« Is Reformed Baptist an Oxymoron? (Part III) by Peter Lumpkins | Main | On Calvinism and Infant Salvation: A Brief Proposal by Peter Lumpkins »

Aug 01, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e20133f2c90322970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Doktor James White Apologetics: Connecting to the World with Love by Peter Lumpkins :

Comments

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

Drpenn

CHORTLE!!

Nice....as usual. Thanks Peter - you do help bring a little levity to the end of the day. :)

It's sad that they really believe that.

peter lumpkins

DrP

Well, I'm glad you got a laugh. It's interesting what one can "find" on the internet these days. ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

David Benjamin Hewitt

Peter:

Aside from the obvious mockery with the animation including Dr. White's head....

...am I to assume that you mean what you said in this video?

Craig Daliessio

David...please get over yourself. And stop calling him "Dr". If you wouldn't let an unaccredited neurosurgeon operate on your spine why would you allow an unaccredited...errr...uuhhh...apologist do whatever it is James White does. (On three continents no less)

"Number 25 in your programs but number 1 in your hearts"

The Big Paisan

Michelle

They believe that unelect babies go to hell?! That is incredibly disturbing to me. Why? Babies haven't even sinned yet??? Is this true of all Calvinists or is it unique to White?

peter lumpkins

David,

Thanks. But if one has to "explain" the contents of satire, then the satirical intention is most certainly lost on the one asking for explanation. Hence, I'd advise you to just scratch you head and say, "Uh? I don't get it." Nor is a scratch-head response an invalid, illegitimate response. All people do not appreciate satire (or spoof or sarcasm or parody for that matter)as a venue to communicate. Which is why I use it sparingly.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Michelle,

Thanks for the question. No, all Calvinists today (thankfully) do not embrace the doctrine of non-elect babies burning in hell. Classical Calvinism most certainly taught it and happily embraced it, however. Of course, Roman Catholics held similar beliefs pertaining to unbaptized infants dying in infancy. St. Augustine was very clear.

It must be added that Calvinism as a systematic theology continues to struggle with infants dying in infancy. Indeed some theologians argue that whether or not Calvinists deny some babies burn in hell, their theological principles necessarily imply the doctrine. Hence, you have some Calvinists today playing the "we're ignorant" card. It sounds much more palatable--both emotionally and theologically--to suggest one should be "reserved" from making pronouncements about what the Bible does not explicitly affirm than it does to be driven by one's theological presumptions to a highly despicable conclusion: individual predetermination of all the elect and reprobate necessarily implies the obscene belief that non-elect babies burn for all eternity in hell, all to the glory of God.

Two truths drove their stake in my heart, killing forever the passion I held for years for strict Calvinism. A) the absolutely bankrupt doctrine of Limited Atonement. This doctrine is fatal to non-biblical Calvinism, in my view. Even when I "said" I believed it, I don't think I ever deep-down accepted it. It was just too convenient, too "consistent," and needed far too many biblical verses to say something the verses did not naturally say. B) that God created most of the human race for the specific purpose of damning them to hell, all for His glory; and, this included unborn children as well as infants dying in infancy. The God of strict Calvinism became to me reminiscent more of an omnipotent Devil than a loving Creator, not to mention sacrificial Redeemer as revealed in the Word of God, specifically the gospel of Jesus.

Sorry for going on, Michelle. Again, all Calvinists do not embrace infants dying in infancy are in hell, but classically they have embrace it, and many still do today. Indeed I would argue all would if they were consistent with their theological principles.

With that, I am...
Peter

Robert

Where exactly have you ever heard Dr. White say that all non-elect babies go to hell? It is my understanding that he has simply said that Scripture is not explicit about this issue. My question for you would be whether or not babies are born with sin natures. If so, how does one stand in judgment before God? Baptists repeatedly say, "We are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are born sinners." If that is true, then how does someone get into heaven with a sin nature? And if God eradicates that sin nature without the synergistic cooperation of the child, then is that not God choosing (electing) to save all children? And if God does this for all children who die in infancy, then a child that is aborted in a family who worships a false religion would be better off than potentially growing up and going to hell because they do not believe the Gospel?

I am in no way saying that I believe any of these things above, because I actually hold to the fact that children who die are covered by God's saving grace, I simply point out that it is easy to just throw out there an emotional topic like the death of a child and make all kinds of theological assumptions without more deeply addressing the issues. In addition, what is truly sad is how you take an issue that is very sensitive like the loss of a child and using those emotions to attack a brother. My wife and I have actually lost a child and this is obviously a very sensitive topic with us. Yet, you use it satirically to attack. I am offended on a myriad of levels that you would do such a thing.

Robert

Arlin

I appreciate satire and spoof.
The beauty of satire and spoof is by emphasize true things to the absurdity and demonstrating that through humour.

This video was neither truthful nor particularly (read: not whatsoever) funny.
It was merely childish, stupid, and inaccurate.

The above describes much of what you have said and done throughout the course of the Ergun Caner debacle.

Arlin

What is more sad is that we don't believe that.

That video was horrifically mis-representative.

A fault not found in worthwhile satire.

Bob

Actually "they" don't believe that. That video is a total misrepresentation of not only James White, but Reformed Theology as well.

Drpenn

so you got the "honorable mention"...or dishonorable?? on James White's blog today.

Something strikes me that he and his followers are constantly accusing us of....and they never seem to change their tune....

We refuse to look at the evidence. You know - the *board* at LU looked at the evidence, they issued their statement - Dr. Caner issued his apology to them - and it's a "done deal". So, if we refuse to see the evidence, I guess they refuse to acknowledge the outcome?!

I suppose James White will never be happy - even if Jesus Christ Himself told him that Ergun Caner has repented.

Like I have said before, and continue to say: James White's religion is debate, and his god is himself.

Tlawork

That has to be one of the dumbest commentaries on James White I have seen. Peter we all know you hate or at best dislike James White, but you've got to do better than this. How bout take on a real argument from him...

peter lumpkins

Robert,

I too have experienced similar as have you. And, I can see why you would be more sensitive than another. However, all the more reason to show the absurdity of the obnoxious theological position.

Also, I refuse to squelch certain truths just because the truths may bring up emotional feelings in others. If such were a criteria, I suppose the case could be made for no satire at all concerning any provocative subject.

Again, sorry you're offended.

With that, I am...
Peter

Charlie

James White does not believe you have to be a Calvinist to go to heaven.

He is also not a hyper - calvinist.

You are a wicked sinner and scoffer.

peter lumpkins

Arlin,

Then, my brother, do what I do: do not laugh and do not accept. Is this a fair response to something you feel is neither funny nor truthful?

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Sean,

Reword your comment minus the accusation I am lying and post again.

With that, I am...
Peter

Ron Hale

Peter,
Who was that certain minister of the gospel that chided Dr. Billy Graham for his Oklahoma City Memorial message? Who was that man, I can't remember his name that accused Evangelist Graham of preaching a "new gospel -- justification by youth alone."

His name is on the tip of my tongue and I can't remember ... can you help me?

Remember it was when Dr. Graham spoke of that great reunion of parents and innocent babies that died on that horrible day.

I think, I may not be correct, but he may have been the "key note" theologian speaker for the FM luncheon/breakfast at the Southern Baptist Convention this year in Orlando.

Peter, I need help ... can you help me with that name?

Steve

Peter I really wonder if you have ever read the Bible without blinders on.

With that, you are...

Obnoxious

Steve

Peter I wonder if you have ever read the Bible without blinders on.

With that, you are...

Obnoxious

Greg Crouse

Did you eat some lead paint when you were a kid??

peter lumpkins

Ron,

Let's see...ummm...give me a minute....almost there...Yes! It was good old, R.C.Sproul, my favorite popular Reformed author! Great question, Ron :^)

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

BTW, Arlin,

You mentioned to Dpenn my video was "horrifically mis-representative," and went on to conclude misrepresentation is "A fault not found in worthwhile satire." You are kidding, right?

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Steve,

No. Nor do I suspect have you...

Greg,

Nope. But I did eat groundhog.

With that, I am...
Peter

Joel O.

I prefer to make fun of calvinists for their incessant belief that that the bible is the word of some god and I continue to lobby for their condition to be labeled as a mental disorder. Some day we will be rid of these fundamentalists that are holding back society.
Thanks Peter.

Mike Felker

oh, so you criticize White for being "unloving," and then you post this? Was this crude and un-Christian video an example of love? Grow up.

Bill

Peter,

Who is the creator of this video?

Thanks,
Bill

Craig Daliessio

Charlie...is that opposed to a non wicked sinner?
Just checking.
hey have you donated to the James White fund yet Charlie. He was over there asking for money so he can go to one of his poorly attended debates. I personally think he is secretly raising money for a total makeover so he can look like Ergun Caner. I mean his obsession knows no limits as is. He's probably trolling Ebay right now looking for one of Caners used toothbrushes so he can score some of his DNA.

Dave

When one's position is not supported by the facts, one can always resort to ridicule.

Ridicule on, Peter...

Frank!

Wow, this is the level of discourse we can expect from you huh? What a waste of bandwidth.

Daniel

People seem to forget that accreditation as commonly referred to means Government recognized accreditation. Consider the situation for those in communist Russia where operating a church without the states permission was illegal. Would an underground church pastor be a legitimate pastor? Those that would defame others who have chosen to earn a non-government recognized degree are yearning for the control of the state over their church and their lives.

volfan007

Daniel,


I laughed so hard at your comment that I nearly spit coke on my keyboard. lol. This aint Russia. lol.

Peter, you really got the Whiteheads attacking you now. You lost liar. lol

David

Jesse

James White has been unhinged for a while now. I first caught his videos on You Tube about a year or so ago, and he seemed like a good teacher, but, I have grown to regret my initial impression. I really dislike him now. For him, the merest criticism is all the evidence he needs to label the speaker a 'liar', 'heretic', 'blasphemer', etc. Seriously, he uses every possible synonym for 'liar' in every line he writes or breath he takes.

He has lost him grip, and it has been evident for some time now.

peter lumpkins

Well, well. I can see Doktor White's readers finally showed up. Here's the deal, guys: a) don't log a comment with an anonymous name b) don't think a "real" sounding name suffices (e.g. Steve). If you're email is giddybeanpole@aol.com, consider yourself an anon because I do c) those of you who've already logged your spiffy insults as an anon, consider it a freebie. Please respect the commenting parameters (see above).

Thanks
With that, I am...
Peter

Luis Gonzalez

And this is what evangelicals look like?

Luis Gonzalez

This is where arminiasim get`s to, impontence of not beeing able to prove reform theology wrong and then they get personal and nasty, i guess that is what happens when you read "chosen but free", it gets layman, instead of scholarly. I guess they forget that GOD has pre-destined every failure of the arminian position against reform theology:)

peter lumpkins

Luis,

Not sure what you mean. But if I did get your meaning, no. It's what frenzied emotion looks like.

With that, I am....
Oeter

Luis Gonzalez

I believe you are grossly mistaken, Jmaes white debates because he wants to exalt JESUS Christ as LORD, armenians on the other hand, will say they believe they are the ones who control salvation and the whole process, that to me sounds like there own god. Because scripture tells us that GOD is the one in controll from the beggining to the end of our salvation, since eternity past.

peter lumpkins

Luis,

I may be grossly mistaken toward what I assumed you were speaking, but from what I can tell in your response to me, perhaps you are grossly mistaken that anyone could possibly know what you apparently meant by, "and this is what evangelicals look like?"

With that, I am...
Peter

Eric

Peter -

Do you know who created this video? If so, who?

Thanks

Wesley

That's not Calvinism, it isn't what James White actually believes/teaches from what I can tell, and, therefore, it isn't funny. It was just stupid. If White posted something so obviously false about you and what you believe/teach, I would say the same thing to him. But it's not White who is being dishonest and constantly producing just this sort of cheap, shallow rubbish against those he can't stand or stomach; that would be you. You purposely promote falsehoods about people you really don't like for your own messed up reasons. That's pathetic. Stop being an infant.

Robert

I've asked this before and I'm sure if I ask it now i'll get what amounts to a smoke screen answer, but I'll ask anyway...ya never know.

Peter: Since this video didn't represent Dr. Whites beliefs accurately, are you willing to talk with Dr. White on his show and get the real truth as to what he believes and why?

And don't do the..."I won't go on his show because he's rude"...or "I won't go on his show because he'll cut me off..."

Or some other equally transparent excuse...

C'mon, put your money where your safe keyboard is...what do you say?

Nick

The movie was mockery, so in that regard it's not something someone should be laughing at. The only truth behind that movie is that there really isn't a distinction between "Calvinist" and "Hyper-Calvinist," as many Calvinists would claim. The label "Hyper-Calvinist" is usually slapped onto someone who doesn't phrase the "cold hard [Calvinist] truth" as "politely" as the "evangelical" Calvinist would want.

For a more critical error of the Calvinist position, see this link:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/04/was-jesus-damned-in-your-place.html

Michael Bell

Mr. Lumpkins,

I understand satire and I understand comedy, and both of them can be used to make a point lightly without being done mean-spirited. But I have to say, the posting of this video, in light of you having a complete website devoted to "exposing" James White and your seemingly-condescending tone towards him, really makes you out to be quite vindictive and passive-aggresively focused on taking every shot conceivable at the man, if not obesessed (now, that being said, you may take issue with his comments towards you, and provided that your accusations are true, that certainly is fair enough and SHOULD be dealt with. But honestly, you are not working towards gathering an audience with those you may hope to convince. And if you are trying to convince no one, then why are you saying and doing such things?)

I will come right out and say it: I am a Calvinist and I am not ashamed of it (though, I don't know in reality how much I care for the name "Calvinist," or at least being defined primarily as one. I would hope that an "Arminian" would rather not be known firstly as an Arminian either, but a follower of Jesus Christ and a pursuer of holiness in Christ-likeness, preaching the gospel to every creature, hoping to be the best biblicist s/he can be). And I will also say this: although I strongly do not agree with the Arminian view of salvation and God's work therein because I do not find it to be biblical (irregardless of John Calvin--interestingly enough, I was convinced of the truths of what we know as the "doctrines of grace" while being ministered to by a seemingly largely Arminian ministry, with virtually NO knowledge of John Calvin whatsoever. Go figure!), I do believe that both Arminians and Calvinists can be genuine, born-again believers in Jesus Christ (ala John Wesley and George Whitefield, i.e.) That being said, any childish, ad hominem, "us" vs. "them," hot-air blowing, scathing insults is a deliberate violation of John 13:34-35, and has no place among any Christian speech, whether Calvinistic or Arminian. So, for the sake of the gospel and the glory of God, for those of you engaging in these things (which I fear may be the case as I look over some of these comments), cease with your inappropriate and malignant talk, which will only continue to spread like a cancer and take the focus off of the main thing: glorifying God in this world by preaching the gospel, making disciples, and doing our part in the salvation of the lost.

I am utterly offended by this video (Mr. Lumpkins, please understand, I am not blaming you for making it, but you have decided to submit your approval of it by posting it joyously for the whole world to see) and by whoever made it. First off, I have never heard James White ever hold to ANY of the tenants of hyper-calvinism, which must be condemned as an abberrant, if not heretical theology. The issue here, though, is not hyper-calvinism: the issue is the spirit in which this video was made, which I suspect was made not in pure jest or in a spirit to genuinely expose an inconsistency or falsehood for the sake of the edification of the body of believers, but at least in some shred of spite and vindictiveness. I believe this is a mischaracterization of the man's theology and a malignment of his character. Mr. Lumpkins (or anyone else for that matter), if there is a shred of evidence that James White has made himself unqualified to teach and preach according to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 2, would you please document it here? Then maybe some satire will be in order, but until then, this remains a gross mischaracterization, not only of Calvinism as a theology, but of James White's view of biblical theology.

Secondly, ANYONE joking about the reality of hell in such surprisingly light ways should be called out (whether Calvinistic or Arminian). This video communicates the conception to me that the person who made it is lacking in: 1)the fear of God, for it is He who created hell as just punishment for the sin that we all have committed and continue to (unfortunately) commit due to the dead sin nature still clinging to us like so much sea weed; 2) the compassion for the lost, since the lost will spend an eternity in eternal concsious torment, where there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth for ETERNITY, in infinite agony in the lake of fire for time without end; the thought of this makes me shudder and can make me weep for the lost and fuel my desire to reach out to the lost, not by fodder for any childish, idiotic insult; and 3) any serious dialogue about the issue at hand, which remains NOT calvinism or arminianism, but integrity in the pulpit.

In the past, I have been a compulsive liar, and I am sorry to say, Dr. Ergun Caner's actions are completely in line with someone who is caught in a lie, makes some concessions to "truth" in order to feel as though they have confessed (but in reality, haven't), and then seek to move on from anymore inquiry into the matter as quickly as possible. This is what is happening with Dr. Caner. As far as I can see, he has been caught in embellishing his testimony in order to sound more radical muslim than he is (not denying he was a muslim AT ALL here, at least I'm not), has made consessions to truth by saying that, for instance, people have got on him for not speaking the Arabic correctly (or as one Arabic speaker has noted who is a CHRISTIAN, he is not really saying anything sometimes at ALL) are saying that he wouldn't because he is Turkish (which is fine with me, but why would you then say you debated people in Arabic), and now it seems he wants the whole thing to blow over. This is something that should make ANYONE who is zealous for God's glory, Calvinist or Arminian, righteously angry. Folks, you don't apologize for misstatements and no seminary dean should ever be asked to step down from his office for them. Misstatements can be made by anyone, you, me, Ergun Caner, and James White. But willfull, deliberate lying is a different story altogether and until Dr. Caner comes out and explains why there are inconsistencies in his testimony beyond just superficial concessions, the lgiht will and should remain on him, for God's glory, and in reality for his own good, so that he may come to a place of genuine repentance.

Now, I know that to some who read this, this is a moot point because you are not convinced that Dr. Caner is lying and deceiving the people he is influencing through teaching, preaching, and fellowship. Fair enough, for I do not want to mischaracterize anyone or accuse someone of doing or saying or (in the case of this video above) believing something that they do not or have not actually said or held as a position. However, Liberty's statement does not explain why a dean of their seminary is no longer teaching. That is disciplinarian action, and it should not have been done if Dr. Caner simply made "contradictory misstatements" with no ill intent or motive to deceive. But I think Liberty reveals their own political hand in this which I find absolutely disgusting, and would be disgusting whether it was a calvinist or arminian seminary. Liberty is concerned with one thing it seems: protecting Liberty. If Dr. Caner is indeed lying (which I most definitely believe he is) he should be lovingly and biblically confronted by his seminary, his sin should come to the light, and he should be encouraged to seek repentance and helped as much as humanly possible by the Holy Spirit's power and working within us as Christ's body of believers. But this is not happening, and nothing is being explained AT ALL (i.e. there still has been, to my knowledge, NO EXPLANATION for how legal documentation shows that Dr. Caner has been in America since he was three, but he himself has claimed to have come to Christ later in life through broken English after having been brought up in muslim-majority countries. Misstatement?! Come on, we are not infants who cannot reason!) Unfortunately, the way the Dr. Caner situation is being treated is a very sad commentary on the professing church in America and the complete lack of desire for holiness, a lack of holiness that John Wesley himself would have been appalled with.

Mr. Lumpkins, I am sorry this is so long, but I want you and every other reader to know that my desire is to see Christ glorified in all his children, and that his erring children are lovingly brought to genuine repentance and those who profess to be his children but remain unregenerate are brought to see the light of the gospel and the glory of Christ and their own sin and deserving condemnation as a result of it. Thank you and God bless...

Daniel

How does your remark, "This aint Russia", explain that something government recognized is somehow better than something not recognized by the government?

Bill Trip

Wow! The lack of theological training and lack of depth by the comments on this blog is disturbing. Dear Mr. Lumpkins, why not
debate James White in public?


Thanks

Mac

Peter = Psycho

Anybody who takes this person seriously, needs to be checked into a mental institution.

David Benjamin Hewitt

Dr. L:

Perhaps the point of satire is lost, but the reason I asked the question was to be sure of what you said so that I would be interacting with your actual points instead of dealing with what would otherwise be a straw man. It was an effort to avoid misrepresentation; you chose not to give me the courtesy, which I suppose would ruin the "joke" but alas, it is needed for truth to be engaged (at least for a me).

Michael Bell:
I could not have said it better myself. Thank you brother for your wise insights.

sdg,
dbh

Daniel Spratlin

Craig. Get over it. You are wildly inept to discuss matters of academia.

Daniel Spratlin

Yeah. It would be sad. If Calvinism actually taught that. Of course, you've shown many times your inability to understand the things of the Spirit.

The comments to this entry are closed.