The Saga Continues - December 10, 2004

(It also appears that James White did a show concerning me on his show "Dividing Line" on Dec. 9, 2004, which I was not aware of when I originally wrote this, and I will be listening to that and giving thoughts to that soon.)

I was doing my normal browsing at Alpha and Omega Ministries website and to my surprise (not really surprised) I saw something concerning me.  I am wondering about this since I just did an audio response yesterday (Dec 9, 2004) concerning something's James White said in regards to me on his show Nov 30, 2004. (he is fast)  Here is what was said at his site:

"Kelly Powers has commented on my using his eisegetical comments on John 6:37ff and complained I didn't link to him. Here are his comments. You will find him to be a younger version of Dave Hunt. Nothing exegetical here, so we continue searching for that, but I wanted to mention this in passing....I'll try to remember to comment some on Tuesday, but I just want to reiterate what I said on the DL: I replied because someone came into channel, dropped the URL, and left. Powers specifically mentions me and my position on John 6, and hence, it is a useful way to examine the common errors made in the argumentation of anti-Reformed rhetoric. Powers accuses me of only playing "clips" of him, but, oddly, if he would listen to the program, he would know that I have so far played him in totality. How do you misrepresent someone when you play their entire comments? He says he will debate, but only in Paltalk. I'll let the listener and reader decide." (www.aomin.org)

Did he say "complained"?  If you read in our email discussions I said clearly if he was going to address me that he needs to give a link for people to check out for themselves.  All he did on his show is play the beginning clip (he played other clips as well) of me where I said, "My names is Kelly Powers, welcome to Apologetics For Christians, good to have you with us today..." (From Emailer on John 6:44 part 1)  James White gave no link at his site for anyone to find what he was supposedly refuting nor did he state where people go find it on his show.  Now, since I have pointed this out he has now put a link at his site to this page, yippi, I think.  Well, I know this, we have had some traffic from those who have visited his site, so praise the Lord.  Did James White say of me that I was a younger Dave Hunt?  James, thank you so much, that is a compliment.  As Mr. White continues on with his he is superiority to those who oppose him trip on stating, "Nothing execgetical here, so we continue searching for that...", what silliness.  Of course he says that, because he is not open minded and is himself blinded by traditions of men as he accuses others of being.  I am sure he will comment on some things concerning me, I expect that.  As to his getting a URL in his chat channel, did James not even check out other things at our site?  It seemed like he did not and that did a very sloppy review of things I shared in one audio.  As I said, yes I mentioned James White in regards to what was asked by a emailer.  I did an audio response to the emailer, not directly to James White, still wondering about that.  Mr. White says concerning me as being "anti-Reformed rhetoric", well I guess if that means I am not a Calvinist then I guess that would make me of the 'Positively-Informed'.  This issue of Calvinism is truly coming to the surface it seems in the body of Christ, and what I want to do for people is give a Biblical account of what we believe and why we believe here at AFC Ministry.  As to James saying, "Powers accuses me of only playing "clips" of him, but, oddly, if he would listen to the program, he would know that I have so far played him in totality. How do you misrepresent someone when you play their entire comments?"  I am really not sure about that one, on the only clips of me statement???  As to show he has show how he has misrepresented me by stating things about me falsely, say for example, that I have traditions, which is silly and has no fact.  I am not Baptist, not Pentecostal, not Mennonite, not Lutheran, etc, I am simply Christian and do my best to follow the Word of God.  James White cracks me up!  He then says, "He says he will debate, but only in Paltalk. I'll let the listener and reader decide."  I made it clear on this, again, funny.  It seems like Goliath does not want to take on little oh David, that being James really does not want to debate me.  As I have said before which is very common among denominational groups (James White camp) they like to latch onto certain Scriptures for what they believe while at the same time not seeing the immediate context and overall context clearly, this is a classic example with James White and Calvinists on John 6:44.  I would encourage all those who read this to listen to both audio teachings that we have concerning John 6:44, specifically part 2 since it is a much more in depth teaching.

Well that is it for now.  I am sure this saga will continue, I expect it to.  The line has been drawn, I have shared things in honestly and openly for people to know what is going on.  I don't know what James White is going to do or say, but I do know that whatever he does it will draw some attention to our ministry, and that excites me.  Thanks James...

Jan. 12, 2005 Update - James White comments on "The Narrow Mind"

Some of you may be familiar with "The Narrow Mind" which is a weekly live show that is put together by a guy named Gene Cook, a guy which I had a debate with last year concerning total depravity.  His show from week to week changes and it is a show that people can call in live and ask questions etc.  Well the one that took place Jan. 4, 2005 was of interest because James White was a special caller who called in talking to Gene Cook live on his show.  What makes this very interesting is that James White mentions me by name and talks a little bit about his interactions thus far with me.  I will give you the exact quote below and a link where you can listen to this yourself.  Folks this is fascinating to say the least. 

"...I made the mistake of actually starting to respond to some things he said, ah, and wow, that was, that wasn't, that didn't turn out real well, unfortunately."Listen Now

Folks, this is very interesting.  James White did a live show responding to me on Nov. 30, 2004, (the one which I have done 5 audio responses to) and then his next show response to me was on Dec. 9, 2004, and then did a brief few minutes comments concerning me at his show on Dec. 14, 2004.  Since then there has been nada, el-zero, nothing that I know of anyway...until now!  The recent show with James White calling in to talk about various things concerning Calvinism, which it was about in the first place (Predestination), and it is so interesting to note the way James brings me up.  Let's look at what was said a bit deeper.

1. James says of himself, "I made the mistake of actually starting to respond to some things he said"

2. James continues on saying, "wow, that was, that wasn't, that didn't turn out real well"

3. James concludes, "unfortunately"

From these three things I sense James White did not realize I was actually serious about what I believed and he must of thought I would of been a push over.  I mean, well, James so easily challenges Dave Hunt, Norman Geisler, and others to debate, so who am I?  Well I rose to the challenge even when he decided not to do a debate with me.  Remember,  it was him not I who in the end choose not to have the debate.  Then after James White did his 2 shows about me I have responded in detail thus far to his first show with 5 audio responses, and I plan to continue on with responding to his second show from Dec. 9, 2004 soon.  Will James White just be quiet?  What will James White do?  Well I know that I am pressing on and going to continue to give proper exegesis to what John 6 teaches and refute the un-Biblical interpretations of Calvinists.  I can understand, I think anyways, why James said what he did on "The Narrow Mind" show.  James White did not know me, he did not do his homework to well, and quite frankly the evidence that I have proven from John 6 stands loud and clear that he is the one who is going with his traditions for what he believes rather than being open and a true Berean. 

Jan. 16, 2005 - Are You a Super Hero? 

•  James White posted at his site on Jan. 14, 2005: 

I don't need to respond to the chat channel and email comments, that has been addressed in detail already.  As to James White saying ""Now, to be honest, most who listened said "This isn't worth responding to. This fellow is a poor speaker, obviously does not know much about the issue, and as far as meaningful exegesis, offers nothing.""  Well that is funny because at our ministry we have had lots of people stating that they have enjoyed the audios and thought that they were quite enlightening and interesting.  I guess it is those who do not agree that say things like what James White put simply because they want to hold to their traditions rather than being open and honest with examining the Scriptures in context.  James White thought he was doing a service for his listeners because he thinks that there are not many non reformers out there opposing the doctrines of Calvinism.  However, all one needs to do is to do some word searches in Google, MSN, Yahoo, Excite, etc., and they will see that there are lots of people who are non reformed in theology who have quite a bit to say, along with lots of those who defend Calvinism.  I believe I have given James White a fair presentation, no less than what he gave me, and I have responded to his silly statements, thus refuting his traditions. 

Now, to be perfectly honest, as I was playing his web cast, I could not help but think that once again I may have made a mistake to do so. When you are doing a web cast the quickest way to kill it is to play someone who is simply not interesting and that drags along, slowly, and Mr. Powers was barely moving the "interesting" meter. But I persevered, hoping that the contrast between his stated sound hermeneutical principles and then his lack of application thereof, would be helpful.

Bla bla bla...  This is James White's rebuttal?  I have thus far given 5 audio responses backing up our views on what John 6:44 teaches in context and this is his comeback?  I am not sure what all people think when James White speaks, but just to give my thoughts, James you are not that exciting!  In fact at times I have to force myself to listen just hoping you will get to something of interest, but hey, what do I know?  I admit the first audio response I did for the emailer concerning John 6:44 was a bit slow, but at times all speakers have their exciting days and their not so exciting days.  The second audio on John 6:44 and all of the responses directed to James White have had a bit more exciting tone, but the purpose of these responses are to give Biblical answers for people to consider.  If I wanted to entertain people I would become an actor, musician, or maybe a comedian.  In the end all that James White has done since I have given 5 responses thus far to him is, "bla bla bla", that truly is it folks.  If that is all he has got to say in response, well then, shesh. 

Very quickly after doing the program I began hearing from folks about Powers' responses. And more responses. And more responses. I had chosen to get back to someone who could actually make a point in less than five minutes on the program, and given the fact that I determined Powers' responses to be vacuous, meandering pieces that demonstrated a very, very poor grasp of the basics of communication and argumentation, I simply moved on. But Mr. Powers hasn't. Evidently my references to him are the biggest thing that has happened in his corner of the universe in a very long time, so he is not about to move on himself.

LOL!!!  I sit here wondering, "are you for real?"  This just shows James White did not truly care in the first place when he contacted me to debate the context of John 6:44.  I did not run from the debate, again, it was him that said no.  Since then I have responded to his silly statements and his continued responses are bla bla bla...  James White states he wants to get to someone who can make a point in less than five minutes, did he say that?  When responding to the false teachings of the Watchtower, say on the topic of the Trinity, would take a bit more then five minutes, that is common sense.  This being one example among many that could be stated.  The point is that James White says this simply because he wants a cheesy way out of responding to me so this is how he does it.  By stating silly comments concerning me which in turn have nothing to say in response to the proper exegesis I have demonstrated concerning John 6.  As to what James White said, "Evidently my references to him are the biggest thing that has happened in his corner of the universe in a very long time, so he is not about to move on himself", this has some truth to it.  I find these interactions very fascinating to say the least.  Someone such as myself, having no degrees, no written books, not known in the public realm like James White, having James White contact me and wanting to debate me but then backing out, this is exciting stuff.  It's not like T. D. Jakes, Joyce Meyers, Kenneth Copeland, etc., (though I have tried contacting them but strangely they don't reply back)  are contacting me, though if they did I would be letting people know about it.  Our traffic of emails and comments come from the average-normal folks.  But when a person such as James White, a known apologetist emails wanting a debate of some sort, well now, this is pretty exciting.  And though James White may wish he never contacted me I am happy because we have had new traffic to our site and have been able to minister them. 

Last week sometime I was typing away at my computer one evening and someone in channel mentioned that Gene Cook was doing his web cast. So I decided to listen in, and then decided to call in. We chatted about a number of things, but then I made my mistake. I mentioned the fact that he had debated Kelly Powers. It was probably fifteen seconds of the entire call, but I did mention his name. That, of course, provided more grist for Powers' mill, and for his small, but devoted group of followers. He transcribed my comments:

"...I made the mistake of actually starting to respond to some things he said, ah, and wow, that was, that wasn't, that didn't turn out real well, unfortunately."

Obviously, I was not only speaking tongue-in-cheek (as is clear on the recording), but I was referring to the spectacle Powers has made of himself since that time. See, I had chosen to move on not only because the material itself did not provide something worthwhile, but because it became clear that Mr. Powers was not only incapable of a reasoned, sound response, but was likewise going into self-destruct mode. So, instead of piling on and wasting everyone's time proving what any reasoned person already knew, I let it slide.

So yesterday morning we start getting references in e-mail to Powers' comments on the Gene Cook show, along with the assertion that obviously someone has now given a full refutation on John 6 (Powers) and I have had to run for the hills! Here are his own words:

From these three things I sense James White did not realize I was actually serious about what I believed and he must of thought I would of been a push over. I mean, well, James so easily challenges Dave Hunt, Norman Geisler, and others to debate, so who am I? Well I rose to the challenge even when he decided not to do a debate with me. Remember, it was him not I who in the end choose not to have the debate. Then after James White did his 2 shows about me I have responded in detail thus far to his first show with 5 audio responses, and I plan to continue on with responding to his second show from Dec. 9, 2004 soon. Will James White just be quiet? What will James White do? Well I know that I am pressing on and going to continue to give proper exegesis to what John 6 teaches and refute the un-Biblical interpretations of Calvinists. I can understand, I think anyways, why James said what he did on "The Narrow Mind" show. James White did not know me, he did not do his homework to well, and quite frankly the evidence that I have proven from John 6 stands loud and clear that he is the one who is going with his traditions for what he believes rather than being open and a true Berean.

Since Power is pressing the issue, let me be blunt: Mr. Powers hasn't a clue what he's talking about, but that isn't stopping him from talking about it. Let him talk. Any person with the most rudimentary tools of exegesis and logic can see through his attempted responses. I had chosen to let it drop so that maybe, just maybe, he would consider his views and not be forced into a position from which he would never be willing to move. Evidently, my hopes were pipe-dreams. Mr. Powers may well fill his website with endless "rebuttals," but until he learns to consistently apply the most basic rules of interpretation, they will be a waste of time and disk space. Of course, if Powers truly believes his own rhetoric, there's an easy way to find out if he's right: the number is 877-753-3341. It's toll free. He can produce hours of rambling commentary on John 6, but everyone knows the only meaningful way to find out if he's really got a case is to do what he has refused to do from the start: debate the issue on The Dividing Line.