James White, Elder Boards, and Accountability: Late Night Friday Funnies by Peter Lumpkins

UPDATE:  No, the following is *not* a spoof.  Make sure you follow the links...

Sometimes, one cannot resist getting a big, belly roll laugh on the blogs.  And, after a week of relatively intense flame rounds from folks, I end the week with a smile on my face.

A new-comer commenter made a great point on the last post.  Rarely do I offer rejoinders to my respondents as a main piece, but I could not resist.

“Robert” correctly observes:

“[James White] always makes a big deal about being accountable to the elders in a local church (sometimes even asking people what church they belong to so he can inform their elders). Perhaps it is time White's elders at prbc.org be informed of his doings of late so that he can be held accountable as to whether his extrapolations based on the audio snippets he has heard are warranted, or count as slander.”

Robert, my brother, we’re echoing one another, for on an earlier piece I put together, I noted the very same observation as you:

“Contrasting the notorious Tex Marrs as being under the spiritual authority of no one, White reminds his readers:

"He [Tex Marrs] is a loner, not under the authority of a local church or elders, unaccountable to God-ordained authority. As for me (and the question is honestly asked, in light of what I just said), I am a member of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, under the authority of the eldership of that local assembly" (//link)” (//link)

Afterward, I challenged the readers to take a trek over to White’s church and check out precisely to whom one would appeal, were he or she inclined to contact White’s Elders, the “eldership” of which, White assures us, he remains “under the authority."

Well, here you are, my Brother Robert.  Here is the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church’s “eldership”  under whom James White subjects himself to its authority*:

Just imagine, Robert, sending a letter of complaint to the “eldership” to deal with one of its potentially wayward church members, James White. 

Poor, poor Pastor Fry.

Picture Pastor Fry confronting James White, the professional debater:

Elder Fry:  Elder White, we need to talk.  I received a disturbing letter concerning behavior on your part which may be questionable

Elder White: He is a liar!

Elder Fry: But this guy seems so sincere

Elder White:  I’m telling you, he’s a liar!  And, you, sir, are a liar too!

Then, picture your letter being posted on the internet to be unabashedly mocked and ridiculed. 

I’m telling you...

I’m headed to bed...

But I’m still laughing.

And, I owe it all to you, my brother Robert.  Please do not make yourself scarce.

With that, I am…

Peter

*Link to the “eldership” under which James White submits himself

Comments

[Andrew]

couldn't post this on the comment thread of "Southern Baptists: Meet Your New Executive Committee President" because of this drama...so thought turn-about was fair play!

Seems you were right after all:

http://baptistpress.com/BPnews.asp?ID=32929

I'd LOVE to know who your sources are!

[Tim G]

Sad and true and funny!

[Casey]

PETER, under NO circumstances are you to reveal your "sources" or tell anyone how you get the cockroaches to stop on the "right answer board"...this has taken generations of training and breeding the cockroaches and was helpful in making(correct) decisions during the CR...
:)

[bob]

Heard that Aiken to IMB, Ronnie Floyd to NAMB? What do you think

[Diana P.]

yes - well, is it really a stretch what we have known all along, that James White counts himself the *great* authority on and over all?!

[Tom Parker]

How will this ever die if you and Tim G. and others post about it almost daily.

[peter]

Dear Tom,

About what? James White? Eldership? Accountability? I most certainly do not.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Bob L. Ross]

Dear Peter:

I had an experience with James White who acted like he wanted to make charges against me to the elders of my church. Here are the details:

>>
At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 6:36:00 PM, Bob L. Ross said...

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT

Posted on The Calvinist Flyswatter, April 5, 2006.

Sent to the Elders of Reformed Baptist Church, Phoenix, Arizona:

The Elders of the Reformed Baptist Church of Phoenix, Arizona are hereby formally invited to come to Pasadena, Texas for the presentation of charges against Bob L. Ross by James White before Park Temple Baptist Church.

Proceeding according to Scripture, Matthew 18:15-18, Brother White is first invited to confer with Brother Ross privately.

If they cannot settle the complaint, then Brother White is invited to take one or two more to discuss the complaint with Brother Ross, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

If that does not settle the matter to Brother White's satisfaction, then he is invited to present the matter before the church here in Pasadena where Brother Ross is a member and subject to discipline.

Our church hopes that the third step does not become necessary, but if it does, we hope a cordinal settlement is reached.

I am acting for the church where I am a member, Park Temple, and hope this matter may be resolved to every one's satisfaction. -- Bob L. Ross
>>

Peter, do you think anything ever came of this?

I even wrote to the other "elder," Pastor Fry, and complained about James' behaviour, Bro. Fry he did not even bother to respond to my email.

One can read more on this at this link:
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/04/what-does-james-white-believe-about.html

-- Bob L. Ross

[peter]

Bob,

Thanks. White said something about going to my "elders" on his post about me. Yet he later concluded I was a much too small fish to fry.

Thanks brother.
With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. I took the liberty to switch your comment from the other post to this one. You inadvertently logged your insightful comment above to the wrong post...

[selahV]

Peter, I'm confused. Sorry. You know how gullible I can be. Is this a "genuine" posting of "Dr." James White's actual church home where he is the only elder with his pastor? This is not a spoof? This is true? And he is the only one he is accountable to at his church home other than the pastor? And you are saying that he actually reports grievances of other people to their churches? Are you serious? This actually happens? You are kidding, right? selahV

[volfan007]

lol. wow!

David

[peter lumpkins]

SelahV

No. It is funny. But it is *no* spoof. Check out the link at the bottom of the post.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

I just browsed through Bob's link. Wow! I guess I should have also used White as part of the illustration in the post I put up last night here.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[A.M. Mallett]

I suppose we could add this new "elder" revelation to other observations concerning Mr. White including his highly suspect doctorate credentials and his never ending misrepresentations of non-Calvinist doctrine. I believe the best course of action with such carnal men and women is to leave them to their own devices.

[peter]

All,

Another laugh I’m receiving is the unparallel '”week-end” traffic I’m gathering due to the anonymous ‘turretinfan,’ who makes his/her rounds to every blog who mentions James White.  He'/she has put together a chronology of all the nasty, no good things I’ve written about other people of late, including, of course, Hyper-Calvinist James White.  And, all I’ve written is vicious and untrue...obviously! 

One thing is forever changed, however, when supporters like ‘turretinfan’ storm sites which take issue with White’s methods and ideas—their comments won’t make prime time.  Not because the comments are challenging, mind you.  Rather because there’s only so many times one may legitimately post, “you, sire, are a liar.”

With that, I am…

Peter

[A.M. Mallett]

Mr. Lumpkin, that is great publicity for you! I would not have read your blog were it not for the various Whiteheads.

[natamllc]

Peter,

go back to TurrentinFan's blog and address my question to you.

thanks.

By the way, does any commentor here live in the greater Phoenix area?

If so, how many Baptist Churches are there and how many "elders" are aggregately represented?

In my area here on the North Coast of California, there are three limbs of Baptist organizations. Of these three, twentytwo Bapist Churches belong to the SBC. I know personally that, of these Churches, some are one Pastor one Elder to that body. But, however, when it comes to accountability and Leadership discipline, the greater Pastoral and Eldership is utilized to bring correction, instruction, reproofs and if necessary, rebuke and the setting aside of an errant Pastor or Elder.

Maybe Peter, you have gotten to close to the tree and miss the forest that grows among the weeds of the greater Phoenix area?

With that, I am....
Natamllc

[A.M. Mallett]

Natamllc,
The hypocrisy being noted here is not centered on how many elders are present but on the spurious claim that White has placed himself under the authority of the elders of his local church. He IS the elder of the church and apparently has placed himself under his own authority all the while denigrating others he labels as lone wolves. Note he did not state he is subject to the authority of the SBC but to his local, specific church instead. Are you suggesting that White now revise his position to garner some measure of accuracy?

[A.M. Mallett]

Perhaps Mr. White is merely embellishing his situation?

[A.M. Mallett]

... and additional point for exploration ... When I enter Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church into the search for churches associated with the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention I come up with nada. Is Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church affiliated with any governing body?

[peter]

A.M.

Thanks for answering our natamllc's question. You're dead on about the posting on White: if the "God-ordained" authority is the eldership as White obviously implies, then White subjects himself to himself.

One note about PRBC; it advertises itself as a "Reformed Baptist Church" and hence it will not be affiliated with the SBC.

With that, I am...
Peter

[natamllc]

I do not dispute this point that you have raised and find it is odd if as you claim Dr. White is subject to himself and to Pastor Fry only. If, in fact, that is the truth, Dr. White does have some explanations to come forth with to reconcile that with the Scriptures.

I do not know Dr. White personally so I will ask TurrentinFan who does and see what answer I get. TF, if you happen to be reading this here, maybe you can address that question if you haven't already?

I do not question the doctoral claims Dr. White makes of himself. I do not question Dr. Caner's either. I will say this though, the way Dr. White was trained and mentored and credentialed, given two doctorates, in my view, seems a bit more advantageous as that model truly and historically is the way it was and now ought to be for one to come into such a public fulltime ministry as Dr. White is in as well as Dr. Caner. I was trained in ministry in a similar fashion. My class was about twenty and we had plenty of time with our Mentor for over 4 years of some intense trainings.

The accredited/nonaccredited argument, in my view is a non issue. What is the standard and issue is, "is the fruit of the Holy Spirit apparent in the ordained public servant of the Lord"? I think it fair to quote this Proverb here: Pro 14:26 In the fear of the LORD one has strong confidence, and his children will have a refuge.
Pro 14:27 The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, that one may turn away from the snares of death.
Pro 14:28 In a multitude of people is the glory of a king, but without people a prince is ruined.

I find Dr. Caner has some oratory skills that if he can impart those skills to others along the lines of how Paul taught Timothy and Titus and others in his immediate circle, to be so bold with the proclamation of the Gospel the better for us and the worse for the devil himself in this world. I do not dispute his father is a Turkish Muslim. I don't think any of the Christians I am associated with dispute it either. In fact it wasn't until an "outsider" and apparently a nominal Muslim at that, Mohamed Khan, began to draw attention to Dr. Caner's claims with his youtube video clips did I find it suspicious. What Dr. White was finding troubling, if you care to listen to him had to do with the "formal" debate process he has had with some very good Muslim Apologists. I have listened to several of Dr. Whites debates, including debates with Muslim Scholars. Dr. White has skill and a depth of understanding as well as knowledge. I am sure if you had a chance to ask anyone who has debated Dr. White, they will tell you they were up against one formidable opponent. Dr. White is a learned man, a scholar and he knows his stuff, from the varied camps of Biblical Christianity as well as atheism and Islam and other religious and secular mindsets. He has an amazing command of the Greek language that I have enjoyed. I have a bit of an understanding of both Hebrew and Greek and study it continually. Dr. White has depth as does TurrentinFan and others that I know.

So, in some sense we all might need to calm down. If Dr. Caner has embellished himself and he needs to come under some discipline and correction, what is the issue here? He is such a public figure that it seems to me if this is the course SBC/Liberty University takes, then all the better for all of us who Name the Name of Christ. Our lifestyle is one of "daily" forgiveness and cross bearing anyway. This would become, to coin a phrase President Obama used awhile ago, "a teachable moment", would it not? It is going to be one in any event whether we like it or not, now, anyway!

It is not like half the world is going to sink into the oceans of the sea if Dr. Caner has to go through some public humiliations brought on entirely by his own doing on his own.

What the weak and struggling believers need to see is what Jesus taught, how we bring about true repentance and true forgiveness.

Really, if you think about it, with all the reality put upon Dr. Caner, it seems to me, the immature boys will be separated quite quickly from the mature men as this process is brought to fullness publicly and Dr. Caner is restored to a better limelight seeing he is such a public figure. The Church gains from this process and the devils are again put to shame by the Charity of the Body of Christ.

Do any of you naively believe Dr. Caner will not have to come out publicly and repent for what is clearly, in his own words, misrepresentations of his life from a little child up to the time he was turned to Christ by the Hand and work of the Holy Spirit?

We all should heed the Apostle Paul's admonition, here:

Gal 6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
Gal 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
Gal 6:3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
Gal 6:4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor.
Gal 6:5 For each will have to bear his own load.

[Jay Van Til]

Is it just me or are you guys not noticing that the word ELDERS is over two pictures, therefore, Fry and White are the elders.

There fore, this comment:
"He IS the elder of the church and apparently has placed himself under his own authority all the while denigrating others he labels as lone wolves."

is both wrond and misleading. Properly, THEY are the elders, elected by the congregation. Further, if the congregation would so choose, THEY could be replaced by other elders or other elders could be chosen and added. Therefore, White is under the authority of the eldership, of which he is A member not THE member. Please take note of that.

Keep up the good work on the things that matter though.

[Andrew Disque]

Yes, the implications of there being TWO elected elders at PRBC seem to be overlooked. Also the SIZE of the church itself factors into this, does it not? It's a small church. Seems like it would only need 2 or 3 elders for adequate oversight.

The Holy Spirit instructs us to have a plurality of elders, which means more than one. Now wisdom may certainly dictate to have more than 2 elders in a local church body. Even in that case, it may not be possible to have so many (perhaps only 2 are called to such ministry). Let us not be Pharisaical and add to God's Word that there must be 3 or 4 or however-many-satisfies-a-particular-elder's-critics. We simply do not have authority to judge beyond what Scripture has said.

Nothing has been brought forth demonstrating where Dr. White has claimed there was more than a simple plurality of elders at his church.

All else is vain speculation. And if you knew anything about the ARBCA you would not even speculate. They do not allow "little popes" to reign like some quarters of the SBC. I say that as an SBC'er who has experienced the difference.

Now if I am mocked as just another "guppy" or a "disciple" of White's, I will not be surprised. Just interact with what was said and then tack on your insults at the end of the post if you don't mind. It's less distracting that way. Thanks.

[peter]

I think some of you are doing your best to avoid the fundamental point here: if one is going to assert, without qualification,
"I am under God-ordained authority"
"the eldership in the local church is God-ordained authority"
"hence, I am under the God-ordained eldership at my church and am subject to its authority"

But then not also reveal, "I makeup 50% of the eldership at my local church. But I am still under the God-ordained authority; I answer to the body of elders--me and another guy"

If you guys cannot see the striking irony in this...well, I'm going to have me a good cup of coffee.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Andrew Disque]

John 7:24
"Judge not by appearances, but make right judgments"

I think the aforementioned "irony" is polite code language for vain speculation and presumption. In the rush to presumption, you ignored that the elders are both elected by the church body so it is not just "me and another guy". You also ingored the reason I gave for NOT speculating (apart fromthe #1 reason which is that it's unbiblical) - ARBCA is not an easy denomination to manipulate in the way you are suggesting. They tend to err on the side of being OVER-cautious when it comes to accountability.

Maybe the stumbling block is your understanding of the word "elected" :)

Meditiate on that and John 7:24 while sipping coffee. I think it will come to you.

[Jay Van Til]

Please note another response, on another blog, to your above wrong assessment. Evidently, when White wrote that, there were THREE elders. Since then, one has died. So, you have been proven wrong again. White did not lie or mislead in this context.

Not speaking for all other contexts and statements.

There may be some out there, but this is not one.

""Also note that Dr. White IS an elder at a very small church. Until 1996 there was three elders - the same year the article cited was written.

For full disclosure, however, the third elder died in April, while the post was written in August. That information is easily available by searching for "Don Cross" on the AOMin site, or a simple google search. James would have been under the authority of *two* elders prior to Don's death - and in that church, James is the "junior" elder.

However, as Tom stated, he is quite correct - he is under the authority of another elder. I attend a church of roughly the same size as James, and we have 3 elders. There aren't typically large bodies of elders in a church the size of his, or ours. In the church I was in recently (a Calvinistic SBC church with elder leadership), there were 7 elders - for a church ten times the size.

In any case, I just thought I'd point out something rather obvious concerning the dates, etc, to someone more familiar with the ministry, and with PRBC than the author seems to be.

At the time of posting, James had only a short time before been under the authority of two elders, not "only" one. Not that others without an elder/presbyterian polity are typically used to there being more than one in authority over a local body, in any case - and PRBC is not a large body - as he has mentioned *quite* frequently in the past, for those familiar with PRBC, or AOMin.""

[volfan007]

Peter,

Have you noticed that anytime you mention anything that puts James White in a bad light, the White-ites come out in droves to defend him? and attack anyone saying anything that even looks negative towards White?

Do you White-ites have some kind of a network set up to alert the other ones that you're leader is being attacked, and then you all swarm to the sight to defend and attack?

lol

David

[Andrew Disque]

Just ad-hominems David? Have you nothing to add to the substance of this conversation but to personally attack others?

Peter, why do you allow David’s comments (such as the last one) out of moderation? The message you’re sending is, if you agree with Peter, then ad-hominems are allowed. If you disagree with Peter, ad-hominems are kept in moderation.

[peter]

Andrew,

A) If pointing out irony is "vain speculation and presumption" what do you call condemning a man a liar without all the relevant facts on the table?

B)You are mistaken. Do you think I believed elders are self-appointed or eternal? And, yes, in an elder-ruled congregation it *is* "me and another guy." That what being under the authority of eldership means

C) "You also ingored the reason I gave for NOT speculating (apart fromthe #1 reason which is that it's unbiblical). Andrew, please. To suggest it's "unbiblical" to "speculate" is just silly. And to attempt to employ Jn 7:24 as a blanket from raising questions about either doctrine or practice is not only wrong-headed, it's completely impractical. Indeed do no be surprised when you log on again with a complaint about something I write that your own words will be quoted back to you

D) "ARBCA is not an easy denomination to manipulate in the way you are suggesting." Andrew, it very hard to understand your point. Excuse me? In what way have I even brought in "denomination" to this issue? Manipulating? Please explain. By the way, you just speculated. Therefore, you stand condemned (see your excellent point above)

E) The ARBCA has jack-squat to do with whether or not PRBC has only two elders. Nothing. Not one thing. Unless, of course, ARBCA is Presbyterian in make-up.

F) Making this an issue about "accountability" may be the most creative answer thus far. So, no other man--not one...not a single one (pastor excluded)--stands on James White's level in his church. Is this what you're suggesting? No man can fit accountability like JW? Yes, and "erring" on the side of accountability is supposed to prove what? Their holiness? Their righteousness? The way I understand Scripture, we are not called to err at all. Hence, "erring" on side of caution is neonetheless "erring" is it not? Oh my...

G)I've never claimed I was bias-free, Andrew. Nor would I. What I do attempt to do is be as fair as I know how and can manage with the abilities I possess when I deal with particular issues whatever the issues may be. Nor am I perfect at that. But I do make a genuine go at it.

Hence, maybe I do allow some comments out of moderation that should have stayed with others, comments that agree with me.

The really interesting thing is, were David not correct in his observation, I would not have moderation on comments. Period.

I've been blogging since mid-2006 and this is the very first time I've ever locked moderation in on the thread? And, why did I impose moderation? Because supporters of James White continued to swarm this site when their hero was questioned. That's the absolutely only reason I moderate. Some of his supporters know absolutely no boundaries. There's only so many times anyone is going to be told, "you, sir, are a liar" without doing something about it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Jay,

You write, "Please note another response, on another blog, to your above wrong assessment. Evidently, when White wrote that, there were THREE elders. Since then, one has died. So, you have been proven wrong again. White did not lie or mislead in this context."

A) How this is supposed to prove anything I've written wrong, Jay, I'm confused. You'll have to be specific

B) Yes, "when" White wrote that there may have been "three" elders on the eldership under whom White subjected himself. So, his "accountability" to himself as "God-ordained" authority is sliced from 1/2 to 1/3. Sweet. I'm still not getting it so let's go a little further

C) the "when" James White wrote the words was 1996. Let's see, that's 14 years ago. Now, let me get this straight. Because James White wrote those words 14 years ago, and because there were 2 others elders to whom he was under their authority, White's undies are now white as snow.

O.K. Jay. So, how has the eldership functioned for the last 14 years? With 2 elders. Could James White say to Marrs what he said 14 years ago? Aren't we back to exactly where we were?

You guys are too much.

Finally, I'll give you a shiny new nickel if you can point to one syllable where I remotely implied James White lied, Jay.

Be very careful what you assume I've implied.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Andrew Disque]

Peter, I would drop this but you asked for clarification on some points.

A) You contend that not “all the relevant facts are on the table”. That is your opinion –it is not a fact. I think because you are aligned with him theologically and because you and he (Ergun) share a common rival (White), you have chosen to push the standard of proof so high that it is out of reach. If video surveillance of Caner’s entire childhood was published on A&E Biography, showing a typical Mid-Western childhood, we could hold out the possibility that Muslim bloggers doctored the video footage to frame Caner. Your standard is arbitrary, and I think it is extremely biased. That is my mere opinion, not a fact.

Caner aside, your post here is presuming that White is not really under authority and that Pastor Don Fry is a “Yes-man” – just another one of White’s minion. Did I misunderstand your post on that point? Seemed pretty clear from your spoof.

B) So you understand how elders get to be elders (by election). Not sure why you did not connect the dots (election prevents the kind of misuse of authority you are suggesting).

C) It is unbiblical to speculate in the way you are doing so here. You are “judging by appearances” –which is what Jesus said not to do. You do not know Don Fry or the PRBC congregation. So instead of leaving the blanks unfilled (like Jesus said) you filled in the blanks.

That is the obvious application of John 7:24. You skipped past the obvious so it would seem like I was being impractical and forbidding all speculation. The context of the verse tells us what kind of speculation Jesus was talking about.
D & E) You misunderstood my point about ARBCA. It is not the kind of speculation Jesus condemned in John 7:24. ARBCA culture and theology does not easily lend itself to the kind of lack of oversight you are suggesting in your post. It’s that simple.
F) My apologies for the confusion. I meant “accountability of authorities” where I wrote “accountability”. All Christians have obligations with respect to accountability – you are correct.
Since ARBCA “errs’” in that direction, someone within the denomination would be asking questions about PRBC long before you came along with this post.
This does not prove anything. It just pushes your post from unbiblical speculation to a more extreme example of such.
G) Fair enough. I do not doubt you make a genuine go at it.

[volfan007]

I'm accountable to the Elders of my Church. The Elders are Uncle Joe, Dad, Cousin Jebb, and myself.

lol

David

[peter]

Andrew,

I do not have time to continue bantering back and forth.  If you have something relevant to add after this, fine. But I’m uninterested in continuing a tit for every tat approach:

“I would drop this but you asked for clarification on some points”  Really? I do not recall asking you to clarify.

“You contend that not “all the relevant facts are on the table”. That is your opinion –it is not a fact.” Fact:  you’re assuming I was speaking about the Caner issue.  At least that’s how you proceeded to go.  Hence, nothing is relevant in the entire paragraph

“Your standard is arbitrary, and I think it is extremely biased. That is my mere opinion, not a fact.” And it is an opinion based upon what you just pulled out of thin air, Andrew.  Now who is speculating? (recall your point earlier John 7:24)

“your post here is presuming that White is not really under authority and that Pastor Don Fry is a “Yes-man” – just another one of White’s minion. Did I misunderstand your post on that point?” If you can point to one statement which implies I presume the above, do so.  If not, you’ve just wrongly speculated again…

“Seemed pretty clear from your spoof.”  If you can show me in this post where it’s supposed to be a spoof, I’ll give you a shiny new nickel, Andrew.  If fact, I clarified this twice not because of something I wrote but because it was so unbelievably odd.  Now, if you want to see a real spoof, go here  Instead I’ve consistently dubbed this irony.

“Not sure why you did not connect the dots (election prevents the kind of misuse of authority you are suggesting)” No, it does not prevent anything.  Just because elections take place by the congregation in no way prevents an elder board from corruption. And, in White’s case, he said he was subject to the eldership, not the congregation.

“It is unbiblical to speculate in the way you are doing so here. You are “judging by appearances” –which is what Jesus said not to do.”  This is just dumb.  Jesus did not say, “don’t speculate” which is what you argued earlier.    He said “don’t judge.”

“You do not know Don Fry or the PRBC congregation.”  Nor do you know me. But using your own criteria you make “unbiblical” speculations about both me and my beliefs. Nothing follows

“So instead of leaving the blanks unfilled (like Jesus said) you filled in the blanks. That is the obvious application of John 7:24.”  a) Jesus did not say, leave the blanks “unfilled”. b) But even if you’d want to employ the language you’re using, the correct deduction would be, He implied we should fill in the correct answer in the blanks (judge with just judgment) c) nor is it the “obvious application” of John 7:24.  But, supposing it is, why the Same Hill didn’t you bring this verse into play with the Caner issue, Andrew?  Didn’t you “fill in the blanks?”  Oh, that’s right.  The applicable facts were exhausted.  How stupid of me.

“ARBCA culture and theology does not easily lend itself to the kind of lack of oversight you are suggesting in your post.”  Irrelevant.  I suggested nothing about ARBCA in my post.

“Since ARBCA “errs’” in that direction, someone within the denomination would be asking questions about PRBC long before you came along with this post.”  Yes, and I suppose ARBCA has been asking questions for 14 years now.  I wonder if they have any answers yet.

“This does not prove anything. It just pushes your post from unbiblical speculation to a more extreme example of such.”  Nor do you show, Andrew, how raising questions or exposing irony is “unbiblical” speculation, in my view a ridiculous position to embrace.  On the other hand, logging on and writing, “you, sir, are a liar” adds new meaning to the concept of “unbiblicl” speculation…

With that, I am…

Peter

[Robert]

Is it just a coincidence that you don't post my comments to you a few days ago or was it just that they were so spot on that you ignored them?

Robert

[Andrew Disque]

Peter,
You said, "Please explain."

tit-for-tat?

Just trying to help a brother out.

[Andrew Disque]

Peter,
You said, "Fact: you’re assuming I was speaking about the Caner issue. At least that’s how you proceeded to go. Hence, nothing is relevant in the entire paragraph
"

Not a fact. You brought it up in your very 1st sentence - I did not assume. Did you forget that quickly?

Your words:
" A) If pointing out irony is "vain speculation and presumption" what do you call condemning a man a liar without all the relevant facts on the table?"

You are completely avoiding any real application of John 7:24 and instead resorting to pointing the fingers at others.

It isn't working.

[peter]

Robert,

No, it is not a "coincidence." I purposely ignored it. Nothing in it applied to my post here. Just rattling on about Ergun Caner.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Andrew,

You've twice now assumed I was speaking about Caner. Could you please point out to me Caner's name in the assertion? 

The fact is, when I bring up judging a man a liar, I'm speaking about not only the repeated practice of JW, but also many of his supporters who continue to post the assaults on these threads. 

For example, Andrew, on May 9, you wrote this on another thread:

"[Peter] is a pathological liar...ignore him. He's a fool and an embarrassment to the SBC…”

Hence, when I mention condemning someone a liar without all the relevant facts on the table, I'm not necessarily referencing Caner. 

What you've just done is speculated "unbiblically" once again, Andrew. It's called being tangled in your own web.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

BTW, Andrew, the "please explain" was for one particular point I referenced. It was not an invitation to bloviate on and on about other issues...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jay Van Til]

Peter,

Hey, buddy.

Note I wrote:

"So, you have been proven wrong again. White did not lie or mislead in this context."

I was stating a fact. If your whole blog here does not insinuate that White lied or mislead, then my general statement that White did not lie or mislead is not a reference to you saying White lied.

And, yes, its does make a difference that there were more elders, and it should to you, since you made such a big deal about there being only one other elder. Every increase in elder number makes your argument even more wrong.

Should my understanding be that no one who is an elected leader is under authority? Even to the voters? You are neglecting that fact.

And, the question is not could White say it now, though I believe anyone, I mean anyone, in that similar situation could say yes, the question is DID HE MISLEAD WHEN HE SAID IT? As this discussion implies.

Of course not.

[volfan007]

Peter,

The sad thing is that Andrew thinks that it's perfectly acceptable to accuse people and visciously call people all kinds of things, without one iota of facts to back up what he's saying.

Andrew, do you really think the Lord is pleased with your viscious accusations based on ? Do you? Do you really think God wants you acting the way you do?

David

[peter]

Dear Jay,

I wouldn't touch that with the proverbial ten-foot pole. I'll leave it to others to judge whether or not your comment makes any sense.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Andrew Disque]

David,
I answered your question but Peter is censoring it from your view and I will not speculate as to why. You will have to direct your inquiry to Peter since he has chosen to keep the information to himself.

I wish you would grace us with an answer to the question I directed towards you before firing off more questions.

Thanks,

Andrew

[peter]

Andrew,

Were I you, I'd back out of this thread. In fact, I'd back away into the background for awhile. You continue to stick your left big toe deep down into your right ear.

"I answered your question but Peter is censoring it from your view and I will not speculate as to why. You will have to direct your inquiry to Peter since he has chosen to keep the information to himself."

A) You may have answered David's question but wherever you posted it, it did not post to this thread. You have 3 unpublished comments in the tank. Neither of the three are on this thread and neither of the three are directed to David. Therefore, I am definitively not "censoring" it from his view. That means you've once again "unbiblically" speculated

B) While I'm glad you will not "speculate" as to "why" I'm supposed to be "censoring" from David's view, answers to his questions--whatever they may be--it would have been better had you speculated "if" I was "censoring" rather than assuming without the slightest proof that I "was censoring" your comment. Again, according to your own interpretation of John 7:24, you continue to "unbiblically" speculate.

C) Yet, even if your comment were in the thread awaiting to be published, it does not in the least follow I was "censoring" your comment. Of late, I've been away alot from my office. Hence, it necessarily means comments will not be published in as timely a fashion were I sitting at my desk. Thus, again, you've speculated without warrant, Andrew.

D) Finally, even if I chose not to publish your comment, such an action is hardly to be categorized as "censoring." Please, Andrew. Do you not understand it is all but impossible to censor over the internet? Ask the Chinese govt. how easy it is to censor the internet.

The beauty of blogs is, if my comment is not posted on another's site, I can go right back to my site and post it my position there. No one is able to shut me up if I have a point I think needs to be made.

Now, you're welcome to log on to SBC Tomorrow all you wish, Andrew. However, I'm beginning to think you're uninterested in any real exchange. Instead, what I've been reading is closer to nonsense.

Please think about that before you log on and give me "what for."

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. Oh, and yes, I was speculating big time on the last point, not without evidence I might add. However, I did not set myself up for collapse as did you when you obviously misapplied John 7:24.