So, to me whether one state, Lord, King or God or Saviour or Messiah... in the end one must realize that it is only through Jesus we have Life eternal.

I do thank you and believe me it is an honor to converse with you.

If you would like to elaborate on John MacArthur's teachings on this I would enjoy discussing that a bit further. : )

I will check out the MP3's you suggested soon.

Blessings,
iggy

rick said...

iggy - good news - you can be healed of not being a Calvinist. Being anti-Calvinist is unpardonable but thank God you have not strayed that far.

iggy said...

Rick,

I am content is Jesus Christ.

But you are still my favorite Calvinist!

:)

blessings,
iggy

iggy said...

James,

I might have confused you again with someone else about the KJV only debate.

I know that David Cloud is KJV only and that you wanted to debate him... so I might have gotten you on the wrong side of the debate. If so I apologize again... Sheesh!

We are in agreement on the KJV only debate. I am not against the KJV yet I see that whole debate a bit nonsensical to say the least...

I see weaknesses in almost all translation and strengths in some more than others...

I prefer the NKJV and had studied out of the NIV, but to me it is a matter of preference and that to state one translation is "anointed" is rather ludicrous...

But, that is just what I get out of that KJV only side of the argument.

I see that the usage of more than one version is a much better way to study. (If one does not know the original language).

Anyway i wanted to clarify that.

Be Blessed,
iggy