 Over the past several years, I’ve seen a significant increase in the number of people that I know personally who have referenced James White’s book The King James Only Controversy in defense of their decision to abandon the use of the KJV in favor of various modern translations. White’s book is often presented by these individuals as a scholarly and irrefutable answer to the KJV Only position. I picked up a copy of White’s book several years back hoping to interact with a scholarly treatment of the topic, but I was sorely disappointed. I found White’s work to be childish and his arguments fallacious. I set the book aside with no plans to ever pick it up again, but with its current increase in popularity, I decided to read through it again and force myself to write a response.
0 Comments
 The events in Joshua chapter ten followed right after the nation of Israel had been deceived into breaking the command of God. God had told them to march into Canaan and kill all the inhabitants of the land. Israel had successfully destroyed Jericho and Ai, but then the city of Gibeon sent men disguised as travelers from a distant land to trick Israel into signing a peace treaty and forming an alliance with them. In Exodus 23:32-33, God had specifically forbidden Israel from making any covenants with the people in Canaan. He said, "Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in thy land." Israel fell for the deception of Gibeon, and by signing the treaty, they violated the command of God. Chapter nine ends with Israel’s realization of their sin, but look at how God turned their mistake into a victory in Chapter ten.
 Over the past few years, I've had several friends ask me for my opinion of Mark Ward's book Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible. I read the book after the first request, and I found Ward's arguments to be both shallow and false. My position on the KJV is that it is currently the most accurate English translation of the purest Greek and Hebrew texts. I hold to that position for a variety of reasons drawn from my studies of theology, history, etymology, and linguistics. I expected Ward's book to present an intellectual challenge to my position. What I found instead was a childish and pedantic collection of arguments that did more to prove the ignorance of the author than to support his claims.
 It's easy to see that the Calvinist's view of Eph. 2:8-9 is wrong when you compare it to Rom. 3:24. The faith of the individual in Eph. 2:8 precedes the application of grace just as the redemption in Rom 3:24 precedes the application of grace in that passage.
 Every game has a set of rules that govern how the gameplay proceeds.
In Super Mario Bros., for example, there is a rule that jumping on a Goomba will kill it and a corresponding rule that if a Goomba runs into you it will kill you. You will have a very difficult time trying to win in Super Mario Bros. by running into Goombas, and your game will proceed much smoother if you try to win by jumping on the Goombas instead. You could argue that those who choose the latter are more privileged than those who choose the former, but that is solely the fault of those who choose to ignore the instruction book and attempt to play by their own rules.  This is part two of my review of the book The God Who Risks by John Sanders. (Part one can be read here.) Sanders is an Open Theist who claims that God does not have exhaustive knowledge of the future and that He learns things and changes over time. I believe that this idea contradicts Scripture which teaches that God knows everything that will happen in the future, that He does not learn new things because He already knows everything, and that He does not change.
About a week ago, I wrote a quick blog post sharing my thoughts as I watched a video on Open Theism. The creator of that video, Warren McGrew, decided to reply to my criticism by inviting Dr. Alan Rhoda to take part in a two-hour live critique of my blog post. I wasn't planning to write anything more on Open Theism (except Part 2 of my analysis of The God Who Risks which is being edited now), but I had some free time this afternoon, so I figured I would respond to this video too.  On January 30, 1750, Jonathan Mayhew stood in the pulpit of Old West Church in Boston and preached what was to become one of the most famous sermons in history. The occasion was the 101st anniversary of the death of King Charles I. The challenge that Mayhew addressed before his congregation was the question of whether rebellion against a tyrant was a violation of the Bible's command in Romans 13 for Christians to submit to political rulers.
 When considering Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, most people only consider how the phrase “wall of separation” sounds to our modern ears. To us, this phrase sounds as if it is describing an impenetrable impasse which stands between our nation’s religious institutions and her political institutions. Consider, for example, the following opinion of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter in McCollum v. Board of Education:
|
Bill Fortenberry is a Christian philosopher and historian in Birmingham, AL. Bill's work has been cited in several legal journals, and he has appeared as a guest on shows including The Dr. Gina Show, The Michael Hart Show, and Real Science Radio.
Contact Us if you would like to schedule Bill to speak to your church, group, or club. "Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning." (Proverbs 9:9)
Search
Topics
All
Archives
June 2025
|
RSS Feed