Whether James White Teaches Islam at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary by Peter Lumpkins

UPDATE: James White apparently was made aware of Tim Rogers' question at the SBC (from either this post or elsewhere) and put up some words concerning it (//link).  The good news is, White did not call Rogers a liar (though he did question his motives) as his norm many times is.  Further, White apparently thinks no discrepancy exists concerning the CT article (linked below) and his being named as one who "teaches on Islam at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary" and what we know to be so.  Nor does his website explain the discrepancy as White alleges.  I addressed White's difficulties here, here, and here. 

Furthermore, White seems to suggest no questions were being asked concerning his relationship at GGBTS.  If that is true, I'm wondering exactly what White meant when he said John Kennedy called him after their interview to query about White's relationship with GGBTS (//link). It seems White knew questions existed. Why he would then state "as if there was actually a question" seems odd at best.  

For a humorous rendition of White's problems at GGBTS, read here.

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

On a recent post, I questioned whether Calvinist and Reformed Baptist apologist, James White, should have let stand Christianity Today's article published May 3, 2010 which referred to him as presently teaching Islam at Southern Baptists' west coast seminary, the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (//link).  I wrote:

“… it’s highly questionable at best whether James White should have allowed the CT article to stand as written concerning Kennedy’s assertion that he, in fact, “teaches on Islam at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.” Why?  Because James White does not teach Islam at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. While it’s true he taught a 3 day intensive course in January--a course in Christian Apologetics in general not Islam in particular (//link)--White currently has no contract with Golden Gate to teach any subject, much less Islam.

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.

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. James White evidently had no contract with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary to teach apologetics generally or Islam particularly when CT interviewed him. Yet, White still allowed the false impression to stand that he teaches Islam at Golden Gate” (//link).

White responded shortly later:

“Now, I have written to my immediate superiors at GGBTS to ask about this, but since it is the weekend, I do not expect a response very soon…. But I have always known that I had no promises of teaching in the future” (//link).

Some have questioned the accuracy of the information I gave concerning James White. Some even denied outright GGBTS has denied White a contract and it’s business as usual.

Below is a clip from the Southern Baptists Convention, Wednesday morning session.  During the Q/A for Golden Gate seminary, the President of the seminary, Dr. Jeff Iorg, answered a question pertaining to the relationship of James White and Golden Gate.  His response is telling (first question, 0 sec.-1 min.):

 

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[Pastor Troy in Florida]

Well it looks like that's that.

[Don Arndt]

What does this have to do with anything?

Don Arndt

[TurretinFan]

Are you willing to say who your source was for your comment: "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."

I would understand if you would rather not say.

I applaud your courage in posting this clip here.

[katybola]

Peter, it is very easy to find James White on the GGBTS website. Follow this link...... http://www.ggbts.edu/academics/downloads/

Sorted alphabetically by professor's last name.....look for White_J and you can see some of the courses Dr. White has taught at GGBTS in the past few years.

I hope this helps!

[Phillip]

Tim says White is not listed on GGBTS’s website as teaching, either as a FT or an adjunct--how did he miss White’s name here (http://www.ggbts.edu/academics/downloads/) where, on the top of the page, it indicates that you’ll be able to find “Course Syllabi (by Professor)”? It must have been an oversight on Tim’s part, but there’s no *discrepancy* between CT and GGBTS’s website (more below). If anything, there’s a discrepancy between the various parts of GGBTS’s website. The GGBTS page linked above indicates the syllabi for courses that JW has taught there (clearly as an adjunct) during three different calendar years (2008, 2009, and 2010), but the seminary catalogues at the site do not have him listed under the adjunct page. Now *that* is puzzling.

What I found more concerning is Tim’s attempt to create a false impression of the wording of the CT article (and I have seen Peter doing the same thing). The wording of CT on 5-31 was as follows:

>
“The president of a large theological seminary has created a myth concerning his background that is incredibly self-contradictory,” said White, who teaches on Islam at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.
>

The word “teaches” is a Present tense verb; what is the semantic value of the use of the English Present tense? Well, by reading what Tim said (where he paraphrases it as a progressive form--“teaching”) and what Peter has said (“White currently has no contract with Golden Gate,” “currently teaching Islam at Golden Gate,” “had no contract with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary to teach apologetics generally or Islam particularly *when* CT interviewed him,” “a reference to White as presently teaching Islam”--all on 6-5), one gets the impression that the *only* meaning of a Present tense form is that someone *is currently doing* whatever the verb denominates at the time that the Present tense form is uttered. This is, over course, an assumption that is without merit (it’s linguistic naivete), and to insist that “teaches” in CT must be interpreted this way appears to be just a pretext to attack JW’s moral character by trying to make it sound like he misled Kennedy.

What semantic value does the use of the Present tense have? Many. Consider the following sentences and how the Present tense is used:

1. I presently *live* in Ohio. = I *am living now* in Ohio.

2. I live in Ohio 6 months of the year, and I live in KY 6 months of the year. = I *customarily live* in certain places at certain times. [To insist that the Present form “I live” means “I’m right at this moment of utterance living” in OH and KY is ludicrous.]

3. My son *plays* basketball. This can mean a number of things:

a. Iterative: He plays on a repetitive basis. [If this is what the speaker intends, then it *does not* mean that he is *right now* playing basketball.]

b. Customary: He plays basketball whenever basketball season comes around. [Note: This could be uttered in the summer when he’s not playing basketball in any way, shape, or form. It can be uttered when he’s not even signed up *presently* to play, as long as this has been the custom.]

If you think long and hard enough, outside of verbs that denote state or existence (is, are, have, has, exists), the default semantic value of most verbs used in the simple Present is not *currently doing x* or *in the process of now doing x”; that’s what the Present Progressive verb form typically conveys:

Tim *eats* hamburgers. (simple present: customary)
vs
Tim *is eating* hamburgers. (present progressive: in process now)

Peter *writes* on SBC life. (simple present: customary)
vs.
Peter *is writing* on SBC life. (present progressive: in process now)

What I see Tim and Peter doing is insisting that the *least likely* interpretation of “teaches” [he currently is teaching or currently is under contract to teach] is the unequivocal meaning of “teaches,” and then on such a questionable assumption, they try to saddle JW with the charge of misleading Kennedy and others.

The most likely way to interpret Kennedy in CT is that when he refers to JW as one “who teaches on Islam” at GGBTS, he means that JW customarily teaches apologetics courses in which Islam is a significant topic (as has happened over the last 3 years). There’s no reason to think that Kennedy means *any more* than that--the statement is simply *silent* on the issue of whether JW presently is or isn’t teaching, or currently had a contract for now or for the future. You would need to provide something more substantive than “I just say so” to demonstrate that Kennedy’s language should be loaded with what you’re insisting.

Incidentally, in my experience with educational institutions, adjuncts are given contracts on a course by course basis, and often those contracts are not issued until relatively close to the semester (or J-term/Summer term). Does that mean that I don’t refer to our adjuncts as people “who teach” at the university? Of course not. If I say “So-and-so *teaches* World Religion for us” when it’s summertime and the he has not current contract, I’m not lying or deceiving anyone; I’m just using normal language that normal people understand. It would be an obtuse person who insisted, “Phillip, you mislead me, ‘cause you said So-and-so teaches WR, but he’s not on the summer schedule and the dept just told me that Fall contracts haven’t come out yet.” If, when JW was interviewed, he had no contract *in hand* for his next session of teaching, that’s no scandal--he has taught a three different times of the academic year. It’s no indication that he misled Kennedy at all.

Now, about the video clip: Dr. Iorg said, “He is not currently under contract to teach at Golden Gate, and he’s not currently scheduled to be under contract at Golden Gate.” This may certainly mean that JW will not be hired to teach in subsequent years, but I’m not sure that one is justified *based on this language* that he has “GGBTS has denied White a contract.” All one can infer from the language is that *at present* he is not scheduled to teach. We don’t know from the language which semesters they do have contracts scheduled for; if they’ve only scheduled through the Fall semester (White does not normally teach in the fall from what I can tell), it may not mean anything more than that they simply haven’t need to discuss contracts with White yet. To assert that he has been *denied* a contract requires that there has been a discussion between White and GGBTS where White offered or sought to teach at a particular time and GGBTS declined. That *may* have happened, but that’s not something that can be known from Iorg’s statement--it’s something that you would have heard somewhere else.

In terms of the timeframe, Peter, you mentioned “the official word is” that JW will not be offered a contract in the future. I admit that I find the way you use language to be peculiar, so let me ask for clarification. Most people understand “official word” to be some kind of a public statement from someone authorized to speak on behalf of some entity (as opposed to, say, a private matter that happens to have been uttered by an official but not for public consumption). Assuming that you mean of normal people mean, where was this “official word” made public that you mentioned on 6-5. You seem to think that JW was aware of this official word that he would not have any more contracts since you use it as a basis for questioning his moral sobriety:

“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. 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. James White evidently had no contract with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary to teach apologetics generally or Islam particularly when CT interviewed him. Yet, White still allowed the false impression to stand that he teaches Islam at Golden Gate.”

Is White’s knowledge of this “official word” at the time Kennedy interviewed him something that you can substantiate, and if so, how?

Cheers,
Phillip

[michael]

Peter,

the more I focus on this that you are focusing on hereon the more I become uncomfortable about it!

I would ask you to point to where the CT reporter ever used the words "presently teaching Islam" as you have above?

Are you implying that is what the reporter meant to convey when he wrote in the May 3rd article that Dr. White presently teaches Islam at Golden Gate?

In the video clip it seems the direct question by Pastor/Messenger Rogers was directly answered by the President of the Golden Gate.

I know I am not the brightest bulb in here so would you shine a brighter light on what it is you are pointing out with regard to Dr. White's representations of his adjunct work at Golden Gate? After all, the President of Golden Gate did not say Dr. White is a disjunct Professor.

Are you finding fault with Dr. White or the CT reporter?

[JMattC]

So is this video the "official word" that you have referred to? If so, it does not say what you have said elsewhere. For instance:

"...is not currently scheduled to be under contract..."

is not the same statement as:

"...will not be offerend any future contract..."

The first quote implies that White is not *currently* contracted but may be in the future. The second quote flatly states that White will not be offered any future contracts. So to echo pastor Rogers' question, can you explain this discrepency?

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

Even when the facts are presented some still have problems handling the truth. Dr. Iorg clearly stated there were no future plans for a contract.

Blessings,
Tim

[peter]

Katy,

No one is suggesting White never taught at GGBTS.  And, so far as your link goes, try this one.  I linked to White’s syllabus there…

Turrentinfan

My source is irrelevant…

JMattC,

While one statement may be different from the other, there is surely no contradiction.  What’s the problem?

Tim,

You are correct.  And, you will be hunted down by snipers dedicated to White’s cause and literarily executed.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Jeremiah Davies]

I have to be honest I do not know much about James White other than some really dislike him and some really like him. I just dont understand that if we are all under Christ and claim to be his that we would go to such lengths to try and discredit him, run his name through the mud and what seems like just make him look like a fool. Now I know that I have made mistakes (aka SIN) in my life as have each person that likes or dislikes Dr. White and I am SURE that Dr. White is none the different because he is a man, but should we as Christians act like this toward another Believer?

Jeremiah

[Salvatore]

Dr. Iorg said, "He is not currently under contract at GG and is not currently scheduled to be under contract at GG."

This of course, neither confirms nor denies the claims that "GGBTS has denied White a contract," or that "James White will not be offered any future contract as adjunct instructor to teach any subject for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary including Islam."

[peter]

Phillip,

I must say, you’re persistent.

First, you write, “Tim says White is not listed on GGBTS’s website as teaching, either as a FT or an adjunct--how did he miss White’s name here…where, on the top of the page, it indicates that you’ll be able to find “Course Syllabi (by Professor)”?

Perhaps Tim was well aware of the syllabi, Phillip. Rather his concern was present not past. He is, after all, a ‘normal guy’, you know ;^) (more below).

  Again, “If anything, there’s a discrepancy between the various parts of GGBTS’s website.”  Cute.  Give them a call and perhaps they’ll extend you a contract to “fix” their discrepancy.

Further, “The GGBTS page linked above…”  Phillip, I am fully aware of what’s on GGBTS site. Please don’t clog up the thread with info irrelevant to the point.

Phillip writes: “What I found more concerning is Tim’s attempt to create a false impression of the wording of the CT article (and I have seen Peter doing the same thing).” And, so you know Tim wanted to “create a false impression”…?  How, Phillip?  Can you see into Tim’s mind?  Did you overhear him suggest to someone, “I’m going to attempt to create a false impression of the CT article”?  And, please, leave me out of this.

You write, “The wording of CT on 5-31 was as follows:…”  We know what the CT article said.

And, “ The word “teaches” is a Present tense verb…”  Bravo!  You then conclude, “one gets the impression that the *only* meaning of a Present tense form is that someone *is currently doing* whatever the verb denominates at the time that the Present tense form is uttered.”  Well, take any impression you want, Phillip, since, as you say, our only apparent reason for bringing up the CT article was “just a pretext to attack JW’s moral character by trying to make it sound like he misled Kennedy.”

Besides the fact I categorically made no reference to White misleading Kennedy (rather the question I raised was, why he never clarified for Kennedy since apparently others were “misleading” him) as you wrongly charge (you really like making things about me, don’t you Phillip?), you can pull all the linguistic rabbits out of your hat you wish, Phillip, but the article in CT was not only about present teaching, it was also about present teaching on Islam, something that is categorically not so. One has to trek back to 2008 to find a class on Islam. 

Unless, of course, the average reader will assume “teaching on Islam” at a graduate institution primarily means mentioning Islam along with several other issues in a general apologetics course (for the record, you really need to get hold of James White and give him all your linguistic illustrations to use when his words gets him in a mess.  Some of them are pretty cool!)

You write, “The most likely way to interpret Kennedy in CT is that when he refers to JW as one “who teaches on Islam” at GGBTS, he means that JW customarily teaches apologetics courses in which Islam is a significant topic (as has happened over the last 3 years).” Sure it does.  Why in the world didn’t I think of that!!

You assert I apparently feel my words “I just say so” demonstrates that Kennedy’s language should be “loaded” with what I’m insisting.”  Touchy, touchy, Phillip.  A) No where do I write or imply people ought to take anything I write just because “I just say so.”  How quaintly absurd;  B) “loaded”?  Why, Phillip, can’t we have a rational conversation without your continued little chicken pecks at my moral character.  My “pretext” to “attack” James White’s character knows no end apparently to you.  On the other hand, your “pretext” to “attack me” could have similar overtones, don’t you think? 

According to your institutional experience, “Incidentally, in my experience with educational institutions, adjuncts are given contracts on a course by course basis, and often those contracts are not issued until relatively close to the semester (or J-term/Summer term).”  Bravo, again Phillip!  I didn’t know anything about contracts.  I’m glad you informed me.

Further you inform , “If I say “So-and-so *teaches* World Religion for us” when it’s summertime and the he has not current contract, I’m not lying or deceiving anyone; I’m just using normal language that normal people understand.” Normal people, ah? 

You mean the kind of “normal” people who pull out of their minds 10 linguistic rules why the statement “one who teaches on Islam at GGBTS” is not to be taken as presently teaching specifically on Islam at GGBTS but did so teach two years ago in a class on Islam and several months ago dealt with many apologetic issues--one of which was the issue of Islam--in a three-day course? Oh, right.  Those type of “normal” people with “normal” language.

Phillip asserts, “It would be an obtuse person who insisted, “Phillip, you mislead me, ‘cause you said So-and-so teaches WR, but he’s not on the summer schedule and the dept just told me that Fall contracts haven’t come out yet.”  Really?  Clearly not even a close parallel, Phillip.  Try again. Contracts not come out yet?  I wonder if contracts are still “not out yet” for the summer at GGBTS.

Phillip writes, “If, when JW was interviewed, he had no contract *in hand* for his next session of teaching, that’s no scandal…” Good. I hope it isn’t.  I just raised the question, Phillip.  Please don’t attack the messenger, I’ve been recently told.

You interpret “He is not currently under contract to teach at Golden Gate, and he’s not currently scheduled to be under contract at Golden Gate” may certainly mean that JW will not be hired to teach in subsequent years, but I’m not sure that one is justified *based on this language* that he has “GGBTS has denied White a contract.” Triple, Bravo! Phillip.   I never offered one thin line of interpretation on Dr. Iorg’s words.  To whom are you referring?

Again, “ To assert that he has been *denied* a contract requires that there has been a discussion between White and GGBTS where White offered or sought to teach at a particular time and GGBTS declined.”

Excuse me?  Who says that because no future contract will be offered, the requisite must be a discussion between White and GGBTS?  Do you work at GGBTS?  Do you know its protocol? If so, please inform us, Phillip.  We’re all ears.

Finally, “ That *may* have happened, but that’s not something that can be known from Iorg’s statement--it’s something that you would have heard somewhere else.”

Why, thank you, Phillip.  You actually concede it *may* have happened.  Tears are flowing down my face.  I love you, man!

More seriously, know I am uninterested in discussing how or who or what or when or, well, anything with you pertaining to the source of the statement I made.  Now, I hope that’s clear enough, because if you ask again, I’ll not post the comment. 

Fair enough?

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter]

Jeremiah,

I do not disagree essentially with what you're saying. Unfortunately, James White has been taking good Christian ministries and other believers to task for the last several years rather than focusing on apologetics. In that light, it is to be expected that if one is going to be critical, he himself or herself will sooner or later fall under his or her own blade, especially if one poses as the epitome of legitimate ministry

Thanks again.

With that, I am...
Peter

[TurretinFan]

"My source is irrelevant…"

I would respectfully disagree. Nevertheless, I can understand your desire to protect your source from embarrassment, since the Official Word was different from what he (or at least you) claimed.

Thank you again for being brave enough to play this clip. Thanks also to Tim for being brave enough to show up here afterward. I am sure that the answer was not what he hoped to hear.

"James White has been taking good Christian ministries and other believers to task for the last several years rather than focusing on apologetics. "

With all due respect, Dr. White has been demonstrably active in apologetics for the last several years. Do I need to list all the debates he's done in that time? Perhaps you would kindly modify your statement.

-TurretinFan

[JMattC]

"While one statement may be different from the other, there is surely no contradiction. What’s the problem?"

Two problems:

First, I didn't claim that the statements were contradictory but inconsistent with one another.

Second, your response is the equivalent of "nuh-uh" and fails to address my statements.

So I'm still waiting for your explanation of the aformentioned discrepancy.

[peter]

Turrentin,

A) "I would respectfully disagree." Agreed.
B) "Dr. White has been demonstrably active in apologetics for the last several years." I did not write nor imply anything contrary to this. Why would you feel the need to "list" anything?
C) Hence, no need to modify exists as I can tell...
D) While Dr. Iorg surely did not forge his answer to Tim's question the way I described the relationship on this blog, why under the blue sky anyone would expect him to gives me a good, old-fashioned West Georgia belly-roll, guy (assuming you are a guy).

Now, know you're already way over my normal limits in conversing with anonymous commenters, Turretinfan.

JmattC,

If you were not concerned my statements were "contradictory" to but merely "inconsistent" with one another, I'm afraid we've got bigger problems in communication than I can solve, JMattC. Perhaps you and Phillip can start a Linguists Anonymous chapter online. I think you'/d get lots of customers.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Dear "Zwingli" and "Salvatore"

Please read my policies on commenting above.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: You still fail to answer the issue as to Ergun Caner. Your post is just showing what price we pay for the truth. Where is the "truth" about Ergun? You have yet to address anything. Attacking the messengers are not the answer anyone is looking for unless I missed it in the press.

[peter]

Debbie,

A)This post has definitively nothing to do with Ergun Caner
B) If you want to comment again, please address the thread, Debbie, or read silently in the background

With that, I am...
Peter

[Phillip]

Ah, Peter, your response made me chuckle, and then it almost made me cry! :) First, the fluffy stuff.

“Why, thank you, Phillip. You actually concede it *may* have happened. Tears are flowing down my face. I love you, man!”

I know you’re being facetious here, but your playful sarcasm implies that I have a pattern of not being willing to agree with you about something. As a matter of fact, on the other thread, in each comment I made (as well as my last one which did not make it through moderation), I mention *several* times that certain things you’ve said I agree with or that they might be true. The problems I have with some of your writings, Peter, is not that you never say things that are true; it’s that you sometimes issue conclusions without argumentation, or with faulty argumentation. It’s the *warrant* (or lack thereof) that I find troubling about many of your assertions. Sorry.

Now, hold on to your seat. You said: “Perhaps Tim was well aware of the syllabi, Phillip. Rather his concern was present not past. ” Ok, I’m willing to concede this. There--have you gotten up off the floor yet? ;p

“ And, so you know Tim wanted to “create a false impression”…? How, Phillip? Can you see into Tim’s mind? Did you overhear him suggest to someone, “I’m going to attempt to create a false impression of the CT article”?”

Our Lord Jesus Christ says, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” I don’t have to be inside Tim’s mind; I simply have to look at what he says. As I *already* pointed out above, Tim *mischaracterizes* the wording of the CT article. He says (from the audio) that “in a recent CT article, a person was *listed as teaching* at Golden Gate.” He goes on to use this progressive verb form twice more in his question. You have asserted, and I have conceded, that Tim’s concern was *present* teaching rather than past, so Tim is clearly trying to spin the CT article to mean something that it manifestly does not--for all the *reasons* I’ve outlined. If you think my argumentation on how to interpret “teaches” in CT is faulty, I welcome the critical analyis. So, here’s my argument for my assertion about Tim (among others):

P1. Mischaracterizing the wording of a document creates a false impression about the document.
P2. Tim mischaracterized the wording of the CT document.
C. Therefore, Tim created a false impression about the CT document.

There--I’ve placed a T-ball on the T for you. Take a swing and tell us which premise you dispute and why. :)

“And, please, leave me out of this.” Ok, so I left you out of my syllogism. Of course, it’s too late to leave you out of this, since in my last comment I also documented your mischaracterization of CT, too. Oh well--sorry!

“We know what the CT article said.” That makes your mischaracterizations of it all the worse, doesn’t it? Anyway, I quoted the article for the *readers* so that they knew I wasn’t just making it up; after all, the language you and Tim have used to describe it might lead someone to conclude that the CT articles actually reads “currently teaching.” It’s always good policy to back up assertions with facts/data.

“Well, take any impression you want, Phillip, since, as you say, our only apparent reason for bringing up the CT article was ‘just a pretext to attack JW’s moral character by trying to make it sound like he misled Kennedy.’” Whoa, pardner! Let’s keep our eye on the ball here, Peter. You’re just hand-waving here and evading two distinct claims I made.

First, I made an argument for how one should interpret Kennedy’s verb “teaches.” Don’t just say that that’s *my impression* and I can have any impression I want since I think you’re using it as a pretext for something. *How* I think you’re using this is *irrelevant* to my argument about how someone should actually interpret Kennedy. Please don’t conflate things that are conceptually distinct. What’s wrong with my *argument* about how to understand “teaches” in CT?

Second, you’re mistaken when you claim that I am saying that your “only apparent reason for bringing up the CT article was ‘just a pretext to attack JW’s moral character by trying to make it sound like he misled Kennedy.’” That wasn’t my claim, Peter. There may be other reasons you brought up the CT article--I never claimed this. What I *did* claim was something more modest, namely, that for you “to insist that teaches in CT must be interpreted this way appears to be just a pretext to attack JW’s moral character.” You’re welcome to dispute this, but realize that it’s a *different* claim that my first one, and it’s a different claim from the one you attribute to me. You may not like it--that’s fine--but you can’t dismiss my first claim on the basis of the second claim without showing that the first depends on the second. It’s actually the other way around. Maybe you’ll concede the first and dispute the second claim? I’m happy to see that.

Well, I gotta’ run off to work. There’s more to say, but I’ll just post these now.

Cheers,
Phillip

[TurretinFan]

Peter: Thanks for your responses. I'm still a little confused by your previous comment about Dr. White not focusing on apologetics, but probably you and I are simply on different wavelengths.

[peter]

Phillip,

“I know you’re being facetious here, but your playful sarcasm…” Why not leave it at that, Phillip?  Playful sarcasm?  Why under a clear sky would you ruin it by attempting to make it “imply” something you did or didn’t do “*several* times concerning “certain things”?  Lighten up.  The world will not end if you don’t get to jab at every assertion I make.

“Ok, I’m willing to concede this. There--have you gotten up off the floor yet?” No.  But I wish I’d not sent you the nasty email now (just kidding…). Fine.  I accept you concession.

You write, “Our Lord Jesus Christ says, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” I don’t have to be inside Tim’s mind; I simply have to look at what he says.”  Please Phillip.  Do not exploit Jesus’ words to *prove* you know what Tim was attempting to do. For argument’s sake, even if you are correct about what Tim *actually* did—i.e., mischaracterize the CT article--you definitively do not know what he attempted to do by what he said.  Perhaps an unintended consequence was the *actual* result. No, what you did is judge Tim’s motives by asserting you know what Tim was *attempting* to accomplish. 

Phillip, please drop the linguistic analysis nomenclature as if it’s persuasive.  I assure you, it’s not. If you’re technical interpretation concerning “teaches” floats your boat, go for it. But I don’t buy it. The CT article was straight-forward enough without the techy spin—at least that’s how I see your explanation. Others may draw their own conclusions.

And, no, I don’t have to offer a “critical analysis.”  It’s not worth my time. And, back to you, Phillip.  I don’t play T-ball.

“Anyway, I quoted the article for the *readers* so that they knew I wasn’t just making it up.”  But I linked to it, Phillip.  Why would they think you were making it up?  What is a Alice in Wonderland trip is your linguistic theory that “teaches on Islam at GGBTS” really means “taught Islam two years ago and addressed Islam as one issue among many others in a 3-day general apologetics class several months back but involves no contract to teach now or in the future.”  I’d say the rabbit hole goes pretty doggone deep.

“Don’t just say that that’s *my impression* and I can have any impression I want since I think you’re using it as a pretext for something.”  That’s your impression and you can have any impression you want since you think I’m using it as a pretext for something.  There.  I said it.  Please avoid telling me what I can and cannot say, Phillip ;^) 

More seriously, of course I skipped the assertions.  I simply went to your conclusion.  And, what is that?  I have a “pretext” for “attacking” White.  If that is the case, Phillip…if you think I am being disingenuous, then I have little interest in exploring your assertions.  You *are* making a heck of a lot of them, you know.  Why waste my time with someone who apparently thinks I’m disingenuous?  Oh, excuse me—you said, it *appears* just as a “pretext.”  Well, now that really makes it all better now. 

Gosh, I feel better about myself!

With that, I am...

Peter

[Salvatore Mazzotta]

Peter,

I understand you have a source for the claim that JW will never again teach at GG and that you do not wish to divulge this source. I am not asking you to do so. I simply point out that the only possible source of information about what will and will not happen in the future is a word from God.

Anything else is simply a false and presumptuous claim.

The point of my previous two attempts at leaving post was not to get you to divulge your source, but to point out that the claim itself is false.

James 4:13-16 (ESV) Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit"— yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that." As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.

[peter]

Turretinfan,

Thanks.

My comment fundamentally concerned what I perceive as a shift in James White's focus since 2006. I've stated elsewhere I followed James White quite awhile prior to "the thread" on Founder's blog in '06. White now appears to be shooting himself in the foot with other ministries, focusing much more on Christian polemics rather than defending the Christian worldview.

I know you disagree. And, I'm uninterested in exchanging on that for several reasons not the least of which is time.

But I did want to say I do not dispute many contributions White has made, contributions I rehearsed elsewhere. The change now is fantastic, however.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Salvatore

Thanks for the clarification. Of course, if my words rigidly implied White will *never again* teach at GGBTS, I fully concede your point. I certainly did not mean to imply such a "hard" deduction.

For example, for argument's sake, let's suppose Mr. X who's in charge of hiring adjunct faculty for Y dept. says, "Dr. Z will never teach here again." So far so good. But Mr. X retires and Mr. T is now in charge. Mr. T says, "Dr. Z has taught here before. I like Dr. Z's work. Hence, Dr. Z will be hired for Y dept."

If such scenario takes place, the possibility exists JW may teach again at GGBTS.

So, yes, with qualifications, your point is well taken, Salvatore.

And, know, I had nor have no aspirations in negating James 1.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Salvatore Mazzotta]

Peter,

Thank you for clarifying your meaning on what "will" happen with respect to Dr. White's employment at GG. Of course, there are many more possible scenarios than the one you offer. God knows.

[michael]

Well, with that...:

"...For example, for argument's sake, let's suppose Mr. X who's in charge of hiring adjunct faculty for Y dept. says, "Dr. Z will never teach here again." So far so good. But Mr. X retires and Mr. T is now in charge. Mr. T says, "Dr. Z has taught here before. I like Dr. Z's work. Hence, Dr. Z will be hired for Y dept."...".

...:we now know who the phantom source is!

Drum roll please........it's Mr. X!

I now bow my head and think deeply, should I or should I not pray: "Dear Lord, would you retire Mr. X immediately and hire Mr. T so Dr. JW can teach again Islam at GGBTS?"

I am glad to see your humility Bro. Peter, that you are unwilling to take Bro. James to task! :)

with that,

I am michael

[Craig Daliessio]

quoth Mrs. Cat in The Hat: "Peter: You still fail to answer the issue as to Ergun Caner. Your post is just showing what price we pay for the truth. Where is the "truth" about Ergun? You have yet to address anything. Attacking the messengers are not the answer anyone is looking for unless I missed it in the press."

Debbie...I am now fully convinced you suffer from Tourettes syndrome and the phrase "ERGUNCANER" is your trigger. You must be twitching like Charlie Kalas right now just seeing Dr. Caner's name on the monitor.
Caner Caner Caner Caner Caner!
My grandmother used to preserve vegetables for use in the winter...she was a real CANER!
Remember when Will Smith used to call all the robots in I,Robot "Caners"?
Sorry...I was just Ergun you on.

Laughing all the way...

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Philip,

You know, you are correct and that is what caused the "discrepancy" in my mind. Speaking in front of the convention is disconcerting, to say the least, and even awkward.

If you noticed in the video I hesitated. This was due to 2 problems. One, my electric data prompter went blank. Two, I was hearing myself some seconds after stating my words. In this mind confusing time I failed to point out the discrepancy of the syllabus being listed. If you follow my coverage on JW, you will find that I acknowledged he had a listed syllabi on the website but was not listed as a prof.

Also, if you are a SB pastor you can write to a trustee from your state. He/she will express to Dr.Iorg your concern and you will receive a phone call from the president. I know I did.

Blessings,
Tim

[Kendall Adams]

Tim, why did you ask the question you did at the convention?

[peter]

All,

I'll be away most of the day. Know, therefore, if you log on and post, your comment will not be posted until later this evening at best.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Erlend]

You said further, White apparently thinks no discrepancy exists concerning the CT article (linked below) and his being named as one who "teaches on Islam at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary" and what we know to be so. On the dividing line two weeks ago White did say that he wasn't currently teaching at Golden Gate, and that the journalist was mistaken. I can get the link if you want.
Again, you are leaving yourself quite open for James White's supporters to claim you are misrepresenting him, ignoring the larger issues at hand.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Kendall,

I asked it because I wanted to know. The same reason I penned the letter I did to the trustee. I wanted to know. The below quote is an excerpt from my letter to the NC trustee on the Golden Gate BoT.

Dr. White is also publicly insinuating that he is a professor at GGBTS but GGBTS does not list him at the Mill Valley campus or the Phoenix campus. However, upon a search of the Course Syllabi page it lists Dr. White as having a syllabus for a J-Term. Could you clear this up for me? Does one teaching in the J-Term only qualify as a professor of GGBTS?

For the Rest,

If anyone would like to find out if Golden Gate desires to give James White a contract in the future, please feel free to contact the Administration. Neither Brother Peter, nor I have the authority to offer him such. Also, one thing you will find out when you contact them, James White was given a contract to be the instructor of courses based on his Fuller MA degree. The administration was not aware of his unaccredited diploma mill degrees.

Blessings,
Tim

[Mark]

Tim,

FYI, I have a copy of an email from 2005 from a GGBTS staff member who was well aware that White's doctorate is not from an ATS accredited school.

Interestingly enough, Columbia Evangelical gives a short list of accredited schools that has accepted their students as transfers.

Listed (at the bottom of the page) are:

*Bakke Graduate University (fka Northwest Graduate School of the Ministry)

*Erskine Theological Seminary

*Liberty University

*Luther Rice University (fka Luther Rice Seminary)

*North West University South Africa (fka Potchefstroom University)

*Providence College and Theological Seminary

*Southern Evangelical Seminary

*Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

[peter]

All,

There are several comments in moderation I am not going to post. Connecting anything in this blog with rants about Ergun Caner is unconscionable.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Eriend,

Thanks for the info. You wrote, "On the dividing line two weeks ago White did say that he wasn't currently teaching at Golden Gate, and that the journalist was mistaken" concluding I am leaving myself "quite open" to claims I am "misrepresenting him." 

Know, Eriend, I would very much like the link.  If you're correct, I cannot see at all how I am leaving myself open for any criticism whatsoever.  Indeed the opposite is the case.

I first raised the issue with the CT article on June 5th and White responded immediately on the same day. His response was not pretty as I clearly showed here. In the response to me, White made no mention of the journalist being “mistaken”; indeed the way one reads White, it’s definitively Peter Lumpkins who is “utterly incapable” of either honesty or research or both, a standard line in his responses to much, if not most, things I write.

Furthermore, White’s most recent line includes a video I posted here from the SBC with Tim Rogers’ question, making no mention of a CT article mistake but rather putting as the video caption, “As if there was actually a question,” making it sound as if there is not a problem concerning his teaching timeline, presumably including what you now say White refers to as a CT journalist “mistake.” 

All this besides, you’ve got guys like Phillip Marshall logging a tremendous amount of defense on this blog—albeit technical linguistic spin in my view—arguing how a “normal” interpretation of the CT article bears no “mistake” whatsoever.  Rather, the mistake is my “pretext” in attacking White.  In other words, the CT reporter got it right; I simply got it wrong.  What’s got to be highly embarrassing for Phillip is, if you are correct, and he is correct, then James White is wrong about the CT article too!

No Eriend.  If James White dissed the CT article, implicating the journalist, then I have absolutely nothing about which to be concerned.  It’s his fundamental confusion not mine. I know also, I’d be mad as a West Georgia wasp if I was out defending his honor while at the same time he’s elsewhere taking the very position I’m arguing against!

Please.  I’d like to have the link.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Kendall Adams]

Peter,

It doesn't bother you to put a lid on something like Ergun but have no problem doing what your are doing with White?

Do you really feel this is right?

[peter]

Kendall,

Unless you have a point to make pertaining to how I may have been unfair or made a point not well taken toward White I've raised, I'll just take it that you'd rather change the subject to something or someone else.

With that. I am...

Peter

P.S. Please do not mention Caner on this thread again

[peter]

Ms. Kaufman,

You can post creepy, psychologically-twisted comments on your blog as much as you wish. Unless you actually have something relevant to say here, none of your comments will make it through moderation. Either clean it up or cease commenting.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Mark,

Your point for accredited institutions accepting transfers? Everyone will accept transfer students but the hours will not all transfer.

As to the email Produce it. If you can produce it that would be grand, because I am told by the highest in authority GGBTS did not know about the other degrees he was listing on his website. If you produce that email, I am sure someone's job will be in jeporady as that person was the one that promoted James to the President to get his course at Mill Valley.

Blessings,
Tim

[Chuck Beem]

Peter-

I'm a bit of a 'lurker' and I don't think I've ever commented here. I'm in a rush and don't have the time right now to track down which show White said it- I believe it must have been the one immediately following the CT article- but I also remember him saying something to the effect that the article was wrong about him currently teaching there. Since you don't know me, this may not clear things up: just wanted to back up the earlier commenter on this issue.

Chuck Beem

[Mark]

Tim,

I'd like to point out another person teaching with unaccredited doctorate.

Liberty lists Thomas Ice as:

Thomas D. Ice, B.A., Th.M., Ph.D.

Executive Director of The Pre-Trib Research Center
Associate Proffesor of Theology

His Ph.D. is from unaccredited Tyndale Theological Seminary.

[Phillip]

Peter,

Too much to do this weekend. I continue:

“Besides the fact I categorically made no reference to White misleading Kennedy (rather the question I raised was, why he never clarified for Kennedy since apparently others were “misleading” him) as you wrongly charge (you really like making things about me, don’t you Phillip?),”

Sorry, I have no clue what you’re talking about here. You yourself had said the following:

“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.” The only contact JW has had with CT that you mention is with Kennedy. Then you say, “. . . when CT [read: Kennedy] interviewed him. Yet, White still allowed the false impression to stand that he teaches Islam at Golden Gate.” In your mind (and in your words here), JW has allowed Kennedy to walk away from communication with JW with a “false impression.” To knowingly let someone have a false impression about your words is to mislead him. So, yes, you are in fact asserting that JW has misled. How do you miss this? Is the logical inference too difficult to draw?

“you can pull all the linguistic rabbits out of your hat you wish, Phillip, but the article in CT was not only about present teaching,”

Wrong. The CT article makes so such assertion about “present teaching.” Interact with my argument or concede the point, please.

“it was also about present teaching on Islam, something that is categorically not so. One has to trek back to 2008 to find a class on Islam.”

Wrong again. This is *another* mischaracterization of what CT says, Peter. Sorry to have to point this out again, but you seem blind to the meaning of the actual wording of this article. Note what Kennedy does say: “who teaches on Islam.” You try to characterize the article as an assertion that JW teaches “a *class* on Islam.” That’s not CT’s claim; “on Islam” is--again--a more modest claim that you’re willing to allow. Tell me: *why must* the expression “teaches on Islam” mean something like “teaches *whole classes* on Islam”? Please argue for this. I salivate to see some reasoning to this effect. [Hey, it’s better than frothing at the mouth, right? :) ]

As a matter of fact, the CT article is *accurate* to say that he teaches “on Islam” since, as a matter of fact, the *topic* of Islam is covered in *every* single class he’s taught from 2008-2010. As long as JW has covered the *topic* of Islam in 2008, 2009, and 2010, then he has taught *on* Islam, and CT is accurate as far as its language goes. BTW, it matters not one whit how much or how little of the course, percentage-wise, is devoted to Islam, since the CT statement itself says *nothing* about that.

“Unless, of course, the average reader will assume “teaching on Islam” at a graduate institution primarily means mentioning Islam along with several other issues in a general apologetics course”

Strawman. Of course merely “mentioning Islam” does not constitute “teaching on Islam,” just as merely “mentioning Islam” in a dissertation about Christian approaches to warfare in the Crusades does not constitute it a dissertation “on Islam.” But of course, your erecting a strawman to knock it down. You’ve mentioned the links to the 3 syllabi, so you ought to know what’s inside them and therefore ought to be more accurate about the contents of the courses. No one who reads them would come to the conclusion that JW is only “mentioning” Islam. For ex., consider what percentage of the course objectives in each course is devoted specifically to Islam: 2008 = 100%, 2009 = 50%, 2010 = 25%. Can one *reasonably* conclude that in any of these courses, Islam just gets *mentioned*? Please. Let’s see a *reason* to think so besides, “Well, that’s just the way I see it.”

“You assert I apparently feel my words “I just say so” demonstrates that Kennedy’s language should be “loaded” with what I’m insisting.” Touchy, touchy, Phillip. A) No where do I write or imply people ought to take anything I write just because “I just say so.” How quaintly absurd;”

Really? Please take note of the dismissive language you use with respect to *an argument* I’ve made rebutting your assumption that “teaches” *must mean* “presently teaches” or “presently is contracted to teach”:

“Sure it does. Why in the world didn’t I think of that!!” And later, “Phillip, please drop the linguistic analysis nomenclature *as if it’s persuasive*. *I assure you*, it’s not. . . . But *I don’t buy it.* The CT article was straight-forward enough without the techy spin—at least that’s how *I see* your explanation. . . . I don’t have to offer a “critical analysis.” It’s not worth my time.”

What you’ve given here is *zero* reason to reject my argument--just your *personal opinions* about it, as if that’s relevant. The fact that you characterize my argument as “techy spin” and “linguistic rabbits” tells us more about you than it does about the argument. Sure, you don’t actually use the words, “Accept my conclusions because I say so.” But when you wave your hand and pontificate about whether my argument is “worth” the time and you say “I assure you” about its unpersuasiveness--without a *single* sentence assessing the actual argument--that amounts to an “I say so.” It’s certainly not *rational discourse*; it’s mere autobiography on your part.

“B) “loaded”? Why, Phillip, can’t we have a rational conversation without your continued little chicken pecks at my moral character.”

I’ll let the readers decide which side of this “conversation” has been rational and which side has been dismissive and evasive. However, you misconstrue my meaning when I say “loaded.” Touchy touchy, Peter. :) You took it in the worst possible light. When I wrote, “You would need to provide something more substantive than “I just say so” to demonstrate that Kennedy’s language should be *loaded* with what you’re insisting,” I didn’t mean “loaded” in some pejorative, insinuating way. I simply meant that you’re assuming that the little boxcar of a verb-form [“teaches”] must be carrying more semantic freight on it than it actually bears. Don’t be defensive here; no personal offense was intended.

You continued: “You mean the kind of “normal” people who pull out of their minds 10 linguistic rules why the statement “one who teaches on Islam at GGBTS” is not to be taken as presently teaching specifically on Islam at GGBTS but did so teach two years ago in a class on Islam and several months ago dealt with many apologetic issues--one of which was the issue of Islam--in a three-day course?” Wow, another strawman. I’ll be happy to light a match to that one for you. Just in case you missed it, I *provided arguments* for the following claims:

[1] To claim that the simple present “teaches” must be interpeted as “presently teaching” or “presently under contract to teach” is without merit. And,
[2] The most likely (but not the exclusive) interpretation of the simple present “teaches” is “customarily teaches.” Note: I’ve not argued that anything *beyond* that, so again, don’t pack unnecessary semantic baggage onto the words of my argument.

Please show: [a] you understand my argument, and [b] why it’s flawed.

“Clearly not even a close parallel, Phillip. Try again.” Another pronouncement in search of an argument. Care to try again? Show me where the analogy fails.

You continued: “Phillip writes, ‘If, when JW was interviewed, he had no contract *in hand* for his next session of teaching, that’s no scandal…’ Good. I hope it isn’t. I just raised the question, Phillip.” No you weren’t. Look at your language above and show how one can accuse JW of allowing a “false impression” (which would be scandalous) to stand and say that he’s just *raising* a question.

You quote me as saying, “I’m not sure that one is justified *based on this language* that he has ‘GGBTS has denied White a contract.’” To which you replied, “I never offered one thin line of interpretation on Dr. Iorg’s words. To whom are you referring?”

Um, I’m referring to *you*, Peter. Those are your words I’m quoting. I assume that when you write sentences on a post, you intend to be *relevant.* You began the post by noting that you had made a claim about the “official word” that White will not be teaching anything at GGBTS. You then said that some had questioned what you had said: “Some have questioned the accuracy of the information I gave concerning James White. Some even denied outright GGBTS has denied White a contract and it’s business as usual.”

You then offer a video that appears to rebut the naysayers. Some are denying a proposition, namely, that “GGBTS has denied White a contract.” I take your video to relevant in that it proves the opposite--since to deny a denial is to affirm the opposite proposition. [Or did you intend the video to prove that you were wrong in your assertion?]

“Excuse me?” Sorry, there’s no “excuse” for the strawman representation of my argument you erect here, to wit: “Who says that because no future contract will be offered, the requisite must be a discussion between White and GGBTS?” Not even remotely close to representing what I actually said. Again, I’ll light a match under this strawman for you, too. And if you can actually make a *case* that my language *implies* this woeful argument, I’ll gladly concede I’m mistaken. [I’ve already demonstrated my willingness to make a concession.]

What did I say? I said that to “assert that he has been *denied* a contract requires that there has been a discussion between White and GGBTS where White offered or sought to teach at a particular time and GGBTS declined.” To say that a contract has been *denied* presupposes that a contract has been *proposed* by at least one of the parties. Don’t believe me? You want to say that it’s legitimate to equate “X will not receive a contract” with “X was denied a contract”?

Then you must be so sad that Southwestern Seminary has denied you a contract to teach for them. And that Harvard Press has also denied you a contract for a book. Maybe we can talk some more after your laments are through. :)

Finally, you said, “More seriously, know I am uninterested in discussing how or who or what or when or, well, anything with you pertaining to the source of the statement I made.” In other words, you’ve given us another “Because I said so.” Ok. My question was not to ask you to reveal a *private* source, anyway; it was simply to question the legitimacy of calling something (I don’t care who or what) an “official word” when no one knows about it, including White. I admit I find your use of language a bit of a stretch--I think I need a Lumpkins Lexicon or something.

Cheers,
Phillip

[peter]

Phillip,

I have been accused of verbosity many times. On the other hand, perhaps in the future I may be able to point to you as one who makes the famed Gene Bridges look decidedly thin.

My last response to you exceeded 500 words. You nuked me back with almost 1900 (nor is this the first time). No thanks. I'm just not interested.

You need to know, however, if two commenters are correct in what they've said concerning James White's assertion that the CT article was "mistaken," I suggest you assemble all your linguistic "proofs" and forward them to James White, showing him how he is mistaken about the "CT mistake" like I allegedly am.

Perhaps you guys could schedule a "formal" debate about the matter ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[Phillip]

Dear Erlend,

You had written:

“On the dividing line two weeks ago White did say that he wasn't currently teaching at Golden Gate, and that the journalist was mistaken. I can get the link if you want.”

Would you please post it here for all of us? I’m also curious about the day and which minute/second in the program you heard this. Thanks!

Phillip

[Phillip]

Peter:

You referred to me “as one who makes the famed Gene Bridges look decidedly thin.”

I’m not a friend of Gene; is this something I should be encouraged by, or insulted by? :)

“My last response to you exceeded 500 words. You nuked me back with almost 1900 (nor is this the first time).”

There’s a simple reason that someone previously accused of verbosity has had a such a low word-count vis-a-vis mine. I have taken your words and assertions seriously. I have framed responses to you that include argumentation for my assertions. I have given you the benefit of not merely dismissing your points, but *arguing* against them with reasons and data. Believe me, if I just ignored most of your points and said “believe me, you’re not convincing,” my word count would be lower than yours. Yes, there’s a significant disparity between my comments and yours, and it really has very little to do with word counts.

“No thanks. I'm just not interested.”

So, that’s it? Don’t you want to take a stab at just *one* of my arguments and show me where my reasons (as I’ve framed them) are faulty?

I wonder if your supporters/readers might have enough energy and patience to help me understand what the *rational* grounds are for your not having conceded to *any* of the arguments I’ve made. Surely there’s something to be said for your case? If not, then so be it.

You indicated that two commenters had mentioned “James White's assertion that the CT article was ‘mistaken.’” And a few days ago, you asserted the following: “What’s got to be highly embarrassing for Phillip is, if you are correct, and he is correct, then James White is wrong about the CT article too!”

I don’t see why this should be embarrassing to me in the slightest. If it turns out that JW has said that CT was “wrong” in it’s assertion, so what?

1. My argument disputing your *dubious* assumption about what “teaches” must mean (“currently teaches” or “currently is contracted to teach”) is in *no way* dependent on JW’s interpretation of CT.

2. If JW thinks CT is “incorrect,” then it would at least prove that I’m not JW’s spokesperson. I don’t find that embarrassing at all. In fact, I would tell JW that he’s probably incorrect in his interpretation and that he need not go that way.

3. My argument was never that the use of the simple Present verb *cannot* mean “presently does X.” On the contrary, I gave several situations where it can. Rather, my argument was a rebuttal of a simplistic and naive linguistic assumption that the simple Present verb *must mean* what you, Peter, think it must mean. It’s on the same level as saying that the Greek Aorist tense verb always means “once-for-all occurrence.” That’s linguistic naivete, too. I hope you’ve moved past this in your own view of Biblical Greek.

Ok, I guess I’m through. Thanks for your interaction and for letting me be a guest on your blog. I’ll keep looking for Erlend’s link to where JW says what he’s alleged to have said. Until it’s posted publicly, if I were you, I’d keep the “if” in all caps (IF) in statements like “if two commenters are correct in what they've said concerning James White's assertion that the CT article was ‘mistaken.’”

Cheers,
Phillip

[Patrick]

I recently graduated last month at Golden Gate with an MDIV, and I took an apologetics class with James White at the Mill Valley campus in 2005. This class was an elective, and according to my understanding electives can be taught by those having only Master's degrees. It's the higher classes, (Christian Theology, Intro to OT, Intro to NT etc) that require a PHD. He was cordial, and there were only two days in class. The rest was online. He joked about mine and other's mac laptops, but it seems that he uses one now. We very briefly covered the main cults such as mormonism, Jehovah's witnesses, and practically nothing concerning Islam.
I just thought you might be interested to hear about that.

[peter]

Phillip,

Yes, I'm afraid it is "so, that's it." And, no, I don't want to "take a stab" at "just one" of your "arguments" because there is no "just one" with you, Phillip. You've amply proved it, I assure. Not only did you 'nuke' with 1900 words but you came back with another 1200 in two additional comments.

If I did engage "just one" (which, by the way, I've already done more than once), you'd only trump me with twice-three times the content through which to wade. I'm not willing to do that with you Phillip. It's just as simple as that. Sorry.

I'll allow the readers who've viewed your comments published thus far to gauge whether your linguistic focus is convincing.

And I hope we do get the link for which I and now you requested. Perhaps you'll get to take James White to task for his "mistaken" interpretation of the CT article.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Phillip]

Hi Patrick,

You said: “I recently graduated last month at Golden Gate with an MDIV.”

Congratulations on completing the M.Div.! My master’s degree took me over 5 years to complete as well, so I imagine we both experienced some of the same long-term struggles.

“I took an apologetics class with James White at the Mill Valley campus in 2005. . . .We very briefly covered the main cults such as mormonism, Jehovah's witnesses, and practically nothing concerning Islam.”

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of what you say. It certainly does seem consistent with what White has said elsewhere, namely that he *began* studying Islam at some point in 2005 (I’m guessing late in the year) as he was preparing for his debate with Shabir Ally at BIOLA (May 2006). At the time that you took the intensive course in 2005, then, I’d have been surprised if Islam had even gotten a mention. That of course appears to have changed drastically since he entered the Islamic apologetics realm, as is evidenced by his three syllabi which are still posted online from 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Cheers,
Phillip

[peter]

Patrick

Thanks. Your info is helpful and consistent with what we know about James White. He taught only one course specifically on Islam about which we are aware, a course in 2008. The latest and last course--literally--was a general course in Apologetics issues, one issue of which was Islam (a 3-day course). Apparently, CT cited the 2008 course to substantiate the assertion that James White "teaches on Islam at GGBTS."

On another note, while White could touch on Islamic issues in general apologetics, he's hardly qualified to teach Islam. To my knowledge, White has no formal studies in Islam to his credit and in that sense, one wonders why GGBTS contracted him to teach a course specifically on Islam.

With that, I am...
Peter