« New Contextualized Missional Method: Holy Ghost Hokie Pokie by Peter Lumpkins | Main | James White, Southern Baptists, and the Fine Art of Rabble-rousing by Peter Lumpkins »

Apr 07, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e20133ec8695f5970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference James White on Dr. Jerry Vines by Peter Lumpkins:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

volfan007

Unbelievable. This is the kind of extreme, strange views and beliefs that caused me to start blogging years ago.

David

TurretinFan

James White isn't a hyper-Calvinist and James White didn't say that God's love is a dangerous subject upon which to preach. He said that it was dangerous for him (Dr. White) to make the distinctions that must be made with respect to the subject of God's love, because (as he begins to say where you cut him off) Reformed believers get accused of all sorts of things on this topic by folks who are burdened by emotionalism and human tradition. You've actually unwittingly helped to demonstrate the very danger of which he was speaking.

peter

TF,

I am not going to rehash the same arguments to you and your buds about White's hyper-Calvinism. You've logged it enough here and elsewhere for us to know your disagreement. Enough said.

Now I'll allow others to judge whether or not I put words in White's mouth.

With that, I am...
Peter

cyndi grace

Peter, thank you for this. (You might recognize my last name from another blogger of the past.) It is this extremism which we must be very careful of. I find it interesting that after the John had his revelation vision, the thing he knew he had to preach to the church in Ephesus was love! It is an emotion but one that is within each of us. To ignore this is to deny who we are as humans.

Curt Treece

You in fact DID put words in his mouth. Here they are:

"preaching on 'The Love of God' is...a dangerous subject to preach". Now, he did not actually say that, did he? And it is clear that he did not even mean that.

Here is what White actually said without your mischaracterization:

"...I would like to take issue with and hopefully expand upon some of the key issues that separate reformed believers and their understanding of the love of God and the presentation that Dr. Vines made.

This is a dangerous subject to address, only in the sense that there is a tremendous amount of emotion involved, and, if we say it properly, a lot of tradition involved with traditional understandings of the love of God. Very frequently reformed believers are accused of being unloving and unkind and in some way denying the true love of God."


He's not talking about the love of God being dangerous to preach. He's not even talking about preaching. Listen to what the man said. The subject is him pointing out "some of the key issues that separate reformed believers and their understanding of the love of God" and contrasting those views with what Dr. Vines said. The "danger" he is referring to is the danger in addressing the differences, not a danger in preaching the love of God.

-Curt

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

The most common response you will get with this video will be that Dr.[sic] James White was not saying what you have accused him of saying. He certainly seems clear that he believes it is dangerous to preach on the Love of God because of the emotionalism and traditionalism tied to loving God.

Whether he meant it was dangerous for him to address the subject in disagreement with Dr. Vines or Dr. Vines was entering a dangerous area in preaching on the love of God is not relevant. He clearly states he is entering an area of disagreement with Dr. Vines concerning God's love and thus Dr. Vines' subject matter makes all of this dangerous because of emotionalism or traditionalism.

Blessings,
Tim

Steven Speagle

I don't want to put words in Dr. White's mouth, but God's love can be difficult topic to speak about with non-Christians. As Dr. Don Carson has put it, God's love is the only thing that non-Christians know of God; and that does not typically come from a biblical understanding.

For instance, God's love does not overwhelm his holiness. God's love for all people does not go so far as to ignore their sin. Furthermore, the bible often speaks of God's love in much the same ways that we do. Sometimes Jesus speaks of God's love as conditioned on our obedience (John 15:10). This is not saying a works-righteousness, but merely speaking as we do; as conditioned in some respects upon proper behavior.

Thus, when evangelizing the lost, we do have to be careful to state the nature of God's love. We cannot say to someone who is lost in their sin, that God loves them and then go on our way. To do so may lead them to believe that they are fine as they are and have God's approval. We have to be careful to explain that God does love sinners, but that his ultimate expression of love was the forgivness that can only come through faith in Christ.

Just the musings of a poor layman.

Steven

TurretinFan

Mr. Lumpkins:

No need to rehash any arguments. Could you provide a link to where you actually made an argument to establish the idea that my friend, Dr. White, is a hyper-Calvinist?

-TurretinFan

Milihamah

I think you mislead a lot of people as to what Hyper Calvinist means for your overriding goal to "stick" something to Dr.White. I would suggest that if you want to present something as a serious argument let it stand on its own without your imprecise labels that give away from the start your deep prejudices.

Shannon Primeaux

As Curt Treece so correctly pointed out, Bro. White did not say that it was dangerous to preach about the love of God (despite your need to put those words on the screen). He was referring to the subject of addressing the differences between Reformed & non-Reformed believers about this topic. He in fact said: "This is a dangerous subject to address" not "this is a dangerous subject to preach."

theultrarev

HA! Hysterical. Good post Peter.

Jacob

"the most basic, fundamental attribute of our Lord—His love"
Isn't God's most basic and fundamental attribute His holiness? After all, the angels in Isaiah 6 don't cry, "Loving, loving, loving" but "Holy, Holy, Holy."
It is a modern misconception of God that His fundamental attribute is love. God is love, but He is more importantly Holy.

peter

Oh my. How wonderfully entertaining! While one makes the profound distinction between "addressing" and "preaching" another questions whether God is fundamentally loving. Sweet....

As for links to White's Hyper-Calvinism, I gave those two weeks or so ago, TF. Last word on that.

With that, I am...
Peter

TurretinFan

I didn't really think a link would be forthcoming. We both know why. Why don't you come out and admit it?

peter

Matt

I don't give a Georgia squat what James White writes or says about me. But do NOT log on here again with words about Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, or links to pieces White does slamming Yarnell who has nothing whatsoever to do with this post.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

TF,

One thing is for sure. You don't run things here. Go back to your blog where you can run things. Write all you wish about what you wish.

Now for the last time, nothing else about the links you can't locate. Tain't my problem...

With that, I am...
Peter

SpurgeonFan

I sure wish you would a least become more educated about Calvinism. I am so tired of people spouting off other peoples misconceptions. Can you tell me what church was in power before John Hus? You need to read some history and more than likely even some Calvin.
What do you know about the Council of Dort (like it occurred after Calvin's death)? I'm saying this in as nice a way as I can. I won't argue with you about Calvinism at all. Just please, please read for yourself.

Brad

The OBVIOUS meaning about what is 'dangerous' in addressing this topic is so clear in the broader context of the 20 minute video White provides that to assert what Mr. Lumpkins has said of White is so ludicrous that it can only be meant to appeal to the most loyal of anti-Calvinist followers who refuse to look into the issues for themselves. The Irony here is that in this misguided video posted by Mr.Lumpkins he has unwittingly demonstrated the REAL meaning White had in mind when referring to what is 'dangerous' about addressing this topic.

Milihamah

Mr.Lumpkins,

I am sure that you know very well that Mr.White was speaking about himself when he said: "it is a dangerous subject to address" @ 1:05 Mr.White refers this to himself @ 1:23 and continues to explain that to 1:32.

Your edited version of Mr.White's video starts to fade out the audio at exactly 1:23 when he starts referring previous statement to Reformed Believers (and through that to himself)and is cut short at 1:25.
I find this highly manipulative and very crude even if it suppose to be Machiavellian. Sir, you have some serious soul searching to do before the Lord...

TurretinFan

Mr. Lumpkins,

Maybe you misunderstood me. My point is simply that while you've repeatedly, falsely accused my friend Dr. White of being a hyper-calvinist, you've never presented an actual argument in support of that accusation.

Of course, I leave open the possibility that you have somewhere done so, and I'm just unaware of it.

All your posts on Dr. White can be found here:

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/james-white/

But none of them include any actual arguments in support of the label.

- TurretinFan

Shannon Primeaux

Peter, I mention the distinction between "address" and "preach" because in the context of Bro. White's argument ... they are referring to two different things. Why do you ignore context? That isn't right. Perhaps you need to re-watch the entire video.

Let's get real here.

Barry D. Bishop

Steven said:
"God's love does not overwhelm his holiness"

But isn't the opposite the point of Jn 3:16? If "God's love does not overwhelm his holiness" then Jesus would have never come. God could have been holy for all eternity and not sent a redeemer to us sinners. All mankind would have been rightly damned.

His holiness is not done away with by Jn 3:16 because v. 36 says, "the wrath of God remains on him," who does not obey [and believe] Jesus.

Les Puryear

Brother Peter,

You sure know how to get a discussion started. :)

Les

Eduardo

If anyone wants to know just what Dr. White realy said you can read this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N09kv--Oxr0

Let the truth be seen and heard!

RazorsKiss

Nice edit job on that video. Reminds me of CNN's religion reporting.

The Seeking Disciple

Wow Peter, if people treat you this bad as believers, how do they treat unbelievers? Oh yes, they kill them (see Michael Servetus).

peter

All,

White, of course, wasted no time in denying he said any such thing as I said he said--i.e., I'm lying about it.

Yet he seems to misquote himself.

He wrote on his present blog of this post:

"What I said was that discussing the love of God is a dangerous topic for me to address due to the traditions people have about the subject."

Well, my dear Mr. White, that may have been what you intended to mean but that is not what you actually said.

Here are the words White said:

"I would like to take issue with and hopefully expand upon some of the key issues that separate reformed believers and their understanding of the love of God and the presentation that Dr. Vines made. This is a dangerous subject to address, only in the sense that there is a tremendous amount of emotion involved, and, if we say it properly, a lot of tradition involved with traditional understandings of the love of God. Very frequently reformed believers are accused of being unloving and unkind and in some way denying the true love of God..."

Now, I concede my words were not precisely his words. Granted. What I said White said was only what I thought (and still do) to fairly approximate his meaning.

On the other hand, what White said he said was not what he said either! In fact, what he said his words were, was not precisely his words but only what he thought to fairly approximate his meaning.

Again, I'd be delighted to concede to White what he said he intended to mean, even if it was not what he actually said. On the other hand. White has already pronounced me a liar even though I but recorded what I still believe to fairly approximate his words.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

All,

Some have implied since there is no link to the original video, I therefore must be attempting to keep the public from viewing it. That would be a negative. All one has to do is type "Jerry Vines" in youtube and the video will be in the first harvest. Please.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Eduardo

I substituted a link for the one you gave. James White sends me plenty of traffic. But I have no interest in sending him any ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Shannon,

I am trying to be real, I assure. Would I take pleasure in posting something for which I know I will be dubbed a liar? White's already done that, as well as baited me in an email so he can what, post it on the internet? This is the kind of sub-Christian loony tunes one has to endure to even mention J. White in a post. White's even blasting Malcolm Yarnell, for crying out loud.

Note my comment above to White's claim. It may be helpful.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

volfan007

The way White's buddies swarm a blog that mentions White is enough to make me sit back and say...Whoa, Nellie. Something's wrong with this picture. But then, the way they come in attacking takes it all to a whole nother realm.

Spurgeonfan, maybe you dont know Peter's past. He used to be a five point Calvinist. I'd dare say that he's probably read more reformed books and such than you ever thought of. Wow.

David

TurretinFan

"Would I take pleasure in posting something for which I know I will be dubbed a liar?"

So are you a sadist or just clueless?

-TurretinFan

Milhamah

"White has already pronounced me a liar even though I but recorded what I still believe to fairly approximate his words."

Mr.Lumpkins,

Could you be honest and accurate please? You have not recorded anything. You only edited previously recorded video... That is a major difference.

This editing was not fair by any stretch of the word or imagination as you started audio fade out were the important context was given only to cut the video 2 seconds later as I explained here before. What you have fade out and cut short was the context that explains that Mr.White's remark was addressed to Reformed Believers i.e. himself.

That is a crude manipulation. Not even deserving to be described as smart or Machiavellian as you probably imagined it to be but only as raw and mechanical.

Tsquared

"you, sir are a liar!"

Robert

I think what saddens me the most is the venom in the way brothers are talking to one another. Peter, whatever venom you perceive coming from Dr. White does not call upon you to be hateful and spiteful back. People on this site saying "HA!" and being humorous about such an important topic. Are any of you claiming that Dr. White is not a believer? If he is a believer, you should not talk to him in such unChristlike ways. If he is not then you should correct him gently hoping he will come to repentance.

I, personally, am tired of the viciousness of the way we attack brothers in Christ. I did not find Dr. White's post calling anyone a liar. But he did claim he was misrepresented and I believe that even though you disagreement with him on the issue of the love of God may be valid, you did misrepresent his argument. If you could not understand it, as you now say, then you should have written him to clarify or left it alone. This is truly sad.

David B. Hewitt

Mr. Lumpkins, or better said, Dr. Lumpkins, I must say... I still fail to understand your motivation for your comments against Dr. White, as do I fail to understand why you continue to use the term "hyper-Calvinist" to describe him, as you did in this post:

"Reformed apologist and hyper-Calvinist James White critiqued Dr. Vines’ sermon on God’s inexhaustible love."

Are you defining the term in ways other than its historical meaning? The only way I can conceive of your comment being accurate in any way is that you are somehow using a different definition, one that is (whether intentionally or not) misleading to many who would read it. The term "hyper-Calvinist" is a pejorative of course, and rightly so.

sdg,
dbh

peter

David,

With all due respect, you know darn good and well precisely why I use the term "hyper-Calvinist" since you carried on an extended exchange with Tony Byrne on this site, not to mention the lengthy exchanges I've had concerning David Allen's essay. If you cannot or will not agree with the term "hyper-Calvinist", I give you my utmost permission to disagree. But to play the fiddle called "I just don't understand" is plainly absurd.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Robert,

You write, "I did not find Dr. White's post calling anyone a liar."

So, my Robert, what does the following assertion mean to you?

"Now, notice how Mr. Lumpkins, without editing the audio, has lied about what I said."

Write James White? And have my email plastered on the internet? Nope...

Milhamah,

You assert: "You have not recorded anything. You only edited previously recorded video... That is a major difference."

I think you need to re-read what I meant when I used "recorded."

With that, I am...
Peter

Chris Roberts

Ahh but Peter, if you are wrong then either you do not understand something or you are blindly ignoring the truth.

As far as the video you've posted goes, I'm amazed anyone could watch it and reach your conclusion. There is either a significant misunderstanding taking place on your end, or some very deliberate blindness. Wondering which it is.

Jeff Krause

So then Dr. Peter, please explain to all of us what a hyper-calvinist is next to say, a simple calvinist. That would clear the air a great deal.

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

What is truly amazing is the way Dr. Caner and Dr. Yarnell have been castigated by Dr.[sic]White.

Blessings,
Tim

David B. Hewitt

Dr. Lumpkins, hello again sir. You said:

"With all due respect, you know darn good and well precisely why I use the term "hyper-Calvinist" since you carried on an extended exchange with Tony Byrne on this site, not to mention the lengthy exchanges I've had concerning David Allen's essay. If you cannot or will not agree with the term "hyper-Calvinist", I give you my utmost permission to disagree. But to play the fiddle called "I just don't understand" is plainly absurd."

I of course do not agree with the term or your using it; I appreciate the permission to do so. ;)

At the same time, please forgive my ignorance, but I was serious in what I said. I truly do not understand your continued use of the term. There are two reasons for this:

First, I believe (yes, I really believe), given White's videos, and now the latest debate (the second audio I mean) he had with Dr. Brown, that White has made it very clear that God desires the salvation of all men in His revealed will. Since that was part and parcel of Tony's objection -- that he didn't think Dr. White affirmed this -- I figured the matter was settled.

Second, though I saw at one point you said you distinguished between "hyper-calvinists" and "Hyper-Calvinists" I didn't see where you made the distinction in definition. I haven't spent a lot of time looking around your site, so even if you put the definitions of this distinction out in the open, I missed it. Would you be willing to provide a link to it in this thread? I would greatly appreciate it.

Many thanks for your time.

sdg,
dbh

peter

Chris,

I did not say I was wrong. I only said it's entirely possible I incorrectly interpreted White's intended meaning.My concession states: "Frankly, it's possible I misunderstood what he intended to mean in his wording." Do you think I should have stated it impossible for me to incorrectly interpret White's video?

Of course, in White's moral world, it's impossible to be mistaken; rather one is an intentional liar, which, of course, is what I am accused by Sir White.

Jeff,

Please read the thread before you comment again.
Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

David,

The distinction I made between 'Hyper-Calvinism' (capital H) and 'hyper-Calvinism' (small h) has but little to do with anything I've posted here. White's position is summed up well by Tony Byrne. Even more, David Allen's essay in Whosoever Will nails the coffin shut, it seems to me, for legitimately assuming White's theological hyperism. You can start there. Hence, you need no links.

All,

So sorry to shut the thread down for the evening. I am unwilling to leave the thread unattended. If you have further questions, check back tomorrow, perhaps evening. I'll put it back on line as soon as I can. I have special reasons for doing so, I assure.

With that, I am...
Peter

David B. Hewitt

Dr. Lumpkins:

Many thanks again for the reply. However, I am afraid it isn't helping me a whole lot -- so you are saying that the distinction you made has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with your comments? Very well, then I am left even more confused, partly due to the fact that you mentioned Tony Byrne again, especially when I thought his complaint had been answered....

Also, I do not have the book you mentioned; from what I have heard, it is hard to get at the moment, and is on back order, so I couldn't get it if I wanted to.

How would you recommend I get access to the information you mentioned? I am still hopeful for a link of some kind of course. :)

sdg,
dbh

peter

David,

Thanks. First, if you are confused, David, it is self-induced confusion for I wrote nothing here which should require any explanation on the "H" vs. "h" which you brought up, not I.

Second, "answered" according to whom?

Third, I suggest you trek over to google books and pull up the volume which has some hefty quotations, some of which are directly related to my assertions concerning Allen's research. My point, obviously enough, is, I am not arbitrarily tagging someone (i.e. JW) as holding to theological hyper-Calvinism. Instead there are sober reasons based on scholarly research which suggests White falls into that category.

Now, if that is not sufficient, I'm afraid you must remain in your thirsty situation--at least for now...

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

Jason D.

you can listen to his preaching and hear that he does in fact talk about the love of God, I've even heard it in his Sunday school messages, debates, and on his radio show.

How can one say they are accurately representing White when you can clearly see in the video clip that what is written that James White says is different than what he actually says.

Heath Lloyd

Peter:

Do you ever get tired of always typing

"with that, I am . . . Peter"?

David B. Hewitt

Dr. Lumpkins,

With regard to the main issue that (I thought) had been addressed, here is my reason. Tony said this:

"The reason why James White is being labeled a "hyper-Calvinist" is because he denies that God desires the salvation of all men in the revealed will, which is the same as denying the well-meant offer of the gospel"

Given the information that White has mentioned since, that particular charge by Tony has been answered. This is why I thought the matter closed.

You said:
"Thanks. First, if you are confused, David, it is self-induced confusion for I wrote nothing here which should require any explanation on the "H" vs. "h" which you brought up, not I."

The reason I mentioned it had nothing to do with this particular post, but rather with some comments you made in a previous post, or at least that I thought you had made in a previous post. I went back searching through the comment threads of the posts you had made recently that I have participated in, and didn't find the distinction I thought I had seen. For that, I apologize and stand corrected. At the same time, it makes the fact that you still consider Dr. White to be a hyper-calvinist even more alarming, imho.

Oh well.

Thank you again sir for your time.

sdg,
dbh

D.J. Williams

Peter,

I've been reading your blog since our alcohol discussion several weeks ago. Though I don't agree with you much of the time, I've enjoyed the discussion and reading outside of my normal theological camp. However, in this instance, I believe you've overstepped the line by blatantly misrepresenting White. These actions call to mind the warnings about a divisive man in Titus. By misrepresenting White's clear meaning (reducing a 20 minute discussion to a 90 second soundbite), you're doing nothing but riling up unneccesary division against him. Please look very carefully at yourself in this matter.

The comments to this entry are closed.