James White critiques Ronnie Rogers' book, “Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist” by Peter Lumpkins

  

UPDATE: As expected, James White responded to this piece on his follow-up "Radio Free Geneva" podcast. Well, let me be clear: it really wasn't a response to this piece so much as an acknowledgment of it.  During the first few minutes, he talks about "almost forgetting" about old "Petey" (And, we want to assure James White we've not forgotten about him, either!) Then, he and Rich Pierce ridiculed the video I put up because of the number of views, etc. comparing my traffic to his. What a hoot! Like giddy, junior high boys giggling, poking fun, and wrestling around over the floor, White & Pierce give us a little show as if the video itself did not bother them. However, what they fail to note is, within minutes of my video being posted on youtube, Rich Pierce, Vice President of Alpha & Omega Ministries, logged on and demanded (or shall we say, "politely asked") I take the video down since it breached copyright law!⁹ Well, views or not, James White appears really sensitive when his views are openly criticized.

Check out my notice from youtube¹⁰

In addition, White states the collection I put together was ripped from each snippet's respective context suggesting the words on my video skewed his meaning. As I said in the post below, I gave the link to the entire podcast so anyone may check to see if I did skew the context. One tires of this cheap response (which is really no response unless one can show how the context is skewed). 

Consider one change when listening to White's second mention of Rogers' "anti-Calvinism book" on his "Radio Free Geneva": White's tone, attitude, and commentary on the second podcast reveal an undeniably marked difference compared to his first one. Observe his unemotional, straight-forward presentation when he mentions Rogers' book. He neither ridicules nor scorns as he did in the first podcast. And, yes, I do believe he changed his approach due, at least in part, to the criticism below contra persistent claims otherwise.

===================================================================  

Below is my response to James White's hour-long "Radio Free Geneva" review of Ronnie Rogers' newest book, Reflections Of A Disenchanted Calvinist: The Disquieting Realities of Calvinism.  It's long. It's necessarily long. For that, I apologize in advance. By the way, note also SBC Today is presently running a series of posts on Rogers' book beginning with an author interview.  In addition, the current post is the second of four installemnts which will eventually constitute the entire 16th chapter (part I).

Now, on to James White's book "review"  >>>

We are no stranger to James White—at least so far as internet exchanges are concerned. White is a well-known Reformed apologist known for his numerous formal debates with Mormons, Muslims, and miscellaneous combatants sporting a worldview inconsistent with White's brand of Reformed theology. White has taken some personal swipes at me, in fact, pronouncing me a "radical synergistic bigot" among other personal not-so-niceties (I mean, who could forget his creative analogy between me and Alexander the Coppersmith?).

Admittedly, I've ruffled his feathers a time or two parodying his extreme Calvinism not to mention his apparent misogynistic views and less than fuzzy information surrounding his educational credentials and questionable adjunct professorship at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (see also here and here)¹. Granted. Granted one and all.

But I've hardly gone personally "below the belt" so to speak by making him out to be the psychological-immoral basket case of the evangelical world like White so often does others. In fact, I've gone the second mile even during rigorous discussion to commend James White when I could. The fact is, White even challenged me to "debate" him. My response then was (and would be now), "And about what should we debate? Whether or not I am a deceitful liar as you continually suppose?"

Unfortunately, White becomes so emotionally unraveled with critics like myself whom he cannot control by his bullying tactics (I have a keyboard just like he does and require little, if any, ata boys from the internet community to live a full and meaningful life), he appears to lose all semblance of fair play in exchange. Truth be told, one debating professional appeared confused over White's unprofessional interaction with me but nonetheless confident that given White's intellectual depth, he'd finally come around and see the unreasonableness of his flaming, emotionally-driven caricatures and make it right (for the record, he did not). 

Even so, responding to James White remains a mammoth task.

Yet, we proceed and happily do our duty...

In his recent "Radio Free Geneva" podcast, White starts off with "Pastor Rogers' new book, Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist as [his] subject in an hour long edition" (//link, hereafter, Reflections). One would think an hour would be sufficient to discuss some of the strengths of a book the size of Rogers' as well as point out as rigorously as necessary the inherent weaknesses including whether or not it would be a good purchase. Instead what one finds on the broadcast is an hour long harangue jaded throughout with unnecessary insults toward Rogers and perhaps anyone for that matter who dares breach Dort's pronouncements on orthodox Calvinism, the only expression of authentic biblical Christianity available (at least that seems to be the case given White's understanding as you will soon note).

Below is a collection of critical snippets taken from the entire hour-long podcast.² While White's books generally come across, to me at least, as fairly sober and substantive, his "radio" presence remains severely lacking. He rarely finishes a thought before riding off into the sunset chasing one thought after another "philosophizing" and "theologizing" in what appears to be an endless string of propositions (sometimes related and sometimes not). Indeed it took White the whole hour to comment on pages 1-2 in Rogers' book.³ In addition, White possesses the annoying habit of mumbling whole sentences under his breath before gradually fading out into silence. This leaves the impression that he's not focused but wondering what he will next have to say. It also gives the impression that he was totally unprepared to speak confidently about his subject, zigzagging here and there with what appeared to be spontaneous chatter.

Listen to the collection below (about 7 minutes long). Then, I'll offer a several closing remarks.

First, to suggest as White does that Rogers' book is nothing more than "sermon notes" which are "completely unedited" remains absurd on its face. I've preached for the last 30 years, and I know what sermon notes look like. In addition, I've edited sermon notes for several years now and consequently have an inside scoop on what other preachers' sermon notes look like—very similar to my own. But unedited sermon notes Reflections is not.

Hence, for White to twice reduce Rogers' book to untouched sermons notes cannot be taken as anything less than literarily ridiculous. If White was trying to be funny or "cute" it didn't come across that way. It came across as ridicule and scorn rather than an honest literary criticism about which we are sure James White is fully capable. Admittedly, there are numerous curious redundancies which White rightly questions.⁴ However, Rogers' explicit explanation of those redundancies (xiv)—however sufficient or insufficient his explanation may be for critics—easily accounts for the repetitiveness per se.

Let's compare White's ridicule toward Rogers' book above with Rogers' own attitude toward those with whom he contends in Reflections:

I have absolutely no desire to play with straw men or misrepresent my godly mentors and comrades. If in fact I have failed in my attempt to be accurate at some point, understanding my audience, I ask forgiveness, and I am more than happy to correct my unintentional error.

Therefore, [as disenchanted Calvinists] I refer to those who are thankful for the influence of all who seek to be Biblicists, be they Calvinist, Arminian, Molinist, or other non-Calvinists...

I do not pretend to even entertain the thought that the following comments will solve the age-old debate...but rather I only intend to clarify succinctly what I believe concerning areas where I disagree with Calvinism's interpretations... Hence, I love and respect my Calvinist friends...

For me personally, let me say that it may well be true that I lack the "theological acumen or the necessary acuminous intellect" to rise to the level of my Calvinist brothers and sisters. Moreover, it seems to me that this reality unfortunately is born out to me repeatedly in the daily intercourse of life by such things as not being able to find my own food dish at times; also, those who walk with me along the corridors of Trinity Baptist Church know that I still have difficulty knowing which is the south and which is the north end of the building... However, I would strongly demur to the same characterization of others who agree with me, for that same deficiency cannot be demonstrated to be true about countless others who do not accept Calvinism's answers to the puzzles of Scripture.

Further, none of my statements concerning my soteriological position, or problems with the TULIP, are to be understood or characterized as against Calvinists, but rather against the system of Calvinism. I have great regard, appreciation, and esteem for most Calvinists' love for God and His Word. Further, I owe no small measure of my spiritual growth and knowledge of Scripture to Calvinists.⁵

Contrary to the theological know-it-alls so ubiquitous among us today, Rogers displays the kind of spirit which can take us far down the road to success in our own dialog concerning Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. The truth is, Rogers is a humble breath of fresh air and precisely the direct opposite of James White's theological narcissism visibly displayed in reviewing Rogers' book. And, for the record, if the words quoted above constitute Rogers' unedited sermon notes, then pray to God we have more preachers like Ronnie Rogers!

Second, twice James White categorically asserted that Ronnie Rogers not only was not a disenchanted Calvinist, but has never been a Calvinist. Even though Rogers flatly states "I was categorically classified as a four-point Calvinist without clarifications for twenty years" (xvii, italics added), White nonetheless denies Rogers' testimony and asserts the contrary, and, by doing so, calls into question not only Rogers' integrity, but also the underlying thesis of Rogers' book. White's reasoning? Because Rogers was not the kind of Calvinist White is—the only kind of Calvinist is a White-kind-of-Calvinist. No matter that church history is on Rogers' side. No. Apparently only White possesses the official definition of Calvinism. Therefore, if others do not meet the standard he proposes, they can call themselves anything they desire, but they are not Calvinists. And that's that!

Even so, for White to beg the question by presuming his exclusive definition of Calvinism in order to drain the pond all around Rogers only reveals how Calvinists like White "win" many of the debates. They insist on defining all the terms! Well, the biggest dupe in town can win any debate with anybody if others are naïve enough to concede all definitions to the dupe.

What is more, not only did White prohibit Rogers from self-identifying as a former Calvinist, he insisted on labeling Rogers a Molinist! Maybe I missed it in Rogers' book, but I don't think he ever got around to saying he converted to Molinism. If I recall correctly, he quoted but a single Molinst a single time, yet White droned on and on about Rogers' alleged "molinism" in the review.⁶ The irony is stark. On the one hand, White refuses the theological moniker Rogers chooses (i.e. Calvinism) but on the other, chooses a theological moniker Rogers apparently refuses (i.e. Molinist).

Consider, however: since James White apparently thinks it's acceptable to critically label his theological opponents according to his exclusive definitions, we wonder if White will whine the next time someone concludes that his extreme views constitute Hyper-Calvinism? After all, the ones about whom I am aware have deeply thought-out, theologically-nuanced definitions for Hyper-Calvinism, and, given their sophisticated criteria in formulating their definition, they definitively identify James White's theological position as Hyper-Calvinism. Hence, if White wants to be so belligerent in theologically labeling others contra their wishes, he possesses little moral ground to complain when others observe the same principle in classifying his theology and dub it accordingly--Hyper-Calvinism. 

Third, White asserts that not only is Reflections "two-thirds" philosophy, but also complains Rogers neither focuses on biblical-exegetical issues—a promise he allegedly made early in the book—nor offers a positive message about what he actually believed. White goes on at length to suggest not just Rogers, but all non-Calvinists ("Arminians") he reads focuses on tearing down Calvinism rather than stating positively what they actually believe.

In response, to assert that the first "two-thirds" of Reflections is basically philosophy constitutes another caricatured description White employed. No, it is not philosophy per se, for crying out loud, and White knows this. While Rogers admittedly asks philosophically- oriented questions within the context of the biblical doctrines in chapters 1-16 (e.g. How can free human agency co-exist with divine sovereignty?), Rogers is no more philosophical than White as White either repeated questions about "middle knowledge" or suggested when "my free will comes in contact with God's free will, I lose" or White's absolutist definition of what necessarily constitutes "complete, total, REAL, active sovereignty," a definition of which is not easily located in Scripture by pointing to a specific verse. Even so, White rails on about Rogers being "philosophical" while White himself is apparently just being "biblical".

Nor did Rogers early on point to his work as being exegetically focused—at least he did not in any place I can find. Instead Rogers informs his readers he would write at times from a "technical theological perspective" in order to show, if possible the "serious consequences" as he sees them, "of Calvinism" (xiii). Hence, Rogers found it necessary to define the way he used terms like "major Calvinist," "moderate Calvinist," and "minor Calvinist" (xiv) not to mention "disenchanted Calvinist" (xv). Indeed one may easily gather from Rogers' Introduction that, unlike C. Gordon Olson's helpful volume, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: An Inductive, Mediate Theology of Salvation, a dig rich in golden exegetical nuggets of soteriological significance, Reflections would focus on what constituted the disquieting realities of Calvinism which forced Rogers to abandon Calvinism's rigid theological grid for a more thorough-going simple Biblicism.^.7

Nor did Rogers fail to offer extensive positive affirmation concerning what he actually believes contrary to White's extended complaint. From chapter one through chapter 16, Rogers begins each chapter with a thorough detailed affirmation concerning what he believed the Bible teaches on certain soteriological doctrines--doctrines including God's sovereignty (p.1), predestination and foreknowledge (p.7), double predestination (p.12), origin of sin (p.16), total depravity (p.21), and atonement (p.25) among many other biblical doctrines and/or key salvific concepts—and continues in this pattern for 16 of the 20 total chapters in Reflections. In addition, not only does Rogers state clearly what he affirms about the biblical doctrines he examines, he follows the "I affirm" sections with a correlating "I disaffirm" section for all 16 chapters.

Hence, for White to imply Rogers does not clearly and positively state what he believes the Bible to teach on redemptive truth but rather just runs Calvinism down is so fundamentally skewed, one knows not how to receive White's criticism. Did White not take the time to actually read any passages in the book or did he just rely on his memory as he peddled along on his bicycle while perspiring into his headphones? Is severely--not to mention frivolously--botching a book review⁸ like White does with Reflections supposed to represent, in comparison to the supposed low-level "Arminian" publications, the high "level" and exceptional "quality" of the "Reformed" literary arsenal about which White so narcissistically boasts?

While White may think he can ride bikes and comprehensively digest the literary accomplishments others make without ever cracking a book or even fact-checking to make sure he understood correctly, we nonetheless are convinced his "review" of Rogers' book may remain the quintessential model of sloppiness, inaccuracy, misunderstanding, and unreasonable judgmentalism many already view as the norm for conservative Christian scholarship. In short, White did the Reformed community no favors with this bottom-rung review.

Finally, James White categorically states that Calvinists who reject Limited Atonement—that is, Calvinists who are 4 Point Calvinists—are nothing more or less than 1 Point Calvinists. He insists every Calvinist he's talked to, when pressed, will end up affirming only the P on the classic TULIP. If I hadn't heard it myself, it would be hard to imagine someone with White's credentials could affirm such utter theological absurdity. Indeed White's view of Calvinism is precisely the view of Calvinism against which I've been arguing in the Southern Baptist Convention for six long years.

Given White's view, the sole reason to hold to eternal security is found not in Scripture but in the other 4 points of Calvinism. For him, it's apparently the first 4 points which gives eternal security--the 5^th point--validity, power, and truthfulness. Not the words of Jesus (John 5:24); nor the words of Paul (2 Tim 1:12); nor the words of Peter (1 Pet 1:3-5, 9); nor John (Rev 21:3-8). Instead, it's Calvinism supporting Calvinism, the system mechanistically supporting the system.

For James White, couched in words from a bygone political era, it's the system, stupid.

And, from disenchanted Calvinists like Ronnie Rogers, we hear—precisely!

¹nor, so far as we can tell, is White serving as Adjunct Professor at Golden Gate seminary to this day (//link). UPDATE TO FOOTNOTE: White also mentioned in the second podcast linked in the "UPDATE" above that he taught a course for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary just this last January (2012) making it appear I "still" have my info wrong. Consider, however: a) White is still not listed as an officially contracted adjunct professor at GGBTS; b) White does not have the last teaching engagement (i.e. 01/2012) he mentions in his second podcast on his website profile (//link); c) there are sober reasons to explain why his name is absent on both accounts. While White apparently did, in fact, teach a week-long class in January, and those who attended it apparently got some type of credit for attending, James White taught the class "volunatrily" (i.e. he was not contracted as an adjunct professor by GGBTS to do so) in his own church. I taught a few seminary extension classes in my church several years ago, the attendees of whom were given some type of credit for the class at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. And, I did it "voluntarily" but was in no moral position to justifiably publicize I was an adjunct professor for Southern seminary. It would have been absurd for me to have claimed such a status in the same sense it is absurd for White to claim the"class" he voluntarily taught at his church in January, 2012--and taught without a contract as an official adjunct professor at GGBTS--constitutes his rightly being classified as an adjunct professor. The more dealings I have with some of these internet apologists, the more I am convinced that, in the long run, they may be harming the cause of Christ more than helping it. The sneaky methods and partial information cited as "proof" for their claims appear more and more fantastic.          

²While the entire podcast is two hours long, only the first half is relevant to Rogers' book. The link to the entire podcast is provided courtesy of A&Oministries and is offered as a convenient tool for the reader/listener to judge for him/herself as to whether I "fudged" on the context of White's statements. In addition, the collection is not chronological. By that I mean I pasted excerpts together which I thought could keep the flow going. I did not try to be exhaustive in the selections I chose which mentioned Rogers specifically. However, I'm confident I got most of the main selections. Most of White's "review" had nothing specifically to do with Rogers' book. In fact, White could just as well have used any non-Reformed book and his "review" would remain substantially unchanged.

³no, I am not making this up

⁴I gather at least part of the reasoning White suggests Reflections is untouched sermon notes is the stated redundancies he cites. And, while the redundancies do not account in the least as pointing to sermons notes, it remains curious why Rogers used the exact phraseology so many times. In other words, one may be repetitive without using the identical sentences. Or, said another way, one may state over and over the same proposition without ever using the same sentence twice. For my part, White offers a constructive literary criticism toward Rogers' work at this juncture while remaining just as corny in literarily concluding Reflections is nothing more than unedited sermon notes.

⁵from the Introduction, pp. xxiii-xvi

⁶on page 32, Rogers alludes approvingly concerning "counterfactual knowledge" as stated by molinist theologian-philosopher William Lane Craig in his book, The Only Wise God: the Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. However, it is not clear it follows that if one approves part of Molinism, then one embraces the whole of Molinism. Perhaps Rogers does favor Molinism. However, there seems to be entirely too little evidence to categorically assert Rogers is a Molinist. Also, Rogers does recommend Southern Baptist theologian, Dr. Ken Keathley, and his book, Salvation and Sovereignty: a Molinist Approach (p.159). Once again, however, appreciating a book as helpful and even agreeable to one's own understanding at certain junctures remains a far cry from embracing the entire system. I reviewed Dr. Keathley's book and found it profoundly helpful in a number of ways. But, I am definitively not a Molinist.

⁷note carefully: a thorough-going simple Biblicism—simple is not to be confused with simplistic

⁸albeit a verbal review not a written review but a purported review nonetheless...

⁹White did mention something for which I needed to apologize (and did on the comment stream at youtube). He cirticized my "doctoring" a pic I used in the video. It's true I apparently used a "doctored" pic but I didn't doctor it nor did I know it was doctored (his face is fairly small on the pic I used and so didn't know it wasn't him). The collage of pics was assembled from the internet. Again, my deepest apologies to James White for using a pic which apparently was not him...

¹⁰I responded to Pierce but he took down his original request 

Comments

[Tim Rogers]

Peter,

You violated your 1000 word limit. :) Great job in placing the facts before us. It appears that JW has now told the world that Dr. Moore, Ware, Akin, and others are not Calvinists. You think we should inform them? :)

[Christian]

All I can say after reading this is to repeat what one of my pastors said, "What is happening in the SBC isn't even Christian!" Not only is there an "elephant in the room", there is also a "snake in the grass".

[Mary]

Tim, The SBC elite like declaring Moore, Akin et al not Calvinists so as to point to evidence that the Calvinists are not really taking over. It's a way to deceive people into thinking the Calvinists really mean no harm.

[Lydia]

"It appears that JW has now told the world that Dr. Moore, Ware, Akin, and others are not Calvinists. You think we should inform them? :)"

This is one of their great dilemma's, Tim. One that many of us at ground zero have seen for years. They are Calvinists depending on the audience. Not Calvinist when convenient.

A bigger problem for them is a lot of the push back to the Trad position is coming from OUTSIDE the SBC. It is not really the "family fight" some think it is. We failed to notice for a long time the outside influences (as in other denominations) on our young. This shows itself in such things as church polity, too.

Think about it, some have linked to Whites critique of Rogers' book. My position is simplistic as in, of course White disagrees. Should that be a factor? Evidently, it is to our YRR. And that is scary and how far it has gone.

It is like their acceptance of Piper's doings with Driscoll and now Doug Wilson. Piper should have NO credibility (nevermind scream of the damned and Christian hedonism to name a few) but he does because.....he is Calvinist.

[Lydia]

"Finally, James White categorically states that Calvinists who reject Limited Atonement—that is, Calvinists who are 4 Point Calvinists—are nothing more or less than 1 Point Calvinists. He insists every Calvinist he's talked to, when pressed, will end up affirming only the P on the classic TULIP."

This is blowing my mind. I would think SBC YRR would not want his critique used against Rogers. He is ruining their game.

[Jeremy Crowder]

I would like to thank Peter Lumpkins for regularly taking on James White. Many of us readers cheer for someone to use a platform to say what many of us have long thought. He is a bully and like all bullies wants to force people to agree with him and fight on his terms. Your right not to debate him and right to expose how he bullies people. If a person says they are a four point calvinist that should end discussion unless they can prove otherwise, same with being an Arminian, and same with being a Traditionalist. When people call people Semi-P. or accuse them of lying they should be ashamed of the unChristian conduct. Soul Competency is a historic Baptist stance one regarding religious freedom from the government. However I think we need to expand it to include freedom not to be a Calvinist by force in the SBC by signing an abstract or allowing SBC paid employees to accuse Pastors of SBC supporting Churches of not being honest. This whole issue is related in spirit to the history of Baptists which is rooted in relgious freedom.

[Chris Gilliam]

The covert and overt aggressive will claim you are picking a fight by your simple reporting. Keep reporting.
Cheers,
Chris

[peter lumpkins]

All,

'Preciate the encouragement. Lord bless...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Luke]

Now why did I listen to that clip. I KNEW it would cause me to go away shaking my head. I think someone needs to refund JW the money he spent on Carnegie's course. I'm glad you were willing to listen to the entire program cause I would not have made it through it.

Thanks for your work Peter.

Luke

[Craig]

James White? I forgot all about that guy. Which places me neatly into the two categories of people in the world: Those who forgot about James White after his 15 minutes of fame expired 2 years ago...and those who have never heard of him.

[Tim Rogers]

Peter,

I just saw your update in your footnotes concerning JW's claim to still be an adjunctive professor at GGBTS. I saw Dr. Jeff Iorg, President of GGBTS, in the exhibit hall and I re-introduced myself to him. The purpose of this conversation was to ask specifically about James White. I saw on his blog that he was advertising a bout a class JW told us he was teaching for GGBTS. Dr. Iorg told me that they had requests from 2 or 3 students in the Phoenix area that informed the leadership about a class White would be teaching on Islamic theology. Their question was that if they could get credit for attending the class and the school allows a professor to oversee the course and assign books for those taking the course to offer a report before they could get credit. According to Dr. Iorg, this course was a course White was teaching to his congregation.

As you say in your footnote update, not quite the position of an adjunctive professor to teach without a contract on a voluntary basis.

[Max]

I love it when the YRR speak highly of James White! They are digging their own hole having him in their tribe. White would never give an unbiased read or review to a book of this sort. He attempted to crucify Dave Hunt in reviews/debates re: Hunt's book "What Love is This: Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God." These folks simply do not want weaknesses in their theology exposed. Brother Rogers offers a sincere testimony of his personal journey out of Calvinism that should not be ignored. A man with a personal experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.

Thank you Peter for your stand and for using your gift to communicate in such a time as this.

[Mary]

Color me suprised, Jimmie (not a real doctor he just pretends to be one on the internet) still fudging on his resume.

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Dr. Lumpkins:

I do not wish to cloud your comment stream unnecessarily, but I did want to ask but two questions coupled with an observation:

I noticed that you didn't cite any of the exegesis James White did during those two Dividing Line webcasts and the interaction that White did with Roger's understanding of John 6, John 12, and 2 Peter 3 (to name a few). Why is this? Since we SBCers are people of the Book, wouldn't showing that James White was being inconsistent in his interpreting of Scripture be the most surefire way to demonstrate why people shouldn't be paying attention to him?

Thanks in advance,
dbh

[peter lumpkins]

David,

Thanks. For the simple reason, White did not interact but little, if any, with Rogers specifically on anything. As I said in one of the footnotes, White's "review" was a virtual fill-in-the-blank "review". That is, his comments could have applied to any non-Calvinist piece. Supply any name you wish. That's how generic White's engagement was. I'm not trying to be nebulous, just factual. Some preachers open their Bibles, read a text, and, utilizing the text as a springboard to get started, they just go from text to text, subject to subject, carving out their own path regardless of the text they employed. White's "review" would be similar to that preacher's sermon.

With that, I am...
Peter

[George P]

It continues to amaze me the huge blind spot White has regarding his anti-social and childish behavior toward anyone he disagrees with. It's obvious his "Petey" thing is an attempt to be condescending and belittle you, but clearly unchristlike things, but in his mind, he can do no wrong and he is justified in his awful treatment of anyone(and we've seen how awful his treatment of others is).

Couple that with his seeming belief that he alone decides who enters heaven, and you've got the makings of a megalomaniac.

[Kyle B. Gulledge]

One of my biggest problems with Calvinism (other than the doctrine itself) is the arrogance that most of it's followers show.
Arrogance, haughtiness -pride is sin and not becoming of a follower of Christ. But perhaps it is acceptable of a follower of Calvin.
Keep up the good work, Peter! It is not the applause of man that is important, but the approval of our Lord.

[Barry King]

In the interest of full disclosure: I believe the doctrines of grace commonly denominated as five-point Calvinism. Furthermore, I have been personal friends with Ronnie Rogers for more than 20 years.
Finally, I have read Ronnie's book (I have an autographed copy) and I have listed to James White's review. My conclusion is that though I don't accept Ronnie's position, I can't fault his disposition. Though I do (broadly speaking) accept James White's theological position, I do sadly find fault with his disposition. Those of us who believe in grace should show some.

[stan schmunk]

Peter, I'm not SBC but I appreciate your work regarding Calvinism and especially James White. After listening to his comments on The Bible Answer Man where he stated that God both decrees and causes every evil act including the rape of young girls I've concluded that he is NOT a Christian. Rather he is a blasphemer and amateur proof-texter par excellence. I've been involved in the rescue and rehabilitation of under-age sex-slaves in Cambodia for 15 years with some being as young as 6 years. This man says that God decreed and caused those rapes, up to 10 times per night per girl, so that they would have purpose. This is vile blasphemy that can only have its root in Satan's dark heart.

Keep up your good work, Peter.