Alexander the Coppersmith Strikes Again: A Rejoinder to James White (Part II) by Peter Lumpkins

UPDATE: Rather than actually deal with anything written here or in Part I, James White would simply ignore the evidence which surely demonstrates he routinely deals unfairly and inadequately with his critics.  Yet his emotionally-driven flaming continues to burn in his latest piece here.  While the Muslim video has absolutely nothing to do with me or Tim Guthrie--in fact, I flagged the Muslim's IP months ago (the Muslim who apparently created the video) so he could not comment on SBC Tomorrow--James White nonetheless attempts to tie both Guthrie and me with the Muslim.  He writes: "But once again, what an incredible example of "focus on irrelevancies, ignore the central point." The only thing more sad is this: such fallacious argumentation could very well be picked up by the likes of Guthrie and Lumpkins, since they, along with this Muslim, show no capacity for logical reasoning and fairness" (emphasis added).

Sure, James, sure.

On the other hand, I'm afraid it's going to be more difficult in the future for James White to simply say something is so makes it so. Demand for legitimate evidence for his emotionally-saturated charges and moral insults he routinely hurls at his critics, I predict, is going to increase.  Either James White will abandon his cheap, offensive rhetoric, along with the "you, sir, are a liar" scorched earth strategy, or he'll continue to lose influence. It's already cost him his teaching post at Golden Gate. What else will he concede before he gets it?  I cannot answer that question.   

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

In Part I, I dealt with James White’s unhealthy pattern of kicking literary sand in his opponent’s eyes during engagement (//link). Unintentional or not, those rapid-fire insults during an exchange is unprofessional, unscholarly, and poorly reflects upon one’s character.  Understand:  I am not referring... >

to someone being “stubborn” or “hard-headed” or “backward” or “childish” or “goofy” or “ridiculous.”  Instead I’m referring to remarks that cut at one’s honesty and truthfulness and sincerity and heart and genuineness.  I encourage the reader to note that clear pattern in James White’s engagements (//link).     

With that out of the way, I do want to briefly respond to some meaningful criticisms White offered to the piece I posted here.  James White’s critique is here.

The first meaningful criticism White makes in his piece with my name attached is well into his post.   White writes:

Well, let's look at one claim made by the worst of the practitioners of the politics of personal destruction, Peter Lumpkins:

And, the official word is, James White will not be offered any future contract as adjunct instructor to teach any subject for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary including Islam.

Interestingly, White skips almost to the very end of my piece to grab this quote, overlooking other significant factors leading up to the pull-quote concerning his teaching at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (GGBTS). I can, however, see why he would personally and quickly want to address this issue.  

After offering a moving summary of his years of teaching at GGBTS, White concedes he’d always known he had no promises of teaching there in the future. Fair enough.  But then James White switches into unintelligible gibberish, insisting there exist “Arminians who detest me [White] for what I believe.” How this has anything to do with the quote from me I do not know.  Nor do I know why White proceeded as he did: 

“And in this case, you have Peter Lumpkins, a politico without honesty or integrity, a man who stands convicted by the facts of utter disregard for honesty in his false attacks upon me in his outrageous video (refuted here)…” 

What the link had to do with the quote from me again I cannot tell (for the record, White most certainly did refute my interpretation of his words.  What White did not link to was my extensive rejoinder to him, a rejoinder to which I know of no response //link).

Furthermore, White interpreted the words above as “pushing for a man who cannot answer any questions to remain in his position of authority, while seeking to make sure the man who has unquestionable proof of his ministry in the area of apologetics will not be allowed to communicate that expertise to the students at GGBTS!” 

First, I have never “pushed for anyone” to “retain” any position.  If White can produce the goods, I’ll publicly retract this statement. What I have consistently written is, a plea for innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Now, if that constitutes the charge to which White refers, I am guilty and will be so in the future as well. But that does not seem to fit White’s charge.  Hence, this is mere blather.  If White has evidence I’ve “pushed” for someone to “retain” a position, let him bring it forth.

Second, based on my quotation, White charges that I am seeking to make sure he will not be allowed to communicate his expertise to the students at GGBTS.  While I have expressed my reservations about White teaching in a CP funded seminary, to suggest I’m “pushing” it is absurd.  My question is, pushing to whom? I have no relationship whatsoever to GGBTS. Nor do I have any influence at GGBTS to my knowledge.  If I do, I hope someone will inform me how.  

I find it also a little amusing that White employs the term “expertise” when lamenting I allegedly am “pushing” for him to be denied a position at GGBTS. Coming from a man who vehemently insists he does not perceive himself an expert in Islam but only a student of Islam remains a suprise to many, I'm sure. 

Third, White then strangely says “There is a reason the man will never face me, never call the Dividing Line, etc. It is easy to twist the facts and act brave behind a keyboard, but far different when you have to actually speak to someone face to face (or at least voice to voice).”  What this has to do with my quote again I do not understand. If I have twisted facts, demonstrate it.  Without any example for people to examine, how does White expect to be persuasive?  Particularly, what facts are twisted?  

Furthermore, how does James White know I “act brave behind a keyboard”?  Has he a hidden camera monitoring me? 

It’s really sad to see an experienced apologist struggling to make a meaningful point.   

Indeed the same can be said about his next statement: “Lumpkins…takes bits and pieces out of videos, ignores the rest, and makes absurd arguments based upon a biased, prejudiced hearing of what is said.”  Again, White makes charges but offers absolutely no example to demonstrate the accusation I am “prejudice” and “biased” and make “absurd arguments.”  Again, we come up empty.

Next, James White says I “draw a fantasy picture in which the Caners are not actually considered experts on Islam (which is why they are asked to speak on that topic so often, presented as such over and over again, etc.)…” Well, White confusedly left the quote above and the only thing to which I can figure he is referring concerns the quote I offered from the Caner’s book.  However, he really botched it big time.  

I by no stretch wrote or implied the Caners “are not actually considered experts on Islam.”  If there is a fantasy, James White just created it.  My point was and remains, the Caners did not consider themselves experts on Islam, but the cultural mass bestowed the expert status upon them anyway. White just did not read my lines carefully. Consequently, he drew unwarranted implications from what I actually wrote.

From my standpoint, this becomes embarrassing for an accomplished apologist like James White. While I surely take no comfort in revealing such an elementary flaw in White's argumentative patterns since he often represents Christianity to non-Christian audiences, the fact remains that if his non-Christian opponents look deeply into White's rebuttals to them, White very well may become extremely vulnerable.  Why? Because James White tends to misread what is actually written and proceeds to draw conclusions without necessary warrant. 

Perhaps this weakness may explain, at least in part, why White prefers debate encounters with spoken word rather than written word (hence, his lament I presumably am a coward because I will not have a "face to face" with him via DL or other venue).  I do not know this, obviously.  I am only attempting to understand how an accomplished apologist like James White could so badly botch clear, unambiguous assertions his opponent makes.       

White also says I held him accountable for every word written by John Kennedy in a Christianity Today article.  First, White’s accusation is obviously overkill and grossly inaccurate on its surface.  I held him responsible for every word written? Come on.  That’s the mistake of a freshman, not a veteran like White.  Where’s his mind at the time he’s writing this? 

Second, once again, James White does not read carefully enough.  Here’s what I wrote:

First, to read Kennedy’s article and expect readers to come away with the impression that James White considers himself a “student” of Islam and not an “expert” in Islam is hardly credible. Kennedy unequivocally states James White teaches Islam at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. What is the average reader to assume?  If Golden Gate seminary is a credible, graduate-level theological institution, and James White teaches Islam at a credible, graduate-level theological institution, then James White is most likely an “expert” in the subject he teaches at the graduate-level. 

For James White to conclude from my very precise statement I’m holding White responsible for every word Kennedy wrote is patently absurd. By the way, James White did not even attempt to offer a meaningful response to the above.  He simple accused me of holding him responsible for every word Kennedy wrote.

White goes on to conclude, “Any rational person knows reporters summarize and, often, not so accurately.” That’s an interesting admission for James White to make, especially in light of the many newspaper articles upon which he relied in assembling the “evidence” against the Caners. 

Nonetheless, White thinks it “laughable” that he would have anything to do with Kennedy’s choice of words concerning his teaching at GGBTS.  In fact he categorically denies he influenced Kennedy.  He writes: “Allow Christianity today? As if I was sent the article for approval or something? I pointed the reporter to my list of classes, he picked the one that seemed to him (I am guessing, I haven't asked him) the most relevant, which was the class on Islam I did teach for GGBTS in 2009, and ran with it.”

Just for the record, I think White has his dates for the class on Islam he taught at GGBTS confused. He "guesses" Kennedy chose the class he did on Islam in 2009 to be the basis that White presently teaches Islam at GGBTS.  However, according to both White's website and Golden Gate's site, White taught the class on Islam in 2008, not 2009 (see here and here respectively). 

I am willing to be corrected, but the only class White taught in 2009 I can find was a general studies apologetics class dealing with varied philosophical issues, one issue of which was Islam (//link).  If this is correct, Kennedy had to go all the way back to a single, 2008 class White taught on Islam as the basis of his badly mistaken assertion that James White presently teaches Islam at GGBTS, an assertion categorically untrue.

To make things even more confusing, White records on his site a slightly different account than what he describes in his former words above:

“…Mr. Kennedy, the author of the CT article, called me. Seems some rabble-rousers out there contacted Christianity Today and told them I do not teach for Golden Gate. So he had to do "due diligence." I asked if he had called Golden Gate, and he hadn't (I invited him to do so, and gave him the proper people to contact, by name). So I read to him the following list: [List of classes taught at GGBTS]… But I was happy to provide the documentation” (//link)

In light of this, are we to understand James White did not have any influence in getting the CT story accurate when the author of the story had questions about his teaching and directly questioned James White about his relationship with the seminary?  Was it not relevant to the story that James White was not presently teaching at Golden Gate? Did James White make this clear to John Kennedy? Did Kennedy simply ignore White’s words that he was not presently teaching Islam at GGBTS but nonetheless proceeded to state unequivocally James White does, in fact, presently teach Islam at GGBTS? 

I do not know the answers to these questions. I do know, however, two things:  a) these questions do not constitute “laughable” material; and b) James White completely danced a side-step around the actual issue I raised.  He did not answer. Nothing.  He ignored.

Hence I raise the issue again:

“In light of this, it is not unreasonable to query whether it was morally sober for White to allow Christianity Today to refer to him as currently teaching Islam at Golden Gate when, in reality, he was not; he is not; and, the official word is, he will not.” 

I think James White needs to clearly, forthrightly clarify.  He had an opportunity to set the record straight after John Kennedy called him in response to being told James White did not teach at GGBTS.  And, why he chose not to clarify for CT needs to be examined.

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[Matt Svoboda]

This is getting sad... How many more posts dedicated to White?

Has White even written this many posts about Caner?

The Convention is coming right up, how about a productive post dealing with the Convention, GCR, SBC Presidency, or something!?!

[David]

I am not a blogger, nor do I posses the literary skills to make a long articulate plea to Dr. Lumkins or James White. However, I am a pastor that admires the intellect and the ability to construct coherent argumentation in each of the men above. I have never commented on these blogs, and I may regret this…But as brothers in Christ you guys need to pick up a telephone and settle this. Response-Rebuttal-Response-Rebuttal-Response-Rebuttal; Is the Lord really glorified in all of this?
For the record I think Ergun Caner (And I have known him since Criswell college days together) is guilty of embellishment to sensationalize his speaking engagements. The tragic thing is he does not need it… He is an exceptional expositor of the Word. I think James White is guilty of envy. He often interjects his qualifications as a debater, professor, and lecturer and seems offended that anyone would consider Caner to possess the same types of skill. I have heard him say more than once, “He claims to do what I have been doing….” James, you are on the same team! He does not need to trumpet his horn either. Just look at all the doors God has opened for him. I cannot wait to hear the debate with Hitchens. I think Peter Lumkins is guilty of retaliation. One doubts that the microscope you have placed on James White would have never occurred had it not been for his barrage on Dr. Caner.
So pick up the phone (This is for James White as well, since apparently he reads your blog frequently) and settle this. Then tell us what we should think about the GCR report.

[peter]

David,

Welcome.

I hope you never post anything anywhere you come to regret. Indeed such a dictum has been my blogging 'motto' (if that is the proper word) since 2006--post only that about which you will never regret and/or must publicly retract.

And, while I've not managed to follow it perfectly, it still rings my bell each and ever time I slide my cursor toward "publish."

Know for the record, your words are appreciated, and you need feel no regret for posting them. At least, that's my take.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Les shut up.

[Debbie Kaufman]

God in heaven, can't you see what you all are doing? All of you just shut up.

[volfan007]

Debbie,

Maybe you're confused. This is Peter's blog, not Les. I dont see any comments by Les in here. Maybe you accidently went to the wrong blog? I dont know.

Matt, I think Peter is just trying to counteract all the blogs that are "after" Dr. Caner right now, and he's trying to get everyone to reserve judgment until the facts are all in. He's trying to get everyone to not listen to the attack dogs, who have a bone to pick with Dr. Caner....to not swallow everything they hear from this crowd, and make quick judgments on a Bro. in Christ.

David

[peter]

Ms. Kaufman,

Please know my site is definitively Baptist. My spiritual forefathers lived persecuted lives--and many died horrid deaths--so we Baptists today could pursue freedom of expression.

Hence, to yell, "Shut up" to historic Baptists is not at all dissimilar to yelling, "off with your heads."

Consider: you enjoy your little haven of freely expressing yourself over at your place, I'm sure. Please do not show back up here hysterically yelling "shut up."

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Joe Blackmon]

Debbie

When you have half of the righteous indignation over the heresy that your big buddy Wm Paul printed in his book and defended on radio programs, then you have the right to tell someone to "Shut up". When you're willing to proclaim salvation solely through Jesus Christ rather than telling MoKahn his faith in Allah and practice of Islam is sufficient to save him, then you can tell someone to "Shut up". Untill then, you are the one who needs to "Shut up".

[Mary]

Ok I'm just gonna talk/type this out to see if I've got it all straight.

We have a woman who with every other sentance in the blogosphere sceams at the top of her lungs "I AM A CHRISTIAN WOMAN I AM I AM I AM I AM!"

wOMAN says "Here's the evidence decide for yourselves but the only right answer is that I AM RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT AND YOU ARE AN IDIOT IF YOU DON'T SEE IT!"

WOMAN than proceeds to post and repost the same things over and over and over and over all the while screaming "YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SHUT ME UP YOU NAZIS"

Than WOMAN proceeds to other blog and screams "SHUT UP" all the while still professing that she is A CHRISTIAN WOMAN and not only that but as A CHRISTIAN WOMAN she is qualified to determine through the internet - hearts, motivations and minds of everyone who disagrees with her beause she is such great CHIRSITAN WOMAN.

OH and let's not forget that WOMAN and other sycophants actually continue to lie and try to mislead about what the bloggers she wants to SHUT UP are actually sayig which is not Ergun Caner is innocent on all counts, but simply Let's see this through to the end before judgement is passed.

Am I missing something? Anybody, anybody Bueller???

Oh and the Calvinist down in some other thread who suggested I study Calvnism - You silly! Everyone knows only Calvinist can really understand Calvinism.

Maybe I just had too much sun today and this is all a crazy dream. I really have no clue why any reasonable sane person would continue to think credible a woman who actually believes that the SBC and Muslims treat their women the same. But hey so much for calling out for integrity and truth - don't want to distract anyone. Only certian people are allowed to call out for intregrity and truth. Talk about revealing hearts.

[Steve Allem]

Peter,

I read your blog frequently and have done so for pretty much your whole time of blogging. I have also been silent but remain so no more.

I appreciate your thorough research and debunking of the Hardshell Calvinists. They most often take the tactic of personal destruction to advance their cause.

Their other repeatedly used tactic is to try and shut down anyone who either defends themselves from their attacks or from others who expose them for who they really are, Sectarians. While their followers approve of and even encourage them to personally attack who they see as opponents, they are quick to call for peace and civility once they have been uncovered. However their plea is almost exclusively directed only at the exposer and not the ones exposed.

I find them pathetic, hypocritical, and comical in their arguments. Keep up the good work and the good fight.

For you Hardshell Calvinists, read the first 3 chapters of 1 Corinthians again and again. We are not to be sectarian, period.

[Mlynn]

To Matt: White has written FAR, FAR more articles concerning the Caner brothers than Peter has even begun to write. White has been specifically trying to destroy them since October, 2009.

To David: I fully understand your concern. Unfortunately, calling James White would not work. He would simply use it (the phone call) to blast Peter and others.

I agree with others: this is so VERY sad.

What we are being exposed to can be found in different places in scripture. In many of these places, we are told to "withdraw" -- GET AWAY FROM THEM. Why? For our spiritual well being in my humble opinion. Here is one of the scriptures:

1 Timothy 6:
3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 4he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.

Peter, I am not fussing at you at all. I understand what you have been trying to do -- to educate people as to what the real truth is. You have done a remarkably GREAT job.

The bad thing is that people like James White thrive on this stuff -- they will keep on "keeping on" to draw us even further into their evil ways.

Galatians 5 says it so clearly: 13For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 15But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!

Notice verse 15 in particular. I have seen this happen so VERY frequently in Paltalk, particularly from and among the calvinists (not all but the majority of them in Paltalk).

We need to guard our hearts and not be consumed with this. After all, God WILL set everything straight in His timing.

Just a few thoughts of mine that I wanted to pass on.

[Steve]

Well said Steve Allem.
I don't know about your use of language there, but folks, please be carefully of blaspheming .. the comment following the psychotic demand to shut up is most concerning.

[Debbie Kaufman]

yes Mary, you pretty well have the words right. That is exactly what I am saying.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Except for the Nazis part. I never said the word Nazis. The rest is pretty accurate, word wise I mean.

[Joe Blackmon]

Mary,

Behave yourself. I almost choked on my supper over here. You need to try to be good--at least for a little while. I know it's hard but you can do it if you try.

[Jack Maddox]

Mary

For a WOMAN...you ROCK!

Jack

[Craig Daliessio]

Hey...where are all my posts? What am I, Chopped Liver?

Your's in Pate'...

[peter]

Craig,

I think all of your comments are posted minus your 'Dr. Seuss" jingle. A few lines are fairly vulgar enough to keep off the main thread. Clean it up a bit and be a hero!

Thanks, bro.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Craig Daliessio]

You went literary critic on Dr. Seuss??? Oh the humanities. It's fine. That was yesterdays news. Hey do you have an email I can send you something privately?

[peter]

Craig,

Well, I have to keep up an appearance of civility ;^)
With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. I sent you an email...

[Craig Daliessio]

All this talk of Doctors and such...
and all this attacking a man named Butch.
Let's settle this with sweet tea and beef jerky...
I am quite sure he is from Turkey.
I'll bring the foo-foozles and the
Klimmety Klountain.
We'll all meet as friends on Liberty Mountain.
This talk of whether Mehmet used to be "Mike"
Makes James White the only human I ever disliked.
I spent my life seeing the best in all men
But James White has me thinking and rethinking again.
So away with you Whiteheads and Chock-full-of-Khans
Stop all the battling like Mafia Dons
At times Dear friend Caner
can be subtle as a moose
But only James White could tick off Dr. Suess!

Love to all, T. Geisel

[Mary]

Joe, I'm gonna behave now because there's just no challenge when someone displays such an inability in reading comprehension.

It just makes me really sad that there are some poor people whose only validation in life comes from the internet (and I'm really not trying to be snarky here.)

No matter what happens here on out God is on His throne and will see His will done. Does He need Joan of Arc to accomplish anything on this matter from this point on? Nah not so much.

Summer calls! Blessings EVERYONE!

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Let's just say that I agree with the concerned pastor (David I think his name was, and no it wasn't me) that the best way to get this settled would be a phone call or two with an explanation of terms, giving each other the benefit of the doubt, etc.

For the record, I don't think either man (either Dr. Lumpkins or Dr. White) is innocent of taking things out of context or misrepresenting the other. I've come to the conclusion that the blogosphere is a medium that lends to this kind of thing rather than helps alleviate it, and it takes great amounts of careful and prayer-filled effort to avoid it.

In any case, Dr. Lumpkins, I would love for you to call Dr. White and discuss this, or, email him with a phone number to call you.

Or, if you would like, I'd be happy to communicate a phone number to him. My email I think is in your blog file (as I put it in every time I comment).

a hopeful worm,
dbh

[peter]

David,

First, you mention the best way to "get this settled" would be a phone call. Why would the best way to get this settled be a phone call? How would James White explain any better via voice the rapid-fire personal insults about "no integrity" "incapable" of honesty, etc than he would by writing a clear explanation? Besides, White publicly wrote his 'Alex' blog. Hence, if he has any clarification, he should publicly write that as well. I simply do *not* accept your premise, David.

Second, recall the last time I had actual contact with James White he plastered the email on his blog and blasted away accusing me of "impugning his integrity." What a hoot. I contact him privately but he posts what I privately wrote just to him publicly, and then slams me for public slander!

C.S. Lewis once said, "they strangely cut out the organ and demand the function." One cannot breach trust so deliberately and then expect others to trust nonetheless. I don't think I'll be talking "in private" via voice or email anytime soon.

Third, your response constitutes the quintessential action of a man who knows he cannot answer the question without losing a substantial amount of relational capital. So, you play it safe: Why White *and* I are both guilty of a non-identified glop of literary misdemeanors.

I suppose this ends our exchange.

Grace to you.

With that, I am...
Peter

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

No, Dr. Lumpkins, it wasn't "playing it safe."

Indeed, as I consider Dr. White my friend, and as you've put me into the category of White's supporters (which in many regards, I am one) I figured you would instead take my saying that both of you have committed the errors I mentioned, however nebulous the reference may have been, would have been considered by you to be progress in resolving some of the disagreement/accusations/insertappropriatenounhere.

You said:
"Why would the best way to get this settled be a phone call? How would James White explain any better via voice the rapid-fire personal insults about "no integrity" "incapable" of honesty, etc than he would by writing a clear explanation? Besides, White publicly wrote his 'Alex' blog. Hence, if he has any clarification, he should publicly write that as well. I simply do *not* accept your premise, David."

You are of course welcome to reject it; I am not suggesting that I have any authority or pull or whatever. I'm a worm, as I've said a few times now. Try not to think of me as much more than that. :)

All the same, however, I'd like to ask a question: how willing are you to get this settled? Obviously the medium of the blog has failed to do so on either end of the matter, yours or his. You said yourself in this very post something that you accepted as at least a possibility:

"Perhaps this weakness may explain, at least in part, why White prefers debate encounters with spoken word rather than written word (hence, his lament I presumably am a coward because I will not have a "face to face" with him via DL or other venue). I do not know this, obviously. I am only attempting to understand how an accomplished apologist like James White could so badly botch clear, unambiguous assertions his opponent makes. "

Of course, you do not know this, but a phone call would be a good way to inform the matter, don't you think?

This whole matter is something I really do not like at all, that is, brothers in Christ being so at odds with each other over, well, anything. You two have talked past each other, and there have been inaccuracies on both sides, largely in part as a failure to give each other the benefit of the doubt. If you like, I could go over some of that "glop of literary misdemeanors" as you call it in the comment you wrote responding to my comment were I was upset and even a little angry. Since it was directed at me, I figured it would be reasonable to offer that example for explanation.

Anyway, enough for now. A pleasant and blessed evening to you, sir.

still a worm, but saved by grace,
dbh

[David Campbell]

Question Peter,

I believe I have a verse that we could all heed pertaining to the dung excreted daily at the blogs of James White and Debbi Kaufmann.
I Tim. 2:23
"Foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strife"The blogposts authored by these individuals should be avoided like the plague for they contain a plethora of rhetorical questions allowing one a glimspe inside corrupted, contaminated minds. I find James White and Debbi Kauffman to be the epitome of "foolish" and "unlearned". "Foolish" stems from a root that translates "to be silly". "Unlearned" pertains to those whose rationale can be attributed to a lack of teaching and instruction.
(Cont.)We cannot blame Debbi for this shortcoming for she absorbs a dumbing does of Wade Burelson's rhetoric weekly...I guess Mr. White's shortcomings were decreed to bring God glory. Anywho...this brings us to a critical point. Instead of allowing silly, unlearned questions for the "self" to bombard us...we should heed the words of Paul and "avoid" them. Though "avoid" in the text pertains to "decline", we can apply this principle by ignoring absolutely every thought process generated by the pens of these who appear touched with a little more depravity than the rest. Personally, I have found that engagement with their ideas, perhaps deriving from acute dimentia, cause groanings within my soul, thus generating "strife", in a different, but relevant sense. It also appears to be causing much strife within the family of God on earth.

So there we have it...we should avoid foolish and unlearned questions (even rhetorical) that gender strife, internally and externally.

Next verse of atomic importance...

"The servant of the Lord must not strive". "Strive" here conveys "to fight". I will cease further quarrels with brethren regarding anything spawned from the Caner matter, for I realize such disputes are of no use to the Slavemaster. Everyone should quit grinding their axes and assume the slave position.

don't you think?

David Campbell

P.S. I find Mr. Fight's comment in regards to your character to be the most fallacious yet. I do love how you put the smack down on him, and would enjoy reading further disputes...but I think that desire comes from the spiritual cancer I inherited from my parents. Thank you very much for the book recommendation you sent via email and helping me with my questions. I don't really know why I just typed all this up...but since I have....I'll press "post".

[David Campbell]

Hopefully Richard Dawkins will soon develop a diagnostics tool that could aid in revealing the toxic logic of James White and Debbi Kaufmann originates in a viral meme they contracted from their dialogue with anti-christ muslims.

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Mr. Campbell, you said:

"I believe I have a verse that we could all heed pertaining to the dung excreted daily at the blogs of James White and Debbi Kaufmann.
I Tim. 2:23
"Foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strife"The blogposts authored by these individuals should be avoided like the plague for they contain a plethora of rhetorical questions allowing one a glimspe inside corrupted, contaminated minds."

Here's the problem: I'm pretty certain that those on the other side of the fence would be willing to employ that verse and others like it to Dr. L and people such as yourself. The problem isn't resolved that way, really; both sides cannot be right as they are articulating contradictory things.

This is why I maintain a kind of getting together, such as a phone call (maybe something else, though I don't know what it would be) to talk things out.

Still a worm,
dbh

[peter]

David,

I’m uninterested in exchanging back and forth with nothing to show for it but going further away from the thread.  I mentioned earlier there may be plenty of room in my closet for a useful broom to swing.  However, this thread is definitively not about my dusty floors no matter how thick it may be.  Instead it is about James White’s response to me.  Now, either James White grossly and unfairly argued his point splattering gallons of personally offensive tar toward his opponent in his “critique,” as I’ve stated, offering plenty of proof for the pudding, or he didn’t. Yet, instead of dealing with the issue, you inject me into the equation as if he and I are together guilty.  No David.  That rhetoric is not going to work.

You write: “You are of course welcome to reject it.”  Fine.  I do.  Why then do you run around to my back door and knock again with your next line?: “All the same, however, I'd like to ask a question: how willing are you to get this settled?” Understand, David:  I do not view you as you view yourself—a reconciler for James White.  Only a few months ago you attempted this same self-appointed go-between in addressing Tony Byrne. James White wrote publicly what he did and as far as I am concerned James White can deal with it publicly.

Nor do I accept this premise:  “Obviously the medium of the blog has failed to do so on either end of the matter, yours or his.”  I beg pardon. I do not at all believe what I’ve written has failed. In fact, I think it well documents and succeeds in demonstrating White’s pattern of moral cheap shots routinely thrown at many of his critics.  At least no one is disputing them—not even you, David.  You’re just ignoring them and continue to try to make the issue about me *and* White, attempting to play reconciler. Now, I can appreciate that so far as motive goes, I suppose. However, there is no need of a reconciler; there is need of willingness to state the obvious.

Again, “…but a phone call would be a good way to inform the matter, don't you think?” Did you not read my comment?  I suggest you go back again.  I told you specifically why a call is out of the question.

You write: “You two have talked past each other…”  Excuse me?  Did you copy/paste your words your wrote to Tony Byrne on my blog a few months back?  David those are the very words you wrote to Tony.  Please brother.  This is really getting goofy.  Then Tony and White were “talking past each other.”  Now it’s me and White ‘talking past each other’.

Again, “and there have been inaccuracies on both sides…”  David, you will not take this thread in that direction. Do not log back on again with a similar assertion.  I will not post it.  Get this straight: the thread is about James White’s response to me.  Not mine to him.  If you can’t handle this, the exchange is over.

Nor am I interested in any thing I penned to you on another thread.  You had opportunity to address it then. Why you’d want to bring that up is intriguing, however.  Is it just another way to get the thread focused on me instead of James White?  Well, I’d say it is.  The strategy of many White supporters relentlessly focuses on White’s critic.  Not going to happen, David.

Again, my closet may be in need of a good sweeping.  I’ve not denied such.  In fact, I guess it could be said James White swept my closet with his “Alex” piece.  But, the question is, did James White use a proper tool like a broom, or did he run my house down with a bulldozer? I argue the latter.

Hence, please do not come back, David, with assertions that the issue is both of us are guilty, or attempting to make this thread about me and my failures rather than White’s critique.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Craig Daliessio]

I found myself with time to kill and so I went through a few of James Whites video ramblings. Out of rampant curiosity, and in the interest of fairness I decided to give a thorough listen on the odd chance that perhaps it was I who indeed had the problem. I listened thoroughly and found it still wanting horribly and I could not discern what the attraction is to his followers.
Then I went through and added a laugh track after each paragraph...NOW I see why he packs a house!

Just a Tasty Bass looking for a juicy worm...

Mr. Daliessio's love child

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

David,

White's actions regarding the previously mentioned private email correspondence from Peter, would give any reasonable person pause before trying to contact him again for anything. White apparently has a history of similar behavioral patterns as well as a history of incessant ad hominem attacks on a number of people. Such repetitive actions of this nature would lead even the most dispassionate and amicable person to conclude he is untrustworthy to approach in any personal manner.

Further, apart from Peter conceding to White that he is 100% right and he (Peter) is but an inferior intellectual and wrong on everything, what point is there? Is there any person of even limited discernment out there that believes White will accept anything less than total capitulation? When one decides to use carpet bombing (or atomic bombs - pick whichever metaphor you prefer), one is not looking for middle ground, or peaceful co-existence. One is looking for unconditional surrender and utter annihilation.

Blessings,

A worm also,

Ron P.

[Don Johnson]

Thanks for trying to be a peacemaker, but I don't think it will work in this case. I don't know when the trouble started between the two men and I don't care to know.

In this particular case I believe (correct me if wrong Peter) it started with Mr. White and his followers continually posting items about Mr. Caner.

It would be one thing to state apparent contradictions in what Mr. Caner said, but to hear and read day after day about how bad Mr. Caner is I believe was just a bit too much for Peter.

Because Peter would consider Mr. Caner at the very least a brother in Christ and possibly a friend, he responded with his own blog attacking the attacker.

Is it all nice and kind. No, but what would you do if a friend of your's was mocked and ridiculed daily, even if the charges were true?

Again Peter correct me if I have miss spoken.

Finally David I would ask you and anyone else that is trying to burn Mr. Caner at the stake, consider if you will, whom you would consider to be the most spiritual men in your camp. I did not ask who is the most knowledgable, funniest or best looking. I asked who is the most spiritual.

Now I am not a Calvinist by any stretch, but I do try to stay up on what they write and say. Here is what I found out about the leading Calvinists whom I consider to be the most spiritual on the Caner matter - NOTHING!

I didn't say that they didn't have thoughts or opinions about the matter. What I'm saying is they are not constantly broadcasting to the world their thoughts on the matter. Because they are spiritual I believe they take John 8:7 to heart.

Thanks

Don

[Craig Daliessio]

DBH...
your signature troubles me...you are hidden in Christ . You are the adopted son of the creator of the universe. Maybe you once WERE a worm...but why continue claiming that which you are not?

Gravy on the stove, water boiling for the macaroni...

Daliessio

[peter]

Don,

I think you're essentially correct: it is not about reconciliation. I'd have to ask reconciliation to what? Between two men who's never met each other? Two men who've substantially no visible relationship whatsoever? It seems to me "reconciliation" presumes a prior state of healthy relationship. Further, it's White who appears to think I am not a believer; hence, it is White who needs to deal with that, not me.

Thanks again.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Ron,

You hit it squarely: For James White there is no concession short of total surrender to his point of view. He even mentioned in his critique my being "unrepentant in irrationality" concerning a former piece I wrote.

Think about that a moment--"unrepentant" is associated in Scripture with sin and sinful lifestyle. White "thinks" if I do not "think" like he "thinks" it is a sin in which I wallow until I "repent" and "think" like he "thinks." I "think" White has everyone where he wants them. What do you "think"?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mlynn]

To David Campbell: that was a GREAT verse and explanation you gave. Thank you!!

Peter -- LOLOLOL @ your comment: "White "thinks" if I do not "think" like he "thinks" it is a sin in which I wallow until I "repent" and "think" like he "thinks." I "think" White has everyone where he wants them. What do you "think"?"

[Mlynn]

I took the time to do some counting of articles written in 2010 written by James White in his blog that at the very least mention the Caner brothers, with many being devoted to them exclusively. Here is the count:

February, 2010: 4
March, 2010: 13
April, 2010: 13
May, 2010: 20
As of June 8, 2010: 6

Peter, I saw him addressing you in a few articles as well. LOLOL

I just thought it would be good for people to see just how obsessed some are in regards to this whole mess.

[Ed Goodman]

I'll tell you this much, my dear brother Peter: Satan is laughing at both you and James White. The lingering bitterness and/or dispute that rages between the two of you is probably not a healthy thing - physically or spiritually.

Bro. Peter, I love you and have been praying for both you and James White. I agree with the commenter above who called for phone interaction between you two brothers. I'll tell you this much: if someone were call me, humble and broken and desiring forgiveness/reconciliation, I'd give it unflinchingly.

I believe James White has a critical spirit, but I'm willing to bet he walks in the light of revelation as he best understands it. I think you do, too, Peter. But, for Christ's sake, and as an example to young preachers and bloggers such as myself, seek reconciliation NOW. I believe, Bro. Peter, that you have the power of the Holy Spirit which can bring healing between yourself and James White.

How glorious it would be to see public restoration. I'd probably weep at such a thing.

Love in Christ,

Ed Goodman
Matthew 5:23-24

[Don Johnson]

Ed,

While reconciliation is a good thing, its not going to happen anytime soon.

The first thing that needs to happen(though not the only thing) is for Mr. White and his associates to stop the attacks on Mr. Caner.

Both Mr. White and his associates have already stated in no uncertain terms that they are not going to stop their assult on Mr. Caner. This is why I say reconciliation will not happen anytime soon.

Though I don't know you I appreciate the spirit and tenor of your post.

Thanks

Don

[Craig Daliessio]

I, for one, am convinced that James White is the inspiration for "Rainman"
"Of course you need to repent...yeah...of course you need to repent"
"15 minutes to Dividing Line"
"Of course I'm a very good apologist...yeah"

He's like the Steve Martin skit from SNL a long time ago: "Theodoric of York...Medieval Barber" Where the answer to every problem was to apply leeches. White has "Repent Sir!" as his wild joker, and he actually plays it with serious straight face. No matter the argument, if he can't convince you to blindly accept his position, he calls you a non believer and tells you to repent.
May I suggest a pay per view event Me vs White in some one-on-one shinny.

[peter]

Ed,

I trust you are well. Know it won't be the first time, I confess, if Satan is hee-hawing away at me.

I must also confess, though, as with David above, I do not get an appeal you're making to "reconcile." To what am I obligated to reconcile? Please understand: I am dead serious. I have no desire to pursue sophistry, rationalizing failed behavior, if in fact I've failed.

Indeed, here is the way I see it: if I had to write these last two posts again, while a word or two may be different, I would be completely satisfied that my responses to James White were worthy, respectable responses. Hence, my confusion when someone says, "You two need to be reconciled."

The only thing I can figure it means is, if James White writes a blog, then to be reconciled is, do not write a response to the blog. Believe it or not, that's what I'm hearing when this is said to me. If I am correct, I will make no commitment to be "reconciled" if that's what "reconciled" means.

Now, allow me to say hopefully for the final time: I have no desire to speak with James White privately. I have no desire to exchange with James White via private email. None. I cannot trust him not to go public with the private exchange. Written exchange works exceptionally well if proper etiquette is pursued.

Grace. Wish we could meet for coffee in Orlando. Ah, but...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Craig Daliessio]

Peter wrote: "I cannot trust him not to go public with the private exchange. Written exchange works exceptionally well if proper etiquette is pursued."

Trust me on this point...he can NOT be trusted to extend such a courtesy. It is often the sign of a desperate man when he will resort to ANY tact to win an argument

[Ed Goodman]

Bro. Peter,

I certainly respect your right to voice your opinion and to exercise your liberty of conscience. Although I am a nothing more than a voice crying in the wilderness, I take my caling as a youth minister seriously. One thing I regularly drive home to my youth is that the absolute truth of Scripture is redemptive and reliable. The imperatives of the Bible MUST be obeyed.

I also understand that it's healthy to exchange ideas and trade thoughts, particularly via the written word. So my problem is not with the ACT of posting responses to James White; my issue (read: what I seek to understand) is with the SPIRIT of your posts, Peter.

Make no mistake: I disagree with many things James White does. But he, like you, will always be my brother in Christ. Period. I guess what I don't understand is why you have no desire to speak to White privately. I ask myself: how would I handle this type of fighting within my youth group? Answer: I would encourage communication among the feuding parties, privately with a mediator or two.

I see your perpspective, Bro. Peter. And my response in this context is not an indictment; I simply seek to understand your perspective. Disunity or conflict of any kind distresses my heart, particularly one of this magnitude and visibility.

I wonder if you would agree, Peter, that your lack of desire to speak with White privately cannot be countered against the mandates of Matthew 18 in handling a dispute. The only argument against private counsel would be that a dispute doesn't exist. If you go there, I'd say you had the rest of us fooled. Most every reader of this blog would likely assume a feud between you and White.

In any case, you know I love you, brother. My sole desire in posting this is to understand your perspective more precisely. Any disagreements we may have contain no ability, in my view, of disrupting our fellowship and healthy discussion.

My prayers will continue for both you and James White, and if you are ever near Kentucky, I'd sure love to talk over coffee.

Love in Christ,

Ed Goodman
Ephesians 4:3

P.S. Thanks to Don Johnson for his encouraging words.

[peter]

Ed,

Thanks again. And, I’m glad you think it’s a public good for liberty of conscience to exist.  I am further pleased you teach teenagers the authority of Scripture stands supreme. 

The problem you see is not, then, the “ACT” of posting responses to James White; rather it’s the “SPIRIT” of my posts. O.K. Ed.  What do you mean by “SPIRIT” of my posts?  I’ve already confessed if I rewrote my posts, I’d change very little.  So the “SPIRIT” about which you discern I must be totally blind.  Therefore, I need one or two examples from the post itself from which you discerned a bad “SPIRIT” in my posts.

You also affirm James White and myself as as your brother in Christ.  Granted.  I have to ask, where have I disaffirmed or implied James White is not my brother in the Lord? You write, “Make no mistake: I disagree with many things James White does” but he will always be your brother in the Lord.  How is such a confession, Ed, substantially different from  what I’ve done in writing this OP, outside of my filling in the blanks where you left them empty?

You’ve publicly stated you disagree with many things James White does. It seems to me the difference between us at that point is, I put teeth in the “many things” while you have not. Know I’m not trying to point a finger at you, Ed, and say, “See you do it too; hence it must be  O.K.” I’m simply trying to understand your point, brother.

Interestingly, while I have not to my knowledge questioned whether White is a believer, his posts are filled with personal innuendo which suggests I am not a believer.  Hence, I am not his brother in Christ. Don’t forget the “coppersmith” from Georgia analogy :^) But frankly that’s White’s problem, not mine.

Now, Ed, whether or not you agree, I’ve stated clearly why I am uninterested in private communication with James White.  Allow me once again and it will be the final time I mention this.  I do not trust James White via private email or private voice communication.  It’s really that simple. 

Nor does my distrust have anything to do with whether I view him a brother in Christ any more than it would determine whether I viewed a fellow church member with loose lips a brother or sister in Christ.  There’s plenty of folks I can think of I’ve known through the years with whom I would not be caught dead sharing personal data.  Why?  They could not be trusted with the info. Indeed they gave me good reason to not trust them.  Simple. Now, please, let this go, Ed.

Now, as for Matt 18 handling a dispute like we have in blog threads, I’ve encountered before.  I hear what you’re saying, but do not at all think to appeal to our Lord’s words here is relevant for at least a few reasons I’ll be glad to mention. 

A) Jesus was specifically referencing local church relationships; that is, He presumes close, committed body-life connections to keep the local fellowship healthy.  It’s fuzzy, at best, to see how this particular mandate is to be observed with two or more people—albeit Christians--who’ve never met or have no other relationship outside the universal body of Christ. If you are correct, indeed such would mean, for example, if a Korean Christian in Seoul made a an unbiblical remark or somehow personally insulted me, I’d be obligated to track the person down and work it out privately before I dealt with it publicly.  Hence, I do not think Jesus had this mandate in mind for the universal church, Ed. The impracticality or unlivibility of the ethic seems entirely against it.

Even so, supposing you are correct, it does place you in the pickle-barrel with me as well, for if you have a personal problem with the way I handle James White—not “ACT” of responding but “SPIRIT” of responding—then the most proper thing for you to have done would have been to pick up a phone and call me or send me a private email. Instead, you publicly indicted me on a public blog thread for bearing a wrong “SPIRIT” in my responses to White. 

Now, I do not at all feel indicted or believe you to’ve actually indicted me because I do not hold your assumptions about the words our blessed Lord speaks to be applicable here.  However, from my understanding what you’re saying about Matt 18, I do not see how you personally escape the Lord’s mandate given your interpretation. 

B) The infallible words our Lord spoke begins with the process in private.  Blogs on the other hand are public records.  For example, James White charges publicly that I am a liar; that I possess no desire for truth or honesty; that I have no moral integrity; that I seek power and influence, nothing more; I am analogous to an unbeliever who tramples under-foot the apostolic gospel; that I am utterly incapable of honesty or research or both; etc etc etc.  From my perspective, public accusations which mark people in this manner should be dealt with publicly.  Indeed because it is public, settling it privately is non sequitur.

C) The Lord’s words specifically are directed toward personal trespass.  Ed, this is definitively not exclusively about me personally. It’s true I’ve used White’s “responses” toward me as the models to rebut.  However, frankly I do not treat White’s argumentation breaches so much as “sin” or “trespass”—especially on a personal level—as I do inferior, fallacious method of argumentation. Hence, it’s not so much “James White sinned against me” (which is what David Hewett apparently wanted me to confess) as it is “James White argues poorly and here’s the proof.”  Hence, to make this into a “feud” so to speak between me and James White is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the conflict from my perspective. 

In particular, the invalid, unfair ridiculous argumentation White passes off as normal exchange cannot be acceptable in any format, formal or informal.  I specifically listed in the OP what was unacceptable argumentation and what was acceptable argumentation (roughly, Part I = unacceptable and totally inappropriate); Part II acceptable but totally mistaken). The way I understand “feud” if one says white, the other says black.  I assure you, that is neither my attitude nor my practice with James White. 

Indeed there’s many things I admire about James White. And to answer a predictable question from a White supporter, allow me:

• James White is a very good author.  I have three of his books from which I have benefited much (KJO, though it needs a revision due to some mistakes Bob L. Ross has exposed; The Trinity; and the Hunt/White debate)
• James White is a very keen thinker. No one should presumptuously enter a discussion with James White thinking him a weak mind. He’s quick and can spit out a volley of sources before you can blink
• James White is consistently minded.  He pursues logical consistency in almost every argument he makes (unfortunately, it is also a weakness and what fundamentally pushes him toward Hyper-Calvinism)
• James White has successfully defended historic Christianity in a number of ways against many substantial & varied worldview challenges
• James White in many ways has, at least in the past, been one of the most visible apologists in the formal debate settings (his weakness at this point is not in skill but in wrongly assuming little, if any, value exists in less than formal exchanges other apologists have)
• James White is well read
• James White has made some good contributions in cultural criticism, one of which deals with homosexuality (another helpful book I have)
• James White is an inerrantist
• James White rightly is a Baptist (albeit a ‘Primative’ or ‘Reformed’ Baptist)

Is this enough or do I need to continue, Ed?  I affirm none of the above lightly nor certainly with insincerity.  From my perspective, to dispute any of the above would spark a “could you please show me how White is not as I described him?” conversation.

On the other hand, at a much deeper level, it is about the argumentative methods James White employs toward a number of people to whom he responds.  He makes people into liars who disagree with him theologically. 

For example, James White turns Tony Byrne, David Allen and others into liars who “bear false witness” because they sincerely, honestly intellectually conclude James White’s view on God’s love transforms his view into Hyper-Calvinism. Instead of being a dispute of ideas—saying Byrne and Allen are grossly mistaken about his views, for example—James White skips the option of intellectual mistakenness and instead makes it a moral issue by pronouncing  them liars.  This is, in my view, reckless argumentation that must be publicly confronted.

James White is, in fact, doing exactly what he accuses his theological detractors of doing, “bearing false witness.”  Allen and Byrne are not lying, for heaven’s sake—unless of course, it’s not about intellectual conclusions from empirical evidence.  In other words, for Byrne & Allen to be lying, it would have to be them knowingly, informedly, and intentionally understanding what Hyper-Calvinism to actually be, and, in the face of absolutely knowing James White’s view does not fit theological Hyper-Calvinism, to unequivocally state it does nonetheless.  This is morally absurd.  Coming from one who respects logical consistency so much, White’s charge, in itself, seems fantastic to me. 

Now, White obviously is blind to his weakness. Hence, he’s not budging—at least no sign yet he will.  Nor will his community deal with it.  Indeed most of them embrace it and parrot the same moral ignorance.  Couple that with James White’s ‘free pass’ he’s received among Southern Baptists to continually criticize at his pleasure, and you have an out-of-control situation.  Indeed the fact we’ve allowed a ‘free-pass’ to White historically has, in my view, spurred him to relentlessly go after Ergun Caner non-stop. 

As for me, I consider his free-pass expired. If James White wants to publicly feed on what he perceives as weaknesses of Southern Baptists, then he’d better have his tires fully aired, because so far as I am concerned, my engine is cranked.     

Grace again, Ed.  We’ll have that coffee sometime, brother.  Every so often I do get up toward Blue Grass.  I get a hankering for a Hot Brown and Derby Pie!

With that, I am…

Peter

[Craig Daliessio]

Peter...thank you yet again for your gracious and wonderfully thought out responses.
My take on White is different altogether and granted it is far more emotionally engined.
I escaped his sort of legalism barely with my life. I came to Christ quite literally with a gun in my mouth and without a good reason not to let a twitch be the last thing I felt on this coil. One split-second intervention by the Holy Spirit is why I write this today. I was 30 years old and had been in church faithfully since I was 8. For 22 years I attended three services a week and sat under the kind of soul imprisoning, lifeless spiritless Graceless message that James White employs. I hated God and was pretty certain the feeling was mutual.
What passed for "line upon line..." was, in fact, link upon link chain upon chain until, as with Marley's tragic ghost it was "a ponderous chain indeed".
I see in White all that I detested and all that I had to work for years after my salvation to expunge from my soul. The danger of James White is certainly not his wealth of facts and technical knowledge, but his displacement of the Spirit of God with those facts. His premium is on the God he can contain in his mind, not the God who would blow through his soul like a desert wind.
As you stated, James White does not debate...not in the traditional way. James White assaults. To attach the validity of someones salvation to their response to your technical prowess or their agreement with your teachings is manipulation on a grand scale.
What I know is this...I had a head-on collision with Jesus Christ at the moment when my life most clearly hung in the balance. I have never been the same. I am violently against the legalism that drove me to the barrel of a gun.
You and Hussein Werio have disputed successfully the great majority of the Caner issues until what remains are middling snippets and minor issues that could just as easily be explained as spliced video tape or simply a man who, after 27 years doesn't get minor details of his story straight. At WORST that would require a brotherly arm on the shoulder and a thorough "Listen brother...you might not have even noticed this but you were inconsistent here and here and here...etc" Caner explains and / or makes corrections and voila! Body unharmed, no mainstream media, all is well. That was NEVER what James White desired from day one. This is the culmination of 4 years of envy. James White desires the fame ( or notoriety ) that Caner has been attached to.
I experienced first hand the fact that he cannot be trusted to keep a private form of communication private. He is an intellectual coward in this area. You are right to ignore him as I have decided to from this day forth.
Thank you again for your reasoned approach. My approach would probably land me in jail.

Frothing all the way...

[Ed Goodman]

Peter,

Excellent responses to my queries, brother. I appreciate the substance of your positions and now better understand your perspective in this matter. That's exactly what I was after, and I appreciate the fact that you invested your valuable time to inform me.

Brother, my prayers are still with you and, if we ever do get to have lunch together, I know a place that makes the best hot browns I've ever tasted.

Love in Christ,

Ed Goodman
1 Timothy 5:1

[Craig Daliessio]

Ed,
we should all be as reasoned as you!
Be blessed my friend...

[peter lumpkins]

Craig,

Your testimony is moving, and surely bears good witness to our miracle working Savior. Thank you.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ed,

I do appreciate exchange with you. I do not think we've ever had a time when I did not sense an authenticity about you and the queries you bring.

Refreshing.

And, I fully expect to sample the Hot Brown with you one day.

Peace, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Don Johnson]

Peter,

Please help this northern boy out.

What pray tell is a Hot Brown?