James White & Mohammed Khan: A Match Made in Heaven by Peter Lumpkins

"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" queried the famous church father, Tertullian.  A similar question could be asked about the odd love-liaison between the Calvinist apologist, James White, and a Muslim named Mohammed Khan:  "What has Mecca to do with Jerusalem?" or "the crescent with the cross?"

Nevertheless, the odd duo finds one thing both love to do:  both men love to howl about Ergun Caner.

Up until now, the two have howled separately. Recently, however, White became official ministry-partners with Khan and both were caught on camera together, doing what they love best:  howling away about Ergun Caner. 

Enjoy:

With that, I am...

Peter

*Interpretative key:  White is the Beagle, Khan is the Border Collie

**more recently, White increasingly composes songs about Ergun's brother, Emir

Comments

[kylie]

how much ergun caner paid u?

[William Birch]

I'm nearly positive that White was the one on the left.

[peter lumpkins]

Billy,

Would you like to formally debate that with me?

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dear 'mirele'

If you post your comment again without the "you,sir, are a liar" line indicative so of many James White supporters, I'll be glad to post the other part of your comment about Tertullian.

With that, I am...
Peter

[A.M. Mallett]

Caner's integrity mess is certainly a problem for him but even that pales in comparison to watching the Calvinist schismatic link arms with an Islamic enemy of Christ for the purpose of shedding blood in the church of Christ.

[William Birch]

Lol, formally debate that with you? What do you take me for, a Calvinist?

[michael]

Peter,

with all due respect, it is past me to understand your point in light of these verses:

1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

How do you justify your remarks and insinuate Dr. White is a dog?

Has he ever done that to Dr. Caner?

What is your view with regard to those verses? Are Biblical Doctorates with a standing such as what Dr. Caner has exempt from the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3? How come he should get a pass?

My whole focus of these things is precisely because of "reports" from those without. Had I not noticed that I most likely would still be in the dark about this matter about Dr. Caner and not given it much thought.

The whole basis of Leadership as Christian Ambassadors and brethren in the world is the exemplary life we are to keep while among ourselves and the world and those without the Church.

Can you give me an honest answer without trying to impune my integrity?

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Commenters

If you use "lying" and/or "liar" it will not be posted. Lots of you guys and gals are into that type of exchange. Well, go back to your own blogs and record all you care to record.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

All,

One commenter whom I’ve more than once requested not to either comment here or email me since he relentlessly is addicted to “you, sir, are a liar” language, posted a link to the first comment stream I entered in blogdom in 2006.  On the Founders thread, you’ll find a few logs I wrote, one of which mentions my “entry” into commenting  (May 18, 2006, 10:22 a.m. note the comment is not complete, ending abruptly, and have no idea why//link).

The point our “you, sir, are a liar” addict wanted to make was, I have contradictory words on that blog thread with what I write now. In fact I actually identified myself as historically leaning toward “calvinism” (little “c” note).  This should be absolutely no surprise to those who’ve followed my site since 2006.

Indeed it was and is Founders non-negotiable insistence that a) Calvinism is the gospel; and, b) no one (including little “c” believers) adheres to Calvinism unless he or she bows toward Dort three times daily.  I embraced neither. As I’ve logged elsewhere, Calvinism as a system washed out of my theological drawers during my week by week expository preaching as a pastor. 

Coupling this with my extreme conciliatory language attempting to “break –in” so to speak to the internet dialog between Calvinists and non-Calvinists—note the ‘friendly’ fire between myself and even Ascol—I’m afraid there’s hardly a contradiction.  But, I’m sure if one wanted to see a contradiction, it would appear in the twinkling of an eye.

Yet our “you, sir, are a liar” addict does have a possible point about James White.  On the thread, I seemingly gave a head-swelling, ego-building appraisal of White. I’m afraid “you, sir, are a liar” has got me. 

But wait!  Did the “you, sir, are a liar” addict take into consideration my staple use of both irony and satire? Did the addict take into consideration my conciliatory phase in the Calvinist-non-Calvinist internet conversation?  Did the addict take into consideration that I’ve expressed numerous times elsewhere (since then) my appreciation for some of White’s work? Did the “you, sir, are a liar” addict not consider that it may be more a change on James White’s behalf (going after evangelical believers [e.g. Caner] instead of focusing on critiquing anti-Christians) than a change on my behalf?

Poor, poor, “you, sir, are a liar” addict. Keep looking.  In fact I know a couple of spots you could really nail me if you found them.  Darn it!  And, I thought my mind was incapable of contradiction. 

Anyways, there may just be a real contradiction awaiting to your delight if you look hard enough. Keep looking…

With that, I am…

Peter

[William Birch]

. . . no one (including little “c” believers) adheres to Calvinism unless he or she bows toward Dort three times daily.

Hilarious.

Perhaps after White and Turretinfan are finished with Caner they will commence a thorough investigation of every word you've ever said or typed anywhere and call you to account! One should be so providentially privileged.

[michael]

Pete?

How come you don't release my comment in here?

[Mlynn]

Peter --

This is SO VERY funny!!! Thanks for the humor even in the midst of all the fussing and trials.

GBU

[David B. Hewitt]

Completely unrelated to the original post, but since you mentioned it:

"Indeed it was and is Founders non-negotiable insistence that a) Calvinism is the gospel; and, b) no one (including little “c” believers) adheres to Calvinism unless he or she bows toward Dort three times daily. I embraced neither. As I’ve logged elsewhere, Calvinism as a system washed out of my theological drawers during my week by week expository preaching as a pastor. "

I would love to discuss such in more detail with you some time sir. I suspect that such a thread is not the place; I am of course more than willing to move it elsewhere, or, if you would prefer not to discuss it at all, I'll just have to be satisfied with that. :)

sdg,
dbh

[Fredericka]

"Lots of you guys and gals are into that type of exchange."
The "type of exchange" where anyone disagrees with Peter is what doesn't get posted here. Given that the quality of thinking here consists in showing pictures of animals and attaching people's names to them, perhaps this is understandable.

[peter]

All,

So sorry for not releasing comments sooner. Been enjoying the North Georgia mtns.

AS for your question, Michael, no, I suppose it's not in me to answer anyone apart from "impugning" integrity...

Fredricka,

Nope. I think you have this site confused with James White's blog...

David,

Nah. Not to be disrespectful, but I think I have a pretty good record of dialog with Calvinists over Calvinism. It's hard to imagine your approaching the discussion from a new angle. However, if I post on a particular doctrine in the future, you're welcome to participate.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jay Van Til]

This is a bit too easy I guess, but ok.

What would you have done if White had put a comment from you fighting him and a comment from a Muslim fighting him together and said, "What has Mecca to do with Jerusalem?" or "the crescent with the cross?"

This is not a real argument, and, if you would just take the time to think whether you would find it equally compelling used against you, you would save some credibility.