« Free Will, Ignorance, and Reformed Internet Apologetics by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Free Church Press Releases New Volume »

Feb 13, 2011


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bart Ehrman Honks James White's Nose by Peter Lumpkins:


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


I think James White should have pulled out his trump card and simply said...

"You, sir, are a liar," and walked off the stage to a standing ovation.


I think the warning we should take from this is do not get into a debate about textual criticism when you know very little about the subject. I am not sure why Mr. White's lack of knowledge about T.C. should be a wake up call to our seminaries about "neo-calvinism."

I have had classes on T.C. at two of our seminaries (NOBTS, SBTS) and learned enough to know that it is a specialized field and would want to have many years of study to try and debate a man like Ehrman. White seemed ill-prepared but I am not sure that his lack of preparedness was a direct result of his neo-calvinism.


You can hear White squirm like a cornered rodent because he's out classed by a scholarly feline.

"Dr." White is, and more than likely always will be, nothing more than a 'professional debater' with a side of 'hack scholar'. If/when he finds humility and earns a real doctorate he will not be so flippant with subjects outside of his expertise.

Debbie Kaufman

So in order for something to be true, you have to be able to debate it perfectly? Come on Pete. Your slipping up on this and I think you know it. Your vengeance is really getting old. Let's pull up some of your arguments that sunk like the Titanic. They are numerous.

Debbie Kaufman

BTW I think James White did it well. In fact Dr. White caught Ehrman in a few stretchings of the truth. As in "these arguments surprise me." White held his argument very well.

John Fariss

I don't really have a dog in this fight (I am no Calvinist BTW), but having listened, I would have to disagree somewhat with your assertion that "Ehrman walks away looking like an accomplished scholar. On the other hand, White crawls away like a whipped mongrel." I would say Ehrman walks away more like a district attorney pleased with the cleverness of his cross examination, and White like a witness who is frustrated by not being allowed to answer fully. Pardon my ignorance, but what was the setting of this exchange?


Mark McCullagh

Dear Peter

That debate looks interesting. How might someone get hold of it so that it can be heard it in its entirety?



Debbie, based on some of your other posts, one must wonder how objective you are about Mr. White. Inasmuch, is there any exchange that he could have with others where you would think he did, in fact, not "win?"

Mr. White believes he's an expert on everything, even when he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. One such example is his "Arabic." He made a video criticizing Caner's Arabic, but White himself has atrocious Arabic and can't even pronounce simple words, such as "Muhammad," correctly. Yet, of course, this doesn't stop him from making a video for the purpose of making fun of someone else about the same thing. You have to wonder how "teachable" he is when his own Arabic teacher apparently does not feel comfortable pointing out his language errors that even a child would not make.

I think we need to really start being honest about all of this, starting with not referring to James White as "Dr." White. This is a constant source of fodder among his critics, and those who look at him objectively. He IS not a Dr as he DOES NOT have an accredited doctorate. He is not living above reproach in that this is a constant source of allegations of dishonesty toward him, yet he refuses to repent and reconcile this.

I agree with you partially. I think what it does show is that when Mr. White is outside of his element in terms of the rules for how a debate is conducted, he has a much more difficult time prevailing or even sounding like he knows what he's talking about.

Richard Pierce

kidcudder11's posting of that is a violation of American Vision and Alpha and Omega Ministry's copyrights of it. We have made attempts to persuade him to take it down on his own and are about to take action against him with YouTube via their DCMA policy. I don't believe that you may have been aware of that when you posted this but thought that you would like to know. I expect that you will do the right thing and direct folks to the proper avenues where they can acquire the recording in its entirety. http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=868

Richard C. Pierce
Alpha and Omega Ministries


Mr. Lumpkins, I am failing to see how your 'analysis' is at all connected to the video you posted.

Did you listen to the whole debate? Most of it? Part of it? Did you even listen to this clip you posted?

Dr. Ehrman came off ok, in this exchange.
Dr. White came of ok, in this exchange.

This was one short 9 minute exchange in a multi-hour debate.

The only one in this exchange who comes of 'unscholarly' is yourself for insulting Dr. White pointlessly and demonstrating a rather rabid bias against the man.

Also, Dr. White is not a 'neo-Calvinist'. Mark Driscoll may be considered a 'neo-Calvinist'.

Dr. White is a Reformed Baptist, hailing from a 400 year old tradition of Reformed Christians originating in London. Hardly 'neo-' Calvinism.

peter lumpkins


My deepest apologies.  I'll take the link down. For those interested in a non-pirated copy of the entire debate, you may purchase a copy for six bucks here.

With that, I am...



First off, why are you complaining about someone who embeds a youtube clip on their site? It's an embed, take it up ONLY with the person who actually hosts it.

Secondly, I can't help but wonder now, given your comments, if there's something to the fact that part of the reason you guys pulled out of the debate with Caner is because he wanted to stream it live and you couldn't sell it/make money off of it. Is the reason Mr. White does debates to further the cause of Christ, or profit from it and "prostitute" the Gospel?


Why are you still referring to Mr. White as "Dr." White? He's as much a Dr. as "Dr. J." the basketball player was.

peter lumpkins


No, I never listen to tracks before I post them or read materials I critique. Am I supposed to?

With that, I am...

Debbie Kaufman

Roy: You have your facts misconstrued. James White did not pull from the debate. Ergun and Emir Caner did and it wasn't for the reason of live streaming. The actual exchange to prove my point can be found either in the archive of Tom Ascol's blog or on Alpha Omega Site archives.

Second, James White has not claimed to be that which he is not, that is not true of Ergun Caner. The details can be found pretty much anywhere. Sorry, but I heard the snippet which as someone pointed out was 9 minutes of an hour debate and although I do admit partiality as I have been listening to James White for many years, saw him doing quite well and not being allowed to finish. I know the feeling. :)

Next; the point is made quite well that James White is not hyper Calvinist. He is in fact in line with Reformed doctrine in it's entirety that has been around for 400 years. To call him hyper is simply ad hominem and not based on fact. Ignorance of what the Reformed believe, but not fact.


You know, it is a bit strange that "Dr. J"s supporters compare him to Dr. MacArthur, yet MacArthur allows free access to all of his materials, and before this, gave them away free on his mailing list.

On the other hand, "Dr. J" seems to go after anyone who doesn't give them money for their material, making one wonder what kind of "ministry" it is, and also trying to get youtube to shut down other videos that cast them in a bad light.

For the younger ones among you, Dr. J was a famous basketball player. Obviously, he was not a medical, or any other, type of doctor. Coincidentally, James White is in this same boat. However, he DOES claim to be an actual doctor, but not only is he not, he also cannot dunk a basketball in a 10 foot goal.



But, James White can dunk...



Roy -

I can't believe I'm going to wade into this, but there are a few things I believe are worth noting here. While I am personally opposed to the very concept of copyright, it is the reality in our country, and the creator(s) of a work have the rights to its distribution.

Putting on these debates is not a cost-free exercise. Funding is required to obtain the venues, pay for the equipment, and for the costs of bringing the participants in the debate together. There are also costs associated with distribution - even online distribution. There is real work done in putting these debates on and making them available, and it is how Dr White and his associates make their living. I believe that Scripture pretty clearly indicates that people have a general right to make a living off of their efforts -- even if those efforts are in some way ministry related.

Further, Dr White does not, and has not ever, charged for the gospel. He makes all kinds of material available for free (his website, the Dividing Line program, etc). Further, when on the Dividing Line or online or in person interacting with people who are in need of the gospel and/or trapped in false religion Dr White frequently ships even these for-cost materials to them for free, in the hopes it will be a help to them.

Dr White has spent countless hours with people out on the street (particularly with Mormons), after debates, at conferences, etc trying to reach them with the gospel. When he still ate food he would give up his chance to eat to spend more time with those who were lost. He freely proclaims the Gospel all of the time. These debates are not the Gospel. The gospel is not proving the truth of Christianity or the bankruptcy of non-christian worldviews. The gospel is not intermural debates between Christians. The gospel is what God has done for us in Christ - and I am not aware of anywhere that Dr White has charged for this.

As for your absurd claims about doctorates, it is not accredited that grants the title of Dr, but rather the work that is done. I have never seen anyone who takes issue with his title do so while interacting directly with the work that was done - they just point to whether or not the school bothered to get accredited.

There are a significant number of people being homeschooled today. There are also a lot of students going to schools that are not "accredited". Historically the claim has been made that because they aren't going to "accredited" (or in common parlance, "approved of") schools, they will be stupid and not have a good education, and probably won't get into college.

Of course, I say historically, because just about the only people who say this any more are people who are either completely ignorant of the data or just plain foolish. To say such a thing now just reveals your ignorance. On average homeschooling students perform far better than students in "approved of" schools.

The same can be said of *some* unaccredited schools. If you want to compare schools, you can be lazy and use accreditation, which of course just tells you that they probably charge more money, and that they meet the bare minimum standard of the organization that granted the accreditation.

Or - you can actually do some real research and look at the work that is done and look at the results, and choose a school that will give you the *knowledge* that you want, and the *experience* that you need - probably with a greater level of work and a greater quality of result. Sure there will be those who stand in the corner and throw jibes at your degree because it's an easy mark.

But the real question is this, did you get the degree so that people would respect you because of it, and because the institution that granted it has accredited status, and therefore it confers some holy attestation of intelligence and scholarship (perhaps contrary to all available evidence)?

Or did you get that degree because of the product of it, and because you wanted to actually use it? If so, you really won't care what the naysayers have to say with their ill-informed opinions of the real work it takes to get a PhD the way you did.

To paraphrase Gump - scholarship is as scholarship does. If you want to disagree with Dr White fine - do so on the basis of what he does. If you want to take issue with his PhD, fine. Be a man and do it the right way, get his work, and interact with it. Don't stand in the corner and take pot-shots at people who are actually putting legs to their scholarship over whether or not their education came from somewhere you approve of.



Thanks for the response.

I'm sort of in shock that you even wrote this:

"Second, James White has not claimed to be that which he is not, that is not true of Ergun Caner."

Have you missed the whole "doctor/doctorate" thing that has been an issue with white and many others for the last decade or more? He specifically DOES claim to be something he is not.... a doctor. It has been the source of constant fodder, and a reason that many point to him as incredible and dishonest. He is not living above reproach, and continues to proclaim that he has a qualified doctorate, while belittling others' education.

If James White does not meet the definition of hyper calvinism, I have no idea who would. But, of course, I will say that, like you did here, it seems that anyone who disagrees with calvinism doesn't understand it. Because, of course, if they understood it, they would believe in it. The circle continues...


Richard Pierce, will you apologize for your unchristlike behavior making fun of the looks of mormon and russian women? I don't see how you can justify that, honestly.



again and again I see the pattern in defending white's fake doctorate.

why do you and White covet the very thing you despise (accredited doctorates)?

if you think accredited doctorates are lazy and expensive why not just make up a degree rather than take a title that means something?

I will take you to task and agree on unaccredited home-schools and private schools performing better. but here is the key; places have testing to measure how you actually did compared to accredited public school.

doctorates have the same thing with dissertations and boards and peer review, something that fake doctorates like white never had to go through.

btw, why doesnt white's publisher ever print him having a doctorate? are they not convinced?


Shamgar, let me make sure I understand what you are saying here:

1. Regarding debates and expenses, surely you are aware that many of the places that host Mr. White's debates do so for free, or PAY him to come, right? His debates that take places inside churches, for instance, you are saying all of these churches require him to rent them and he is not compensated at all, for his travel expenses, etc? Seriously?

2. I do agree that these debates are not the Gospel. However, his vicious treatment of those who disagree with him, such as Mormons, is not the Gospel either. For instance, his recent attacks on Mormon women, making fun of their looks, is not the Gospel(at least, I'm pretty sure it is not). He ridicules people he disagrees with. To try to paint him as secretly compassionate toward these people is living in denial.

3. It's rather the work done, really? Is this the tired old justification that self-study is sufficient to bestow a degree on ones' self? I have an idea, I will start calling myself a medical doctor because I've looked at a bunch of dead bodies and read tons of medical books. In fact, I've written some books about my medical discoveries. I certainly don't need a university to tell me I am sufficiently educated, nor do I need a state medical board to license me. It's about the work done! I'm sure no one I operate on will mind the fact that I did not go to medical school, nor am I licensed, etc. After all, it's about the work done. How does the “reason” you got your degree determine whether or not it's credible? Can I go apply for a job, claim I have an accredited degree or doctorate if I do not, but tell them it shouldn't matter because of the “reason” I did it? Who is going to take me seriously?

4. Do you not know much about homeschools or homeschooling? Surely you are aware that they are generally accredited and licensed by the states, in terms of curriculum, right? Surely you are aware that their students are subject to standardized testing as well, right? What accreditation body signed off on Mr. White's CES?

5. Mr. White's continued claims that he has a doctorate is an insult to those who do, such as Dr. MacArthur, who has an ACCREDITED Doctorate. You're blindness on this issue is obvious, you cannot see that Mr. White's claims are constant fodder for those, such as Mormons(who you claim he has such great respect and rapport with). Your only option seems to be to denigrate the doctorates of others who actually do the work and get an accredited doctorate. Seriously, you are trying to justify Mr. White's dishonesty by saying people are “being lazy” by using accreditation as a means of determining standards? Why not get rid of all standards, while we are at it? You are so willing to defend anything he does, no matter how sub-standard, that you tear others down in order to justify not holding him to account. That's sad.

6. It seems Mr. White DID try to get the degree to get the respect of people from it, because he constantly berates others' education and touts his own questionable education. He even made a video making fun of Caner's Arabic skills when his own are awful. He cannot even pronounce the most popular name in the world, Muhammad, close to correctly(he says Mukkkhamed). Of course, he is so unapproachable about correction that his Arabic teacher doesn't even feel comfortable letting him know that he sounds ridiculous to Muslims who know Arabic who he claims to be trying to convince of Christianity. After all, though, why would Mr. White refer to himself, constantly, as “Dr.” White, and require others address him as such, if he didn't do it for the respect? What else is the point of not having an authentic doctorate but requiring people address you as though you did? As his “doctorate” is constantly a source of contention, if he's not doing it for the respect of others, why doesn't he just stop calling himself Dr. White, and put the issue to rest? Why does he refuse to live above reproach?

This isn't nay-sayers' ill-informed opinions. Many of the detractors of Mr. White's doctorate are those who HAVE gotten doctorates themselves from accredited institutions, and find what he is doing insulting and degrading. For you to compartmentalize everyone who reasonably has an objection to someone claiming that he has academic credentials that he clearly does not, as being petty, immature and simply taking cheap shots, is just dishonest and indicative of either a gross misunderstanding or gross denial on your part. You also don't seem to realize that a large part of the reason that this keeps coming up is because he constantly berates the education of others while touting his own. We call this “hypocrisy.”

In summary, it is unfortunate, but it seems that you would prefer, rather than hold Mr. White to any sort of standard, to tear down all standards. Mr. White will continue to be regarded as dishonest about his education and a joke among many. Unfortunately for other believers, we will continue to be associated with these things because he also claims to be one of us. To belittle those who believe in standards and principles as “standing in a corner, taking potshots” is just being dishonest. Your argument wouldn't fly with an entry level job(“I know the position requires a degree in mechanical engineering, which I don't have, but I did read some books about it!”), and it certainly won't fly in the world of academia and among others who actually have done the work.

Jonathan Dupree

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Correction to Richard C. Pierce
Alpha and Omega Ministries on the 'copy right' of the debate. Ehrman has no such agreement with White or any of the people he debates.

1) Pierce would first have to furnish a document with Ehrman signature that such material is copy write either with American Vision or Alpha and Omega.

2) Even if Pierce and American Vision made their own quality productions of the debate that they want to make a quick a quick buck with again anyone else who made their own quality recording is under no obligation from Ehrman.

I suggest to you Peter that the next time Pierce makes such statements having the documents suggested above would go along way in making his case!

By the way excellent post!

I think James White should have pulled out his trump card and simply said...

"You, sir, are a liar," and walked off the stage to a standing ovation.

Posted by: Roy

Jonathan Dupree

btw....James White is not a DR.

It's up to Peter if he wants this to be published but here is a link in which I basically penned down the questions that fellow Christians had for James White.


It boils down to their same tired argument which does more to damage White and his fallacious claim of being a "DR"
than anything. The argument goes like this

“If I were Dr. White I would not bother with these allegations beyond this article either. They are just merely poisoning the well, to keep people from listening to him on the basis of something that has nothing to do with his actual work. Never mind the fact that his books have been endorsed by D.A. Carson, Gleason Archer, Daniel B. Wallace, John MacAurthur, R.C. Sproul Jr., Kenneth Gentry, Normon Geisler, etc, people from all kinds of different theological perspectives. If you actually want to say that he is not qualified, then show it from his work. There are many fine Christian schools that are unaccredited, and are better than some schools that are accredited! The real key is the product they produce. Until you are willing to address the actual product, this will be nothing more than poisoning the well.”

The point being is I may have done all kinds of things that I feel deserve recognition. Heck James White is the kind of personality that feels that every km he rides on his bicycle should be logged and told to the whole world!

The point is the questions are not answered. I think all rational and sane people can agree that none of us here would allow a man who claims to be a doctor of endocrinology from an unaccredited college operate on us.

If we do not allow people with unaccredited degrees operate upon our physical bodies why would we allow them to operate on our spiritual ones?

I think the real problem that White's followers have is a real inability to critique the man. They really do lack balance.


You're right. Rich Pierce's comparison of the attractiveness of some of Brigham Young's wives to the looks of Russian women was totally uncalled for. Rich should apologize to Russian women everywhere. There is no room for humor on the Internet.

Paul Owen

I would just like to point out a few things relative to this thread.

1. Why are White's defenders not pointing out how un-Christlike it is to refer to another Christian as Alexander the Coppersmith? Is that kind of absurd name-calling appropriate? He always pulls this label out of the hat when dealing with people who strike close to the core of his rather thin ego.

2. White has made a habit of debating scholars who work in fields of real expertise, and presuming with a bit of self-study that he is up to the task. Taking on Bart Ehrman on textual criticism is a perfect example of this. Having done my Ph.D. work under Larry Hurtado (one of the top text-critics in the world), I know enough to appreciate what a specialized discipline this is. White does not work in this specialized field, and has published nothing in the scholarly arena (his KJV Only work does not count) relevant to the study of the text of the NT. He does not present his research in scholarly forums and conferences dealing with text-criticism, nor does he work directly with ancient manuscripts (looking at a few artifacts for an hour or so while touring Ireland on a apologetics trip does not count).

3. White's doctorate certainly is an issue. I was one of the first people to confront him about this, back in 1997, when I learned that he was taking this route. Getting a doctorate from a school like Columbia Evangelical Seminary is misleading, because people who don't know better will presume that his work would match up to what is required in genuine, accredited programs. It obviously does not. The Forgotten Trinity would most certainly NOT be accepted by any stretch of the imagination at any accredited doctoral program. It reflects a very unsophisticated approach to the subject, and a complete and utter lack of familiarity with, well, basically all of the primary and secondary texts that are relevant to this area of Christian doctrine. Nowhere will one find Plantinga, Torrance, Barth, Boff, Rahner, Volf, Moltmann, Zizioulas, etc. etc. in White's research. His topic is far too broad to qualify for doctoral work, and is light years away from real credible scholarship. A thesis like that would be laughed out of the room, not only at places like the University of Edinburg where I studied, but any evangelical doctoral program in America. It's time that White and his followers start being honest about his lack of genuine acaemic credentials, since his doctorate would not be viewed as a legitimate theological credential were he being considered for hiring, rank or tenure at any accredited school in this country.

As to the Mormons, since I work in this area directly, I can definitely attest that White is not taken seriously by them, for many reasons, not least of which being his claim to have a legitimate doctoral degree, which flies in the face of all objective evidence. There are many scholars at BYU who have earned their theological degrees at Harvard, Duke, Brown, UCLA, etc., and they certainly know the difference between a genuine academic credential and a correspondence school diploma.


I don't understand why, if White is as dignified and mature as his sycophants claim, he doesn't drop "Dr." from his title and the issue would go away. As it is, it is a constant source of discredit for him among apparently everyone else but he and his followers.


I'm sure you're quite proud of your defense or "Dr. J"(I hope you get the humor in that, by now, as Mr. White is as qualified to be a doctor as Doctor J the basketball player), but it shows that White and his defenders are exactly what we fear them to be... people with little if any concern for the people they are debating/"witnessing" to who have no problem insulting, belittling, and deriding them.

White and his sycophants see non-hyper calvinists, muslims, mormons, catholics, etc, as "weirdos" or "curiosities" and have no problem dealing with them on an impersonal basis, and, as you can see her, making fun of them in the most brash and crude of ways. To write that all off as "humor" when Mr. White will not tolerate, and in fact, seems to go into a rage, when anyone doesn't take him seriously, is a bit hard to swallow.

It is not Christlike to demean and insult others, period. Mr. White regularly does this to anyone he disagrees with, being willing to go after them personally with no concern as to their feelings or emotions.

For what it's worth, it was a reformed, calvinist woman who first raised a flag in relation to the disgusting comments White and Pierce and others made about mormon women. But seriously, if we want to go there, is James White really wanting to start criticizing the looks of others? Pot, meet kettle? I wouldn't be surprised, though. He criticizes Caner's Arabic skills when his own are laughable.

I say we keep such personal and hurtful insults out of it, and deal with the substance. The substance is that Mr. White is very unchristlike in the way he treats people. Is there a point in which you guys will stop defending that?


I did want to point out one thing to Shamgar and the other White sheep...

If you are content in Mr. White's scholarship standing on it's own, in terms of what he's done, why don't you let it? You surely don't need the title "Dr." for that. Drop the "Dr" and we can judge the product on the contents. Of course, many will still have a difficult time getting past his vicious and unchristlike behavior, but I suppose we can work on that next.


Speaking of Bart Ehrman, if one wants to see his weak assessment of the NT evidence of Christ's resurrection demolished by William Lane Craig, you can see it FOR FREE here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk



There's not really anything here worth the time to respond to, I said what I came to say. For example - I'm not sure why anyone would take your word for how debates are managed or what it takes to put one on (which is a lot more than just whether or not you have to rent the facility - which wasn't even my point).

I do however want to respond to this little gem:
4. Do you not know much about homeschools or homeschooling? Surely you are aware that they are generally accredited and licensed by the states, in terms of curriculum, right? Surely you are aware that their students are subject to standardized testing as well, right?

Well, as a homeschooling father of four students for over nine years now, with my oldest being a Junior in high school, yes, I do know. And I also know that no, they are not generally accredited or licensed by the states. It sounds like you live in one of those backwards states like California that basically tries to turn home schools into public schools.

Those of us who still live in free parts of america know no such nonsense, and in testing students in those parts do better on average than students in schools with state oversight and accreditation.

But you go on believing that I'm the one who doesn't know anything about homeschooling.

That said, I'll just say again, if you want to publish something to interact with Dr White's work, and deal with its scholarship then do it. The rest of this is just silliness. Paul Owen's comment is the closest anyone has come to actually dealing with his work, but even it is still just more restating of the same old opinions, without actually interacting with the material at all. (Not that I expect anyone to take up this blog post comment section to do that mind you - but that's what publishing is for.)


Speaking of William Lane Craig, I just watched this video with him and Christopher Hitchens.

It is amazing the contrast between he and James White in terms of how he deals with opponents.


One does not have to watch that and argue that, contrary to his actions, he IS In fact caring and loving and christlike in his presentation, because he is christlike IN his presentation.

With Dr. J/James White, one must argue, CONTRARY, to his actions and presentation, he is all of these things.



Is this the debate from 2 years ago?

Before I saw that debate I was a secular agnostic on the verge of atheism. After that debate I read the Bible, started attending a Church, and am currently growing in my faith. Listen to the whole debate, even the audience questions, and listen to it twice. Ehrman’s argument is relativism.

Why do you bite one another so viciously? Do you not know you will end up consuming one another?


-It IS fair for James White to charge for the debates. This is his job, and the worker is worth his wages. Comparing him to pastors like John Macarthur or William Lane Craig is not fair. They both will recieve a wage, from their church (John Macarthur) or their University (WLC). This is his job, it does cost money to support yourself(!). I think James White does a good job too. I have found much of his material useful and worthwhile to support.

-He should stop using the title Dr. You can be a scholar and not had a PhD, just purporting you have scholarly works doesn't mean you can give yourself the title! Take one of the most prolific of respected Christian academics of the past century F. F. Bruce. He NEVER had a PhD. He was offered a lecturing job before he completed his doctorate at Vienna. Though he did receive honorary ones later in life, he never had a PhD. So I don't really understand James's position. In the end though I'm not sure that it really matters.

Johnnie Harrison

Roy, are you a fan of the late Jerry Falwell? How about Ken Hamm from answers in genesis?


@Shamgar "That said, I'll just say again, if you want to publish something to interact with Dr White's work, and deal with its scholarship then do it"

Why would anyone want to do this? it just legitimises White (at least in his followers minds) and brings attention to his business of selling six dollar debates. this is why I applaud DOCTOR Geisler in removing any reference to white's work in his new edition of 'chosen but free'.

btw, Paul Owen hit the nail on the head. and no he is not just restating the same old opinions, higher academia needs standards, period.
according to your logic any joe-six-pack who writes a book that sells a few hundred should be handed a doctorate. no sir.

Doug Hardy

Wow! What a post! From the Title of the article by Peter, through Roy's comments, I have not felt like I was on a Middle School playground in a long long time. Your words reveal your hearts..sad.


Since I am currently studying the works of Dr. Ehrman, the infamous "google" led me to this post. As a Christian, I am very interested in understanding the arguments of Dr. Ehrman for at least two reasons: First and most importantly, epistemology is important to me. And secondly, Dr. Ehrman has become the adopted spokesman for any anti-Christian apologetic concerning the reliability of Scripture. Like you, Peter, I know very little about textual criticism, but I am trying to learn more as I see it being the perceived "achilles heel" of Christianity. Therefore, I have invested money and time to try to grow in this area. In fact, I just purchased the mp3 download from Dr. White's site that you listed.

Even though I have tried to read Dr. Ehrman's work objectively (and I do believe that it contains some very good information), I realize that it is hard to overcome my own personal biases and presuppositions. Likewise, I see the same in Dr. Ehrman's work, particularly when it comes to portraying the Biblical Jesus. Though he claims to have been "born again", his own written testimony leaves much doubt in my own mind about his conversion. It seems to me his testimony is centered around him rather than his love for Christ and the Gospel (Just my humble opinion). All this to say, we all have biases and presuppositions that we look through and we must be very careful not to be blinded by them in a manner that renders us unteachable.

I find it troubling that you would direct a post to a very small part of a debate pertaining to an area that you describe yourself as "knowing little to nothing about..." (BTW, I do appreciated your honesty.) In an age of spin and sound bite, I detest the manipulation of media to either undermine or distort a situation regardless of the source. I am not saying that this was your intention for I know neither you nor Dr. White nor Dr. Ehrman. But it does give me the appearance of some underlying tensions that I am assuming relate to "neo-Calvinism" (whatever that is).

I am assuming that you listened to the whole debate and felt that this was a fair representation of the whole. If so, that would have been helpful for you to have specifically addressed areas within the debate that you feel Dr. White really missed it rather than appealing for people just to listen to a 10 minute section. Honestly your assessment of Dr. White "crawling away like a whipped mongrel" leaves me with one of two impressions. Either Dr. White breaks down in the debate and pleads "mercy" or you have a personal vendetta against him.

I do look forward to listening to it myself in whole and in context. I do agree that believers, especially high visibility ones, have a responsibility to speak Truth and not try to "weasel" (my words) through public forum by clever tactics and empty rhetoric. However, I am thankful for those who will step into the arena to speak the truth of God's Kingdom in the face of those who hate Christ and His church.



Let’s look at the laws and regulations for, say, a conservative state like Ohio:


My, oh, my, the state even regulates absences for home schooling, and the requirements for teachers in terms of their education!

How about Oklahoma?

Wow, it would seem, in fact, that the states DO have requirements on home schools, and their teachers. Of course, everyone knows otherwise it people could make up their own curriculum, refuse to teach certain subjects like math and English, have silly attendance policies, etc. But let’s not forget, these things are important because if these people want to go to college, the college must know their diploma is legitimate. And let’s not forget standardized testing.

Your argument, of course, is that a “home school” that had people making up their own attendance policies, graduation requirements, curriculum, and no type of community or peer review is no different. Are you intentionally being dishonest? Are you going to tell us you do not have requirements as far as the curriculum for your children’s’ home schooling, and they are exempt from ACT/SATs? Are you saying that colleges would not care about such things? Seriously?

But you don’t stop there, you say we should not worry about trivial things like whether or not White’s doctorate is legitimate, just look at the product. Would anyone in their right mind allow a doctor to operate on them who didn’t have a state license and a medical degree, but argues that the proof is in the pudding? How far are you willing to go to defend the indefensible? By the way, being condescending won’t make your argument any more strong, but it does sound like Mr. White.

Other than my “Dr. J” joke, I don’t know what you can say is immature that we have done in terms of call Mr. White to account for his deceit about his doctorate and his vicious behavior. But, in fact, you make my point in that it is immature, as it is in fact a joke, regarding his doctorate. This issue is constantly joked about by others and it keeps people from taking James White seriously. So why not just encourage him to drop it and stop appearing like a clown?


As I have listened to the debate, I am wondering are we talking about the same debate "James White and Bart Ehrman in Florida?"

"Thank you James for that very energetic and intelligent opening statement. I appreciate it very much...I used to believe everything that he (Dr. White) just said. I use to agree 100% with the entire presentation. But I changed my mind." Bart Erhman in his first rebuttal. Please listen to the whole debate particular to get these comments in context.

"Crawling like a whimpering mongrel..." Come on!?!?!

Please listen to the whole debate to

peter lumpkins


My guess is, I would fit the profile of the large majority White's audiences in his debates so far as serious knowledge of textual criticism is concerned. If you recall, as I brought this up, though my knowledge may be skimpy on textual criticism, I mentioned I do know when someone may be heehawing around for answers when they really don't have one. That's precisely how White comes across in this cross-examination, a process he repeatedly informs his readers is the most important time of a debate.

Hence, my conclusion on this cross-examination: the agnostic leaves the dialog looking genuinely scholarly while White stutters time after time, "I'm surprised that you don't..." which, in itself, is a backdoor insult, by the way. Then again, from my observations of JW, insults are bread and butter.

Now whether or not you accept my evaluation is your business. But it *is* my evaluation.

Thanks for logging on.
With that, I am...


Great examples of home school laws in the states you cite. Your arguments are, however, not valid for all States. I live in Alabama. If you choose to homeschool in Alabama, you can do so under the umbrella of a "Church School." In which case, the State has no requirements regarding education of those teaching and there is no requirement for standardized testing.
Many parents choose to partner with a Church homeschool umbrella group precisely because it provides a loophole around laws that would ordinarily make it prohibitive for parents to home school their children.
In Alabama, for instance, not homeschooling user a Church umbrella means that the parent must have a degree in education and a current certfication from the State. This is actually more strict than what Alabama requires for public school substitute teachers.


Dear Peter,

Well, it is certainly true that you know “little to nothing about textual criticism,” which makes me wonder why you think you’re entitled to an “evaluation” of the White/Ehrman debate at all. Traditionally one should have an adequate knowledge of a given sphere before he puts forth an “evaluation” of it (at least in the public realm), that is presupposing that the evaluation is of any worth (which sadly, your’s isn’t).

Your’s is like someone who knows little to nothing about pugilism, watches an excerpt from the Ali/Foreman Rumble in the Jungle, and ‘evaluates” it saying, “Foreman walks away looking like an accomplished boxer. On the other hand, Ali crawls away like a whipped mongrel.” For anyone familiar with the sphere of boxing, and the entire encounter between Ali & Foreman (i.e. White & Erhman), not only is the evaluation erroneous it’s completely unwarranted.

Until you write a book which is used in seminaries as an introduction to textual criticism, and is endorsed by textual critics like Dr. Bruce Metzger, who say:

The King James Only Controversy is scholarly and accurate, and its evaluation of opposing viewpoints fair. Anyone troubled by criticisms of English translations will find White trustworthy. I hope his book will be widely circulated. It will do much good.

Not to mention endorsements of other evangelical scholars such as Dr. John MacArthur, Dr. J. I. Packer, Dr. D. A. Carson, yes, and even Dr. Norman Geisler

Not only is your evaluation offensive but it’s a mockery of the unity of Christian faith, of which the world is supposed to know we’re his disciples (Jn. 13:35).

Do Christ and Christianity a favor and repent of your evangelical myopia and banal evaluations.

For His Kingdom,



Just did a little more research.

Ohio Administrative Code 3301-35-08 allows schools with truly held religious beliefs to be established without a charter from the State Board of Education. According to the Home School Legal Defense Association (hslda.org,) " the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) appears to have ceased to object to the practice of parents forming single family schools to privately educate children in a home as long as there are 5 or fewer enrolled students"

Regarding Oklahoma, hslda.org's analysis concludes, "Oklahoma law does not require parents to use certified teachers or state-approved curricula, initiate contact with, register with or seek approval from state or local officials, test their students or permit public school officials to visit or inspect homes. If a parent is teaching his children the basic subjects for at least 180 days, the law requires nothing more."



Thanks for the reply. Are you saying, though, with that loophole, you can avoid truancy requirements, english/math/science requirements, etc, and still graduate and have your degree recognized by colleges, etc?



@Peter, Roy, Shamgar, Richard, et al.,

What I see in this thread is something that I've seen raise it's ugly head all too many times in circles where theological opponents address and criticize each other. Needless name-calling resulting retaliatory name-calling, accompanied by well-meaning friends of the two principal parties engaging in verbal attacks against each other.

Peter's opinion regarding the White vs. Ehrman debate is, as he said above, *his* evaluation of the exchange. Where the line was crossed is when the comparison was drawn between White and a "whipped mongrel." Peter has to own those words. Words that were unnecessarily provocative.

And Provoke they did. James White has to own up to his words also. White, in his blog and in reply, referred to Peter Lumpkin
as "another Alexander the Coppersmith." Thus the War the Words was joined.

Are we not all Christians? If we have wronged one another, can't we seek forgiveness? If Christ can forgive us, then I'm sure we can. Not that we shouldn't earnestly contend for what we believe to be right doctrine, but that we should do so with civility. When we take up pen (or keyboard) to criticize those whom we oppose, we should be even more vigilant to make sure we don't make that criticism unnecessarily hostile. When we do, what might be valid criticism only falls on deaf ears.


I remember a few times during the debate where James White made a, "I'm surprised that you don't..." comment. In preparing for the debate, White reviewed a lot of Ehrman's material on his "Diving Line" webcast. In reviewing this material, White familiarized his regular listeners with much of Ehrman's standard answers to questions.
On at least one of the "I'm surprised that you don't..." instances, James White was referencing material where Ehrman had previously commented, but suddenly displayed "ignorance" during this debate. I think White was genuinely surprised. He had prepared material designed to address specific argumentation that Ehrman had made in the past. When Ehrman feigned ignorance on this matter, I think James White was derailed.
White made the mistake of expecting Ehrman to be consistent.

peter lumpkins


Look. I cannot recall not owning the words I write. And, while the evaluations I make about theological issues are colored with my own presuppositional crayons I fully admit, to suggest images of a whipped mongrel somehow "crossing the line" of fair literary analogy is, from my view, absurd. I wish to heavens employing provocative but innocuous images like a dog with his tail stuck between his legs were the boundaries of acceptable discussion. Instead, the "you-sir-are-a-liar" strategy rules JW supporter circles--at least those supporters with whom I've encountered myself (including JW).

With that, I am...

peter lumpkins


Your write, "Well, it is certainly true that you know “little to nothing about textual criticism,” which makes me wonder why you think you’re entitled to an “evaluation” of the White/Ehrman debate at all. Traditionally one should have an adequate knowledge of a given sphere before he puts forth an “evaluation” of it." I'm only going to say this but once again: I did *not* evaluate the debaters' knowledge of textual criticism, and I'll give you a shiny new nickel for every time you can point to my doing so in this thread or on the original post.

What's more, the absurd criteria for making judgments about debates implied in your statement is unbelievable. Must only those who're semi-experts/experts in the subject matter of a debate have a legitimate, honorable opinion concerning a debate? If so, about 9/10 people in the audience can have no legitimate statement about the debate they've just experienced. For my part, elitist attitudes like this must forever be resisted. Sorry.

With that, I am...


@Roy said, "Are you saying, though, with that loophole, you can avoid truancy requirements, english/math/science requirements, etc, and still graduate and have your degree recognized by colleges, etc?"

No. Colleges all have their own criteria for accepting students. While there may not be a State mandate for requiring home school students to take standardized tests or requiring a specific curriculum, colleges and universities are not bound by those laws when it comes to admitting students.

Failure to properly educate children in the home school environment could be disastrous toward their continuing education. I'm not taking issue with that argument, just the specifics of home school laws.

The issue is one of, "accreditation," right? That all depends on just how much you value accreditation. My children attend a Christian school that wasn't accredited for the first three years in which it was operating. My daughter enrolled in that first year of operation. It was a good school, without the accreditation. It couldn't even earn the accreditation without being in operation for enough years to become eligible for the accreditation.

I honestly don't know enough about the institution that bestowed James White with his doctorate to be able to tell you how much weight that title really carries. Lack of accreditation, or the existence of such accreditation is not the sum total of any institution. Someone who is willing to learn can achieve a first rate education with little more than the desire and a well-stocked library.


A question for Dr. Paul Owen. Sir, since you seem to place such a high value on academic credibility, and the fact that the institution which now employs you as an Assistant Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Montreat College, was denied reaffirmation of its accreditation and placed on Warning for twelve months following its comprehensive decennial review by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges according to a statement issued on December 16, 2010 by SACS, and its status shall be re-evaluated during December 2011, will you maintain your teaching position at Montreat should it lose its accreditation?




I've read a reformed perspective on the debate and they more-or-less came to the same conclusion about white's impotence:

"... the arguments White put forth ... simply represent the standard Evangelical defense within academia for some years now."


Ehrman made good points on the issues of textual variants where White just rehashed tired arguments that won't hold weight any longer ("tenacity of the text"), especially as the microscopes on the manuscripts have gotten stronger. white brought nothing of his own work to the table, this debate was about Ehrman.

so yea, in regards to Ehrman calling out White on the collation of manuscripts rather than _printed text_ (Peter's original link to the cross examination contained the audio), it was more like Ali v. "Glass-Jaw" Willie.

btw, I'm surprised you'd bring Metzger in the discussion as he does not believe in inerrancy and would agree with Ehrman about many things in this debate.

Robert Warren


I've been searching for the Homely Mormon Women Anti-Defamation League website for years...and now I found it!

Jonathan Dupree

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

What is the difference between saying 'whipped mongrel' and saying 'you sir are a liar'.

22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:44)

Now definitely there is a world of difference between Mr. Lumpkins giving us an image of a cowed creature. A creature that was whipped or taken to task for his lack of knowledge or expertise about a particular field.

Sure Peter McNeely stood toe to toe with Mike Tyson but we all know what happened to McNeely. All that Peter did was paint a picture. He didn't call James a Dog.

Now compare that with saying people are liars. Satan is the father of lies. The liar is the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ.

I am simply asking you people as Christians (Arminian, Calvinist or what ever) the theological implications of painting a less than picturesque view of a person as a 'whipped mongrel' and calling someone 'a liar'?

So than we are have nick names for Peter Lumpkin in our chat channels by the name of 'Lumpy'? That sounds very Christ like indeed.

Notice the difference between saying something like, "Peter comes off like lumpy bowl of mashpotatoes." (implying his approach is uneven) and actually calling him 'Lumpy' a name! Name calling that is what is childish!

It was not Peter that fired the first shot in this lattest interaction. Sure his choice of words were not picturesque of a champion of the faith walking away triumphantly. That was the whole point.

As far as Tuesday's dividing line. There was only one Muslim who commented here to my knowledge. Moi! Nothing I said was mean spirited or vile.

Richard Pierce has my e-mail address, as I have e-mailed Alpha and Omega ministries (no response...) and he knows if he wants to furnish a document with Ehrman's signature agreeing that the material is copy write I would be more than happy to receive it! Any time...Rich.

Knight captures Bishop. Check!



I appreciate your amiable response. And please understand that I do not say the following to be harsh or mean, but to answer your question.

No, I do not agree that we are "all Christians." I do not believe that James White is a Christian, but that is my opinion alone.

It is not because of his Calvinism, as I have many dear friends and brothers and sisters in christ who are calvinists.

It is because his vicious and hateful treatment of others, which indicate an, as he would say, "unregenerate" predisposition. I have read email exchanges between he and people he disagreed with, in addition to other things he's said on his radio show, and I am convinced he does not have a love for people, or the likeness of Christ in his walk. I believe he has absolutely no understanding of 1 Corinthians 13. Like I said, he reminds me of the guy who played Eric Liddell in chariots of fire, who studied the part(reading the entire bible), but didn't live it(he later died of HIV). James White has some knowledge, but this, to me, is more likely to indicate that he is a gnostic than a believer.

In short, I believe there is nothing he wouldn't do to destroy someone he disagreed with. This is not, in any way, the behavior of a Christian.


Chris Gilliam

If evaluations cannot be made but by those who are "really in the know", what is the purpose of a debate to begin with? Perhaps it is just a chance for egos to blow....


Roy, I call Dr. White a 'Dr.' because he has earned that title.

He did not have earned it at an institution you care to recognize because of some preconceived bias against alternative forms of Christian education.
That is an issue of your bias and says much more about your fairness as a critic than Doctor White.

Speaking of you as a critic, I have to say that you have demonstrated no sense of fairness, even mindedness, or intellectual honesty in your dealings in these posts.

Your insistence that Doctor White is a hyper-Calvinist (he is not; hyper-calvinists wouldn't be out preaching the gospel to Mormons; as I said, Doctor White subsribes to the historic Reformed Baptist Christian tradition which is closely akin doctrinally to Presbyterianism) and that because his degree is not from an accredited institution, it is somehow fake, just betrays a serious refusal to deal fairly with the subject. This is pure irrationality on your part.

I, furthermore, can simply not take you at all seriously because your 'descriptions' and 'criticisms' of Doctor White go so far askew of what I myself have experienced, as to demonstrate objectively to me that you have lost grasp of any tattering shred of objectivity regarding this man that you seemingly abhor.

Mr. Dupree, you quoted an excellent refutation of your own argument. Thank you.

Peter, I simply meant that your analysis didn't fit the content of the actual video, as if you had not actually listened to it.



I agree that neglecting a proper education would be disastrous.

Do I understand, again, that there are absolutely no absentee or subject requirements placed on your children by, for instance, a state body? They could go to school one day a week and only learn the Bible, for instance(no English, math, etc), and Alabama would find this acceptable? I'd be interested to know.

I should expand on the "accreditation" issue. Specifically, the part of some type of standard. In the case of Mr. White's education, there is no standard that he or his supporters have required of himself. In the case of colleges, for instance, they will require a previous student to have such things as a standardized test, a high school diploma, a GED, etc. Some with uncontested doctorates have pointed out that a normal accredited Th.d requires, I believe, four foreign languages. Mr. White's did not require this, among other things, and also allowed for him to make up much of the curriculum himself. So, to circumvent this issue, Mr. White and his supporters say such things are not important, as he has shown his scholarship by his “post doctoral” work, his books, etc. This is unacceptable in the world of doctorates. He cannot make up his own standard, but claim the title that others, who have met the standard attached to a Th.d., have. This is like me saying I'm an M.d., although I have not gone to medical school, passed any state exam, etc, but I have read lots of books and played with a cadaver or to.

“existence of such accreditation is not the sum total of any institution. Someone who is willing to learn can achieve a first rate education with little more than the desire and a well-stocked library.”

I COMPLETELY agree with you. There are many people in the world and even in this country who cannot afford the education they would desire, and through persistence and self-determination, they educate themselves(such as Abraham Lincoln and Strom Thurmond). However, this does not give them the right to claim a title RESERVED for those who meet specific educational requirements. I have no problem ceding that Mr. White or anyone else can become an educated person without going to an accredited seminary, but I do not accept that they can call themselves after a title that is defined as having been bestowed from an accredited seminary with a specific and rigorous curriculum requirement. Otherwise, why don't we just start equating people who print out a “reverend” certificate online with those pastors who go to seminary? Let Mr. White depend on his scholarship for his credibility, not a title that he did not earn and others have earned. Any basic research into Mr. White indicates that this has been a constant source of incredulity by others, including by the communities of those who he debates. Why doesn't he be above reproach?

@Robert Warren

A true James White disciple you are, it seems, continuing to make fun of the looks of women lost in a cult. What examples of Christ you people are, ridiculing the ones that we should be evangelizing.

@Jonathan Dupree
Do you have any comment on Mr. White's Arabic speaking? Specifically, I mention the fact he made a video making fun of Ergun Caner's Arabic skills, when his own are downright awful. Specifically, there's a video that Peter Lumpkins posted a while back showing White pronouncing “Muhammad” as “Mukkkkkkhamad,” seemingly to sound more ethnic, although even an Arab child would not make such a linguistic error. I mention this all as a recurring theme, as Mr. White is so proud and unteachable that his own Arabic teacher is not able to give him simple corrections, yet he makes videos ridiculing the same problems in others.



Regarding your earlier post regarding Tom Ascol, he made this twitter post a while back in reference to Ergun Caner:


"Tom Ascol reading exposes on "fake former Muslims;" fascinating...and sad"

Regardless of what you think of Ergun Caner, if you have a CLUE about Turkey, and about Islam, how in the world do you claim he's a "fake" former Muslim? If his parents and family before him were Muslim, he was, by Turkish, and Islamic, law, born Muslim. If he's no longer Muslim, how can he be a fake former muslim? Even if he's not a Christian, he's certainly not a muslim anymore.

This is why facts matter.


Roy, for someone who loves to accuse another of failing in the teachings of 1 Corinthians 13, you sure are needlessly belligerent and cynical in your derision of said person.

Again, your commentary is fundamentally contrary to my personal and objective experiences with White, albeit limited ones.

I have seen nothing he has said or done in the last two years that could warrant your very extreme and exaggerated and baseless opinions.


Looks like Mr. White has taken to attacking "Peter Lumpkins and company" on his facebook wall.


Just amazed at the vitriolic hatred and irrationality of Lumpkins and company---wonder what prompted this eruption of their anger?

-- richard pierce, true to form, pining about the meanness of Lumpkins and friends. No mention of his comments about mormon women.

Looks like he may have just linked his twitter to his facebook, though.

I did see an interesting response from a whitehead... notice the irony...

"jmdearras jmdearras
@DrOakley1689 found his blog. He's just a hate-filled idiot.

A hate-filled idiot. How does one respond to that?

Yahya Snow


I hope you are well, it appears James White has taken umbrage with your comment. I think the renewed scrutiny of the debate is a good thing but the charged language directed at White may be a little unwarranted.

However, I understand you are emotional as this is your faith which is being represented by this man against prof. Ehrman.

In my review, as a Muslim, I noticed the over-reliance on Wallace, on the part of James as well as gaps in his knowledge.

I think the evangelical community will soon start to rethink their way in dealing with prof. Ehrman. I just don't understand why folk don't stick to what their BEST scholars have WROTE and propagate such refutations. In my view this would be more scholarly and beneficial to students of knowledge rather than sending everybody and anybody into the ring with Ehrman.

The other problem with White was his attitude. He clearly offended Ehrman and was far too confrontational - perhaps it was due to the evangelical Christian audience egging him on.

I do agree there was some embarrassment, however I don't believe it to be as bad as some are making out. My in depth review is here:


Of course, the "mongrel" comment has to be contextualised and the best person to explain the said comment is Peter Lumpikins.

anyway, I got to get back to the day job. May God all of you.

Paul Owen


The SACS document which you linked is self-explanatory. The fact is that Montreat College is fully accredited, and is working to address all of the stated concerns, which in the long run will only serve to strengthen our academic programs and institutional effectiveness. This sort of regular review process is precisely the kind of thing that is lacking in non-accredited schools.

Yahya Snow

Sorry, should be "may God bless you all".

And I just rembered, I should take this opportunity to ask you folk whether White's (and Richard Pierce's) insulting of Russian and Mormon women was Christian or not:


A Christian (minoria) did denounce it as sinful but White maintains repentacne and apology is not required as he doesn't think the audio was that bad.

I personally do not think it is a Christian act...

Debbie Kaufman

Roy: In response to your reply to me. Since you obviously do not want to know the truth of the answer, I am the last person you want to ask that question. Believe me, ask Peter, I am the very last person you want to ask this question. :)



Thanks. I recall commenting on your site sometime back and you were very warm and receptive. I only hope I may be the same.

As for the "whipped mongrel"image, it is just that--an image. An image of defeat...an image of being outdone...an image of being conquered...an image of a "duh" moment...an image of failure...an image of better luck next time...an image of get your P's and Q's together...an image of if-you're-going-to-represent-me-then-get-with-the-program-buster...an image of I-thought-you-were-supposed-to-be-fully-prepared-for-cross-examination...

I could just have well wrote,

"James White didn't do so good against Bart Ehrman during this cross-examination"

But, I'm afraid that's just not me. I think so much in word pictures. Admittedly the pics are at times provocative. But, what can I say? I refuse to turn the volume down on word pics when the pics are not, a) immoral, b) dishonest, or c) dirty.

Interestingly, James White employs word pictures too. For him, I'm "Alexander the coppersmith" a biblical heretic who is against the Christian faith. For my part, I see no wisdom in employing images like that against another Christian brother, and I don't. I employ innocuous animals and inanimate objects.

So, that's the scoop on the "whipped mongrel." As for being "emotional" you are quite right. I believe being made in the image of God means I have emotions. So emotions cannot be completely separated from any aspect of my inner humanness. On the other hand, my observations on White's poor performance was not emotionally-driven I do not think. Speaking in images ("whipped mongrel") cannot be a foolproof criteria for emotionally-driven language, can it? I do not think so.

Thanks again.
With that, I am...



Of course. Anyone who disagrees or points out White's hatred is actually hateful themselves. And, they, sir, are a liar. I do not "love" to accuse another. This is not some childish fantasy of mine I am finally realizing. I am amazed that believers justify this guy's hateful behavior.

@Debbie, ah, but I do want a response from you. It seems you have no idea what you are talking about, and are blinded by your adoration of White. You do not seem to understand how the Islamic religion works. One of the ways you become a Muslim is that You are BORN into it, whether or not you choose or believe in it. If Caner's parents were Muslim, he WAS a Muslim. You cannot legally change your religion in most Muslim countries, even if you did not choose it. This is enough to get him killed. This isn't difficult to comprehend, unless you are willingly trying to avoid doing so. But I do like your classic White approach of, "oh you don't WANT me to answer that question, nyah nyah nyah nyah!" You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter if he's a liberal or non-Christian now... if he's not a muslim, he's not a FAKE non-muslim.

@Yahya Snow: we have mentioned on this thread the attacks on Mormons by White. You have to understand, White and Pierce, and their followers, see Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, etc as fruity curiosities to poke fun at. Nothing more. They depersonalize them constantly.


Looks like Mr. White is keeping up on your blog, Peter...


DrOakley1689 James White
@ThomasWendrock Peter Lumpkins and Yahya Snow: a match made in...uh...somewhere. Tells you a lot. Both fair unbiased reviewers!

Obviously something is corrupt and amiss if both Christians and non-Christians have begun to notice the unchristlike behavior of Mr. White, and his dishonesty in terms of his "doctorate."

Mr. White, since you are obviously reading this blog regularly, will you apologize to the mormon community for your unchristlike attack on the appearance of mormon women? Do you think Jesus would have done such a things? If any mormons are reading, we apologize for Mr. White and Mr. Pierce, as apparently he is unwilling to do so himself. Obviously, his mature Christianity restrains him from biblical humility and christlike behavior... may we all aspire to attain such.

Also, Mr. White, do you think you could chill out with the whole Dr thing, since it's obvious that people have caught on? You're giving Christians a bad name with your continued dishonesty on the subject. Whether we like it or not, we're being associated with you.


Very nice statement, Dr. Owen. However, you completely neglected to answer the question I put to you; which was, "will you maintain your teaching position at Montreat should it lose its accreditation?" So I will rephrase it. In light of your strong public statements regarding academic accreditation, Dr. Owen, will you resign your position at Montreat College should Montreat lose its SACS accreditation?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.


Two James White tweets about Mr. Lumpkins just this week.

Peter is getting famous! Is he the post-Caner obsession?



Seems the place your content in placing your argument is, that accreditation doesn't matter at all, nor do standards. Why not just demand Mr. White comply with standards if he's going to CLAIM he meets them(calling himself Doctor) instead of tearing down others who comply with standards and arguing they don't mean anything?

Seriously, this reminds me of the nonsense we heard during the Clinton years.... "everyone lies about sex." In other words, let's tear down standards for everyone instead of demanding the one person violating them, actually ADHERE to them.

Jonathan Dupree

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord,

"@Jonathan Dupree
Do you have any comment on Mr. White's Arabic speaking? Specifically, I mention the fact he made a video making fun of Ergun Caner's Arabic skills, when his own are downright awful. Specifically, there's a video that Peter Lumpkins posted a while back showing White pronouncing “Muhammad” as “Mukkkkkkhamad,” seemingly to sound more ethnic, although even an Arab child would not make such a linguistic error. I mention this all as a recurring theme, as Mr. White is so proud and unteachable that his own Arabic teacher is not able to give him simple corrections, yet he makes videos ridiculing the same problems in others."

Well, Roy I have White making a very basic error on reciting the most oft repeated verse of the Qur'an in front of his Arabic tutor without correction. So let the world know!


I believe both Yahya Snow and myself pointed this out to him. White has yet to remove the video from youtube. It is simply dishonest on his behalf. It is dishonest on behalf of his supporters not to ask him why the duplicity on his behalf.

Trust me if there is a top 10 list of people White loath I am sure I am right up there with Peter some where!

Here is just a tidbit from the link above....when he was caught red handed making this blunder...

So let's look at what James says again,

"We have a Christian (not a former Muslim) quoting the text BY MEMORY, not having ever been taught it, but only having heard it in Syrian culture so often that it "stuck," and he misses a single phrase, and this is somehow relevant?"

So let's get this straight. James White's Arabic tutor who makes a huge blunder on the Qur'an is allowed this because of a faulty MEMORY. Yet Ergun Caner (a man who's father was Muslim and mother was Christian who became a Muslim at age 15) can make mistakes in Arabic when recollecting from memory and it's time to hang him out to dry?

James White is very charitable indeed to fellow Christian Ergun Caner!

The person who pointed to White's facebook page yesterday it showed under languages that White "knows" ....Arabic!?!

Huh? What does he mean by "knows" talk about an embellishment!

Want to know how this whole thing really got kicked off lately? Quick summation.

White on his way back from London (as well as his supporters) were traveling light speed through the google machine checking up on his favorite web sites (he won't admit it but peterlumpkins.typepad.com is one of them) ....

He came across Peter's post. He gave a big sigh (which most likely disturbed the person next to him on the plane) and than proceeded to raised his right pinky finger and started to chew a bit on his nail and said to himself, 'oh no honey child this just won't do'.

Most likely sent an e-mail over to Rich ...'We are going to have a very interesting DL on Tuesday......very'....

Ergun Caner
Louis Ruggerio
Norman Geisler
William Lane Craig
Peter Lumpkins...

I think it's pretty clear that White and his followers would hope that the SBC would be crushed into oblivion.

White you have been weighed in the scales and found wanting....


Roy, I wasn't addressing you. And quite frankly, I really can see no occasion where I would value your opinion about anything.


When I said you need to "own your words," I was not insinuating that you were in any way trying to divorce yourself from what you wrote... I was trying (poorly) to point out that, often, the things we say get received differently then how we intend them. The choice of the word "mongrel" for instance. If we fully unpack the meaning of that word, one can see where it becomes offensive. If you go to Google and type "define mongrel" the first result is a: "...derogatory term for a variation that is not genuine; something irregular or inferior or of dubious origin." I had to remove the first word from that definition to pass the filters.

Still... as offensive as that is... I'd rather be called a mongrel than an "Alexander the Coppersmith." Like I said... James White has to own his own words also.


Alabama does have some minimal requirements for home schoolers in order to pass muster with the State's truancy laws, but not in regard to curriculum. Rather than reiterate all of that, let me just point you to a link: http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp?state=al

Regarding your statement that you do not believe James White to be a Christian... I hope you don't use that same criteria to judge everyone. We could all do with a bit more of the fruit of the Spirit. A large portion of those who have commented on this thread have not displayed the kind of love that 1 Corinthians 13 describes. I've known many people, my Mom included, who display the kind of love that Paul describes, yet aren't Christians in any way shape or form. We are saved by grace through faith, both of which are gifts of God. Our ability or inability to love is not the basis of that salvation. In fact, our inability to love either God or our neighbor to the degree that God would require is one of the things Christ died on the cross for.

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 13 to a people that he recognized as being part of Christ's Church. It is also evident that he wrote this chapter specifically because the Corinthian Christians were NOT displaying the kind of love that Paul describes.

If James White does not display the kind of love that you would expect of him, this does not mean he isn't a Christian. Although it might mean that you wish he weren't so that you don't have to treat him like a brother in Christ. Is James White a Christian? He professes to be one. I'd be interested to know what, if anything, you believe a person must do, apart from belief and confession, in order to be saved.

Jesus said that the whole law can be summed up as loving God with all your heart and loving your neighbor as you love yourself. Paul says that we are saved by grace through faith apart from the works of the law. That means even apart from love.



And that's ok. We're not still burning people at the stake for their disagreements, so it will be just fine if you don't value my opinion.


@Jonathan Dupree

I recommend calling into his show, or getting someone to, and speaking in Koranic Arabic to him. If he doesn't understand that, try a dialect, even something like Lebanese or Palestinian.

If he doesn't understand any of that, tell him to stop misleading people about his Arabic.

Robert Warren (AOMinion wannabe)

"ridiculing the ones that we should be evangelizing"


I'm guessing they are dead by now.

Besides, I wasn't ridiculing the poor women, I was pointing out the silliness of the big deal being made out of it. I'm sure that if the comments would have been about Calvin's wife or Owen's sister or something that the same sanctimony would have been raised.

Paul Owen


Your question, like most hypothetical questions of the sort, has no value or meaning to me, and I am not on a witness stand, so I don't have to give you an answer at all. I am familiar with Montreat's situation from the inside, and I know what we are doing to address the issues raised by SACS in their report. Thus I have no worries at all about the future of the college, and see no need to speculate about what I would do in a scenario that I frankly do not in any way anticipate becoming a reality. I'm sorry if that answer doesn't satisfy you, but it's pretty much all I have to say.

And you completely ignored my point, that accredited colleges have to go through these sorts of reviews, and when areas of concern are raised by governing bodies like SACS, they have to address them in order to maintain the institutional standards that are expected of accredited schools in this country. I am very gratified and blessed to be teaching at a college which operates within that sort of framework of accountability.



I never said any act of love that we do saves our souls. I'm not sure where you got that idea. I DO believe that part of the evidence of a true Christian is our love in terms of our actions, which 1 John supports.

The argument that you seem to be putting forth, that since James White has said he's a Christian, he therefore is, is not something that I believe biblical at all. That's more a Muslim thing, as they believe if you say the shahada, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not. I certainly do not subscribe to the idea that simply muttering some words in a “sinner's prayer” are sufficient for one to be saved. The reason I believe what I do about James White is there is little OTHER than his claim that he is a Christian that would cause people to believe he's a Christian. The parable of the sheep and the goats made clear that our actions bely our heart and whether or not we are truly saved. It doesn't mean it saves us.

Saying that I wish that Mr. White is not a Christian is not helpful to your argument, and also seems to imply you have some insight into my heart that only God has. You seem to be taking the White approach in terms of assuming there must be some sinister or ulterior motive that is going on, instead of just the fact that yes, I oppose James White because he acts very unchristlike and he is dishonest. It's that simple. Really.

I would encourage you to stop assuming that anyone who opposes James White has some horrible, secret motive, and accept the fact that there are justifiable, and biblical, reasons to oppose him.

peter lumpkins


One reason there is so much confusion and non-communication is precisely illustrated by your response to me. Note carefully your words:

If we fully unpack the meaning of that word, one can see where it becomes offensive. If you go to Google and type "define mongrel" the first result is a: "...derogatory term for a variation that is not genuine; something irregular or inferior or of dubious origin." I had to remove the first word from that definition to pass the filters

You are correct as far as you go.The difficulty is, jaiotu, I know and you know I used this term in no such way nor any such context. The analogical connection I made was clearly and explicitly to an animal beat in a fight not a person of bastard origin. Hence, for you to deliberately pull the worst possible meaning from this term while ignoring the other meanings and then pose the worst meaning as the obvious meaning, therefore making "whipped mongrel" much more offensive than being beat in a debate hardly fits your exhortation to "fully unpack the meaning" of my term now does it?

Indeed were I asked, your "unpacking"--not fully unpacking but partially unpacking--perfectly illustrates precisely why so much fodder exists on the internet. Grab one meaning from many--the meaning which agrees with one's point--and run with it regardless of the context in which the questionable term found itself employed. This qualifies for "fully unpacking the meaning" of a term? Not from my side of the creek it doesn't.

In closing this out, from my perspective, to make more out of my use of "whipped mongrel" than James White didn't perform up to snuff, so to speak--which fits the meaning exactly--is nothing more than being argumentative not to mention absurd by insisting I meant--or the term necessarily implied--the offensive nuance you purposely chose from a list of possible options, options which included the nuance I myself employed.

Now, I'm done with this one.

Thanks for logging on.

With that, I am...


@Robert Warren
“I'm guessing they are dead by now.
Besides, I wasn't ridiculing the poor women, I was pointing out the silliness of the big deal being made out of it. I'm sure that if the comments would have been about Calvin's wife or Owen's sister or something that the same sanctimony would have been raised.”

I see, so to justify their and your unchristlike behavior, you create a hypothetical that is impossible to ever verify. Can't argue with that. And of course, we know such comments have probably brought many Mormons closer to Christ. Unbelievable.


I'm certainly not assuming that everyone who disagrees with James White has some sinister motive. Sorry if you read me that way. When I said, "...it might mean that you wish he weren't (a Christian) so that you don't have to treat him like a brother in Christ," I wasn't trying to say that you simply don't want White to be a Christian. I did say "might," which implies the possiblity of "might not." I am sorry if you took offense.

I agree with you regarding the "sinner's prayer." It's a horribly abused standard by which to judge salvation. My point is that, aside from someone's profession of faith, there is very little in anyone's daily conduct to seperate the sheep from the goats. We all sin and fall short. You sin, I sin and James White sins.



I think you miss my point, and I'm sorry if my language isn't precise. What I mean't by "fully unpacking" the meaning of "mongrel" was to examine all of the possible meanings. I didn't think there would be a need to entertain every possible definition in order to point out that there is at least one possible definition in which it could be taken in an offensive way. If we own a puppy of mixed breeds we affectionately refer to it as a "mutt," while we refer to the neighbor's dog who uses our lawn as his bathroom as a "mongrel."

Peter... I'm certain that you didn't use the term in an intentionally venemous way. But certainly you can see how someone could read that definition into your comment, can't you?

If I offend someone, I'm usually pretty quick to offer an apology. I wasn't trying to say that you intentionally used the term "mongrel" in a derrogatory manner. I simply wanted to point out that sometimes other people hear what we have to say and take offense because of how they interpret what we've said. In that spirit, I would like to offer my sincerest apology. It wasn't my intention to offend, but offend I did. Please forgive me for having done so.

Peace and bless.


Okay, we can all now see who is little more than an internet big mouth that likes to rant and rave at his opponents, and then refuses to apply those same standards on himself that he demands of others.

peter lumpkins


Look. First, I didn't miss your point. Your point was when the word is "fully unpacked" it shows I implied something I did not imply which is absurd. Only partially "unpacking" could lead to such a conclusion. And, you partially "unpacked" not "fully" unpacked.

Second, why would one need to examine all of the possible meanings of a term when the term in question was not ambiguous in the least the way I employed the term? I not only used "mongrel" but "mongrel" was cradled neatly within "crawled away like a whipped..." Only pedantic nonsense could make the offensive nuance you offer to be the possible meaning, jaiotu. And, continuing to argue the point only makes your point grow ever more weak.

Third, "I'm certain that you didn't use the term in an intentionally venemous way." Then what the Sam Hill are you continuing to exchange about? Are you not speaking to the wrong person? Why not drop JW a note and tell him "I'm certain that Peter Lumpkins didn't use the term in an intentionally venemous way. Therefore there is absolutely no need to be offended."

Fourth, yes I can see how someone could read that definition into my comment. But not because of the term itself. Rather because there are other matters driving someone to make it an issue when it obviously is not. If I am correct, then my term caused no offense. Offense was already a state of being prior to my employment of the term.

Fifth, allow me if I may, jaiotu. While I appreciate your spirit, you owe me nothing. Why should I be offended because you offer another opinion? I think you are dead wrong and attempting to argue for an impossible point. Even so, you need not apologize to me for being wrong.

All's well in West Georgia, I assure. Lighten up! Grace is good, God is great.

With that, I am...


"Okay, we can all now see who is little more than an internet big mouth that likes to rant and rave at his opponents, and then refuses to apply those same standards on himself that he demands of others."

Tom, we're glad you finally see James White as we do. Thanks.


Seriously, you can't make an implication like that and jump back and just say, "might" when I call you on it. That's dishonesty on your part. "I only said you MIGHT be a liar, Sir!" You did the same thing to Peter, here. Don't play innocent and act like you didn't throw the bombs you are throwing.

Very little that separates? Jesus went through several examples of what separates. Many other passages in the NT show the difference in actions between those are saved and those who are not saved. I'm going with Jesus on this one.


Seriously. When I said "might," that was exactly what I meant. It't not back peddling. I'm not intentionally throwing bombs. And I'm sorry that you feel that I am. I'm not trying to be dishonest. Will you please forgive me if I insinuated you had any motive other then your own for saying that James White is not a Christian?

Thanks. In regards to the fourth point where you said, "...yes I can see how someone could read that definition into my comment." That's all I was trying to point out. I greatly benefit from much of James White's work and find it very valuable. But I think it's true that he is often too quick to take offense, and so are many of his supporters. I'm sure that many of White's regular supporters would take offense just to me saying that.



Sure I'll forgive you. Only you know if you're being sincere, though. I'm just saying that you don't make a comment like, "you might be a child molester, but I'm not saying that you are." That's right up there with asking, "how long have you been beating your wife?" and then wondering why someone would be insulted.


I get that. I really do. My comment was intended to be taken in more of a rhetorical sense. Much as St. Paul's statement in Romans 9 (hey, I'm a Calvinist, that's the only part of the Bible we read) where he asks, "You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”" Not everyone who reads Paul's epistle will actually ask that question.

I should have chosen my words more carefully. That's my fault. Thanks for your forgiveness. I appreciate your kindness in giving it.


I am kidcudder11 from youtube. When I first received notice about the possible copyright infringement I wasn't sure if that was actually the president of Alpha Omega Ministries or just some disgruntled James White fan. Later on when I checked their website and realized he really is who he says he is, I personally removed all videos promptly and have now closed my youtube account to ensure there are no further problems down the road.

Jonathan Dupree

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

"kidcuddler11" assuming that is truly you I would have simply asked for the statement that Bart Ehrman and James White have cosigned stating that any video, written or audio material of the debate is copyrighted and that Alpha and Omega ministries has the sole right to it's distribution.

I can tell you right now. Dick Pierce (President) of AOMIN is not being forward with you.

Bart Ehrman to my knowledge never signs any such statements with his debate opponents. He wants the material to be widely distributed as possible.

White and Ehrman have the right to copyright material done by them exclusively.

So don't worry too much about what Dick and James have told you.



he was just doing damage control. from what I can tell, on your comments section, anyone who came to your youtube channel wouldn't have bought the debate anyway, they aren't his audience.

and anyway you can get the transcript for free here:



This really is Kidcudder. The video was just your average yt upload so obviously it was 100% non-profit and non-downloadable. I never claimed any ownership of the material. I had a fair use disclaimer and like what you said Ray, it wasn't really their audience anyway. But whatever... a youtube video is not worth the trouble. I didnt feel like dealing with a problem so I just took it down.


Im still fairly new to the religious debate community by the way. I dont know who a lot of these people are like Dick Pierce, I wouldnt know who James White is if he didnt debate Bart Ehrman.

Dave Armstrong

James White comrade Rich Pierce stated on White's blog on 2-17-11:

"We . . . have yet to have a single critic actually interact with Dr. White's reasoning for following the path that he did."

This is untrue. I myself have done so, twice, in 2004 and again last year:

James White's "Doctorate" Degree: Is it Legitimate? (vs. James White and Mark Bainter)

Anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist Apologist James White's Bogus, Non-Accredited "Doctorate" Degree Defended Yet Again (vs. Jamin Hubner)

As I wrote in a paper about the topic today on my blog:

"It's one thing to say that no one has overthrown or refuted a piece of reasoning (which is subjective), but quite another to claim that no one has even attempted to do so (which is an objective claim of fact)."

For the record, I am a Catholic (if it is relevant at all; I say it isn't, on this issue).

The comments to this entry are closed.