For the Few Interested in Responses to James White's Irresponsible Rebuttals by Peter Lumpkins

UPDATE:  Several commenters have attempted to log "counter-points" to my responses to James White at James White On on this post's comment thread.  Do not bother, please.   Had I wanted to discuss my responses, I would have opened comments there. 

Know whether or not anyone thinks I posted adequate responses holds no interest to me.  The responses I posted  constitute my responses whether or not one or a hundred think the responses inadequate. These exchanges are between what James White wrote and my responses to James White.

I have to laugh at some of the comments.  Already from James White's support base, I've received the old standby, "you, sir, are a liar."  Another commenter actually dubbed my site an "attack site" instead of perceiving it as a site to respond to what James White has written personally about me and/or what I've written.  Still, another for some reason mentions to another commenter he heard I was a "youth pastor."  Why in a muddy swamp that was mentioned I cannot absorb.

=======================================================================

For those interested, take a look at the project I've begun concerning some of James White's irresponsible "rebuttals" commonly made against his critics.  My first goal bares a self-interest, I confess--to respond to his "rebuttals" toward what I've written.

Some query, "Why not just keep them on SBC Tomorrow"? Easy:  I have many interests.  And, answering James White is really not what I am about.  Hence, the most this project can have from me is a little spare time.  

You may click on the link below which will take you to the site, James White On. It is a work in progress, so check back often.

Grace for a beautiful Lord's Day evening.

With that, I am...

Peter

Go to James White On

Comments

[Pete Collins]

Peter,

Are you a pastor, elder or hold some other position of service in the SBC? Or are you just an SBC pundit?

Pete

[Chris Roberts]

"answering James White is really not what I am about"

Setting up a blog specifically to "answer" James White seems to challenge that notion...

[peter]

Pete,

Interestingly, I do not know what I am, really. I have been called a "pundit" I suppose. I served as Pastor from 1981-2002 (including a few tiny gaps). I've served Interims since along with my default ministry now--writing. I now hold no office in SBC denominational life. Nor have I ever served on a denominational committee outside the local association. As Vance Havner said, 'just a simple preacher'. Hope that helps.

Chris,

No. Read it again: "And, answering James White is really not what I am about. Hence, the most this project can have from me is a little spare time.

Must we ever deal with such skimpy criticisms.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Concerned]

I'd suggest you find another way to redeem that "little spare time". This endeavor serves only as an embarrassment to you and makes you look small.

Please focus on more edifying topics, even in your spare time.

[peter]

Dear Concerned,

Thanks. Now that you've logged your insult anonymously,
a) do not come back again unless you're willing to identify yourself
b) do not come back again unless you have a significant contribution to make

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt]

--And, answering James White is really not what I am about. Hence, the most this project can have from me is a little spare time.

Must we ever deal with such skimpy criticisms.--

What is skimpy is quoting this sentence in response as if it solves anything. For one thing, it's inherently contradictory to create an entire website and then say the most it will get from you is a little spare time. But even if a project like this wouldn't need more than a little spare time, the insurmountable number of paragraphs you write in response to every individual snippet of James White's articles destroys any semblance of the idea that your devotion to this new project will only be minimal.

Notice also that you feel free to use the pejorative term 'skimpy' when describing Chris Robert's criticism, and yet when Concerned returns the favor, you take issue with that. You, sir, need to learn to take it if you're going to dish it out.

[peter]

Dear Concerned,

Good bye. I trust you'll have a nice life...

Dear "Matt,"

A) I neither wrote nor suggested my response did solve anything. In fact you log on and demonstrate my response could not solve "anything" (whatever you mean by "anything").

B) to claim that propositions, a) creating a website; and b) affirming the site will get but the creator's spare time to be "inherently contradictory" as do you must be the logical joke of the day. Thanks for the laugh

c)I'm glad you think James White On is thorough given the sparse time dedicated to it

d) No, "Matt" "skimpy" is not "pejorative." Rather it has nuances of "lack" and "thin." Hence, Chris's point was "thin" or "lacking" in depth and/or content. This is a perfect word for some of Chris's many little logs on my site. Why do I say such? Easy. No one graduates from Beeson Divinity with an advanced degree for free (i.e., without human, intellectual sweat). Hence, my term "skimpy." If all that can be logged as a criticism from one with brain power the size of Chris', I'd rather not see logs at all. Hope that helps.

e)Why would "Concerned" return any "favor"? Is this the point of comment threads? Tit/tatting back and forth over who can dig the other one more? And, for that matter, "return the favor" to one with whom one is not even in exchange?

It may be what you're used to "Matt" but it is not the way here. Clear enough? Even more, this site does not exist for you or anyone else to "return the favor" to me or anyone else. Is that also clear enough?

f) If "skimpy" is "pejorative" as you say, why would you begin your comment with charging me with a "skimpy" response? Why do you feel free to use a "pejorative" against me in your opening line but turn right around and chide me for "feeling free" to use the same "pejorative" toward Chris? Ummm...

g) Oh, I've learned to take it, "Matt" I assure. But dealing with some of James White's supporters I confess has posed a challenge. Not intellectually mind you (that's not meant to be taken as because his supporters cannot engage intellectually but rather so many of them do not engage intellectually. For some bugged out reason they think calling people liars and deceivers and slanders and fools makes better use of their literary skills). Too bad.

h) Do not come back to this site anonymously. "Matt" doesn't make the grade (see commenting guidelines at top of page).

With that, I am...
Peter

[michelayna]

Peter, I came here quite by accident, but will leave quite on purpose. Your writing smacks of arrogance and a very critical spirit. Seems you derive much pleasure from putting people down, and your tendency (again and again) is to stir up strife.

Sadly, the tone of your blog would probably turn away any real seeker trying to find Christ here. I wish I could offer you encouragement, but all I can think of is to suggest you let the Holy Spirit examine your writing.

With that, I am...
Michelayna

[volfan007]

Michelayna,

Your comment to Peter looks exactly what you accuse him of. Can you see that? What you write to him is exactly what you're accusing Peter of doing.

One of the differences is that Peter backs up what he says with facts. It's not just an opinion pulled out of thin air.

David