I appreciate you taking the time to write your statement earlier today, as well as the irenic spirit you assayed in it. I want you to know that I appreciate that you did so, as a Southern Baptist – and that I do appreciate the work you do, despite our disagreement in many matters.

While I am appreciative, I think it may be useful – for you, and for the brethren, to clarify a few matters.

Item 1): The “motive”, to borrow your own phrase, was not to question your conversion. In fact, your conversion, as far as I know, was never referenced or questioned in the vast majority of the *Christian* articles/blogs that negatively referenced your comments on The Pastor’s Perspective, the discrepancies in your testimonials, or your recollections of life as a Muslim. I, for instance, do not question at all that you were raised Muslim, or that you converted to Christianity. What was rendered suspect was whether you were a *devout* Muslim – especially the discrepancy noted with the Shahada.

Item 2): To most of us, the pronunciation issues were a minor head-scratcher, but nothing more. In fact, one of the team bloggers at AOMin.org – TurretinFan – publicly defended you on those allegations on the most public Christian post leveled at that topic. As you may know, Muslims, Roman Catholics, atheists, and others often tout their conversions from “Protestantism,” and often inflate their level of devotion and knowledge – we call it “conversion story syndrome”. Yusuf Estes, Tim Staples, and Dan Barker are good examples of this tendency. While this may not be the case for you – there were many of the hallmarks of similar cases implied by the discrepancies noted – and it caused concern.

Item 3): You state: “Being called a “liar,” however, is a serious charge, especially when it is made by Christians. That would indicate that (1) the accusers can know the motives of the accused person’s heart, and (2) the accused person intentionally misled people.”

With all due respect, by those standards, no man can ever be called a liar, save by God. Also with due respect, by any objective standard, I would hold forth the following statements: “Calvinists are worse than Muslims” and “Formal debates have been taken over a lot by myopic Reformed guys, uh, they try to turn it into these little, uh, show ponies, it’s like the Jerry Springer Show, basically, and there’s really not any real discussion going on, there’s rolling of eyes, its huffing and passive/aggressive garbage.” Dr. Caner, both of these statements may be your opinion – but they are hardly the truth. Since they are not the truth, what else may we call them? Couple that with your statements on hyper-calvinism, and we can take nothing out of that series of comments but that we are being systematically misrepresented.

I do not offer these criticisms lightly, nor do I offer them glibly. I’m honestly commenting with the intent that it may be evident that I offer them to further your understanding of why you are being criticized by those who hold to Reformed doctrines and a Reformed apologetic method. Above all, we seek to be consistent – theologically, and apologetically. If we do not question the facts presented by those on our side as we do those opposing us, we cannot help but be inconsistent, and rightly criticized by our opponents on that basis. While I understand that you appear to fully belief what you state about Calvinists – understand that what you criticize as “hyper-calvinism” is simple, historic Reformed belief. What is recently called “moderate” Calvinism by folks like Dr. Geisler is nothing like the historic Calvinism of ANY of the Reformed branches.

I am “Reformed” – one of the group you criticized – and I’ve had one moderated debate – whether it was “formal” is debatable, as it was online. Nonetheless, Dr. White, and other Reformed debaters are being classified as engaging in nothing but “passive-aggressive garbage”, “no real discussion”, and “the Jerry Springer Show”. I’m sorry, but I’ve watched a great many debates – and debates like Dr. White’s with Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, or Shabir Ally were anything but “no real discussion”, or “huffing”! I don’t think I was engaging in “eye rolling” or “no real discussion” when I engaged a young atheist man on the topic of “The Triune God of Scripture is the grounds for all knowledge” – as is clearly stated in Col 2:3!

Enough criticism, however. So that you can know that there are areas of agreement – I completely agree with your position concerning the CAMEL method. For nearly identical reasons. I support you 100% in your statement of opposition to it, and thank you for your public statement concerning it’s dangers. I appreciate many things about your ministry, and service, despite our theological differences.

In closing – let me again thank you for your statement, and the attempt to mend a breach. It IS appreciated, despite the criticisms offered above, and I don’t want to detract from that. My earnest desire is that this is taken constructively, and that there might be an honest attempt to mend fences with your Reformed brethren in the SBC and without. You aren’t going to change our mind about the glorious doctrines of God’s sovereign grace – but please be aware – we aren’t questioning your salvation, or your conversion by questioning your consistency. We’re as likely to question one of our own on those grounds as we are anyone else. We do not do so to cast aspersions on their character – but to safeguard the reputation of the God we serve and love – as, I believe, do you, however mistaken we believe you to be concerning what you defend at times.

For your edification, I’d encourage you to look at the following: “Open Letter to Ergun Caner.”

The personal attacks range from the truth of their lives before Christ to the academic degrees they hold.

Really? In the original context it’s not clear who he’s referring to. Later on he includes Dr. White.

They drink the kool-aide pouring from the poisoned vine

Yeah, that’s gracious.

You may think that no person who calls themselves a Follower of Christ would side with a Muslim to degrade and berate a Brother in Christ. I did also until I viewed the following video.

Irony? It’s calling.

Please note that any believer that calls into question the truth of the Drs. Caner background and degrees use the research of Muslims (those who have a reason for perverting the truth) for their documentation.

Any believer. Yeah, no problems there.

Then you have those that are jealous and envious of the Drs. Caner. Those envious and jealous will use the lies for a “gotcha” moment in order to accomplish the same ends–silence the truth.

Yeah, that jealousy. Of what?

Keep taking a Muslim’s perspective that Dr. Caner is lying and push this thing as hard as you can. Or, accept that Dr. Caner has written over 20 books on Islam and had them published by reputable publishers who would have certainly done the background checks needed to verify everything that James White says is false. Or, you can accept two reputable Christian Universities that are both accredited by SACS that Dr. Caner has his degrees in order and that James White is pushing falsehood by calling all this into question.

No blatant ad hominem there. Yeah, because Dr. White said all sorts of things about his degrees. Not.

James White doesn’t even hold an accredited PhD. How, can he be a Prof at GCBTS?

Call Golden Gate. Or Grand Canyon.

I then went back to his website to view his credentials and do you know my surprise to find that his PhD is from an non-credited seminary. I went to the seminary website and found this explanation for their lack of accreditation. I am not questioning Columbia Evangelical Seminary’s,I am merely asking how one can be a prof at an accredited seminary when his PhD does not hold an accreditation.

Call Golden Gate. Or Grand Canyon.

It is overtly evident everyone is responding in this thread for one reason. They are upset that James White and Dr. Caner did not debate. Now James White has gotten what he wanted–a public call out to the Brothers Caner to debate him and he will shut up about these Muslim claims.

Yeah, that was what he was after. Okay, not really. But keep repeating it.

I appeal to you, under the title of your blog, and as a follower of Christ. Remove this post as you have placed the lives of people in jeopardy.

Please remove it.

Yeah, that makes sense. A blog post is going to put people’s lives in jeopardy.

The problem with this posting has nothing to do with someone not being truthful, neither does it have to do with disagreements of people and their various positions. The problem with this post has to do with using something that has nothing to do with sound research. This post is based on research that James White has produced and he got his research from right-wing Muslims that believe if they can do away with a Muslim that converted to Christianity they will go to heaven when they die. She has given James White a wider audience then he ever would have had.

He did? She did? I think someone needs to fact check.

Seeing you have no problem placing the lives of people in jeopardy, I now see the reason you were censored by the IMB.

~Tim Rogers

Yeah, that wasn’t a cheap shot.

Hyper-Calvinist James White has whined the very same line for the last 4 years: Ergun Caner is a coward because Ergun Caner won’t debate me. For him, apparently little matters in doctrinal engagement outside public, formal debate, debate concerning which the reader is tortuously reminded about every 28 words–give or take a breathe or two–just how good he (White) is at it.

It’s drudgery to listen to such unmitigated gloating. Sorry.

Gracious as always, Peter.

Though you did not ask me, if I may, one clear reason I think Tim brings this up is White’s relentless, non-stop infatuation with the Caners (esp. Ergun).

For White, it is not enough to disagree with Dr. Caner. Instead, he must attempt to torture his name with perpetual castigation of “lying”, “dishonesty,” “cowardly,” “fraudulent,” etc.

So, in turn, we make the same allegations, except with an extra helping of snark. Sure.

Dr. David Allen demonstrates sufficiently White’s theological leanings toward hyper-Calvinism.

Uh. Here, here, here. From AOMin here.

Particularly, two influential blogging Calvinists appear to have made it a life-mission to smear Ergun Caner’s life and ministry in the mud-hole of deception: Tom Ascol, Southern Baptist pastor and Executive Director of Founders Ministries, and James White, Primitive Baptist preacher and Reformed Baptist apologist from Phoenix, Az.

Life mission? Primitive Baptist? Ridiculous.

At least that’s the sense I get when I read White boast of his many rhetorical victories and the cowards who will not face him in open exchange (more on White later).

Yeah.

This may be one of the lowest, most outrageous incidents yet illustrating the viciousness of some strict Calvinists toward non-Calvinist brothers.

You know – viciousness. By what standard?

For example, let’s say someone wanted to question the authenticity of James White’s so-called “academic” doctoral” degree (And, understand:  it perhaps needs to be questioned if White is going to insist on gloating about all his academic accomplishments). So, if one wanted to question his doctoral degree’s worth, perhaps we could link to this , this , this, and this.

See the top tab – “Common Objections.”

James White may be the whiniest kid on the block

Not as whiny as Peter Lumpkins – that’s for sure.

Interesting Elder White should bring that up. Surf over to White’s church’s eldership and one finds just what “under the authority of the eldership” means to James White. The eldership appears to be a board of two: James White and the pastor.

Note: PRBC used to have three elders, including Dr. White. Donald Cross passed away several years previously.

Since James White insists on calling Ergun Caner coward for not debating him, what does that make White when he refuses to debate somebody? Apparently, after agreeing to debate a Muslim critic, James White backed out. We know this is so because the Muslim says so himself on his website!

You see, according to White’s “code of behavior,” there’s no reason to suspect Muslim attack sites’ objectivity, and therefore “evidence” cannot be disregarded on that basis. At least, that was his reasoning when he “exposed” Dr. Caner as a “fake Muslim” using a source which carries demonstrable hate for Dr. Caner.

Yes, that was the source, and that was the topic. Not.

Heck, you may even be kicked out of the JWFC (i.e. James White Fan Club for the uninitiated).

No, I’m not only the president – I’m also a client.

“No thanks, “Dr” White. You and your community are much too cantankerous for me”

Yes, and you’re the model of humility and grace. Gag me with a Buick, please.

And, perhaps even more indefensible is stooping to defend their godless tearing down of another brother being logged by some here. Where is shame?

Well, the last I saw, it was being trampled over there in your corner of the SBC. I may be mistaken, though. The correct term may be “violently pummeled”. In a hypothetical situation, of course.

Dr. Ergun Caner has been unrighteously butchered by two men in the post.

Yeah, if he was being righteously butchered, they’d get the choicest portion.

Was or was not Ascol & White loving their neighbor as themselves when they cited a Muslim hate-site?

Was or was not Peter Lumpkins loving his neighbor as himself when he went off on an invective-filled screed?

I think it’s very telling that absolutely no one wants to tackle whether or not the sources are valid pertaining to “Dr” White’s “academic” degree.

Probably because it’s not only asinine, but infantile. Hypothetically.

White’s choir boys have already sung that tune to death, were one to ask me

~Peter Lumpkins

They tell me I have a fine voice, but I wasn’t notified that I made the choir! Sweet!

Or if one is obsessed with issues they can’t get beyond for some reason–Maybe because of a problematic pathological nature– Maybe they wanted or “needed” something to give their lives meaning–And maybe they are just angry because another person denied them that which gives them their source of self-worth–Maybe it could be just anything for such a person–Maybe something simple or actually meaningless–Maybe like a debate that did not occur back as far as 2006–Who Knows?–Maybe.

Maybe, just maybe we should wonder why someone can’t let something from 2006 go–Unless, maybe, of course he who cannot let something go from 2006 is either antagonistic or obsessed–or maybe even both. Yeah–maybe so.

Yeah, Dr. White just doesn’t have enough time for ministry, with all this Caner stalking. I mean, he hasn’t done any debates, books, or anything! Hint: do a search on the blog, and see how many times Dr. Caner has been mentioned on aomin since the debate debacle wound down. It might be illuminating.

And then there is the fellow who has made a name and gathered a following for himself by chasing Caner around since 2006 because he did not debate him.

Yes, because Caner made him famous AND wealthy! That’s why he has the presidency of a seminary, and drives an Expedition. Oh, wait…

I think this post is one that could bring more hardship on those guys families. I would not go so far as to say this post depicts depraved indifference, but I would say there it depicts a great degree of thoughtless. Yeah, that’s it, not heartlessness, but most certainly thoughtlessness.

Uh, yeah. Red Herring, anyone? I hear it’s delightful.

Some people talk about the primacy of the gospel and some people share the gospel with a lost and dying world. I will cast my lot with those who do.

Because, you know, Dr. White never talks about the Gospel. Ever. Do a quick blog search – you know – actually *try* to look into what you accuse of, sight-unseen.

Ergun Caner may never be able to give a meaningful, effective gospel witness to this young man due to the strong differences between them at this time. But, I assure you, if this young man were on his death bed looking into the flames of hell, he would not ask Debbie to share the gospel with him, not after this. That opportunity is gone and it is now probably gone for any of us.

So let me ask all those warriors who have launched their Christian version of jihad in defense of their Evangelical Superstar: do you have any idea how many obstacles you have placed in the way of this young Muslim ever hearing the gospel in honesty? Did that thought ever once cross your mind before you in your abject ignorance blithely accused him of falsehood? Where is all your vaunted concern for evangelism now, I wonder? ~James White

This situation has gotten to the place that Debbie had such tunnel vision as to call in a twenty-two year old Muslim young man to make her case before the world about something that is really old news and was fueled by one Christian’s beef with another about the canceling of a silly debate that really amounts to less than a hill of beans anyway.

Next, I would like to refute the oft-repeated falsehood floating about amongst the “touch not the Lord’s anointed” crowd today: I had hardly given Ergun Caner a thought over the past few years. I have no interest in this fight right now. I have work to do, chapters and books to write, debates to prepare for. Outside of noting an odd statement by Caner on Twitter last summer sometime, I have had little interest in his activities. Rogers and Lumpkins have both falsely attributed to me intentions and desires I do not have. They seem to think I absolutely MUST debate Ergun Caner. I would surely like to do so—but only for the benefit of those who have been misled by Caner in the area of the freedom of God in salvation. But I already know of so many who have seen through his bluster on the topic and come to embrace God’s kingly freedom in the gospel that if such an encounter never happened, I would continue to rejoice in the Lord’s kind providence. Ironically, right as this current situation began to evolve, I was contacted by folks in Lynchburg asking me to come there in the fall sometime to speak on the atonement and, as a part of the trip, invite Ergun Caner to debate. I would still love to see that happen, as would many, many others (the cancellation of that debate, which was documented to be the result of the dishonest behavior of the Caner brothers, disappointed many), but even here, I have been contacted by others and asked to participate. I was not the one even looking for such an opportunity. ~James White

Let me ask you a question. Do you not think it somewhat obsessive for a pastor to chase after a guy since 2006 about a debate that did not happen? There comes a point wherein, if you are going to remain emotionally healthy, you have to get over any specific disappointment and go on with your life.

Disappointment is part of life and so is getting over it. To become fixated on such for this period of time is not healthy.

What, then, has brought about this current interest? Simple: Ergun Caner claims to do what I do in reality. He claims to be a leading figure in Islamic apologetics. He claims to have debated “leaders” in a wide spectrum of religious beliefs in more than a dozen countries and more than half of the United States. But the fact is, I haven’t been able to find a single Muslim apologist or leader who has ever debated the man. He has redefined the term “debate” so that he can include every conversation he has ever had with anyone who is not a Christian. Why redefine the language? Because he needs to bring students to his school, evidently, and so his self-promotional language has caught him in a number of falsehoods. But my involvement here, as repulsive as I find it to be (I detest politics and would much rather be working on my next article on the Qur’an’s view of “three” and the Trinity) is forced upon me by the fact that simple integrity demands it. Unlike Ergun Caner, I actually have interaction with Shabir Ally and the wide range of Islamic apologists active in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and elsewhere. I have to look them in the eye when I shake hands with them after a debate. And I therefore have to answer to a higher standard of truth than the “Circle the Wagons” mentality of Pastor Tim Rogers and Peter Lumpkins. I have to be consistent. I have sharply, and rightly, criticized “former Christians” who have become Muslims for their obvious ignorance of the Christian faith (Yusuf Estes, for example). So if a self-proclaimed former Muslim makes false claims about his activities (claiming to debate people he has never met, for example), am I to keep my mouth shut out of “team loyalty”? How can I do this? It is hypocrisy, plain and simple. ~James White
~CB Scott

a third source that actually has a strange derangement with trying to trap a brother in Christ into a debate. The loss of such an event is obviously wearing thin on this brother and the applied pressure grows weekly. Of the most sad and unthinkable in this process is the fact that a brother in Christ would use Muslim attack sites to go after another brother. No excuse on this earth or in heaven can justify this – NEVER.

This is beyond reasonable thought. A guy who claims to be a Christian goes and uses material produced by Muslims to attack another Christian?????? For Mr. White to do that is beyond comprehension. Not to mention the fact that the Muslims have sent (and this verified)death threats to his entire family detailing the acts they will commit.

Why not ask Mr. White how many Muslims he has led to Lord? Why not ask him why as a Christian he would use material of Muslims to attack his brother in Christ? All of this over a debate and a desire to get a debate?

This is horrible and proves the point that blogging has become the real Jerry Springer show in America.

I am shocked that no one is questioning a Christian using Muslim media and propaganda against another Christian???

And all to have a silly debate.

have you thought about his family? They are threatened routinely by the garbage you are getting off of White’s web site.

Christiams should act better than this. Stop feeding the true evil people this fuel to their fire. Have more class than Mr White has!

Checking out Mr White is reading propaganda. Please hear what CB is saying. This no SBC stuff. This is real life and death stuff and one man who cares more his PR than he does a fellow Chriatian and his family.

You are giving credibility to a Muslim… Will you question anything because some nut puts something up on the internet? I would hope you would not because I think you are smarter than that.

I have been in brief correspondence with the young Muslim here in London who posted the clips from Ergun Caner. He contacted me when he saw me asking, back in October/November, for help in finding any of these dozens of debates (61 with Muslims alone according to one 2006 newspaper interview). Up to that time I had not even considered the possibility that there was a wider problem with Ergun Caner’s claims. This young Muslim has been the object of unmitigated hatred by many self-proclaimed “Christians” of late, and for what? He didn’t make up Ergun Caner’s self-contradictory claims. He did not force Ergun to tell one group of people he was born in Istanbul, a “sand monkey” (a grossly offensive term unworthy of anyone standing in a pulpit) and another group he was born in Sweden. He did not force Ergun to confuse Shabir Ally with Ahmed Deedat nor did he make Ergun confuse the shahada with the opening words of Surah Al Fatiha. Nor did he make Ergun claim the Muslims believe in a prophet they’ve never heard of, and then have the tapes edited to remove the mistake. To blame this young man for Ergun Caner’s errors is absolutely, positively reprehensible for anyone who names the name of Jesus Christ, who identified Himself as the very embodiment of truth itself. ~James White

Also, I note that Peter Lumpkins deleted the Muslim’s respectful comment off his comment section.

While you are researching I have a thought – check out the validity of Mr. Whites PhD. You will not believe the campus of the school he graduated from.

Why don’t you check out Mr. White? There are major issues there! That is extremely relevant!

White has gone after Ergun with a passion I wish people would possess in leading people to Jesus. The debate issue is really absurd. Do you know how many different ways “debate” is used?

See the above tab – “Common Objections”.

Ask Mr. White how many he has led to the Lord from his debates?

~Tim Guthrie
A “for instance” post about the reason for debate.

Saddest about this episode you “expose” here is not White — I have long expected this uncharitable, unChristian nonsense from he and his kind… I suppose the bottom line remains that, if a “theological movement” or a “historical/religious system” has to resort to such unreliable sources, dishonest means and unbiblical tactics to achieve their goals and “win” their debates, just how “Christian” can they be?

~J. Dale Weaver

Notice the subjectivism and ad hominem.

With both you and Tim, it appears that the hyper-calvinists among us practice the fine art of shooting the messengers. How dare you offer critical analysis of such boorish behavior of their Sainted Dortian Warriors.

This is nothing more than an attempt to make the argument about the person rather than substance. This also seems to me that “Dr.” White is equally, if not more guilty of the same tactics.

~Ron Phillips Sr.

No irony here at all.

Look, folks. Look at the issues *actually brought up* by Dr. White. Read his post, here.

This sort of behavior and jumping to conclusions is absolutely amazing. Reprehensible, really. Boorish, to be kind.

I’m going to include the transcript of a discussion I had (along with several others) with a Middle Knowledge proponent that frequents AOMin’s chat channel. The reason I do so is in order to give an example of how the argument I advanced recently functions in an actual discussion.

The discussion was fairly wide-ranging, but I think demonstrates the ability of a consistent return to the nature of God as the foundation of a reply to the assertions advanced by proponents of MK and other similar philosophical systems, over against the Biblical conception of God’s nature and the modal collapse I feel this outlook necessitates.

Discussion linked below.
Read the rest of this entry

Week 10, here is a video playlist:

Week 11, you can find the audio here.
Week 12, we used Dr. White’s first debate with Dan Barker, which is under copyright. You may purchase it here. Preview below:

Week 13 can be found here.
Week 14 can be found here.

If the Lord intended that he should, and [he] by his death did, procure pardon of sin and reconciliation with God for all and every one, to be actually enjoyed upon condition that they do believe, then ought this good-will and intention of God, with this purchase in their behalf by Jesus Christ, to be made known to them by the word, that they might believe; “for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” Rom. x. 17: for if these things be not made known and revealed to all and every one that is concerned in them, namely, to whom the Lord intends, and for whom he hath procured so great a good, then one of these things will follow; — either, first, That they may be saved without faith in, and the knowledge of, Christ (which they cannot have unless he be revealed to them), which is false, and proved so; or else, secondly, That this good-will of God, and this purchase made by Jesus Christ, is plainly in vain, and frustrate in respect of them, yea, a plain mocking of them, that will neither do them any good to help them out of misery, nor serve the justice of God to leave them inexcusable, for what blame can redound to them for not embracing and well using a benefit which they never heard of in their lives? Doth it become the wisdom of God to send Christ to die for men that they might be saved, and never cause these men to hear of any such thing; and yet to purpose and declare that unless they do hear of it and believe it, they shall never be saved? What wise man would pay a ransom for the delivery of those captives which he is sure shall never come to the knowledge of any such payment made, and so never be the better for it? Is it answerable to the goodness of God, to deal thus with his poor creatures? to hold out towards them all in pretence the most intense love imaginable, beyond all compare and illustration, — as his love in sending his Son is set forth to be, — and yet never let them know of any such thing, but in the end to damn them for not believing it? Is it answerable to the love and kindness of Christ to us, to assign unto him at his death 239such a resolution as this:— “I will now, by the oblation of myself, obtain for all and every one peace and reconciliation with God, redemption and everlasting salvation, eternal glory in the high heavens, even for all those poor, miserable, wretched worms, condemned caitiffs, that every hour ought to expect the sentence of condemnation; and all these shall truly and really be communicated to them if they will believe. But yet, withal, I will so order things that innumerable souls shall never hear one word of all this that I have done for them, never be persuaded to believe, nor have the object of faith that is to be believed proposed to them, whereby they might indeed possibly partake of these things?” Was this the mind and will, this the design and purpose, of our merciful high priest? God forbid. It is all one as if a prince should say and proclaim, that whereas there be a number of captives held in sore bondage in such a place, and he hath a full treasure, he is resolved to redeem them every one, so that every one of them shall come out of prison that will thank him for his good-will, and in the meantime never take care to let these poor captives know his mind and pleasure; and yet be fully assured that unless he effect it himself it will never be done. Would not this be conceived a vain and ostentatious flourish, without any good intent indeed towards the poor captives? Or as if a physician should say that he hath a medicine that will cure all diseases, and he intends to cure the diseases of all, but lets but very few know his mind, or any thing of his medicine; and yet is assured that without his relation and particular information it will be known to very few. And shall he be supposed to desire, intend, or aim at the recovery of all?

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ – Book III, Chapter 1 – John Owen

It is sad to find so many professing Christians who appear to regard the wrath of God as something for which they need to make an apology, or at least they wish there were no such thing. While some would not go so far as to openly admit that they consider it a blemish on the Divine character, yet they are far from regarding it with delight, they like not to think about it, and they rarely hear it mentioned without a secret resentment rising up in their hearts against it. Even with those who are more sober in their judgment, not a few seem to imagine that there is a severity about the Divine wrath which is too terrifying to form a theme for profitable contemplation. Others harbor the delusion that God’s wrath is not consistent with His goodness, and so seek to banish it from their thoughts.

Yes, many there are who turn away from a vision of God’s wrath as though they were called to look upon some blotch in the Divine character, or some blot upon the Divine government. But what saith the Scriptures? As we turn to them we find that God has made no attempt to conceal the fact of His wrath. He is not ashamed to make it known that vengeance and fury belong unto Him. His own challenge is, “See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god with Me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand. For I lift up My hand to heaven, and say, I live forever, If I whet My glittering sword, and Mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to Mine enemies, and will reward them that hate Me” (Deut. 32:39-41). A study of the concordance will show that there are more references in Scripture to the anger, fury, and wrath of God, than there are to His love and tenderness. Because God is holy, He hates all sin; And because He hates all sin, His anger burns against the sinner: Psalm 7:11.

Now the wrath of God is as much a Divine perfection as is His faithfulness, power, or mercy. It must be so, for there is no blemish whatever, not the slightest defect in the character of God; yet there would be if “wrath” were absent from Him! Indifference to sin is a moral blemish, and he who hates it not is a moral leper. How could He who is the Sum of all excellency look with equal satisfaction upon virtue and vice, wisdom and folly? How could He who is infinitely holy disregard sin and refuse to manifest His “severity” (Rom. 9:12) toward it? How could He who delights only in that which is pure and lovely, loathe and hate not that which is impure and vile? The very nature of God makes Hell as real a necessity, as imperatively and eternally requisite as Heaven is. Not only is there no imperfection in God, but there is no perfection in Him that is less perfect than another.

The wrath of God is His eternal detestation of all unrighteousness. It is the displeasure and indignation of Divine equity against evil. It is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin. It is the moving cause of that just sentence which He passes upon evil-doers. God is angry against sin because it is a rebelling against His authority, a wrong done to His inviolable sovereignty. Insurrectionists against God’s government shall be made to know that God is the Lord. They shall be made to feel how great that Majesty is which they despise, and how dreadful is that threatened wrath which they so little regarded. Not that God’s anger is a malignant and malicious retaliation, inflicting injury for the sake of it, or in return for injury received. No; while God will vindicate His dominion as the Governor of the universe, He will not be vindictive.

That Divine wrath is one of the perfections of God is not only evident from the considerations presented above, but is also clearly established by the express declarations of His own Word. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven” (Rom. 1:18).

Again; that the wrath of God is a Divine perfection is plainly demonstrated by what we read of in Psalm 95:11, “Unto whom I sware in My wrath.” There are two occasions of God “swearing”: in making promises (Gen. 22:16), and in denouncing threatening (Deut. 1:34). In the former, He swares in mercy to His children; in the latter, He swares to terrify the wicked. An oath is for solemn confirmation: Hebrews 6:16. In Genesis 22:16 God said, “By Myself have I sworn.” In Psalm 89:35 He declares, “Once have I sworn by My holiness.” While in Psalm 95:11 He affirmed, “I swear in My wrath.” Thus the great Jehovah Himself appeals to His “wrath” as a perfection equal to His “holiness”: He swares by the one as much as by the other! Again; as in Christ “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), and as all the Divine perfections are illustriously displayed by Him (John 1:18), therefore do we read of “the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev. 6:16).

The wrath of God is a perfection of the Divine character upon which we need to frequently meditate. First, that our hearts may be duly impressed by God’s detestation of sin. We are ever prone to regard sin lightly, to gloss over its hideousness, to make excuses for it. But the more we study and ponder God’s abhorrence of sin and His frightful vengeance upon it, the more likely are we to realize its heinousness. Second, to beget a true fear in our souls for God: “Let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:28,29). We cannot serve Him “acceptably” unless there is due “reverence” for His awful Majesty and “godly fear” of His righteous anger, and these are best promoted by frequently calling to mind that “our God is a consuming fire.” Third, to draw out our souls in fervent praise for having delivered us from “the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10).

~ A.W. Pink – The Attributes of God – 16 – The Wrath of God.

My comment: “God is not “driven by” wrath – wrath is an attribute of God’s nature.”

CMP: No, wrath is a response of another attribute, namely righteousness. But that is not really the point of this post.

Jugulum: I actually agree w/him on “wrath”. Wrath isn’t an attr. because God’s wouldn’t be wrathful if he hadn’t created. God was/is/will-be eternally holy/righteous, which includes the trait, “I will be wrathful toward sin”. You might call that a “attr. of wrath”, but I think that was the distinction CMP was making. Similarly, God wasn’t eternally merciful, apart from a sinful creation. Mercy & wrath are expressions of his eternal attributes.

Recall this post: Divine Simplicity and Malformed Arguments.

This is another good example of why we must keep ALL of God’s attributes in mind, when formulating our theology – even on the internet. What does this point of view entail? First, that God changed. That He is not immutable. In this view, God began to be wrathful (or merciful). In this view, God’s wrath is not eternal, toward sin, nor is His mercy towards sinners eternal. Did God enter the temporal realm at a certain point in time, and thereby become successive, changeable, and non-eternal? If not, this view does not, and cannot, hold water. Similarly to when we say, as Athanasius said contra the Arians, that “there was never a time when the Son was not” – we must say that there was a never a time God’s wrath was not. God is not temporal, folks. God is not changeable, and God “is not a man, that He should change His mind”.

Hear me – I understand the distinction being made by CMP and Jugulum. However – the consequences of this view are utterly unacceptable. What God does, He eternally purposed to do. God’s righteousness is eternal, yes – but His wrath, since He is Eternal, is necessarily eternal wrath. Jer 10:10 – “But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His indignation.” Or take this – Deu 32:40-41 – “Indeed, I lift up My hand to heaven, And say, as I live forever, If I sharpen My flashing sword, And My hand takes hold on justice, I will render vengeance on My adversaries, And I will repay those who hate Me.”

As Charnock says, and as I used in my class for our 1st-6th graders recently – “Though God be least in their thoughts, and is made light of in the world, yet the thoughts of God’s eternity, when he comes to judge the world, shall make the slighters of him tremble. That the Judge and punisher lives forever, is the greatest grievance to a soul in misery, and adds an inconceivable weight to it, above what the infiniteness of God’s executive power could do without that duration. His eternity makes the punishment more dreadful than his power; his power makes it sharp, but his eternity renders it perpetual; ever to endure, is the sting at the end of every lash. And how sad is it to think that God lays his eternity as a security for the punishment of obstinate sinners… a reward proportioned to the greatness of their offences, and the glory of an eternal God!”

As to mercy, think on this – “And {He did so} to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,” – Rom 9:23. We’re all Calvinists here, right? Are not God’s decrees eternal? This is an eternal decree of mercy, folks. Not to mention Rom 9:22 – “What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?” Now, I’m aware of CMP’s comments in this vein – but I’m not convinced there is anything different in the “timing” of the preparation, there. God’s decrees are eternal. You do notice, I hope, that it undermines Jugulum’s idea that mercy is also a reaction to man’s actions. As Calvinists, we must be careful not to think that God’s eternal decrees are subject to the actions of men – or consequent to them. If God is Sovereign, He is utterly Sovereign.

I’m not really concerned with commenting on CMP’s main article – TurretinFan already did so, much more ably than I could have. I was concerned with the explanation offered by CMP, and then Jugulum for the wrath of God; and Jugulum’s further extrapolation to mercy. If God is eternal, than His attributes are necessarily eternal. To say otherwise brings about serious exegetical and apologetic issues.

“Do you imagine that the Gospel is magnified or God glorified by going to worldlings and telling them that they “may be saved at this moment by simply accepting Christ as their personal Savior” while they are wedded to their idols and their hearts are still in love with sin? If I do so, I tell them a lie, pervert the Gospel, insult Christ, and turn the grace of God into lasciviousness.” —A. W. Pink (1886–1952)

“The carnal mind, when once it has perceived the power of God in the creation, stops there, and, at the farthest, thinks and ponders on nothing else than the wisdom, power, and goodness displayed by the Author of such a work (matters which rise spontaneously, and force themselves on the notice even of the unwilling), or on some general agency on which the power of motion depends, exercised in preserving and governing it. In short, it imagines that all things are sufficiently sustained by the energy divinely infused into them at first. But faith must penetrate deeper. After learning that there is a Creator, it must forthwith infer that he is also a Governor and Preserver, and that, not by producing a kind of general motion in the machine of the globe as well as in each of its parts, but by a special providence sustaining, cherishing, superintending, all the things which he has made, to the very minutest, even to a sparrow.” (Institutes, I,16,1)

I found this very interesting, when I read it last night. I had a suspicion Calvin would have something to say along the lines I’m going. The argument I advanced here hits on something re: The Problem of Evil and similar arguments that have been advanced many times. 1) They don’t address the entirety of who God is. 2) They don’t account for the interrelationship of God’s attributes. 3) They don’t address the interrelated exercise of God’s attributes in His creation.

Just something to think about.

If God is morally perfect then He must perform the morally best actions, but creating humans is not the morally best action. If this line of reasoning can be maintained then the mere fact that humans exist contradicts the claim that God exists.

HT: urbanphilosophy.net

Look at the assumption required for the second half of this sentence. “creating humans is not the morally best action”. Says who? By what standard? As usual, I think we can guess what that is.

Walker suggests that God is morally culpable for creating human beings with defective natures (defective in comparison to God’s).

Is He, now? Culpable to who? Oh, wait. That’s the assumption! The same assumption all of these dumb arguments make. God is answerable to man. That’s funny, here I thought Scripture answered that sort of ridiculousness.

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” So then it {does} not {depend} on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And {He did so} to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, {even} us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. ~Rom 9:14-24

See, man always believes that he can pass judgment on God. That he is morally autonomous. Scripture says differently. This text rightly denies man’s ability to judge God. It then goes into an explanation of God’s intention in the creation of man. God is not unjust. A Holy God can rightly judge the man with a fallen nature – and the fallen man cannot judge the Holy God. This argument fails on point #7, for those interested in the formal argument also included in the post linked to above. I’m not concerned with the rest of the points, although I would likely dispute them if 7 didn’t fail so spectacularly. The reason 7 fails is because it introduces that pesky “should”. Who says He “should”? Man does. Man is not capable of imposing a “should” upon God, as man is not morally autonomous. Scripture relates to us why that “should” is incorrect, and the argument fails to even give any reason whatsoever why the “should” is applicable to God. It is an assumption of human autonomy.

I truly wish atheists who make these sorts of arguments would pay more attention to what they are arguing against. I’m sure this will be touted, with much hoopla, in that community – but it is not anything novel, damaging, or even explanatory. To break it down, a pot says “I don’t like the way you made things. If you didn’t make things the way I wanted, I deny that you exist – because I’ll only believe in a Potter that makes things the way I want them to be.” Not overly satisfying, or convincing. It would also help if they didn’t use an argument directly countered in Scripture. That would, of course, assume that they had read it. It doesn’t look like this atheologian bothered, sadly.