« Joe Donahue: Evangelist to a Hurting Generation by Peter Lumpkins | Main | You, sir, are an Unregenerate by Peter Lumpkins »

Jul 08, 2010

Comments

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

Chris Gilliam

Well now we know. It is not grace alone, for if so your regeneration would be secure. No far be it, it must be grace plus allegiance to moral superiourity, enlightened intellect and the ability to see from far and wide the motives of someone's heart. Peter, repent and remove yourself from the masses and any connection to others that could be extrapolated as cronism, nepotism, commercialism, capitalism, and most importantly lies, your salvation depends upon it....I mean Christ, and it...or is it, it and christ ...Oh IT is Christ.
Sorry for being so silly!!!!

Craig Daliessio

See...this is why I won't do two shows a night anymore.
Ergun Caner...Liberty owes you an apology and a raise

peter

This surely puts perspective on understanding why it was impossible to deal with James White and his supporters at all. Inevitably it was headed in this direction from the beginning. At first, they just wanted "answers" to their very few questions. Then, they raised the stakes by rejecting answers and asking a whole new set of questions. All answers became, for them, non-answers. Finally, one's soul is now framed into the cast of unbelief.

Yes, sir. A wonderful display of truth, righteousness, and biblical holiness.

With that, I am...
Peter

Craig Daliessio

And this is obviously why White backed out of those debates in 2006 (regardless of how he states it, it was WHITE who would not continue because LU wanted to livestream and that would make his DVD's worthless. White was in it for the cash) He can't EVER put this debate to bed...EVER. Who IS James White without this? Seriously. He is Geraldo Rivera, moving from one over hyped non-story to the next.
My analogy of him as Holmes and Ergun as Moriarity is spot-on. As is the La Mancha references. Without the mighty quest in his head, he is part of the great nothing. Every fiber in his soul screams out for that not to happen. He is a sad and tragic figure.

volfan007

Maybe we should ask Turretfan to evaluate everyone's salvation? Maybe that would get all the unregenerate members off of our church rolls? Maybe this could become a new ministry opportunity for him...judging who's really saved, and who's not?

David :)

Patrick

wow the unknown comic! That sets me back a few years. He gets the gong

Mlynn

Let me see, Peter. Have you been called a Pelagian yet? If not -- you will be!! hehehe I'm not even sure they really know what being a Pelagian really is, since they call anyone who disagrees with them a Pelagian. And, of course -- unregenerate is another favorite label.

Peter -- you are in GOOD company.

One thing they are definitely into is called "doctrinal regeneration". This is why they call any of us who are not hyper calvinists unregenerate. I have seen this kind of behavior time and time and time again in Paltalk. Lots of Whiteheads are there!!

Pilgrimsarbour

I do not want to get in between two dueling Christian dudes here, but I should point out that TurretinFan is definitely a "he." That is quite clear after listening to his audio debates with William Albrecht, Lou "Rugg," etc.

Tim G

Peter,
I was so sad to hear of your lost grace. Please know that our church will be praying that you find the grace lost and will be restored.

Now if they claim you never had it - how do they do that. Are they saying now that they determine behavior that is sin? If so, how do they leave out other areas of sin in their own lives or are they merely writing those off from the sin list?

Anywho - know that our prayers are with you as you seek the grace that hopefully God has called you to knowing that maybe you were never called at all! Which would mean that God does not like you at all!

Bill

Peter,

I'm sure James or Turretinfan would accept a debate with you on this subject. You seem to be familiar with the facts and I think it would be edifying to us who have observed this issue.

Jesus is truth, let us all proclaim it and shout it from ever corner of our lives.

Bill

Craig Daliessio

Bill...you really think so? I mean they already declared Norman Geisler a liar. I like Peter...I really really like him...but geez. At what point do you not see how they really DON'T want the truth? This matter can NEVER be resolved...they need it. They need Ergun like Limbaugh needs a liberal in office. Which is why my position was always that L.U. should have had a closed door meeting, settled the nothing issues that existed and then issud a statement that Ergun would remain LBTS Pres and flipped James White the bird by never addressing it again.
That's all a glory hound understands...

peter

Bill,

Now why on earth would I want to debate JW or one of his supporters? Why would anyone need to debate? Surely, you do not think it would change anyone's mind, do you? Nor is "debate" even a reasonable medium. Consider: the proposition would be whether a person is a liar or not. Do you know how extremely goofy that is, not to mention a waste of time since Dr. Geisler has penned the definitive answer to JW and his clan.

I suggest you take a cold shower and then go to bed.

With that, I am...
Peter

David Benjamin Hewitt

Craig:

"Bill...you really think so? I mean they already declared Norman Geisler a liar. I like Peter...I really really like him...but geez. At what point do you not see how they really DON'T want the truth? This matter can NEVER be resolved...they need it. They need Ergun like Limbaugh needs a liberal in office. Which is why my position was always that L.U. should have had a closed door meeting, settled the nothing issues that existed and then issud a statement that Ergun would remain LBTS Pres and flipped James White the bird by never addressing it again.
That's all a glory hound understands..."

I'm looking for the grace in that statement... I decided to give up because I'd never find it. :)

dave

peter

Pilgrimsarbour,

Unfortunately, one cannot be too sure about matters relating to voice alone. I know this by experience living in downtown Atlanta.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

David,

Oh, I get it. You're over here looking for grace.

Ummm. Well, tell, me, David: did you find the pursued 'grace' in TF's labeling me 'unregenerate' as well as Lane Chaplin & Carla Rolfe's castigating Ergun Caner as unregenerate? It'd really be nice to know since you like to place a smiley face on your quest in Craig's words.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Craig,

I love ya man. And, I feel your frustration. I must be honest and say had I saw that "flip" quote in time, it wouldn't have made the viewable thread. I'd have asked like before to 'polish it a bit' and I'd post it.

Anyways, let's keep it nice.

With that, I am...
Peter

Craig Daliessio

Dave
Grace is me not driving to Phoenix and punching James White in his eye, simply because I could. How about you ask the great grace question of your savagely attacking friends? Why is my response to his despicable spewing required to be gracious and you have NEVER asked him or his toadies to stop? WHY? You don't have an answer. You all behave yourselves like Democrat operatives. You get a free pass to attack with as much sickening, vicious, ungodly venom you can muster. You turn answers into questions and ignore answers that offer retort to you position and when that fails you attack the SALVATION of those who disagree with you?? REALLY?
There is NOTHING wrong with that?
But MY response should be gracious?

Why do I even answer you, seriously?

Craig Daliessio

Peter...
What I said was "Flip them the bird by..."
It would be analogous to, but not actually flipping the bird. Dr. Falwell was a master at it. Smile, declare you position, and then treat the topic as anathema from that moment on. It never failed to work perfectly.

David Benjamin Hewitt

Craig:

Your responses should always be gracious. Is that not the consistent requirement of Jesus upon us? I would presume you and others that are commenting here think that what TF and Dr. White are saying is evil, am I right?

Matthew 5:39-41 ESV But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (40) And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (41) And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

Would not the principle that Jesus strongly puts forward in these verses in Matthew chapter 5 demand a different response that what you are giving?

And yes, Peter, I am looking for grace. As people who claim the name of Jesus, no matter what others say, no matter what others claim, we should, no MUST rigorously scrutinize everything we say and do and ask, "What is Christlike?" Are we truly showing forth Jesus by what we say?

This motive is what led me to comment what I did on TurretinFan's blog. He responded in a gracious manner, as anyone will see should he choose to follow that link.

Yes, I did call him on what he said, because I thought it unwise and, I believe, incorrect to make the claim that you were unregenerate, Peter. I didn't see that the comment was in the proper grace that we should be showing each other, and I said as much, though not in the same words. You'll see that he changed his post.

I also talked to Dr. White like I said I would a while back in a private message window in his chatroom concerning some of the comments about the Alexander the Coppersmith post. I said that he should look at the post you made in response to it because I thought you had said some important things that he should see. I don't remember the exact thing I said, but that was the gist of it.

I am not a man who enjoys conflict at all; sometimes it makes me feel physically ill to do it, especially when it involves men who I respect so much (such as TF and Dr.W). The truth is, of course, that no one gets a by with regard to obedience to God's commands.

Anyway, all for now. I need to get a few sermons uploaded to our church's now working file server.

sdg,
dbh

peter

David,

Frankly, David I'm not in the mood for the sweet syrup you're peddling here while at the same time writing words void of grace. On TF you write,

TF: Though I would agree that his [Peter Lumpkins'] actions have not been in step with the Gospel in [most] of what he has posted...I would rather say that PL is acting like an unregenerate person...I have seen comments that would seem to spring from a life who at its heart does indeed desire God's honor."

David, to show up here pleading for gracious words about others when at virtually the same time logging these words about the host of the blog where you're peddling your wares is, from my standpoint, explicit duplicity.

Never, ever come back here lecturing Craig or anyone else on being gracious in speech, brother. It won't be posted.

With that, I am...
Peter

A.M. Mallett

David wrote:
I am not a man who enjoys conflict at all; sometimes it makes me feel physically ill to do it, especially when it involves men who I respect so much (such as TF and Dr.W). The truth is, of course, that no one gets a by with regard to obedience to God's commands.

I ask:
Do you not feel like you are sitting in the midst of a roaring fire by spending time in White's domain? His entire, and I mean entire "ministry" is about seeking and promoting conflict.

David Benjamin Hewitt

Peter:

What do you expect me to say, given that I strongly agree with not only what but how you have presented? And why would I direct people to TurretinFan's site if I thought I was saying something that wouldn't be consistent with what I typed here?

My comments in both areas stand; that is, I stand by them both. I do not think that much of what you have said is appropriate at all, and that it is not in step with the Gospel of grace that you profess. The point wasn't to say that you are verbally denying tenants of the Gospel, but rather what you have done (probably would have been better to have used the word "said") isn't in line with someone who has embraced the Gospel. It's another way of saying that you have sinned, and I do think that to be the case with a lot of what you have said.

In the same way, when I sin, I am acting in a way that is out of step with the Gospel. I need to be called on it, and if I have sinned here against you (it would be unintentional, but still wrong) I would want you to call me on it. At times, God help me, I act like an unregenerate person as well.

My point in saying, "I have seen comments that would seem to spring from a life who at its heart does indeed desire God's honor," was to affirm that yes, I believe that you are a Christian which is why some of the comments I've seen you write, specifically some in response to be, are those I would expect from someone who loves and worships Jesus Christ.

So, I hope this comment meets your approval, brother Peter. :)

sdg,
dbh

Tim G

A.M. Mallett,
You are so correct on the "seeking and promoting conflict" statement. my only question is that some call it a ministry. Not sure it fits the real definition of a ministry.

Brennon

I wish I was like TFan and had this divine knowledge of a professing Cristian's true (and we must note; doubly predestined) election status. He's like a false convert dousing machine. TFan, obviously, is equal to God in this respect. He would mercilessly and anonymously chastise us silly Arminians for something like that, but he gots it anonymously together.

Riddick

DBH commented-

"Yes, I did call him on what he said, because I thought it unwise and, I believe, incorrect to make the claim that you were unregenerate, Peter."

You only call it "incorrect" over here but originally said it was only "unwise" over there. Not only that, you said it just "seemed" unwise to you. It was one of the most delicate, fawning, limp-wristed, pseudo-rebukes I have ever seen. You should have said Turretinfan was behaving wrongly in what he said and that he should delete the foolish remark.

DBH commented-

"I didn't see that the comment was in the proper grace that we should be showing each other, and I said as much, though not in the same words."

No, you didn't mention "proper grace" or anything like that in "so many words." You just said it "seemed unwise," which is not even necessarily the same as saying it was wrong. Don't overplay what you said, David. Your words did not even qualify as a rebuke. It was more like limp-wristed advice from a cowering friend.

DBH commented-

"You'll see that he changed his post."

Changed his post?! He merely put a scratch mark through the word "unregenerate" rather than delete it. Is that the kind of repentance you commend as sufficient?

Face it, DBH. You don't have the courage to confront unethical behavior on your side of the theological aisle and yet you "boldly" demand objectivity among others outside of your circles, and that they "repent."

To say that PL is unregenerate is just asinine and cultic and you know it. It is an embarrassment and a shame on your side of the aisle, but indicative of the kind of condemning people you associate with on a regular basis. Did you even check what Lane Chaplin said in the link provided above? He's another one who made a boneheaded and shameful remark, but he has a history of doing it on Twitter.

By the way, "Turretinfan" is not quite as anonymous as he thinks. We know that he works at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. in Cleveland, Ohio (4900 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH. 44144-1304: Telephone = 216.479.8500 Fax = 216.479.8780); and that he uses the IP address 206.18.111.5. It is only a matter of time before we find out more, even if we have to email every single one of the lawyers listed on that page with all the blog information and voice samples. I am sure they would be interested in finding out what one of their workers is doing while at "work" and what hateful things he is saying about other people on the Internet in an anonymous fashion.

peter

David: “What do you expect me to say, given that I strongly agree [sic] with not only what but how you have presented?”  How about this:  “While I strongly disagree with not only what Peter says concerning this issue but how he says it, there remains absolutely no reason to make this a salvation issue”? Instead, David, you spit out the very same accusation as did TF sprinkled with a teaspoon of sugar.

David: “And why would I direct people to TurretinFan's site if I thought I was saying something that wouldn't be consistent with what I typed here?”  So you’re saying just because you think your words are consistent that’s supposed to be evidence  your words are actually consistent? Your question makes no sense, David.

David: “My comments in both areas stand; that is, I stand by them both. I do not think that much of what you have said is appropriate at all, and that it is not in step with the Gospel of grace that you profess.”  David, from your standpoint, nothing short of agreeing 100% with James White could fit the label “appropriate.”  As for not in “step with the gospel” I suggest, brother, you put up or shut up. 

David: “The point wasn't to say that you are verbally denying tenants of the Gospel…”  Totally irrelevant.  No one has mentioned this.

David: “But rather what you have done…isn't in line with someone who has embraced the Gospel.” Again, David. Put up or drop it.  What I have done is defended a brother from a crusade bent on destroying him.  That’s how I see it.  You praise James White for allegedly “exposing a fake.”  So, what I have done isn’t in line with the gospel but JW’s crusade is.  Yes, David. That’s very appropriate.  I see.

David: “It's another way of saying that you have sinned, and I do think that to be the case with a lot of what you have said.”  Oh, I see.  I “sinned” that’s all.  Well, is it possible a believer sins?  If so, why even bring up the possibility of being unregenerate?  David, this is unmitigated, spiritual hogwash.  It is the most scary thinking anyone can encounter.  If there is a disagreement—question the other person’s salvation.  Judge a man’s soul as headed to hell—or looking like it’s headed to hell--because he takes a hard-line view opposite your hard-line view. That’s just swell.

David: “In the same way, when I sin, I am acting in a way that is out of step with the Gospel.” David, it’s NOT the same.  No one expects salvation to be questioned because of the presence of some vague sin.  To make them the same is to make salvation drudgery not joy.

David: “My point in saying, "I have seen comments that would seem to spring from a life who at its heart does indeed desire God's honor," was to affirm that yes, I believe that you are a Christian which is why some of the comments I've seen you write, specifically some in response to be, are those I would expect from someone who loves and worships Jesus Christ”  David, you’ve got to be kidding.  Your suggesting my appearing unregenerate is proof I am actually regenerate?

Now, here’s the deal:  ultimately, I don’t give two slaps on a gnat’s behind what you think of me.  I am not accountable to you nor anyone one in James White’s community. But when you come here pretending to be gracious—I even fell for it, I have to admit--and at the very same time on another site spewing verbal puke by questioning my experience with the Lord Jesus, I don’t take kindly to such forward hypocrisy, David.

You also said I was confusing and dishonoring in what I write.  Well, brother, we’ve had, to my recall, only a few exchanges.  And, also to my recall, I do not remember you demonstrating your charges I am either confusing or dishonoring to God with my words.  In fact, in the last exchange, you tucked your tail and ran. Of course, I suppose that could have been because I was so confusing.

What you have demonstrated, David, along with TF, is that the rigid Calvinist community will inevitably get around to a fundamental plank in their theological platform:  if you ain;t with us, you’re going to hell.

They (and you) can call that a caricature all they wish.  But, more times than not, from hard-line Internet Calvinists, that’s the bottom line.

With that, I am…

Peter

P.S. I see you didn't bother to address Chaplin & Rolfe's questioning of EC's regenerate heart as well. Add two more to JW's community who question a Christian's salvation...

Riddick

The condemning comments persist over there, DBH. Look at what "Turretinfan" is allowing in comments:

"Since all of this stuff is now out there in the public domain, we are now at that point in "the Matthew 18 process" at v. 17 with regards to Ergun Caner and his disciples where they are to us "as a heathen and a tax collector."

Saying they are heathen and tax collectors is saying he will consider or treat them as lost or unregenerate (which actually is not a change or something new). This "Tom" person plainly says,

"Thus I regard Caner (as well as Craig Daliessio, A. M. Mallett, Tim Guthrie, Tim Rogers, and Norman Geisler) as baptised infidels."

All of these men, including Caner, are deemed unregenerate by these people, DB Hewitt, and you're silent and undisturbed by these broad and sweeping condemnations made on Turretinfan's blog. These are the kinds of people you are associating with.

peter

Job,

If you'd like to make a comment about this thread, do so and I'll post it.

With that, I am...
Peter

Roger D. Duke

Peter,

I just wanted you to know that I was reared in Old Hickory. I went to the Temple Baptist Church where I was saved, baptized, married, ordained as a deacon and to the Gospel ministry. We had our first house in "Neely's Bend" about a mile from the NBBC you mentioned. We were married in 1974 so our times had to overlap. And for that other brother still living there, we may look you up. We are coming up there this next weekend for Temple's 65th reunion. It is a small world in God's sovereignty is it not?
sdg
rd

Riddick

See, DBH? Even I am added to the "baptised infidel" list. And why? Tom said...

Okay, Riddick, since you seem so interested in posting my comments on Peter the Lump's blog, I shall be more than willing to add your name to the list of baptised infidels which comprise the membership of the Canerite Sect.

I am condemned by Tom for posting his comments over here. This guy probably flatters himself as if he is nothing like the condemning Pharisees, and yet look at his sectarian, judgmental, condemning behavior. These people are so hasty in their anathemas that I am now deemed unregenerate merely for posting his words over here, apparently.

Again, DBH, these are the kinds of people you are associating with. Give that serious consideration as you reflect on the nature of your company. Do you really think that these people qualify to correct and restore other people, particularly leaders and teachers, according to Paul's criteria in Galatians 6:1? Personally, I think you're better than the company you keep, DBH. Give it some thought.

peter

Riddick,

I appreciate your words here, especially your balanced analysis. Thank you.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Roger,

What a very small world. Wow. Yes there is overlap. When Kathy & I married in 1973, our first home in the Nashville area was Mt. Juliet. We lived in a tiny little house trailer on Carver Lane just off the Mt. Juliet exit. In fact, the trailer was located in the pasture of its owner, Jackie McDole, a Pentecostal believer who faithfully witnessed to me often. He too played a role in my coming to Christ. He also helped me get a descent paying job at the trucking lines to support my family.

Not long afterwards, we moved into Donelson into a duplex, and then into our first home we bought for $16,500 in Old Hickory. I thought we would go bankrupt!

So good you're going to Temple. They played a significant part in my entire family coming to Christ, though I never have attended church there. God's grace has been kind every step of my life.

Grace & peace.
With that, I am...
Peter

Craig Daliessio

White is like the character from the old SNL skit "Theodoric of York: Medieval Barber" where no matter the issue the answer was leeching.

Doug

Riddick,

How exactly do you know that Turretinfan blogs while at work?

David Benjamin Hewitt

Oy. Well, I guess since I walked into this, I might as well see if some good can come of it. I trust that it will!

First, to Riddick:
I don't know who Tom is, nor have I ever associated with him to my knowledge. He appears quite zealous, but I do not agree with him. Now then...

All quotes will be from Peter:
"“While I strongly disagree with not only what Peter says concerning this issue but how he says it, there remains absolutely no reason to make this a salvation issue”? Instead, David, you spit out the very same accusation as did TF sprinkled with a teaspoon of sugar."

Yes, that would have been a more direct way of saying it. My point for not being quite so direct I believe was my desire to tread lightly around people I respect so greatly. I would do the same with any disagreement and/or accusation of wrongdoing against one of the elders of my church.

So, no, Peter; I am afraid you misrepresent me (though I do appreciate you correcting my error in the comment with the [sic] you provided). If I had put out the same accusation, then I would not have called you "brother Peter" at the end of my comment. I wasn't being inconsistent, but merely following what I meant by what I said, not how you interpreted it. If you aren't willing to accept my explanation of it, then well, I don't know what else to say.

"So you’re saying just because you think your words are consistent that’s supposed to be evidence your words are actually consistent? Your question makes no sense, David."

What I'm saying is that my words can be consistent if you interpret them the way I meant them. When I called TF's comments unwise, I was implying that what he said was wrong. TF certainly took it that way, per one of his comments:

"I made the comment about the term "suggesting" not being strong enough before DBH's testimony to the effect that he has seen evidence of God's grace in PL's life. After the testimony, I thought it better to reconsider my words, and limit myself to saying that Mr. Lumpkins is unkind."

Think of Proverbs 18:13 with regard to one giving an answer or statement about something and being unwise.

"David, from your standpoint, nothing short of agreeing 100% with James White could fit the label “appropriate.” As for not in “step with the gospel” I suggest, brother, you put up or shut up."

Wrong; your presupposition that "nothing short of agreeing 100% with James White could fit the label “appropriate”" is simply in error. I do not agree that Dr. White should have called you "Alexander the Coppersmith," whatever he meant by it. I was trying to see it in the best possible light, but regardless, it gives the wrong message. There are other things about which I have had disagreement with Dr. White; there are not many, but there are a few. Most (if not all) of them are about how he says things more than the bare-bones content of it though.

"David: “The point wasn't to say that you are verbally denying tenants of the Gospel…” Totally irrelevant. No one has mentioned this."

Not totally irrelevant. I was explaining, in part, what I meant. I was attempting to buttress my previous statements that I believed you truly are saved. Apparently, I didn't do so very well; thank you for pointing that out.

What I meant was that your actions/words were not in step with Christian character. It was making a reference to the words Paul used to refer to his confrontation of Peter in Galatians 2.

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel.....

No, I am not saying you are advocating adding something to the work of Christ. The emphasis I was employing had to do with the word "conduct."

"Oh, I see. I “sinned” that’s all. Well, is it possible a believer sins?"

Of course.

1 John 1:8 ESV If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

"If so, why even bring up the possibility of being unregenerate?"

Good question. I suspect it had something to do with many of your comments against Dr. White, with what you said and how you have said it, how you have responded to very criticisms of your position. Given that is all anyone who disagrees with you has to work with in the blogosphere, that is the conclusion I'd have to reach in answer to your question. Bear in mind that it doesn't follow that I agree that such a label should be used, because I don't believe that.

"David, this is unmitigated, spiritual hogwash. It is the most scary thinking anyone can encounter. If there is a disagreement—question the other person’s salvation. Judge a man’s soul as headed to hell—or looking like it’s headed to hell--because he takes a hard-line view opposite your hard-line view. That’s just swell."

I do think it can be very dangerous to say such things, to go the route of questioning someone's salvation. This is part of the reason I disagreed with TF's statement and considered it unwise.

Also, as I have said above, it isn't just because you take a "hard-line view opposite" Dr. White's view. Michael Brown who is an Arminian, with whom Dr. White had a radio debate, with whom he disagrees strongly, is someone also with whom he enjoyed Christian fellowship. So, please understand that the issue isn't the fact that the two of you disagree strongly about something.

"David: “In the same way, when I sin, I am acting in a way that is out of step with the Gospel.” David, it’s NOT the same. No one expects salvation to be questioned because of the presence of some vague sin. To make them the same is to make salvation drudgery not joy."

Well, in an actual situation it would be a specific sin of course. Further, I agree at least here: to make salvation contingent on keeping from sin completely would turn it into drudgery and not joy; at least that is what I think you were saying.

"David: “But rather what you have done…isn't in line with someone who has embraced the Gospel.” Again, David. Put up or drop it."

I think I have addressed what I meant by this in my comments so far.

"What I have done is defended a brother from a crusade bent on destroying him. That’s how I see it. You praise James White for allegedly “exposing a fake.” So, what I have done isn’t in line with the gospel but JW’s crusade is. Yes, David. That’s very appropriate. I see."

Here is a fundamental difference between your understanding of this and mine, and, I would add, James White's understanding. This has never been a crusade to destroy Ergun Caner. The issue has always been about integrity in ministry; it isn't a personal war.

With regard to "exposing a fake," I would have to ask, "a fake what?" Given that there are I think three different accusations of "fake" going around, I'll need some clarification please.


"David: “My point in saying, "I have seen comments that would seem to spring from a life who at its heart does indeed desire God's honor," was to affirm that yes, I believe that you are a Christian which is why some of the comments I've seen you write, specifically some in response to be, are those I would expect from someone who loves and worships Jesus Christ” David, you’ve got to be kidding. Your suggesting my appearing unregenerate is proof I am actually regenerate?"

No, as I have said, I was saying that you were acting out of step with how a saved person should be acting, not appearing unregenerate. There is a difference.

"But when you come here pretending to be gracious—I even fell for it, I have to admit--and at the very same time on another site spewing verbal puke by questioning my experience with the Lord Jesus, I don’t take kindly to such forward hypocrisy, David."

No you have accused me of a few things, have you not? You say was pretending to be gracious.

I assure you, I wasn't pretending. My true desire is to be gracious. Were that not true, I either would have left a long time ago from your blog and/or would have said something truly obnoxious, for which I would need to repent.

Secondly, as I wasn't questioning your experience with the Lord Jesus, I hope you see now that I wasn't acting hypocritically. Again, there is a reason I linked to the thread on TF's blog. My hope was for people to interpret what I said here and what I said there in light of each other. It seems it happened, but in the opposite way and with the opposite conclusions that I intended.

"You also said I was confusing and dishonoring in what I write. Well, brother, we’ve had, to my recall, only a few exchanges. And, also to my recall, I do not remember you demonstrating your charges I am either confusing or dishonoring to God with my words. In fact, in the last exchange, you tucked your tail and ran. Of course, I suppose that could have been because I was so confusing."

I wasn't just referring to our exchanges, but main posts as well. With regard to my tucking my tail and running, I am sorry it appear that way. I presume you are referring to your post about Calvin going to Berkley. I had responded to most of Don's comments, and I was going to work on your comment to me last night when I discovered that the comments for that thread were closed. I would like to continue the exchange; can they be reopened?

If that isn't what you are talking about, then I am at a loss as to your referent. Please help me.

"What you have demonstrated, David, along with TF, is that the rigid Calvinist community will inevitably get around to a fundamental plank in their theological platform: if you ain;t with us, you’re going to hell.

They (and you) can call that a caricature all they wish. But, more times than not, from hard-line Internet Calvinists, that’s the bottom line."

I am a bit confused here. Surely there have been some who have concluded thusly and are unwilling to entertain objections to such conclusions. With them I will of course have to disagree.

At the same time, and here is where my confusion lies, this issue with regard to Caner hasn't been a Calvinist vs. Non-Calvinist issue. Never has been; plenty of non-Reformed people are at odds with what Caner has said as well. Were you unaware of this?

"P.S. I see you didn't bother to address Chaplin & Rolfe's questioning of EC's regenerate heart as well. Add two more to JW's community who question a Christian's salvation..."

Nope, I didn't. Nor do I intend to. I read through one of Carla's posts (I *think* it was the one you were referring to), but it was after I read your comment. I also haven't read what Lane had to say. I do not intend to comment on what they have said; I would prefer to avoid broadening this more than it already is by bringing in more people and having to sort through all of their statements too. Time is a precious commodity, and I run short on it even now. :)

I do hope and pray that this has been helpful. Please forgive any typos; I didn't proofread this too well as I had to get going.

sdg,
dbh

Coram Deo

I'm of the opinion that TF was right on the money before the strikethrough and revision to "unkind".

In Christ,
CD

peter

David (Hewitt)

No thanks. You're on your on. Post your "defense" of James White, TurretinFan, and yourself at your place.

Coram Deo ("living life before the face of God")

You've commented here before (but not again).

Now, according to you, my entire life is a sham, a deception, a hoax. The testimony I gave above remains a spiritual vacuum, an empty bubble which one day will burst, and my hopeless soul goes into eternity without Christ.

If you are correct, nothing awaits me in the future but eternal madness, for I place trust in Christ alone now and in nothing or no One else. If I have not been rescued as Scripture and soul tell me I have, then no rescue exists.

This is the message your nameless life would have me know?

I see.

With that, I am...
Peter

Riddick

"Doug" asks-

"How exactly do you know that Turretinfan blogs while at work?"

I find it curious that you ask and wonder about "how exactly" I know he blogs while at work but don't ask and wonder about how exactly I know where he works. Why the former and not the latter? That inclines me to believe that you know that I know where he works, and thus you move on to the latter question. What matters is that he ("Turretinfan") knows that I know all of these things; and even that he sometimes vainly tries to use http://www.hidemyass.com/">"HideMyAss.com to conceal his Internet activity of religious hate speech while he is working at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P in Cleveland, Ohio under the IP address 206.18.111.5. You see, "Turretinfan" is a fearful man, a coward. While he gets off making other people's personal information public on the Internet (and assisting in investigating and blogging their legal documents in Ohio), he is desperately trying to conceal his own information and identity. He won't publicly deny any of what I am saying above, except that he is a coward; otherwise his conscience will condemn him as a liar and accuse hm of being no different from his perception of Caner, Lumpkins, Geisler, and others he deems to be "unregenerate." He will have to lie publicly if he says (1.) he doesn't work at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P, (2.) he doesn't blog or make comments on the Internet while at work, and/or (3.) he doesn't use "HideMyAss" while doing so. Again, what matters is that he knows that I know.

When all of his personal information is known, it shall be made just as public as he has made the information of other people publicly known. We will even post pictures of him when he is wearing his Harry Potter costume and waving a plastic wand as he skips about in his mother's basement. We will post videos of him running around like Ruprect in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels while in that basement.

With that, I am...
"Turretinfan's" worst nightmare :)

peter

Riddick,

My brother, I'm telling you straight-up: I'm still laughing and about to have to change my britches.

With that, I am...
Peter

Riddick

See the "Coram Deo" comment above, Mr. Hewitt?

I'm of the opinion that TF was right on the money before the strikethrough and revision to "unkind".

There is yet another example of the kind of people you are associating with, David. They are quick to condemn and quite hypocritical when they speak of how "saddened" they are by this Caner situation. They actually seem quite gleeful about it as they addictively blog about the situation. Galatians 6:1 disqualifies them in their ungodliness.

The truth of the matter is this: "Turretinfan" is not really sorry that he called PL "unregenerate." He is sorry that he made a silly tactical mistake by revealing what he and others really think. It makes him (and others) look bad, and you know it, so he made a superficial retraction. He didn't really repent, and hence his stubborn refusal to apologize for his Pharisaical folly.

Brother Peter-
I am still laughing at the Ruprect video myself. It is one of my favorites :)

With that, I am...
Off to buy you some pampers

peter

Riddick,

Two things: a) note David's long comment above. I thought I had taken care of it this a.m. Didn't. At any rate, you probably have not seen it

b) "Coram Deo"'s link takes one to a blog not affiliated with David.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. it originally took one to a site which one had to search for his blog. I corrected the link...

Riddick

DBH said-

I don't know who Tom is, nor have I ever associated with him to my knowledge.

Ok. "Associated with" is not the way to put it. What I mean is the kind of people who are within your theological ranks that are associating themselves with your own friends and/or acquaintances, or people within your party. The point is this: why would "Turretinfan," a friend of yours that you "respect," even allow their ungodly condemning remarks to be made on his moderated blog, even after his own retraction? Would you allow people to say such condemning things about Peter on your own blog, particularly without rebuking their behavior??? Given that you are willing to type so much over here in an effort to correct Peter, why aren't you expending the same effort on "Turretinfan's" blog to correct those making their sweeping condemnations? "Politics," perhaps? Even when shown the Lane Chaplin remarks, you avoid dealing with it, or calling it what it is. As I mentioned above, you do not appear to have the courage to correct people within your own ranks, and Lane Chaplin is certainly within your White-supporting, White-associated ranks. In fact, when it comes to dealing with this group, you say these sorts of things:

He ["Tom"] appears quite zealous, but I do not agree with him.

Notice how cowering that is. Quite zealous?! It is just as much devoid of any real rebuke towards "Tom" as your ["seems unwise"] statement to "Turretinfan" was. "Tom" appears quite zealous?! Is that all?! Yes, he is zealous...in his Pharisaical condemnations, anathemas and overall asinine behavior; but you don't have the courage to call a spade a spade when it comes to dealing with those within your own theological ranks. On the contrary, you deliberately soft-pedal the nature of their words and the situation. Meanwhile, accusations of politics are made against the Caner-supporters when you're over here deliberately and significantly understating the obvious evil that is being done by "Tom" and others within your own Caner-critical ranks. That's not less than politics as well. That is what I am trying to get at when I imprecisely speak of those you are "associating with."

By the way, David, when you try to say something even slightly critical of James White at times, you come across like a cowering abused son seeking to hesitatingly approach an abusive father; or like a worried person in a cult delicately approaching a controlling, hyper-sensitive cult-leader with just very small bit of criticism. Reflect on that.

David Benjamin Hewitt

Peter said:

"No thanks. You're on your o[w]n. Post your "defense" of James White, TurretinFan, and yourself at your place."

We must be referring to different comment threads. I was talking about the one where you mentioned the book about Calvin going to Berkely(sp?). You had made comments responding to me where I denied that philosophical reasoning was driving my theological understanding, the same comment where I think I posted some items from the LBCF1689. That is the one I was hoping to have reopened so we could continue to converse on that topic.

If there is another, then I don't remember it; my apologies. Do please feel free to remind me. :)

sdg,
dbh

Craig Daliessio

So now that I know where Souptureenfan works I know who it was at Squire Sanders who was tracking my every word. Nice work Riddick...that was classic stuff.

David Benjamin Hewitt

Riddick said:

"The point is this: why would "Turretinfan," a friend of yours that you "respect," even allow their ungodly condemning remarks to be made on his moderated blog, even after his own retraction? Would you allow people to say such condemning things about Peter on your own blog, particularly without rebuking their behavior?"

I am not sure what you mean, exactly. TF did chide Tom a little bit; I am unsure the whole of what he meant. At the same time, were it my blog, I would have written much in the same way that I did when I posted in TF's comments earlier today after I read your comment here. I might do more, I don't know; I haven't been faced with the situation. I would be inclined to warn a person of having his comments deleted I hope.

That's just me though.

"Given that you are willing to type so much over here in an effort to correct Peter, why aren't you expending the same effort on "Turretinfan's" blog to correct those making their sweeping condemnations?"

Part of the reason is that I haven't read TF's blog as much as I should have. Should my brother TF read this, I'll apologize to him up front. I do indeed have a lot to learn from him.

Another reason is, from what I can tell, he has made a lot fewer comments about Peter than Peter has about he and (especially) Dr. White. Moreover, when I have read what TF has written critiquing Caner for example, it is always done in humility and with great care, avoiding making conclusions when the evidence doesn't go there. That is something I have appreciated about him greatly.

""Politics," perhaps? Even when shown the Lane Chaplin remarks, you avoid dealing with it, or calling it what it is."

I haven't interacted with Lane or Carla on what they have said at all. I haven't planned on it either; it isn't an effort to ignore things to save face, but rather trying not to spread myself so thin that I don't have anything useful to say in any forum. Time is an issue. So no, not politics. :)

"As I mentioned above, you do not appear to have the courage to correct people within your own ranks, and Lane Chaplin is certainly within your White-supporting, White-associated ranks. In fact, when it comes to dealing with this group, you say these sorts of things:

He ["Tom"] appears quite zealous, but I do not agree with him.

Notice how cowering that is. Quite zealous?! It is just as much devoid of any real rebuke towards "Tom" as your ["seems unwise"] statement to "Turretinfan" was. "Tom" appears quite zealous?! Is that all?! Yes, he is zealous...in his Pharisaical condemnations, anathemas and overall asinine behavior; but you don't have the courage to call a spade a spade when it comes to dealing with those within your own theological ranks."

I won't dispute the fact that I have been timid in correcting people in the past. This is really true of about anyone I have sought to correct, much more so when people are in positions of teaching and/or authority. I'm a deacon at my church; I serve my God and my church. That is what a deacon, a tablewaiter if you will, does.

However, part of what I think you are calling cowardice (do you really wish to use a term with such negative connotations?) is my attempt at being gentle as I introduce a rebuke. My point with saying that Tom was being zealous and didn't agree with him was drawn from Romans 10:

Romans 10:2 ESV I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.

My point in referring to that passage (albeit perhaps in too subtle a fashion) was that though he was zealous, he, like the Jews Paul was referring to -- were wrong. I do wish to call a spade a spade, sir. I just prefer to set a spade in a corner, gently bring someone over to where they can see it, point to it from across the room, and say, "See that? What is it?" and wait for a response. I could of course grab it, throw it into someone's face and say, "This is a SPADE!"

I prefer to strive for gentleness and meekness and still communicate truth. I am not always successful at any of those three, but I plod on, seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance into such even more than I am now. After all, such are part of His fruit. May He grant it all the more to us all.

"On the contrary, you deliberately soft-pedal the nature of their words and the situation."

I certainly am not trying to soft-pedal anything, not in the sense of ignoring it. I do not doubt that I have erred in that before, but my motivation at least is what I have previously mentioned in all of those situations. Sometimes I have failed to make the next necessary step to move someone a bit closer to the spade in the corner after the original question; that is a mistake of mine, and sometimes it has even been sinful not to pursue the matter. May God increase my sanctification; however, I think you have misunderstood and misrepresented me having said I am deliberately not giving this matter the attention it deserves.

"Meanwhile, accusations of politics are made against the Caner-supporters when you're over here deliberately and significantly understating the obvious evil that is being done by "Tom" and others within your own Caner-critical ranks. That's not less than politics as well. That is what I am trying to get at when I imprecisely speak of those you are "associating with."

I appreciate the clarification; I trust that I have answered your objections. If not, please feel free to raise what I have missed. :)

"By the way, David, when you try to say something even slightly critical of James White at times, you come across like a cowering abused son seeking to hesitatingly approach an abusive father; or like a worried person in a cult delicately approaching a controlling, hyper-sensitive cult-leader with just very small bit of criticism. Reflect on that."

I am left wondering at how many times you have seen me say something critical of James White and why you thought each of those times fit the mold you have just described. I'm definitely curious. :)

I have reflected on it, and as I think I have intimated before, I have been hesitant at times to address an issue with Dr. White. The reasons are already laid out in this thread. With the vast amount of knowledge he possesses and how well he handles the text of Scripture, it can be easy to be intimidated to attempt to correct someone of that caliber -- yes, I know, many people will (I think wrongly) scoff at my description of Dr. White. Just think of trying to correct, say, Dr. Geisler if you saw that he had done something wrong and you had his ear -- but, because it was right, I have proceeded in the few cases I can remember. What they were I do not feel I need to disclose. :)

Now, Riddick, for a question for you:

You seem quite intent on uncovering TF's identity as well as dispelling the veils of anonymity with which he has shrouded himself on the internet. Why is that? Do you not perhaps think, as a Christian brother, that his motive might indeed be pure and he is trying to protect himself from harm? I don't know what his motive is and frankly I do not care. I was just wondering if you had considered that.

Might I also suggest that you please be a bit more careful how you ascribe motivations to people. To say I deliberately soft-pedal something, apparently implying that I am intentionally not raising an important issue with someone I should be, seems to indicate you know my heart on the matter pretty well. In my comments I have denied that I have deliberately done such a thing, which means one of two things; as far as I can tell, there are no others:

1.) I am lying about what I have done and how I have done it.

2.) You have violated Proverbs 18:13 with regard to what you said about me (two links there).

Which do you think it is?

sdg,
dbh

Riddick

To David Hewitt's credit, he has called on "Tom" to repent on "Turretinfan's" blog, and Hewitt did so in a godly way. Thanks, David, and well-done. Hopefully "Tom" will heed your appropriate call.

David Benjamin Hewitt

Riddick (curious about your real name, but this will suffice of course):

You said:
"To David Hewitt's credit, he has called on "Tom" to repent on "Turretinfan's" blog, and Hewitt did so in a godly way. Thanks, David, and well-done. Hopefully "Tom" will heed your appropriate call."

Kind of you to say that, though I need no credit. A verse I memorized long ago to help me remain humble comes to mind:

Luke 17:10 ESV So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.'"

It's a good reminder for us all.

I do hope you answer my questions I directed to you, Riddick. Had you planned on doing so?

Soli Deo Gloria,
dbh

David Benjamin Hewitt

I guess I shall not get my answer. I shall have to live with that, it would seem.

dbh

Don Johnson

DBH,

I haven't got my answer either.

Patrick

Peter,

Not only has Turretinfan been wrong on labeling you as a unregenerate, he also committed a theological error on his blog concerning Zola Levitt:

"UPDATE: As one alert reader noted, it's a little late - Zola Levitt has gone to his grave. Substitute the name of whoever is running his podcast these days.)"

Zola Levitt was surely a believer, yes his remains are in the ground, but to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. A better way to phrase it would be "Zola Levitt has gone to be with the Lord."

That's two basic theological errors from Turretinfan.
I tried to post on his site about Zola Levitt, but it did not get posted.

The comments to this entry are closed.