« UPDATE: The Fallout Begins on James White Fudging His Teaching Experience by Peter Lumpkins | Main | On Marginalizing Brad Whitt by Peter Lumpkins »

Apr 03, 2011

Comments

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

Chris Gilliam

Peter,

While it appears there is some understanding of one's errors, the language still possess the present tense of the verb "to serve". It seems as one is not willing to come full circle. Perhaps it is because one cannot truly humble oneself to repent and apologize.

Scott Oakland

Peter, If you check your spam bucket, you'll read this. The reason that I changed the ReformedCast site is to more accurately reflect that he is not only a teacher at Golden Gate from time to time, but is an adjunct professor. I found that I was actually not giving Dr. White enough credit with the previous description, and given this fact, and the fact that he is not teaching a current course, it justified the change. Thanks for the clarification.

As to the removal of my blog posts on this issue, I decided to dedicate that blog to podcast-related announcements and leave the "blog war" out of it.

Scott

peter

Chris,

It is a very strange thing...

Scott,

Didn't have to check the spam bucket. I have warned folk before and flagged their IP for the present post but later removed the block. For the most part, it makes a great statement--I'll only tolerate so much nonsense.

Now as to your change, why of course it gives White more credit, which is why you specifically took the courses out you actually named. Now people may assume more broadly James White teaches Church Administration 101--a brilliant move, I'd say, to correct the fact that you were "actually not giving Dr. White enough credit with the previous description."

More seriously, Scott, you argued vigorously here for your position and turned around and changed it. Whether or not you admit it, such remains a strange, strange action, and that without the least explanation.

Have a good evening.
With that, I am...
Peter

Scott Oakland

Peter, You might recall in our exchange that we all agreed that he hadn't been teaching at the moment. All of my defenses still stand: that he is an adjunct at GG, which the change reflects. And unless you have more evidence (other than Bethany House's website), my refutations still stand in the sound minds of the readers.

Scott

RL Adler

Peter,

You've definitely had an effect on the way White is communicating his bio to people now. Listening to Doc Licona on the Janet Mefferd show I noticed that Dok White was scheduled on the show the next day (I thought it was an april fool's joke).

During her read of his bio she just gives him a generic "professor" label. No mention of a school:

http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/2011/04/01/janet-mefferd-radio-show-20110401-hr-3/

Adam Parker

Even if everything you're saying is spot-on, Peter, isn't it true that having 'current professor' in your bio is a far cry from a manufactured childhood in Turkey? You've got a long way to go, if you want to make White's bio as embarassing for apologetics as Ergun Caner's, because right now this looks like a grasping at straws. Just my opinion.

peter lumpkins

Scott,

Well I have to say Scott, exchanging with you has been...let's just say, an experience. You vigorously argued for the original assertion you made that White ""Dr. White... teaches Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary..." without budging a meter's fraction. You accused us here of "spinning" and even making stuff up. Then, you pulled out of thin air that I was attempting to prove a universal negative when I was but questioning the evidence for your own positive assertion that JW "teaches Greek...at GGBTS", citing that as a "logical fallacy" which you, insisted, made my concerns vanish back into thin air from whence they came.

You post two apparently devastating posts which you describe as totally refuting the "mess" we posted here, but now have taken down the definitive answers to our quests. Oddly, no one may read and learn how you "refuted" the only evidence you said I gave you when you "called me out"--the president's video, which, you confused with somebody else.

Now, you've changed your original wording from "Dr. White... teaches Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary..." to "Dr. White...serves as an adjunct professor at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary..."* arguing the change was necessary to "more accurately reflect" White's true because you found that you "actually [were] not giving Dr. White enough credit." How going from teaches Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics to serving as an adjunct professor not teaching at all gives White more credit is hardly evident. And as I indicated above, giving the public the impression White teaches anything from Church Admin 101 to Advanced Music in Worship cannot be viewed by average readers as giving White more credit.

What is indicative of your change is, the grandstanding on this site for words you now change--not for the better but for the worse--reveals the mere sophistry of your position, Scott. What's more, the change reflects no more accuracy than the former as Chris mentioned above. You want to make this into White teaching "from time to time," the most weasel-worded phrase imaginable. This means that even though White would not teach for the next ten years but all in between he still retains the title "adjunct professor."

What a double Georgia hoot, Scott. Know if folks desire to embrace your "defenses" as real and substantial, they have my express permission to do so.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

All,

I'm away from office the rest of the day. And, unfortunately, I forget my battery charger for laptop. So, I won't be able to respond at all until this evening.

With that, I am...
Peter

Tim Rogers

Adam Parker,

Your assertion is, let's just say, obtuse. You come here from who knows where and through Dr. Caner into the mix. This is Peter's house and I certainly do not want to take this post in a different direction. However, to reveal how your statement is lacking in intellect, let me just respond with blunt straight forward statements. First, no one has said that Dr. Caner spent his entire childhood in Turkey. Please produce the evidence. I presume you are trying to paint it that way because you are ignorant of his life. You are taking the word of someone else. Second, these Op's have not been about Dr. Caner, but the person masquerading as a PhD. and a professor that goes by the name--James White. Even accepting Scott's position that JW is an adjunct professor is still, shall we say, pushing the envelope. Why? You have him listed in a position that GGBTS does not list him. Please, provide up to date links of where he is an Adjunct Professor at GGBTS. That would the the thing for you to do. Third, you log on here trying to say that JW has done nothing wrong. But he certainly has. His teaching credentials for him to get the position at GGBTS we based on his MAT not his degree from the unaccredited store front seminary he has listed on his vitae. How do I know? I asked the President of GGBTS. He assured me that GGBTS does not hire professors who depend on unaccredited degrees for their positions.

Now, seeing I reside in NC and my tax $$'s go to pay Bart Ehrman's salary, I wonder....Would the Board of Trustees think it wise for a leading scholar at their institution to debate someone who relies on non-accredited academic degrees for his scholarship?

Tim

Scott Oakland

Peter, The two blog posts on my blog, that I took down because of the reasons stated above, was a mere summary of what was going on here. I took down no devastating refutations. All of my refutations remain on this blog (unless you took em.... Actually it was YOU who refused to post my comment (which went directly to your spam bucket) which refutes the Rogers video, and why that video cannot prove a thing....[deleted by adm]

peter lumpkins

Scott,

Not a chance. I'm not going to post on this present thread your leftovers from other threads not to mention blog posts you took down.  Do you have no shame, man? My blog is not for your own personal advertising pleasure. 

You also claim the blog posts you took down didn’t address the video, and all of your “refutations” remain on this blog…which refutes the Rogers video”. Scott, you can’t even keep up with your own words nor apparently your own posts.  Note very carefully the following comment you logged:

Scott Oakland said...

I know you won't post it but I have provided the direct link to your so-called incriminating video and refuted all of this mess in its entirety here:

http://www.alwaysreforming.org/2011/03/answering-one-peter-lumpkins.html

Reply2011.03.26 at 10:24 AM (comment #60)


Unbelievable.  And, furthermore, it’s annoying, Scott, to have to spoon-feed you your own words, words which give a link to the very post you took down addressing the video, words you said did not exist on your site but only exists here. 

I’m sorry to say, you may be the most confusing person with whom I have ever exchanged.

With that, I am…

Peter

Adam Parker

Tim,

I realize that I do come somewhat out of nowhere with my comments, since I have never posted on Mr. Lumpkins' blog before. However, having been somewhat acquainted with what went down in the Caner/White situation, I would have to be pretty gullible for you to try to convince me that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with Ergun Caner. Is it just a coincidence that JW was seen as doing this exact same thing to Ergun? If it is just a coincidence, then it is a pretty wild coincidence. That's all I'm saying; this is all very transparent, to me. That's as an outsider looking in, of course.

Remi

Adam,

Give us a break. You guys tie everything to Ergun Caner or some other insidious motive, whenever anyone notices James White's dishonesty and corruption. Isn't it possible that some people just care about honesty and truth, and therefore don't appreciate White's lack of both? Do they HAVE to be horrible conspirators?

Dave Armstrong

Hi Adam,

You (and others) can play the "Caner card" all you like, but in the end, White has to explain himself. I couldn't care less, myself, about the Caner dispute, and I have been involved in the present dispute also. If anything, I would be inclined to agree with White, with what I have read about Caner. I've been writing about White and his dubious educational credentials since 2004. To me, his behavior now is all of a piece.

To the extent that Caner must keep being mentioned, it does reveal that there is a certain double standard: what White requires of others in terms of utter truthfulness, he excuses himself from. There are many aspects of White's ethics in general that are quite dubious as well: how he presents and systematically distorts the views of others who differ from him; the constant personal attacks and pettiness, his treatment of people on his webcast, violation of personal confidences (I was a victim of that in 1996, and I have seen others mention this tactic of his), his abominable public treatment of his own sister, etc.

There is much in his conduct and arguments that is highly questionable. This is just one of a long series of such things. It started long before Ergun Caner and, sadly, it looks like it will continue on for some time to come unless White repents of these things. With a rabid fan club that apparently sees nothing in the least questionable about anything he ever does, it probably won't change anytime soon. This is why accountability is so important.

If no on in White's own circle and admirers will hold him accountable, then others will have to do the task. If God could use a donkey and Nebuchadnezzar to help accomplish His will, surely He can occasionally use even detested "Romanists" and Arminians to get Baptist bishops back into line . . . :-)

Scott Oakland

Dave, I appreciate the fact that you want to get to the bottom of bad conduct. So I am guessing that we can expect some blog posts on your site regarding Mr. Caner's past actions, with calling him to task about them? It would seem that consistency would demand such, now that you know about it. If the answer is yes, I'll look forward to seeing them. If no, then your reasoning regarding why not, would be appreciated.

Scott

Dave Armstrong

Of course, it's also patently obvious that White is using the Caner issue to deflect and change the topic: a ridiculous, childish example of the "your dad's uglier than mine" canard. There are lots and lots of sins and lots of hypocrisy in the world. None of them, however, have directly to do with the question of whether White fudged and whether he got his "doctorate" from sending in Cheerios boxtops.

It reminds me of Democrats today who can't bring themselves to fault Obama for anything. What do they do? Well, they immediately blame Bush for the deficit. Everything is Bush's fault . . . So if anyone dares criticize Blessed Bishop White (who has never done anything wrong in his life, much less admit it), then they are informed that Ergun Caner is Satan incarnate, and his supporters a pack of demons, as if that has the slightest relevance to the matter at hand . . .

The only constructive thing that comes from such games is a verification that White has absolutely no defense; therefore, he and his lapdogs switch topics and obfuscate, just as the lawyer who has no case will attempt to do . . .

peter lumpkins

Scott, et al

Stop this asinine attempt to make this thread and issue about Ergun Caner. Stop it. No more comments will be posted with EC's name in it. Got it?

That's it.

With that, I am...
Peter

Scott Oakland

Have we hit a sore spot Peter? Your censorship of my posts and everyone who disagrees with your "conclusions" is evident to all. I'm outta here. No more pearls to swines for me, at least not here.

peter lumpkins

Scott,

A) Sore spot? Nope. Rather, this post nor any which I've written thus far with James White's name on it is dependent upon any issue concerning Dr. Caner, something you and a few other White supporters refuse to understand

B) "Censorship"? So because I won't post your hullabaloo about EC it's "censorship"? Or is it because I won't re-post your leftovers from other threads or even your own posts you yourself took down? Yeah, right, Scott. I'm "censoring" you. What a double-Georgia hoot!

C) Pearls? You think your comments have been "pearls"? Okay...

D) You may do as you wish elsewhere. But not here. If people want to exchange here they cannot make up their own rules as they go along. Pretty simple. But hard to follow when folk have agendas to pursue.

Have a great day.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

All,

Just an FYI,

Some James White supporters are still logging comments about Ergun Caner on the one hand, and some are logging comments with questions aimed at James White supporters who continued to make the present thread about Ergun Caner on the other. Know it's hard not to conclude that at least some of them did so to take the focus off James White's obvious 'fudging' of his academic accomplishments, suppling a nice scapegoat--Ergun Caner. I realize some of you would like to ask White supporters like Scott Oakland some valid questions, questions he continually dodged on other threads.

Even so, please consider asking your question without making the parallel with EC. If I do not post White supporters' comments alluding to EC, it's hardly acceptable to allow those who (rightly) question White supporters' connection of this issue to EC to nonetheless log comments about EC. I hope that makes sense.

Grace all. I appreciate your readership.
With that, I am...
Peter

Dave Armstrong

Following Peter's wish to not deflect the topic at hand to irrelevant matters, let me discreetly state the following in reply to Scott (since I was directly asked, and Peter allowed those questions to be posted):

1) I (like all of us, and like all full-time apologists and writers) have only so much time.

2) the matter referred to is obviously quite complex, and would require much time to adequately treat and understand.

3) it being an internal Baptist "political" matter, it is really none of my business as a Catholic. I wouldn't presume to enter into such affairs, which are not expressly public issues, but, for the most part, private ones, having (possibly) to do with church discipline and denominational or academic censure. White's supposed "doctorate" and statements on blurbs about his present academic credentials, on the other hand, are, of course, quite public matters open to review and criticism.

4) I don't know this person or much about him at all, whereas I have closely followed White's unsavory shenanigans these past 16 years, with much personal interaction (insofar as any dealings with Bishop White can be called such, if one gets put in his doghouse of despised and detested personages); therefore, it makes perfect sense that I would write about White and not this other person.

5) As noted in many ways in these comboxes, discussion of another person in the context of White's dubious ethics and questionable public claims, is an utter non sequitur. Nevertheless, because I am a polite guy and try to oblige questions (even from those arguably obnoxious), I have replied here. I do so, however, under protest: that it is perfectly irrelevant.

6) I can't speak for Peter or anyone else, but my critique of White's academic pretenses long preceded this other controversy (by many years) and has nothing whatever to do with it, as I have never dealt with the other thing in public. Why, then, is it brought up at all (i.e., specifically in relation to me)? It only goes to show that the present critique of White has no intrinsic connection to this other controversy, even on a personal level: where I am concerned.

7) I have already stated that it looks to me, prima facie, like there is wrongdoing from this other person as well. But how that excuses White's lying and deceptive presentations is, I confess, quite beyond my powers of comprehension.

8) As is quite obvious by now, my reasoning and rationales explained herein involve no inconsistency whatever. Scott was quite pleased when I first gave my provisional opinion; now he is again looking in vain for hypocrisy. If he seeks that, his hero Bishop White can provide it in droves, as a virtual walking encyclopedia of all sorts of manifest hypocrisy and double standards. It is a marvel for anyone of any party to observe. The Pharisees and their mentality are very much alive in our time.

The comments to this entry are closed.