« The Next President of the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Ergun Caner Releases Statement by Peter Lumpkins »



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



I hear you. My fingers not only move more slowly but I've so become dependent on 'spellcheck' I never bother to attempt to memorize a spelling anymore....

Thanks for the encouragement brother. We'll do coffee again one of these days and do what old men do--gripe about our aches and pains... ;^0


With that, I am...

Jeremiah Davies

I have yet to comment on this post because I choose neither side. However, I did log on yesterday and read what Mohammad had wrote. I logged on a bit later and his post was removed. If it was a legitimate post why was it removed. You did say "First, no one is deleted..." if the rules are followed and he seemed to be following the rules. If however it was illegitimate I understand.

Je D

BTW you could send me an email to see if i am who i say i am ;D. But you will find i am.

Chris Poe

After finally contacting Dr. Ascol to seek clarification (which I should have done at the outset) I am now convinced that I jumped to unwarranted conclusions about his tweet. He was simply noting what he was reading and the emotional response it provoked. If anyone "broke the Ninth Commandment" it was me.

Unfortunately, many of my earlier comments here and especially elsewhere likely generated far more heat than light. Hopefully I’ll think twice before hitting “send” the next time.

There is much more that could be stated, but for now I’m content to leave the discussion here.

Ron Phillips, Sr.


The vitriol can be deafening, hence my previous comment. You have been patient and very fair.

The issue is not Calvinism/Reformed views, those are all well and good to bring to the table to discuss and debate (even with passion). What has always bothered me, and we see it clearly in this current dust up, is the lengths to which some are willing to go in the name of Calvinism. We can see a movement that is selective in it's view of Baptist history, which seems to me, to be a bit disingenuous. We also have people seeking to harass and destroy someone because he is not a Calvinist. The J316 conference was yet another of example of such.

When can men of conscience and biblical conviction stand and debate this without fear of unwarranted personal attacks? And if one points this out, then be prepared to also be thrown under the bus. This diversionary tactic is loud and sadly at times effective. Too often it has pushed the discussion on the merits of the actual belief system out of the picture.


Ron P.

Jamin Hubner

This is a poor post.
From an outsider's perspective, White and Ergun are on about equal standing as far as basic academic credentials are concerned (though, this substantially changes when one works moderated debates into the equation), which is irrelevant. What matters is this: who is making an effort to pursue the truth and seek clarity? Caner calls names. White challenges Caner to public debates on his own campus. Caner calls more names. That's the basic pattern before us.


Dear Grand Verbalizer,

No thanks. I'm afraid James White and his supporters have their hands full as it is. Nonetheless, I removed your comment from view.

Also, logging on as "R.C.Sproul, Jr." does not fare well, in my view, toward making a case for being honest and forthright in one's criticisms of another. You need to think about that before you log elsewhere.

Know Jesus Christ is the Way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him and Him alone. And, regardless of the criticisms of either Ergun Caner or James White, both men stand honorably for the exclusivity of our one and only, Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and redemption alone through His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and soon coming again.

Marnathana. Come Lord.

With that, I am...



Of course. Linking to Muslim attack sites and James White's rebuttal of Ergun Caner and describing it as 'fake' and 'former muslim' is surely nothing more than an "emotional response." I'm really glad that's all cleared up now...


Tanks for the compliment! And, if you honestly believe there's no difference in the academic requirements rehearsed above, I think you are entitled to your opinion. Just keep right on believing it.

With that, I am...

fasb rating system

I know this? Why did I think this? Because I know how rabid some Founders type Calvinists are, and how they love to argue and debate; and how they love to attack anyone who doesnt agree with them.

Dr. James Galyon

Mark Turner - Amen, brother!

Jacob Hall

I think all men share burden of fault in this, some more than others. In keeping with Christian hospitality and an obligation to the Gospel, I think all parties involved need to drop the name calling and ridiculous statements made about each other.

Ignoring the faults in the situation that all men bring to the table is romanticizing the past and ultimately not helpful for reconciliation, which should be the goal of all Christians who read this. Despite my personal views that are in disagreement with Dr. Caner, I would prefer to see he and Dr. Ascol and Dr. White be able to "bury the hatchet" as Brothers in Christ who see the furtherance of the Gospel being more important than personal vendettas.



I assure you there is no "Ignoring the faults in the situation that all men bring to the table" and hence, there is no "romanticizing the past." I gave a brief summary in the first part of this post concerning the history of this difficult situation.

Even so, no amount of pleading that these men "bury the hatchet" so to speak can hardly be seriously heeded when two of the men--Ascol & White--by name, publicly portray Ergun Caner as a "fake former Muslim" and "liar," which is, in fact what they did. Period.

Furthermore, the words Caner used about "myopic Reformed guys" refereed to neither Ascol nor White by name. Rather it was a 'generic' criticism.

But being 'generic' doesn't matter--at least not in White's world nor for White's followers. White personally took it as intended toward him. That's not Caner's problem; that's White's. And, taking it toward him, openly publicly, called him "liar," while his bud Ascol tagged his video as dealing with 'former' 'fake' Muslims and coupled it with a Muslim attack site. To turn one's head and ignore this would be sin on my part.

Therefore, your exhortation, while sincere, is hardly applicable. Sorry.

With that, I am...


Peter or anyone else,

Do you recall at which point in White's video (the one Ascol linked) addressing Caner's "Jerry Springer Show" comment that White claims Ergun Caner to be a "fake Muslim"?




Unless I am mistaken, White did not connect the dots as you've stated it.

With that, I am...


Peter, thanks for answering. I was really confused because I listened again today to the video in question and did not hear it. I could have missed it though since it was playing in the background.

The reason I asked is because in light of my question and your answer I'm not sure what to make of the following paragraph.

The other link Ascol gives is his good buddy, James White. And, what evidence does the famed, self-described fearless apologist offer as clear, objective proof Dr. Caner is a "fake Muslim? Why, he gives the same type of evidence Ascol gave—the Muslim attack sites.

This paragraph seems to implicate White as referencing the "fake Muslim" site as well as noting that Caner was a fake Muslim. This paragraph also seems to be the main point of how White is linked to using the fake Muslim site in question.

How am I misunderstanding? (If I am.)

Thanks again,




As I pointed out to Shamgar (?) or another above, Ascol's words make clear the 'fake' Muslim connection.

With that, I am...



I see...I think...where you're finding some sort of connection. I suppose the lack of clarity for me is that it was White, as shown in my previous quote from you, who was taken to task for using the "fake Muslim" approach. Yet, what our little chat here seems to have bore out is that it was not in fact White who did so.

Thanks for helping me clear up that I was not misunderstanding the lack of connection on this point. I really was confused a bit.

Your GA neighbor,


P.s. One more thing please. Have you ever thought that by Ascol using quotes around "fake former Muslims" that he wasn't buying the fake claim?



I have a couple of questions for you.

1)How is James White teaching in a Southern Baptist Seminary with the academic credentials that he has? Why would they allow him to teach if his credentials are that bad?

2)How is James White teaching in a Southern Baptist Seminary when he does not belong to a Southern Baptist Church? Is that not right? Is the Church he belongs to Southern Baptist? I was told that it was not; that it was Reformed Baptist. Why would a SB seminary have anyone teaching in our seminaries who's not even a SB?


Matt Svoboda

Yeah volfan, this comment thread is long just because of "rabid calvinists." lol

Not because the content of the post, its hypocrisy, or the fact that there are 2 passionate sides.



Can you answer my questions in the comment just above your last comment? There's 2 of them.

And, about the length, and my guess, it appears as though I was right....does it not? Over at SBC Today, Tim Rogers made a similar post, and boy, watch out....So, I guess I was right.


David Hewitt


I believe that since Dr. White teaches as an adjunct professor, he is not required to be a Southern Baptist or have an accredited degree.

I may be wrong, but from what I have read elsewhere, this seems to be the case.

In Christ,
David B. Hewitt

Bob L. Ross


I don't know if James is a coward, but I do know he tries to be pragmatic. He does the best he can with what he has been blessed to work with.

For instance, James misrepresented Peter Ruckman's view about the King James Bible in his "KJVO Controversy" book, and James probably would not want that aired in a public debate, I would think.

James foolishly categorized Ruckman as believing the KJV was "RE-INSPIRED" by God in 1611 (The King James Only Controversy, pages 4, 6).

It is no marvel that Ruckman literally laughed-off James as a "fool" when Ruckman reviewed James' book! This is the furtherest thing to what Ruckman actually believes.

Ruckman, in his most "famous" booklet entitled, Why I Believe the King James Bible is the Word of God, plainly states:

"I'VE NEVER SAID THAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE WAS INSPIRED" (page 6, edition of 1988; page 7, undated reprinted edition I obtained from Ruckman in 2005).

You would think that an self-proclaimed "scholar" like James, with his Doctorate, would have acquainted himself with Ruckman's view before he published a book which misrepresented Ruckman. He later announced he was going to revise his book, which I hope he has done.

But, James seems to have a blind spot on some things and apparently relies on hearsay or perhaps on his own imagination in some cases. James once accused me of misrepresenting John MacArthur on the Sonship of Christ, but later JMac changed his view to the same creedal view I hold on Eternal Sonship, and JMac acknowledged that he had been wrong in the past. That did not do much to embellish James' reputation as a theologian. But James hurriedly tried to redeem himself by saying he never agreed with MacArthur!

Will wonders ever cease?


David Hewitt,





I have mentioned, more than once I think, that a more that adequate number of references to my alleged "hypocrisy" had been logged to make sure it was sufficiently publicized. I then asked (or perhaps announced is better) that those particular charges be by-passed, instead offering an actual contribution to the thread if anyone had a mind. People were obviously free to continue the 'hypocrite' charge but they needed to do so on their on nickel, not mine. Commenters are guests, you know. Logging on to a site is a privilege, not a right.

Yet you show back up after you explicitly stated "I am done commenting here" and offer but another charge of "hypocrisy." Such dense disrespect I've come to expect from a few others. But so far as I know, I have never given you one reason to become so decidedly juvenile here.

To my knowledge I don't think I've ever shown up on somebody's blog and repeatedly charged them with blatant moral failure, and especially have I not done so after I have been asked (or told) not to do such. Certainly I've never shown up at SBCV or your personal site continually flinging the charge "hypocrisy" around.

Even so, Matt I wish you the best in ministry, in service to the one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Nonetheless, know when I put a post up in the future, I think it'd be better for your own edification to read--if you so choose--but then move along. Not saying you can't log on; just saying I think it best not to log on--at least until you've gained enough confidence not to IN-YOUR-FACE the bloghost.

With that, I am...


Brother Ross,

Thank you for the contribution. I honestly did not give you as much credit as deserved for your many enlightening essays into the theological world of James White. You have powdered his puff more than once I assure, not to mention handed his protegees a handkerchief for tears.

A convictional, "creedal," biblical Calvinist you be, I happily and without qualification recommend your writings to all. And may I say, not one of the so-called 'young, restless, and Reformed' who so often fling the mighty Spurgeon's name around, match your knowledgeable depth of him.

Lord bless, brother.

With that, I am...

Tom Parker

You guys blow my mind when you say it will be the final comment on anything. You and others shut down the comments like the debate will end. It will continue. This tactic will not work. As hard as you and others holler others will holler right back.



This is my house and this was my decision. I made the call. I pay the nickel. That's that.

I tried to be as clear as I knew how. And, whether you agree or not, you lack all honor to log on this thread and yell your complaint through the back door.

Please, sir. Never come back here. You had guest privileges. Now you don't.

With that, I am...



I am shutting this thread down. Within perhaps 5 minutes of logging a fresh post--a post I specifically and clearly communicated we would have no comment thread over which to bicker about a man's confession--a brother boldly jumped my fence, went around back, peeped through my screen door, and yelled out his complaint anyway.

I do not know what that's called anywhere else, but we call that trespassing in West Georgia and it could get your big-baggy behinny a full pound of buckshot.

Please, brothers. Please. Squeeze just a bit more respect out when you surf blogdom.

With that, I am...

UPDATE:  This was an interesting thread.  For the most part, about all that was established from those defending the Ascol/White demolition team against all things Ergun Carner was, the relentless defenders accused me of hypocrisy.  Of course, James White was not viewed as being hypocritical when he employed Muslim hate-site “evidence” against Dr. Caner. Indeed White argued one cannot dispute the “evidence” just because it originates from hate-sites.  And, I suppose strictly speaking, he may have a point.  On the other hand, when a White critic used “evidence” he had picked up from a site hardly friendly toward White, White accosted his critic for using “evidence” picked up from an unfriendly source. Why was I hypocrising but White not hypocrising? 

For the record, the reader must read carefully what I stated and did not state concerning the links in the original post.  In point of fact, I never once validated or defended using the links I used.  Nor would I.  I simply placed the scenario in the form of a supposition, demonstrating how it’s hardly acceptable to employ, as definitive research, the use of unfriendly and/or ‘hate-sites.”  Neither Caner nor White nor anybody else desires the use of ‘hate-sites’ as definitive for either their beliefs or behavior.  White’s defenders shouls think long and hard about that before they parade around accusing others of hypocrisy.

Finally, an interesting post went up at a James White defender’s site that may or may not be worth your time.  The boy accused me of purposely deleting his comment.  James White is the first one to log on and commend him, while dissing me as so constantly “twisting” and distorting” other people’s words, that he wondered how I could look in the mirror (note White’s response about me. Is this all these guys know?  A you-sir-are-a-liar approach? Those who frequent this blog know my record.  I will leave it there for you to decide.  Actually, I logged onto his site and gave a detailed explanation about his “devastating” comment.  His response (like his mentor above) was, you-sir-are-a-liar.  Well there you have it.  I did satirically toy around with the dude a bit, I admit.  However, what’s a person to do on a site which reveals as its purpose, “AOMinions is a satire site, and all content should be taken in that vein”?

It’s fairly funny if you care to look-- “Just in Case It’s Deleted” by RazorKiss

With that, I am…


The comments to this entry are closed.