Calvinist strongman James White crawls in bed with Islam

Yup, he sure has.


http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...cals_become_useful_idiots_for_islamis m.html

And notice how ex-dispensationalist John MacArthur's long time spokesmouth comes riding to White's defense.

musterion said:

Yup, he sure has.

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...cals_become_useful_idiots_for_islamis m.html

And notice how ex-dispensationalist John MacArthur's long time spokesmouth comes riding to White's defense.

Click to expand...

I've met individuals that carry the label Calvinist that name the label, but exalt scripture and Christ above the Dogma.

James White, I have never met, but I can now officially say that he isn't one of them. I have researched this topic because James White attacked two individuals that are enormously valuable to the topic. David Wood and Nabeel Koreshii. David is an Atheist turned full on Christian, rooted in biblical study. Nabeel is an ex Muslim. They have a site that is dedicated to educating the Body of Christ about Islam.

James White slandered these guys. This is a very bad thing. And I know why he did it. Calvinism is rooted in the Heresy of Preterism. For Calvinism to propagate, its false headship doctrine must be propagated to support its false "salvation by election" doctrine. All of these ideas fall away when Preterism is undermined! I'm not even sure if this is completely understood by most Calvinists, but it is the genuine truth.

When theists are faced with the choice of letting go of their pet beliefs or squeezing their world view and bible study into their pet belief, the level of Theological Honesty within them comes to the light.

If the Preterist's acknowledge Islam for what it is, they will see that Islam is attacking Israel and Christianity as rapidly as it can.

James White is clinging to good old Pope and Catholic alike as the Anti-Christ, Western Eschatology, and simultaneously burying his head in the sand to the clear events that are occurring that support the idea that Israel and Christianity alike will be targeted by the beast force that is the most supremely Anti-Christ of all of them.

Not only is James White contributing to the destruction of life by pulling this stunt, but he is simultaneously assisting Islam in anesthetizing Western culture for Islam to gain power, persecute and destroy all that are not Islamic. These sound like steep charges, but it is beyond destructive to pave the way for Islam to do what it does best. Lie, Kill, Mame, Destroy, Rape and even devour the good of its own kind within itself, that are not Caliphate based, Islam spreading at all costs, devotees to Death Incarnate.

To attack those that expose Islam is even a form of Sharia Law. James White is so in love with his degree, platform and lies, that he is willing to assist the mechanism of the Devil himself to attack his opponents.

Excellent OP Musterion!

musterion said:

Yup, he sure has.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGjLjI21G5Y

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...cals_become_useful_idiots_for_islamis m.html

And notice how ex-dispensationalist John MacArthur's long time spokesmouth comes riding to White's defense.

Click to expand...

This is audio of a debate where James White gets destroyed on his stance about Islam that he has accepted by choosing some bad references and friends.

I've been listening to the debate as I type and I can now address what James White is. He is nothing more than a deceived Sophist with severely blinded understanding of scripture and religious text that drives other religions. I've read and listened to James on other issues to see where his stances were and every time I listen, I note a lack of grace at the core of his biblical understanding.

- EE

White got smoked in debates by the late Dave Hunt on the topic of Calvinism's false god. Spencer, incidentally, is a devout Catholic (I was banned from commenting on his site a few years back) but I've no doubt he'll eat White's lunch.

Excellent post, friend. And to you as well, EE.

I have watched many of White's debates. I always get immediately annoyed when he begins his introductory remarks, because he always insists that he is right and his opponent is wrong. White seems far to prideful and closed off to honest and open discussion. Whether the opponent be Protestant or Catholic.

White has also, on several occasions, made videos after debates (usually around 45 minutes long) saying to disregard his opponents' comments, for they are comments of unbelievers. He even encourages people to ignore Scripture presented by his opponents.

I think this video, as well as subsequent comments, fully disclose White for exactly what he is. Thank you all for the videos and analysis of White. I am glad that I am not the only one with these impressions.

Good job, guys.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

musterion said:

Yup, he sure has.

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...cals_become_useful_idiots_for_islamis m.html

And notice how ex-dispensationalist John MacArthur's long time spokesmouth comes riding to White's defense.

Click to expand...

I watched the video in the OP and only saw White comment on how boring Islam's presentation of its own belief system seems to be. So I didn't quite understand the reference there or the ensuing claim that White threw Wood and Khoreshi (sp?) under the bus. I know he claimed he is the only one doing what he is doing, and the truth is that (as far as I know) he - in some sense - is. He is a debater-apologist. And while his debating style seems to have taken over his non-debate interactions to some degree, one has to realize that that is what he does - he debates. In a debate - as in a legal case - one needs to prepare an air-tight argument, which requires the unvarnished facts. White dives into books and researches the historical Islam to see what the actual beast looks like from that vantage point. Contrary to what he looks at, there is more of a political view of Islam that we get from the media and more populist type organizations and personalities. They necessarily have to distill things down for the uneducated listener. In that situation, it is easy to meld the conspiratorial view of Islam (can't believe anything they say because Taqqiya (sp?)) with the more generalized, sanitized view (only a few Muslims are violent Jihadis - they are the exception and not the rule). What emerges, then, is a popular view of Islam that caricatures certain aspects of the religion - exaggerating certain things that make for good ratings and downplaying other things that most people will consider boring (the more fundamental, broadly applicable aspects of the Islamic religion).

Remember...the same thing has happened with Roman Catholicism (Jesuit casuistry) and Judaism (the Talmud giving Jews free reign to lie and hate the Christian). This is not new. Both of the above are considered overblown conspiratorial viewpoints that don't represent the normal views of those two religions. But they have support in both their literatures.

So what White has been trying to do (if I read him correctly) is cut through all the hype to the core teachings of Islam and the actual application of it. The problem is - as with all belief systems - there is no one, single, monolithic Islam. Thus, the next best thing is to find consistent, conservative, observant, practicing Muslims who have influence in the Muslim community. In the discussion (which took place in a church - something I think was a mistake, if not dead wrong), White saw the opportunity to lay out the ideas of Islam in a clear, unheated, direct manner so as to give others a place to discuss intelligently with Muslims.

Contrary to this, those such as Spencer and others (Howse referred to someone who had been in Law Enforcement dealing extensively with the ramifications of violent Islam) take a more critical us vs. them view that goes with the territory. The State Department isn't in the business of trying to listen and learn from Musliims. The government has a job to protect American citizens. Apologists and debaters, on the other hand, are to be more interested in where the rubber meets the road in the lives of everyday, ordinary Muslims. They are (ideally) not to be concerned with whether it even costs them their lives - since the gospel is the goal. And if (as Dr. White says) one can build a bridge so that the Muslim knows the Christian can understand his beliefs, then the Muslim is far more likely to listen.

Granted, most apologetics is taking place on the street where the individual is simply presenting the gospel. But White is dealing with the Islamic braintrust. And in that,I think he is probably unique. His job (as he sees it) is to contrast Islam with Christianity - and if he can get the Muslims to be less combative and impervious to Christian arguments, he can test the ideas of one against the other. Effectiveness? That I can't judge. But method - I think I understand where he is coming from.