Responding to email criticism on James White's open letter to Dave Hunt

Apostolic Defense, the Open Letter to Dave Hunt, and the Call for Gentle Argument

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an Elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States. It's 1 -866 -854 -6763. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White and it has been another interesting week on the program. Here on the program, well I don't know, we haven't been on for a whole week.

But here at the ministry and we sort of are a current event driven program at times. And I think a lot of folks like that. You sort of get the idea of what's going on in the ministry and sort of get to be on the inside, shall we say, of some of the discussions that are going on.

And that's the case this week as well. As many of you know, I think I mentioned last week that I was writing an open letter to Dave Hunt in response to his book. That was posted late Sunday evening. And the response has been absolutely amazing.

I mean the next morning I discovered that the DiscerningReader .com had pulled the article, formatted it as an e-mail, and it's not small. I mean the e-mail that they sent out to everyone on their mailing list was 144K, which while not a monster is not a short e-mail either.

And that particular e-mail got a whole lot of attention obviously. It started going everywhere. And very quickly I received a phone call, I believe on Tuesday morning, from the president of Loyal Publishing, which is the publishing firm that published Dave Hunt's book.

And those of you who have already logged on to our website probably are aware of this. You have seen the notification that we put on the open letter at the bottom, and we put a link at the very beginning as well so people wouldn't miss it, indicating that an agreement has been reached.

It's not perfectly finalized yet, but right now the plan is that Mr. Hunt and I are going to co-author a book, a debate book in which we each present seven topics. And the other person responds, and there is give and take.

There is interaction. There needs to be interaction. And that this book is to be written in a fairly short period of time as well, which wouldn't be difficult to do. I mean writing on seven topics only 3 ,000 words, presentations only 21 ,000 words.

And as some people are very fond of reminding me, I'm very verbose, and therefore that's pretty easy for me to do. But anyways, as it may, in the course of that I ended up speaking with Mr. Hunt for about half an hour about the book issue, not about theological issues or anything like that.

And then a couple days later I was informed that Mr. Hunt had written a response to my open letter. And I obtained that late in the week. And I will confess to there have been a number of things that I have encountered this week that have quite simply left me breathless.

I mean I very rarely am left without words to say. Those who know me know that's the case. I've been left simply breathless by some of the things that I have encountered in this past week. Not just about this subject, but about others.

And I'm going to be sharing one of those with you today. And before I respond to what Mr. Hunt said, I'm actually much more troubled. Really I've become accustomed to the fact that Mr. Hunt will not accept correction.

We've talked about this. Tom Del Nose has mentioned. In fact we'll be posting on, oh in fact people should know this. The Discerning Reader .com has obtained the URL of whatloveisthis .com. And I had nothing to do with that.

I just chuckled when they informed me. Look we have whatloveisthis .com. Would you like to post the responses that you are generating from the folks in your chat room and from other people at that site?

And I said sure. They have their own servers and therefore fine and dandy. That would be great. We're pretty well close to the max on our website already. So that would be fine. And so that's what's going on.

And we will be putting more responses. We have one up there right now that I confess I forgot to tell them who authored it. It is Colin Smith, the unique British fellow who doesn't really speak very British anymore.

But he's unique, very, very unique. We need to emphasize the uniqueness of Colin Smith. He's Silly Brit 1. Silly Brit 2 is in the other room. And anyways, he is the anonymous author. And he was feeling badly about that today.

And I felt bad that he was feeling badly. So we all need to recognize that the second article is currently on the website. If any of you are already jumping over to whatloveisthis .com who are listening live, that second article is by Colin Smith.

That will be fixed by Monday. So everyone else who is listening to this by archive is going, what are you talking about? The one by Colin Smith is the one we are talking about. But anyways, what was I saying?

Oh, yeah. Those articles are going to be posted on whatloveisthis .com. And I totally lost the connection of what I was saying before. But anyways, I started looking at Mr. Hunt's response. And we agreed on the phone that we would link to his response and he would link to my open letter.

So if you go over to thebreincall .org and look at his response, down at the bottom there will be a link to my open letter. And this is what's absolutely amazing to me because the response, at one point, let me see if I can find.

I didn't mark here. Listen to this. This is on, well, it's page three of six the way mine printed out. It doesn't mean it's going to print out the same way for you. James, do you consider it fair to engage in such a torrent of libelous accusations, notice that term, which are damaging to my character, reputation as a writer and Christian, and to do so without providing even one example?

It's like 90 of my entire letter disappeared. There must be a problem with Dave Hunt's computer because I provided all sorts of examples and every single thing he quotes about libelous accusations was smack dab in the middle of providing a documented rebuttal of a false statement by Dave Hunt.

For example, this response never mentions Acts 1348. He says I do not give a single example of his exegetical errors, doesn't mention Acts 1348, where in point of fact he ends up supporting the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Now the fact that Mr. Hunt chose to ignore the entirety of my response in that way is not my problem. Anyone who reads the two is going to be able to sit back and go, how could Mr. Hunt say this? I mean, this has gotten to the point of not being just simply blinded by tradition.

This is dishonest. But it gets worse, and here's where I want to actually transition into something. On page 3 of my printout, let me just read you what Mr. Hunt says. Your most devastating charge, and I'm sure the one that has impressed the readers of your open letter the most, is my alleged grossly errant assertion concerning Spurgeon, an error which you say is the norm of my work.

Here is my statement to which you refer with such outrage. Spurgeon himself rejected limited atonement in unequivocal language. I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus.

If my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds, bound and measure our terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice. Clearly, the some to whom Spurgeon refers are some Calvinists.

That's not the case, but anyways. The doctrine of limited atonement does indeed set bound and measure, which Spurgeon declared as inapplicable to the divine sacrifice. You then quote Spurgeon, where he teaches that this boundless atonement has been limited by God's choice, and accused me of being dishonest in stating that he rejected limited atonement.

In fact, the error is not mine, but something which is endemic to Calvinism, contradictory statements. In the quote I give, Spurgeon clearly rejects the thought of any limit to the merit of the blood of Jesus, but in the same breath, he also just as clearly denies the unlimited merit of Christ's blood is available to all mankind.

I am as much justified in quoting him on the one side as you are on the other, though you will deny any contradiction while I insist upon it by the very nature of Christ's sacrifice. Now folks, what do you say to something like that?

Let's reason this out. In the sections that Mr. Hunt removed from Spurgeon's quote, he specifically made corrections to Mr. Hunt's misapprehensions. For example, Mr. Hunt utilized ellipses to cut out this sentence.

Now why would someone delete that sentence? Just for space purposes? No, there's another reason. There is that phrase, if God had so willed it. Because you see, the sentence right after Mr. Hunt's stop quoting says,.

So what is Mr. Spurgeon arguing against? He's arguing against those who would say that limited atonement turns Christ's work into a finite work, and his death into something that has finite merit. That's what Spurgeon's arguing against anyways.

That is continued in what comes after this, if the quotation would have been continued. And as I read last week, he goes on to extol the virtue of the death of Christ to attack those who believe in what Mr. Hunt believes in, that is, universal atonement, and to conclude with the statement,.

So Mr. Spurgeon says that he believes in the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. Mr. Hunt says that in unequivocal language, Mr. Spurgeon denied the very doctrine that Mr. Spurgeon says he confesses.

That is the issue. The whole reason I raise this is because Mr. Hunt can look at any source, and he's proving this now in looking at my open letter, he can look at any source, ignore anything, anything that is opposed to his thesis, and turn around and accuse you of libeling him, if you point out his error.

This is the kind of utter and horrific use of sources that marks the entirety of this book that has recently been published. Now, to respond by saying, well, Spurgeon contradicted himself is simply absurd.

Why? Well, it's because Mr. Hunt does not have the right to redefine the doctrine of limited atonement or particular redemption. That seems to be the modus operandi that Dr. Geisser attempted to utilize when he, for example, asserted that he believes in unconditional election.

It's unconditional on God's part, it's conditional on man's part. That's not unconditional election. That's not how the term has been used for decades and centuries. And so you can't just simply decide to redefine it.

Calvinists have always affirmed the unlimited merit of the death of Christ. You will not find in my works any statement where I say, now, the resultant merit from the death of Christ is a finite value.

God could not, if he had wanted to, actually redeem the entire world because there's only so much merit in the death of Christ. Can you find that in Spurgeon or in Sproul or in Calvin or in Warfield or in Hodge or in any of the Westminster divines?

Can you find the statement that the death of Christ had only a limited amount of merit that necessitated a limited application because there just wasn't enough to go around? Of course not. So, quoting Spurgeon, where he affirms what all Calvinists believe on that, is not quoting Spurgeon denying limited atonement.

You see, Mr. Hunt is redefining limited atonement. Well, he's contradicting himself because he says it's infinite in merit but limited in intention and application. Mr. Hunt, that's the doctrine of particular redemption.

That's the doctrine. So, you cannot say Spurgeon denied it when that's the doctrine itself. Now, if you actually think that you can in some way, shape, or form, redefine the doctrine and then accuse us all of inconsistency, well, okay, fine.

But that is irrational, of course. And that doesn't carry any weight. So, let's listen to... let's think with Mr. Hunt for just a moment. I, like Spurgeon, say that the merit of Christ is unlimited. And I'd say Hodge and Warfield and Sproul and Piper, they'd all say the same thing.

Therefore, if to say that the merit of Christ is unlimited is to unequivocally deny limited atonement, if we use Mr. Hunt's thinking, that means all Calvinists deny limited atonement. No one actually believes in limited atonement.

Obviously, that's not the case. What we have here is a clear instance where Spurgeon said X and Dave Hunt says non-X. Mr. Hunt is wrong, but he will not admit an error at any point. At any point whatsoever.

And I would invite anyone to read the open letter. Read about Acts 13 .48. Read the section on John 6. Read the section where I deal with Greek grammar and things like that. See if Mr. Hunt made a mistake.

And see how he responds. He responds by attacking me. By engaging in ad hominem. That seems to be the primary means of responding to an exegetical demonstration of an error. It's just to attack the person instead of the issue.

It's truly amazing. But this is not as amazing as an email I got today. And to be honest with you, this bothers me a whole lot more. A whole lot more than what Mr. Hunt has done in his response. And I'm going to get to the rest of his response.

But this bothers me much more. I'm really wondering if I've lost it. Maybe I am just completely out of the loop. But I received an email today. And I'm not going to mention the person's name. I get the feeling.

In fact, when I first got it. What I did is I wrote back and I said, Do you mean this? Are you pulling my leg? I honestly had to make an inquiry. Because I could not believe that someone would write this to me.

This is from a person who starts off by saying that he's on one of the same lists that I'm on. And says, I believe in limited atonement. And therefore, he writes the following. If you will permit it, I would like to offer a critique on your understanding of Dave Hunt on limited atonement.

If I'm right in the way I'm reading the exchange, you will benefit from what I have to say. I also want to offer a critique in the way you are arguing. I send this letter as one who is on the same side as you.

I'm with you. Please take this as constructive criticism. I could critique Dave Hunt all day long. But for you, I see only a few areas to improve. First, I am sorry to say that Dave's open letter is more convincing than yours.

That is, he writes more convincingly and then in parentheses devilishly? I fear that an average Christian would pick Hunt's position over yours. When you do co-write a book with him, I hope you will adopt some more populist methods of arguing.

Dave does it this way. He picks a point and hammers it home over and over. As is the case with elitism. To remedy this one point, I would never mention Greek or Hebrew or seminary again. Education is beside the main point of the debate and all the Calvary Chapel people, quote, we can learn on our own, end quote, people, would dismiss you out of hand for that reason alone.

In fact, if you can muster the strength, I would retract your view of Greek and Hebrew and seminary, at least in some limited fashion. If you can write something to actually agree with Hunt on this point, you will win huge points.

First, you will take away his most powerful hammer. He hit you with it at least three times. And second, you will endear yourself to the Calvary Chapel folks. I would suggest that in the upcoming book, that every time he tries to smash you with the elitist argument, you should just agree with him, qualifying with the phrase, in the main, that is, Dave, I agree in the main.

Again, you can do this because the argument, the gospel, lies elsewhere. Perhaps in a different book, you can discuss academia and ministers. Personally, I think that pastors and elders should be the primary source of information for the average Christian, and not personal Bible study, a completely modern idea.

That is what Dave says leads to Roman Catholicism. I would say, yes, it does. But maybe, just maybe, the Roman Catholics were right about something, despite the fact that they abused it. Then he goes on to present an argument about Spurgeon, and in essence says that Hunt is right, which I won't go into right now because that's not the issue that really, really, really bothers me.

This email arrived this morning, and as I said, I responded to it, and I said, are you pulling my leg? And in response, he said, yes, I am serious. I am guessing by your initial response, you find it inconceivable.

I really do believe in limited atonement, and I also side with you. To which I said, yes, I find it inconceivable, utterly. I'm glad you side with me as far as the conclusion goes, but as to how you got there, evidently we took very different paths.

Then I began to respond to his email. I guess I should just tell you what I said, because what I'd like to ask you all to comment about is, have I missed something? I've gotten some nasty emails this week.

A guy named Mike Thayer, I don't know who he is, but a guy named Michael Thayer has just been dumping stuff on top of me. Of course, it's nothing but ad hominem. He hasn't dealt with a single issue that I've raised to him.

He even called me and I tried to talk to him. I ended up hanging up on him, but that kind of stuff I'm used to. You get that from Catholics, and you get that from a bunch of folks. There's just people that you just can't reason with.

They don't even attempt to make a logical or rational case. But here's somebody who says, hey, I'm on your side, but this is how you should argue. I'm really wondering, am I missing something? Am I out in the ozone someplace?

As I respond to this, tell me if I have totally missed the boat. We have a new phone number, remember? 877 -753 -3341. 877 -753 -3341. You can tell that we are a poor ministry because we have to use phone services that can't keep their phone numbers the same.

877 -753 -3341. Here's what I wrote. Here's the quote and then my response. He said, I am sorry to say that Dave's open letter is more convincing than yours. That is, he writes more convincingly, I fear that an average Christian would pick Hunt's position over yours.

To which I responded, a fascinating statement. I guess there is some level of truth to it. Illogical arguments based upon flawed reasoning peppered with ad hominems, but based firmly in soundbite phraseology, soaked in emotionalism seem to be the best way to convince all Americans of anything.

It's really irrelevant that we are talking about a religious subject here, a matter of divine and unchanging truth. It's just the way things are in Western culture today. So I confess that element of truth, holding to divine standards, being self-consciously consistent and honest, refusing sensationalism and emotionalism, all so as to honor God's truth is definitely not the most popular way of handling things today and will generally keep you in the minority.

That was my response. Am I wrong? My correspondent said, when you do co-write a book with him, I hope you will adopt some more populist methods of arguing. To which I responded, yes, well, that's the rub, isn't it?

See, I'm a Christian. I am commanded to follow a godly example. In fact, Paul said to imitate him. Pragmatism did not seem to be his means of argumentation, otherwise he never would have even written Galatians, let alone use the language he did.

So while populist methods of arguing may get me more surface-level kudos from surface-level thinkers, they will not honor God, nor result in the edification of the saints. Hence, I will have to kindly decline your suggestion.

Back to my correspondent. Dave does it this way. He picks a point and hammers it home over and over, as is the case with elitism. To which I responded, yes, however this seems quite parallel to the situation in our nation today.

Liberals pick a point and hammer it home too, and they are successful at it. Problem is, their issue is normally a matter of untruth. Christians are not allowed to hammer home untruths, even if they think they can do so to further the cause of, quote, truth, end quote.

Back to my correspondent. To remedy this one point, I would never mention Greek or Hebrew or seminary again. Education is beside the main point of debate, and all the Calvary Chapel people, quote, we can learn on our own, end quote, people, would dismiss you out of hand for that reason alone.

To which I responded, I see. A fascinating suggestion. We help the Calvary Chapel folks out of their ignorance by promoting ignorance. Also, your email highlights something very important. I write and minister for God's elect, 2 Timothy 2 .10.

I seek to edify the saints. Hence, I can trust God's spirit to guide his people. As a result, I do not have to worry about using pragmatic worldly forms of argumentation so as to, in essence, fool people into believing the truth.

I can argue and teach like the apostles did, which is a wonderful thing. So, you seem to think that I am trying to win an entire group of folks that I am not even considering as part of my audience. I cannot help the person who is unwilling to hear the word of God and allow it to speak.

Mr. Hunt has given out utter falsehoods regarding the original tongues. Any servant of God is bound by conscience and duty to refute those cavils. If he wins by so doing, so be it. I do not serve men but God.

I go back to my correspondent. And then we'll have to take a break. If you have some thoughts, I really want to know. Have I lost it? Is this guy making sense? Is this representative of what's out there?

877 -753 -3341. I'd really like to find out. If you really think I've lost it, that I'm on another planet, you just, and there's a lot of folks who like to confess that, you just give us a ring. Back to my correspondent.

In fact, if you can muster the strength, I would retract your view of Greek and Hebrew in seminary, at least in some limited fashion. If you can write something to actually agree with Hunt on this point, you will win huge points.

To which I responded, with whom, sir? Why would you assume I am concerned about people who show no fidelity to God's word over my concern for pleasing God and accurately handling the word of truth? This is why I wrote to you and asked if you were pulling my leg.

The worldview behind these suggestions is utterly and completely foreign to me outside of the fact that it is the very mindset of the world. But you claim to be a Christian. That is why I could not believe these thoughts came from one who claims to follow Christ, let alone one who likewise claims to be Reformed.

He said, First, you will take away his most powerful hammer. He hit you with it at least three times. And second, you will endear yourself to the Calvary Chapel folks. And I had a very short response to that.

Choices, choices. Endear myself to CC folks or honor my God. And I sort of left it at that. He said, I would suggest in the upcoming book that every time he tries to smash you with the elitist argument, you should just agree with him, qualifying the phrase with the phrase in the main.

That is, Dave, I agree in the main. To which I responded, and the fact that I do not agree, find his statement to be utterly absurd and fallacious and dishonoring to any form of logical thinking should be suppressed so as to win the favor of a group of people.

He said again, you can do this because the argument, the gospel lies elsewhere. To which I responded, so we adorn the gospel by ignoring the truth and using false forms of argumentation. In fact, we can lie as long as we get the gospel right eventually.

A fascinating proposal. He said perhaps in a different book you can discuss academia and ministers. To which I responded, I haven't discussed academia and ministers. I have discussed Mr. Hunt's false assertions concerning the original languages of the Bible.

Any logically thinking person can see that and I cannot help the person who cannot see it, nor am I concerned to do so. Well, it's time to take a break. I'm almost done with this section of the letter.

What do you think? Have I missed it? 877 -753 -3341. We'll be right back.

Justification by Faith and the Centrality of the Gospel

The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith. Once the core of the Reformation, the Church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine. In his book, The God Who Justifies, theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of, understanding of, and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme.

Justification is the heart of the gospel. In today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute, James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith.

Dr. J. Adams says, I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down. James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates. This is no book for casual reading.

There is solid meat throughout, an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words. The God Who Justifies by Dr. James White. Get your copy today at AOMN .org.

Roman Catholic and Evangelical Cooperation

More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements.

And many Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics.

Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition and scripture. The papacy, the mass, purgatorian indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored. Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at AOMN .org.

The Church, the Gospel, and the Ministry of the Word

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m. and the worship service is at 10 .45.

Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26-GRACE.

If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

Okay, I think I understand what's going on now. I don't see any blinking lights over there. And maybe that's because the topic line in the channel says, JRW reviews DH's reply in other email and he ain't happy.

And so since I'm not happy, no one wants to call in. I can understand why someone who agrees with my correspondent might well not want to call in and say, you know what, I think he's right. I think you should engage in this kind of argumentation.

You know, win the day. Because you can probably tell how I'm going to respond to that. But I'm serious when I say there's another issue that's come up recently that I've been shocked at how many people actually either took the view or were sympathetic to it.

And so I'm starting to wonder, man, am I on another planet? Am I just completely out of touch living in this little office and writing books and doing the stuff that I do? Have I missed an entire revolution in thought?

I just do not, do not know. Well, anyways, that was the email. And it truly causes me to, I obviously didn't agree with my correspondent. In fact, the concluding paragraph that I wrote to the email said, I have thought often this morning that your email placed in words the same kind of temptation to me that Peter's words to the Lord in Matthew 16 represented.

When the Lord informed the disciples that he must go to Jerusalem to die and rise again, Peter took him aside and rebuked him. Jesus' reply was, get behind me, Satan. You are not minding the things of God, but of man.

Your pragmatic suggestions partake of the same nature. To heed them would be to deny the faith itself. I pray that God will give me the strength and fortitude to resist the temptation you have suggested for the entirety of my life.

I pray you too will abandon such attitudes and recognize that you must seek to honor God first and foremost, not man. This whole issue strikes at some fundamental decisions that I have made in the course of my ministry.

And I think they are reflected in the perspective that is taken by the elders of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church as well. In the years that I've been at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, there have been many times when we have been faced with issues that took us back to the very basics of what we believe about the purpose of the church and the purpose of Christian ministry.

We know how we could fill the pews of PRBC. We're a small church. People are often shocked. We have, I believe, currently 41 members. Now, there's going to be more people than that there, but 41 official members on the roll.

We're not like most Baptist churches where you have to die three times and provide proof of death to get off the membership rolls. And we know how we could fill those pews. We know what adjustments we could make to worship.

We know what adjustments we could make to the kind of preaching, the length of preaching, the focus of preaching. We know what we could do. But we refuse to do it because there is a fundamental commitment to the nature of the gospel and the purpose of the church.

And I hope and pray that in this ministry, I hope and pray that in the work of Alpha Omega Ministries and as I write books and as I do debates and as we do this webcast, that I remain consistent in that issue as well.

And that is, I do not understand how any person, and those of you who know me know that I have often expressed amazement at this when dealing with Catholic apologists or Mormon apologists or people in various venues.

I cannot understand the mindset of a person who will utilize argumentation that is inherently self-contradictory, illogical, irrational, will utilize sources in a way that's unfair. I have this strange idea that if you're going to speak the truth, then you need to be consistent in the argumentation that you're using.

That when you point your finger at somebody else and say, you're not being consistent, you need to look down and recognize there's three fingers pointing back at you. And that you cannot honor God and honor his truth by utilizing sensationalism and emotionalism, no matter how many quote-unquote converts it gets you.

And I'd like to add to that, that I don't think it gets you real converts. If you argue somebody into your position using emotionalism, then somebody else can come along and argue them out of that position using the same emotionalism.

Is that how little we trust the Holy Spirit of God to work in his own people? Does the Holy Spirit of God, does he bring the truth alive in the hearts of his people, yes or no? If it's yes, why should I agree with anything that my correspondent suggested?

I don't understand that mindset. I cannot conceive of that. God's truth is not honored by that kind of activity. We have to hold ourselves to the highest standard. That's why I have alienated lots of folks who would have otherwise probably promoted me and had me speak in their big churches and things like that, because I publicly criticized the Godmakers books, which Dave Hunt was involved with, because they engaged in unfair argumentation against the Mormons.

Now there's many people who say, well, who cares? As long as it results in people coming out of Mormonism. Well, if you leave a religious group for all the wrong reasons, do you really know the truth?

And aren't those the very people who end up getting sucked back into those religious groups because they left for the wrong reasons in the first place? When did Christians get the right to adopt the if it works, use it methodology?

There's lots of things that quote unquote work. Well, anyways, that's a 12 minute sermon. Look at that. Didn't even realize that. I just I don't understand it. Maybe I'm a dinosaur. Maybe I am a throwback to a time that is long past.

Or maybe just possibly what we're dealing with here is the need to be faithful to God's truth, even in the context of a church that has lost its direction in Western society. And I refer only to the external church at this point, to evangelicalism as a whole, that is taking on the very mindset of the world around it, a world that is under the very punishment of God, the very judgment of God.

And as we live in a more and more post-Christian society, we will be more and more faced with one decision. Do we remain faithful to the truths of the gospel or do we allow those truths to be compromised for the sake of quote unquote success?

What is success anyways? Who measures it? I would like to believe that the only true measure of success, when you're lying upon your deathbed and looking back over your life, was your fidelity to God's truth, which demonstrates how much you truly loved it and him.

That's not the world standard. But we are not to fear the face of men. We are to fear the God who has entrusted his gospel into our hands. And so that's why I responded so strongly and that's why I said I pray that God will give me the strength to resist the temptation that is part and parcel of the suggestion that was sent to me in email today for the rest of my life.