JAMES WHITE SLAMS JOEL OSTEEN
There's an old saying, "Those who live in glass
houses should not throw stones."
A few years ago, I ventured to
critique John MacArthur's views on both the unorthodox doctrines of
justification on the grounds of (1) "infused righteousness" and the (2)
"incarnational sonship of Christ" (in contrast to the creedal view of the
Eternal Sonship of Christ).
Sometime later, however, MacArthur
happily recanted both those views to advocate the creedal positions of
justification on the grounds of (1) the imputed righteousness of Christ and (2)
the Eternal Sonship of Christ. You can read MacArthur's current view on Sonship
at this link: >http://www.gty.org.uk/articles/sonship2A.htm<
But back a few years ago, during that period in which I was critiquing
MacArthur's views, aspiring and rising star among the "appallingists," JAMES
WHITE, jumped onto me with both feet, harassing me with critical emails, and
hurling some unpleasantries. After all, James spoke at MacArthur's seminary, and
surely James the aspiring "Appallingist" would "touch not, taste not, handle
not" anything contaminating, such as the heterodoxy of "infused righteousness"
and "incarnational sonship," would he?
So old man Bob simply must be
shadow-boxing, right? Bob must not love John MacArthur, right?
mused, "I don't understand Christians who won't love the brethren"
[11-13-1997] -- which seemed to me to imply, if not allege, that ole Bob did not
love John MacArthur, presumably because Bob did not love John's "incarnational
James even became rather cynical about me, saying,
"Gracious, it must be lonely to be one of the only folks who has it
right on 'everything'!" [11-14/1997], yet in the same email James
remarked, "I wonder, Bob, if cynicism is a healthy spiritual trait?" He also
referred to what I had written as "baloney."
In another email
James alleged, "Your rendition of John's [MacArthur] position is not up the
snuff, shall we say, with reference to accuracy" [11/21/1997].
James wondered, "Why all this energy isn't used to criticize those
who truly deserve the attention" (11/28/1997).
BTW, despite John
MacArthur's subsequent recantation of the "incarnational sonship"' view, James
White never offered any apologies to me for his criticisms and cynicisms.
Cynically speaking, James simply doesn't seem to make signficant mistakes, so
why should he make apologies?
Now James is striking out against the
alleged lack of courage on the part of local preacher, Joel Osteen, who was on
Larry King's TV show last week, as if James did not have enough to occupy
his exegetical skills with shooting down the erring Roman Catholic
"appallingists" and free-will champion Dave Hunt. My own estimation of Joel in
comparison to James is that Joel probably has more courage in his little toe
than James has in his steriodic-looking body.
Be that as it may, I am
wondering if James is not engaging in "gnat-straining" when he picks on
Joel? Wonder why James can see so much wrong with Joel but he could not see the
heterodoxy of the "incarnational sonship" view at one time taught by MacArthur?
Makes one wonder about James' theological eyesight.
blogsite, here is a quote from James which evinces more of the type of miasma
which causes me to have a very low opinion about
Muddling the Message, Ashamed of the
Most everyone has already seen this, but I thought I'd
join the wave....Joel Osteen, pastor of one of the largest "evangelical"
churches in all of America, was on Larry King a few nights ago. Can you just
imagine Paul or John responding to these direct questions the way Osteen did?
What a wonderful opportunity to present the awesome holiness of God, the
sinfulness of man, and the unique truth of salvation through the cross of
Christ, squandered out of fear of the faces of men! Just amazing.
I am not so sure that Joel is
"deep" enough into any type of theological controversy or ecclesiastical
"issues" to captivate James' attention for very long. Joel's preaching is
generally about the more "simple," easily understood practical matters of life,
designed to encourage and motivate Christians to do more "postive" things with
their minds and bodies than waste energies on negative things of life --
negatives such as writing or reading blogs that are useful primarily to those
who are fearful of simplistic preachers like Joel.
BTW, if you can read
Joel's popular book, YOUR BEST LIFE NOW, without requiring the "deep
stuff" such as James' great "exegisis" or analysis of theolgical issues, you
might profit from the "positives" which Joel presents. I read the book and it
did not seem to "muddle" either my theology, salvation, or sanctification! It is
not nearly so muddling as some things I have seen on the blogsites I've visited!
I received the following comment from a Pastor who has read the
entire sermon set of 63 volumes of C. H. Spurgeon's sermons, and I doubt
if he could have done that in the time that he did if he had been wasting much
of his time reading blogsites. He wrote:
I am in my birth city of Pittsburgh, PA for my mother's 80th
birthday. Just yesterday we drove by the cemetery where Andrew Warhola is
buried. You probably know him as Andy Warhol, of pop art fame, as well as the
statement that in the future everyone would have 15 minutes of fame. Most
websites and blogs are probably the fulfillment of Warhol's "prophecy." Anyone
with a computer is now a worldwide celebrity. At least to the ten people that
read their blogs.
-- Bob L. Ross
P. S. I would send
this article to Brother James, but he no longer cares to read my emails.
granted to copy and use this article.
By request, names are
added to my Email List, or removed
Publishers of C. H. Spurgeon's
Sermons & Other Works
Send your snail-mail address for a printed Price
Pilgrim Publications, Box 66, Pasadena, TX 77501
477-4261. Fax: (713) 477-7561