Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 12:49 PM

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: ><

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?

James 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 sonship" view.

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.

From his 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 blogsites:

Muddling the Message, Ashamed of the Gospel
  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:

Bro. Bob,
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.

Permission granted to copy and use this article.
Pilgrim Website:  >< or ><
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 List.
Pilgrim Publications, Box 66, Pasadena, TX 77501
Phone: (713) 477-4261.   Fax: (713) 477-7561