Win 1 of 5 ESV Reader's Bible (6 vol. set)

Enter through the link below for your chance to win a 6 volume ESV Reader's Bible from Together for the Gospel.

http://t4g.org/giveaways/t4g-crossway-giveaway/

Those unfamiliar with this volume can check out some additional info on Amazon. 

Kindle: Unveiling Grace: The Story of How We Found Our Way out of the Mormon Church

This kindle book tells the story of the conversion of the Wilder family. It is available in Kindle format for only $2.99.

Unveiling Grace: The Story of How We Found Our Way out of the Mormon Church

Stories of families leaving Mormonism to become true Christians are inspiring and encouraging. I hope this book encourages you if you are witnessing to a Mormon friend or missionary!

Rob Sivulka explains why Shawn McCraney is a Modalist/Heretic

Christian apologist Rob Sivulka (Courageous Christians United) breaks down the reasons for identifying Shawn McCraney as a heretic in this article. It is important to keep in mind that the terms "heretic" and "modalist" are not an insult (as McCraney claims). They are terms of identification on the basis of the theological view McCraney himself admits to holding.

Shawn McCraney is a Heretic and Needs Adult Supervision

The title should clue you in that Rob has a sense of humor (I can personally attest to that). This article was originally written in 2014 during the controversy when McCraney was becoming vocal about his belief in Modalism

Jason Wallace defends Sandra Tanner against Shawn McCraney's attacks

For those who had followed a previous iteration of this blog the name Shawn McCraney should ring a bell. He is the host of a B quality television show who came out as a modalist about 3 years ago (you can find videos of him calling the doctrine of the trinity "garbage"). I just saw a post in my Facebook feed from pastor Jason Wallace (OPC pastor in Utah) which indicates McCraney has been attacking Tanner for personal attacks (which, if you know Sandra, is simply insane) and for "hanging out with Calvinists."


Whatever credibility McCraney has left over after outing himself as a heretic will likely be gone when you finish watching his advertisement for his TV Show, re-branded with a "2.0". The wig and what looks like a dress creeped me out. The fact that he went to a half-dozen churches in the Salt Lake City region to film this makes me worry.

Wil Wheaton engages in Prayer Shaming after Texas Church Shooting

Atheists are attacking Christians for praying for the families, friends and communities of people affected by gun violence. The most recent example has come in the wake of the shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Celebrities have began engaging in what is being called “prayer shaming,” openly mocking prayer as a response to violence and tragedy.

One recent example is Wil Wheaton who tweeted the following in response to a call for prayers from Paul Ryan.

Wheaton would eventually delete the tweet and speak as though this was a call for a single politician to enact legislation rather than a general attack on prayer. Anyone who is able to read will understand what he wrote.

Atheists would love to shame prayer so much that this activity gets pushed to the periphery of society. This is something Christians can not allow to happen. I will be continuing to pray for those impacted by the shootings, and for those critical of prayer to have a change of heart.

Jesus tells us that we "ought always to pray and not lose heart" (Luke 18:1). And Paul tells the church of the Thessalonians to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess. 5:17). These examples are representative. If the question is "when is it appropriate to pray?" the answer is "always."

Wheaton may want to consider Lazarus. Jesus prayed to the Father for those effected by Lazarus' death before raising him back to life (John 11:38-44). Prayer matters. Prayer works. Prayer is not just an appropriate response, but the most important response to tragedy.

Apologetics Study Bible $2.99 [Kindle Edition]

Did you know that the Apologetics Study Bible is available in Kindle format for only $2.99? This is an amazing deal!

The Book Description reads as follows

The Apologetics Study Bible will help today’s Christian better understand, defend and proclaim their beliefs in this age of increasing moral and spiritual relativism.

More than one-hundred key questions and articles placed throughout the volume about faith and science prompt a rewarding study experience at every reading. Highlights of this new thinking person’s edition of God’s Word include the full text of the popular Holman CSB® translation, an introduction to each Bible book focusing on its inherent elements of apologetics, and profiles of historic Christian apologists from Justin Martyr to C.S. Lewis.

Also featured are valuable contributions from a who’s-who of modern apologists such as Chuck Colson, Norm Geisler, Hank Hanegraaff, Josh McDowell, Albert Mohler, Ravi Zacharias, and 90+ more contributors. Plus a special lead article from best-selling author Lee Strobel (The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, The Case for a Creator, and many more) on how “How Apologetics changed my life.”

The text of the Apologetics Study Bible is from the HCSB, an excellent translation. This is a must-have volume for any Christians who faces challenges to their faith.

Texas Shooter was an Atheist who thought Christians were Stupid

Reports are beginning to surface which indicate that Devin Patrick Kelley was an outspoken atheist with an agenda against Christians.

The Daily Mail reports that

The Texas church shooter who shot dead 26 people and injured 24 others was an 'outcast' who 'preached his atheism' online.

The article continues to excerpt interviews with former classmates and individuals who knew Kelley.

There must be some kind of connection between his negative opinion of Christians and his choice of location where he would conduct his mass shooting.

Free eBook: 12 Ways Your Phone Is Changing You

Desiring God has a wealth of resources on their website. One I would like to highlight is an eBook by Tony Reinke (@tonyreinke) titled 12 Ways Your Phone Is Changing You.

https://www.desiringgod.org/books/12-ways-your-phone-is-changing-you

The link (above) will take you to the webpage where you can download the resource.

Kindle: Church History 101: The Highlights of Twenty Centuries

Church history is an area of study critically important to defense of the faith. This book is a good introductory volume. It will give the reader a sense of Church history without diving into serious depth on any one person or event. A good deal at $3.99!

Resource: Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief Kindle Edition, by John Frame

I wanted to highlight an apologetics resource from John Frame. His 2015 book, Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief, Kindle Edition.

Totaling 386 pages, Frame explains how our apologetic endeavors should look in light of our status as disciples of Christ. The way we conduct ourselves, the things we say and imply, our attitude toward non-Christian worldviews, should have impact on our apologetic method.

Reformation 500 Celebration

Ligonier Ministries hosted Reformation 500 to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.


You can download the audio/video for free on ligonier.org.

Jory Micah, Modalism, and a Bad Apple

Yesterday Jory Micah, a feminist/egalitarian, was attempting to explain her 2-tiered view of inspiration

Even Paul Himself would elevate the words of Jesus' as greater than his own. I do believe Paul's letters to be inspired by God, & useful...

— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) September 8, 2017

For teaching. But, I think there is a difference of authority between his words & the very words of Christ. Even Paul says at times he is...

— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) September 8, 2017

Sharing his own preferences; not necessarily God's words (ex:// he wished everyone would be celibate).

— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) September 8, 2017

I also think there are many times in which Paul's teachings are cultural & not always universal & timeless. But, I don't believe Paul's...

— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) September 8, 2017

Bottom line theology ever contradicts Christ's theology.

— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) September 8, 2017

Her understanding of a variance between the authority of Jesus' words and Paul's words is troubling (but beyond the scope of this present article). Her defense of it, however, brought a heresy to the surface. In a now deleted tweet she explains that her view on inspiration is based, in part, on a modalistic view of God.

This became the flash point of a call for clarification. Identifying the Holy Spirit with Jesus, the Son, is a tenant of modalism. Modalism views the Father, Son, and Spirit as three modes of expression that a unipersonal God switches between. The view is incompatible with the biblical doctrine of the trinity, which holds that God has eternally existed as three distinct persons. All three can rightly be called God, but the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. A blanket identification of Jesus as the Holy Spirit, with asterisks for emphasis, is an affirmation of modalism.

Damage control begins with an attempt to make a statement affirming a biblical view of God's nature.

I believe in the traditional view of the Trinity; I believe Jesus, Father, & Holy Spirit are three unique persons, but one & the same God...

— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) September 8, 2017

Not bad, right? I personally would have said "distinct" instead of "unique." The distinction between persons is more relevant than their respective uniqueness. I could imagine a modalist affirming that each mode a unipersonal god expresses himself in is unique. But she did also note "persons" in the plural, so one may feel comfortable to relax on the matter.

But then there are those pesky dots. An ellipsis indicating more to come. What came has since been deleted by Mrs. Micah. One of my sources had fortunately taken a screenshot which I post here for posterity:

The two, now deleted, replies form a unit of thought you may not get by just seeing the first tweet. Note her claims:

My statement that Jesus is Holy Spirit is not at all heresy. Micah asserts the correctness of the phrase "Jesus is Holy Spirit." She would not be the first person to express modalism in this formula. Witness Lee, another modalist I have dealt with, subtitled a section of one of his books "The Son is the Father, and the Son is also the Spirit." I am not saying there is any connection between Micah and Lee other than their use of is as a term to identify the Son with the Holy Spirit. But is may be used in more than one way.

It would be heresy if I said that Jesus & the Holy Spirit have no distinction. In a discussion of the persons of the Trinity, maintaining distinction is key. Her clarification here is not sufficient because a modalist could affirm both parts of this tweet. They might say that there are distinctions when God takes off the Jesus-suit and puts on the Holy Spirit-suit (of course they wouldn't phrase it the way I do). In fact, if modalists thought there were no distinctions between Son and Spirit they wouldn't even think to speak of them as different modes.

We often say that Jesus is God. I personally would have gone with "The Bible states that Jesus is God" (link). Hopefully that is why we say it! We identify Jesus as God because the Bible repeatedly does.

This is no different than saying Jesus is Holy Spirit. Above I mentioned that is is an important word in this discussion. She advances her meaning here. In her view, saying "Jesus is Holy Spirit" is no different than saying "Jesus is God." Is speaks to identity as she used it (and as we shall see below).

They are one. The closest referent to they is at the end of the last sentence. Jesus and the Holy spirit are one in Micah's view. One what? If she means "one being" then we are orthodox. But the context of this whole drama has been over a discussion of persons, not being or essence. She is saying that the persons of Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one person, a modalist affirmation.

God is not offended by God's identity. This comment finally gets to the heart of the issue which has been somewhat implicit thus far. The is is an is of identity. Modalism identifies the person of the Son with the person of the Spirit with the person of the Father. To a modalist all are modes of one identical person.

No doubt she began to do some research and thinking as biblical concerns continued to come in. She admits to deleting earlier tweets (leaving others which, given their thread's original context, is dishonest) and finally addresses the question of whether Jesus is the same person as the Holy Spirit.

As I stated below, I hold to the orthodox view of the Trinity; the Father, Son & Spirit being 3 unique persons, but one God....

— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) September 8, 2017

I don't that believe Jesus is literally the same as Spirit in persons, but in their divine essence. Sorry for my confusing/unclear wording.

— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) September 8, 2017

While this is nice to hear, it is still a cause for concern. The tweet identifying the Son and the Spirit wasn't admitted to be wrong, only misunderstood and poorly worded (even though she repeated it and made an even stronger case that she was speaking to the issue of identity).

But she said that Jesus and the Spirit are not the same person. Isn't that good enough? Well, setting aside the lackluster correction, the conversation continues. One of her followers asks for clarification and Jory procedes with what I will call The Apple Analogy.

Think of an apple: the core, the apple part, & the skin. Three different parts, but all the same apple. Sunday school lesson, but helpful.☺️

— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) September 8, 2017

In this analogy the apple is made of 3 parts: skin, seeds and the apple part. Since all 3 are apple parts they are different but they are still all part of the same apple. Right?

The Apple Analogy

In The Apple Analogy Micah demonstrates another aversion to sound doctrine. I realize that isn't something to be said lightly. But she touts a Master's degree on the subject. I would like to think that sets her expectations for biblical precision a notch or two higher on this matter.

As I was thinking of The Apple Analogy I made a short list of problems I believe Micah must deal with:

It teaches Partialism 

Partialism is heretical view of God where the Father, Son and Spirit are component parts of which the whole of God is comprised. Rather than all three persons sharing in the singular essence and attributes of God, the Father is a third of God, the Son another third, and the Spirit yet a separate third (I picked thirds for this explanation, however I could imagine a partialist assigning a larger portion to one person and a reduced portion to another). No one in this scheme is fully God, for the other two exist as parts of God of which the first is not.

Partialism is a departure from the Biblical presentation of the full deity of the Father, the full deity of the Son, and the full deity of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). One would laugh if the apple seeds said "whoever has seen me has seen the skin." Jesus also said "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Are the seeds and the skin of an apple one?

It does not account for all of the parts of an apple

Search Google for "apple parts." I suspected that an apple had more than 3 parts and guess what...

This diagram offers an apple with 8 parts, not 3. Other diagrams offer 6 or 5 parts, regardless of which you select it is clear that more than 3 parts exist. One must question the usefulness of an analogy which ignores the bulk of data immediately relevant.

If you chopped open an apple seed and had the requisite scientific background you could designate a variety of distinct components. I certainly don't have that background, perhaps you don't either, but the wonder of the internet provides a glimpse into this matter:

I am limited here by not knowing what person of the trinity Micah likens to the apple seed. It would be interesting to understand who and why.

The seeds (plural)

Paul did it in Galatians 3:16 and I'm going to do it here (fully aware that the only connection is the distinction between plural and singular). I've never seen an apple core with only one seed. I've never seen only one seed in an apple. Of course I don't check every apple I eat but I've cut my fair share into slices and there are always multiple seeds.

Does the analogy carry to one person per seed regardless of how many? Or is there some kind of connection between the seeds that unites them in their seed-ness to only represent one person as a collective?

The seeds (place in apple)

Knowing this, one must ask (yet again) what person of the trinity is represented by the seeds and what is the significance of there being a plurality of seeds. Micah did not say, however it is relevant. While we are on the subject. If we assume the inaccurate 3-component model of an apple for a moment we must ask what is the significance of the seeds coming into contact with "the apple part" but not the skin. Why is "the apple part" the only one who gets contact with each of the other two? Why don't the skin and the seeds ever come into contact with one another? (Certainly this is a poor portrayal of the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit who are in constant communication and relationship with one another).

The seeds (reproductive function)

Apple seeds grow into apple trees and produce more apples. Dwell on The Apple Analogy long enough and you'll get there. If the apple represents Father, Son, and Spirit then which gets to replicate and grow new apples (new gods?)? While the seeds have a definite function in creating more apples, "the apple part" and the skin are edible and provide nutrients for us which the seeds do not. Is it then the case that 2 persons of the Godhead function to sustain us while the other functions to replicate?

How far do you take this analogy?

Aren't you taking The Apple Analogy too far? Perhaps. But go apple picking, hold an apple in your hand and think through the implications. You are holding a single piece of fruit from a tree which has other apples on it. That apple tree with many apples lives in a field of trees all of which produce many apples. How can you select one apple from one tree, hold it in your hand and say that this explains God? It is absolutely ridiculous.

God and Analogies

Isaiah 40:18 asks "To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?" The implicit answer is a negative: no one; no likeness. In verse 25 he reiterates the point "To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One." And yet again, in Isaiah 45:6, "To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike?" It is clear that God does not want to be compared to aspects of his creation.

The context of these is a polemic against idolatry. Of course Jory Micah is not saying that the apple is an idol. But she is doing what idolators do when they make statues and paintings of God. They are likening God to an aspect of his creation. Just as the 2nd Commandment tells  us not to "make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Ex. 20:4) we are not to dumb God down for worship or for our theology (which should be part of loving him - part of worship - with our mind, Matt. 22:37).

Trinity and Mystery

Well, it's all a mystery, right?

Oh gotcha. I don't think the trinity is really meant to be fully clothed comprehended. It's supposed to be a mystery.

— Jory Micah (@jorymicah) September 8, 2017

I have no idea what she means by "fully clothed comprehended" (I googled the phrase in quotes and it returned zero results).

Aside from what her phone likely assumed she was trying to say (predictive text suggestion after "fully" + no proofreading?), the issue of mystery is important. The trinity cannot be fully comprehended because it is a core aspect of God's nature. It isn't that God intended for his nature to be mysterious, it is that we are 1) finite creatures as well as 2) fallen creatures. We are not capable of a full and comprehensive understanding of God's triune existence beyond what he has revealed to us. Only God is qualified to reveal himself as he does in Scripture. We are also limited by the noetic effects of sin.

What the Bible says with respect to God's nature is true, even if it does not answer every question we may have. Engaging in exegesis and systematic theology helps us to fill in some of these blanks, but that can only take us so far. When we reach the end of revelation we are at the border of mystery.

The concept of God's mystery is not carte blanche for excusing denials of what has been revealed in Scripture. We are bound to believe God's self-revelation in the Bible. The Bible itself testifies to the reality of mystery beyond what is revealed (What other justification do we have to expect more truth exists than we are capable of discovering?)

Is it wrong to have an interfaith dialog with a Muslim in your church building?

The recent controversy (or "fake controversy" as I have termed it) over the interfaith dialog between James White and Yasir Qadhi in Memphis, TN has brought an interesting critique to light. It has been charged by numerous critics that it was wrong for White to engage a Muslim Imam in this way because he did so in a church building.

I wanted to write out a few thoughts on here with regard to this criticism, and add some comments to explain why it does not hold up to scrutiny.

ἐκκλησία

It does not take into account the biblical usage of the word church (ekklesia in Greek). In the New Testament the word never refers to the building where Christians gather to worship God. BDAG gives 3 usages:

1) a regularly summoned legislative body, assembly
2) a casual gathering of people, an assemblage, gathering
3) people with shared belief, community, congregation

Ekklesia is used in the NT with reference to a group of humans united by a similar purpose (ex. the legislative body mentioned in Acts 19:39), a non-formal gathering (Acts 19:32), or those united around a religious commitment. This 3rd definition is likely what our critics have in mind, however the word is used with reference to people, not buildings.

In Hebrews 2:12 it is used with reference to the Old Testament assembly. The first part of Romans 16:5 uses the term in distinction to the building they met in:

Greet also the church in their house.

The word is also used with reference to the universal body of believers across space and time. Examples include Matthew 16:18 and Ephesians 1:22.

Objection

One critic objected to this fact by noting that there were a number of believing Christians present at the interfaith dialog. He contended that even with the biblical usage of the word, it was still wrong to have a Muslim in such close proximity to the church (the present believers).

My answer to this objection is that this event was set up in such a way so that neither the Christian or the Muslim would compromise their respective beliefs. It was not a feel-good "love fest" where differences were diminished, rather it was an honest discussion of differences for the purpose of understanding.

It was also a ticketed event. Meaning that everyone present was aware of the nature of the event. It was a dialog between two men from very different religious perspectives. It was not a worship service.

Given the nature of the event, the presence-of-numerous-Christians argument does not seem to apply. If the "church" (group of Christians) happened to be near an Imam and other Muslims, that would not mean the integrity or identity of the church was compromised. That would simply mean, well, that there were a number of Christians at an event.

If a number of Christians happened to show up to a concert or a football game that would not compromise the identity of the church. Why would their presence at an interfaith dialog cause such a compromise? It simply doesn't make sense.

Three specific verses addressed

Um... 2 John 1:10. 2 Corinthians 6:14. Titus 1:11-14. That's just off the top of my head. I don't think JW obeyed those passages...

— Jeff Dornik (@jeffdornik) June 26, 2017

Lets talk about these verses.

Titus 1:11-14

This passage is a part of a larger section where Paul is explaining qualifications for elders to Titus. This larger block of thought comprises Titus 1:5-14 (or through verse 16, depending on how you address the last few verses). In this context Paul writes verses 11 through 14:

They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.

The passage would seem to indicate that "they" (those unqualified for eldership, see verse 10) should not be given the benefits of such a position. Rather than teach they ought to remain silent. The application here has to do with leadership qualifications, not interactions with non-Christians.

In the context of the Memphis dialog the question of eldership was not on the table. White has been an elder for years in his home church and Qadhi made no pretense of being (or desiring to be) an elder.

2 John 10

Read in isolation this verse says,

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting

Of course, when you consider the context of the verse you begin to see what is really being communicated. James White addressed 2 John 9-11 on his website on 6/30, concluding that

...this passage teaches us to examine the doctrine of Christian teachers and to not give a basis for operation in our communities for those who are not orthodox in their teaching. Likewise, we can see the text has nothing at all to do with doing debates, outreaches, or even dialogues with those of other religious faiths. Even if we greet them, we are not doing so in the context of 2 John, for the greeting there had a particular content and meaning generally absent from our greetings today...

2 Corinthians 6:14

The text here reads

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

What first comes to mind are White and Qadhi's statements with regard to their refusal to compromise their theologies in their interactions. I would like to know how the critics would say that these men are yoked together? In what sense (other than agreeing to the dialog format and to communicate cordially on their two religions) has a mixing of light and darkness occurred?

It is clear that neither White nor Qadhi had become "unequally yoked" to each other. Have there been other people, in other dialogues, where compromise occurred? Sure. Was this one of those times? Of course not.

The Dialog itself

Night 1


Night 2

Apologetic Toolbox: Build Credibility by Listening to your Opponent

Lately I have been witnessing the discussion between Christians on both sides of an issue. On one side of the fence is a group of Christians who have taken strong opposition to a dialog between James White and Muslim theologian Yasir Qadhi back in January (the issue they take is also with White's general approach to individuals whom he engages apologetically). On the other side of the fence are those who don't see any issue with White's dialog or approach. Clearly I am on the latter side.

One of the strengths of White's approach is that he does not assume that all Muslims must agree with his understanding of Islam in order to be a true Muslim. White's method is commendable: He researches his debate opponents (or in this case, the individual with whom he would engage in a dialog) before engaging them. This includes reading their books, articles, blogs, and listening to their lectures, past debates, etc. This allows him to understand their thought process in relation to his current knowledge of what Islam is.

When a person assumes that they know what their opponent believes they will make an issue of it when they hear anything that doesn't fit with their preconception. I have witnessed this much over the last few weeks. The Christians on the other side of the fence have been telling Muslims what they should believe. Or in some cases they will dismiss what the Muslim says as deception simply because it doesn't fit in with their understanding of Islam. In either case there is no room to learn.

One tool that these apologists ought to acquire for their frequent use is the ability to listen to the person they engage with (I have called them the "opponent" but that is simply to say that they disagree on one or more issues, not that they are an enemy to be feared or hated). Listening to someone before responding builds credibility. Persuasion is much easier when you have established credibility with your opponent.

On the other hand, when someone tells you what you really believe after rejecting what you just told them, you begin to think thoughts like "Why are you assuming I am lying?" "Who are you to tell me what I believe?" "Weren't you listening to me just now?" People will get distracted by these brand new barriers simply because the nuances of their theology didn't fit into the black-and-white grid of the poor apologist.

Listening does not mean you agree with everything they say. Listening will communicate that you care about what they think enough to hear them out. Even if they know you'll disagree afterward, they will at least know you are disagreeing with their actual beliefs.

Gregg Jackson uncritically dismisses examples of Howse's lies about James White

Recently I came across a challenge for James White supporters to point out one lie Brannon Howse has told about White.

Might be because no one has ever heard of you til this retweet

Ex: his intentional misrepresentation of the nature of the interfaith dialog

— Glenn Hendrickson (@glenn_h) June 26, 2017

This individual may not have been aware of the dividing line from June 8th where White reviewed an episode of Worldview Weekend Radio which was broadcast the day before.

• Link to Brannon Howse audio on 6/7/2017
• Link to Dividing Line on 6/8/2017

A quick review of the Dividing Line produced a list of lies (ranging from inaccurate statements to intentional misrepresentations) about White by Howse.

Enjoy Howse's lies. Just the ones I was able to find anyways... pic.twitter.com/IpjAkM0Qj9

— Glenn Hendrickson (@glenn_h) June 26, 2017

Some of them were from the text description, others from the audio. It seemed my example of Howse's misrepresentation of the nature of the dialog between White and Yasir Qadhi was insufficient. So I made him a list.

The list contained statements 1) made by Brannon Howse, 2) about James White, 3) which were not true. You would think this met his criteria for an example. But Mr. Jackson seems to retain his right to dismiss anything for no reason.

These aren't a list of lies but of baseless allegations without any documented proof. Big difference Glenn. @WVWOnline @UsamaDakdok https://t.co/Cb5hgfJOP0

— Gregg Jackson (@GreggMJackson) June 26, 2017

He then asks for examples of lies from the guests on Howse's show, Shahram Hadian and Usama Dakdok. It just so happens I had a few jotted down.

Presented for your uncritical dismissal pic.twitter.com/6OTxCGjGCh

— Glenn Hendrickson (@glenn_h) June 26, 2017

Will this be sufficient? Some of these statements about things White said are demonstrably false. Misquoting someone you disagree with causes a serious blow to your credibility. No one is saying that Jackson, Howse, or anyone else has to agree with White. We are saying that your disagreement ought to be based on 1) what actually happened (not what you wish had happened) or 2) what White actually said (not what you misquote him as having said).