"Liar, Liar": A Tribute to James White by Peter Lumpkins

As I've noted before on this site, apparently one of James White's favorite pass-times (while he's not studying hundreds of hours weekly for all those "formal" debates) is winning lost people and Christians alike to the wonderful idea that any Christian who disagrees with him, his view of evidence, or particular version of Calvinism is nothing more than a diabolical liar.

After taking his last victim to public task for allegedly lying his way through life, he now makes one of the greatest Christian apologists in recent times into...into...want to take a guess?  A big fat liar!

Yep.  That's right.  Professor Norman Geisler is lying through his aged teeth (//link).  That's the unreserved conclusion of Mr. James White, "Reformed Baptist" apologist and former adjunct instructor at one of our seminaries.

The following is a tribute to Mr. White whose waning influence among Southern Baptists continues on track.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Turretinfan]

Repent!

[Craig Daliessio]

You sir are hysterical!

[Bennett Willis]

It is easy to see that James White is correct in his conclusions about Dr. Geisler's statement about EC. All you have to do is to carefully read what Dr. Geisler says and compare it to the information available.

[peter]

Craig,

Glad you enjoyed it!

Bennett,

"Liar" may be the most offensive label imaginable. Jesus reserved it for Satan himself. From my perspective, to publicly call a mature, seasoned, and reputable Christian theologian a liar is patently absurd, and even if true, unwise.

And, Bennett, for you to glibly and publicly agree is staggering and fundamentally crass.

Don't expect to do it a second time here.

With that, I am...
Peter

[A.M. Mallett]

White not only publicly calls Dr. Geisler a liar, but he essentially states the same thing about the entire Liberty University leadership. God fearing Calvinists might want to consider throwing White's ministry under the bus.

[Bennett Willis]

Peter, I yield to your superior intellect and logic. It is obvious that I have been unwise. I just will have to give up reading the dictionary and certain statements by Dr. Geisler--and REPENT of these things. They only cause confusion, not enlightenment.

[Erlend]

I can't actually see where in that piece James White call Giesler a 'liar' or where he said he was 'lying'.

[Barry D. Bishop]

My prediction is that after a long internet smear campaign Geisler will be maligned and discredited--regardless of the facts.

[Craig Daliessio]

"My prediction is that after a long internet smear campaign Geisler will be maligned and discredited--regardless of the facts."

As we speak there is a website being constructed "Fake Ex Michigan Apologists" and rare video of Dr. Geisler slapping a small child are being doctored. Hang on kids...the fun is only beginning.
If James White got his first taste of 15 minutes of fame by doing what he did to Ergun Caner, imagine how famous he'll be by attacking Norman Geisler! Why the security guard in his building might stop asking to see his nametag.

[RazorsKiss]

The appendix to CBF made Dr. Geisler's credibility questionable. This is just more of the same.

[peter]

RazorKiss,

Why, of course, it did RazorKiss. And why? Because James White says so, that's why.

I fear the credibility issue is going to follow White not Geisler. Already, White is hinting of lost opportunities because he dared "speak up." We know he lost his adjunct teaching at GG because of his mad pursuit of EC. When will supporters such as yourself help him instead of cuddling him is a question you may one day ponder.

With that, I am...
Peter

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

"Because James White says so" is really quite irrelevant. Dr. White himself is irrelevant, as he himself has said before.

The issue is whether or not the documented facts have been considered, and from those to draw appropriate conclusions. I think Dr. White's point is that he sees no reason to believe that Geisler addressed the evidence at all. Dr. Geisler surely didn't deal with it in anything we've seen on the web so far at the very least.

Nowhere in the article did Dr. White call Dr. Geisler a liar. There are references to lies that Caner told, that Chrisitians can tell lies, but no mention that Dr. White called Dr. Geisler a liar.

With regard to the appendix that was in CBF (Chosen But Free) and the rebuttal appendix that was put into the latest edition of TPF (The Potter's Freedom" the problem that Dr. White addressed was the lack, if not complete lack, of exegetical response to the points Dr. White raised in TPF. No exegesis and interpretation of Scripture, no argument worth arguing.

Anyway, thought I'd throw that in.

May God open our minds to His truth in all things,
dbh

[Michael Smith]

Premise 1: Professor Norman Giesler is one of the greatest Christian apologists in recent times, who has aged teeth

Premise 2: Mr. (not a Dr. mind you!) James White is a "Reformed Baptist" apologist and former adjunct instructor, who conducts those "formal" debates

Conclusion: Professor Giesler is right and MR. White is wrong!

[RazorsKiss]

No, because I have, and have read, both books in question. Further, concerning GG, I was told otherwise. But you know that, I'm sure.

Keep up the spin, Peter. The hole's just getting bigger.

[Robert]

Peter,

Could you please tell us where you got your information that Dr. White has lost his adjunct teaching position at GG? You have no basis for that claim, do you? At the SBC in Orlando, the only thing said was that he is not currently under contract.

Robert

[peter]

All,

White writes:

“Geisler is making claims that are documentably [sic] false”

“Norman Geisler 1) has here uttered gross dishonesty or 2) he is completely out of touch with the reality of the situation. I would like to think it is the latter, but given that there is no conceivable reason for such ignorance of the facts, I am left deeply troubled by his willingness to throw his credibility to the wind and fall upon his sword in this matter” (emphasis added)

“Instead, he seems to hope to use his name, his "weight" in evangelical circles, to cover for an associate, a friend, who has brought disrepute upon the Christian ministry in general and apologetics in particular by his purposeful deception and myth-making” (emphasis added)

I’d say, without the least reservation, these statements are more than sufficient to maintain James White, while not using the specific term “liar” unequivocally implied such in the words above.

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter]

Robert,

I do have a solid basis for the info I have. However, if you'd like to know, I'd ask James White himself. I'm sure by now he has similar if not identical info that I have.

With that, I am...
Peter

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Peter (I figured I'd call you that since everyone else does),

"Norman Geisler 1) has here uttered gross dishonesty or 2) he is completely out of touch with the reality of the situation."

emphasis added. :) That little word "or" is pretty important. ;)

Though neither statement is overly flattering, Dr. White certainly wants to believe the latter as is indicated in the quote you just provided.

More:

"Instead, he seems to hope to use his name, his "weight" in evangelical circles, to cover for an associate, a friend, who has brought disrepute upon the Christian ministry in general and apologetics in particular by his purposeful deception and myth-making"

Again, emphasis added. I find the word "seems" to be important. It allows for correction if proven to be wrong about one's statements. I try to use it often myself.

The "his" is referring to Caner's mythmaking, not Geisler's.

sdg,
dbh

[RazorsKiss]

Well, Peter, I have an email right in front of me that explicitly says that your specific claims are not made by GGBTS - because I asked for a verification of your specific claim, from the university. I also happen to know that several others have asked for the same verification - and all of us were told that your claim was not correct.

Take that as you will - but that's how it stands.

[Darby Livingston]

Peter, you seem bent toward highlighting the wrong thing. The question isn't whether White accused Geisler of lying. The question is did Geisler lie. Why don't you interact with White's post instead of attacking him. So far, White has laid out a case for why he believes Geisler has uttered gross dishonesty, and you have not refuted it, but rather skated around it by insinuating that Geisler is too preeminent an apologist and Christian to be capable of such a thing.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: If and it is a big if your information is correct, all that shows is the price being paid for telling the truth. A sad price indeed, but worth paying I assure you. I would certainly do this all again under the same circumstances. And I'd be willing to bet so would James White. It's sad that the world of Christianity in the United States is this way. But it is, and it also shows why God is moving solidly in China, Haiti, but the United States is being so far passed by. That's all your statement says. Norman Geisler did not give a response to any of the evidence given. Nothing. And it showed.

[peter]

David,

Excuse me? He may "want" to believe all he wishes, but read his conclusion: "I would like to think it is the latter, but..." So which does he opt for? Not the latter, David, not the latter. Hence, by his own logic, he opts for the former.

Again, David, you're simply shuffling your feet by appealing to "seems" when White definitively accuses Geisler of a "cover-up" of Caner's "purposeful deception and myth-making", by using "cronyism," his influence, his position, his political posturing, etc. rather than the truth as does James White (at least in his mind).

Nor did I imply "myth-making" was Geisler's. Rather according to White, Geisler is dishonestly "covering" for his friend's "myth-making" and "lies" through what kind of means, David? Honest ones? No, White emphatically stated "Geisler is making claims that are documentably [sic] false,” one of the statements you overlooked.

There is little doubt White implicates Norman Geisler with lying. Why is this a surprise? It's one of his favorite arguments against his opponents that I've noticed.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Well, RazorKiss, I offer the same I suggested to Robert: ask James White to address it. The day I posted the info, White said he emailed his supervisors at GGBTS. He should have a definitive word by now.

Darby,

Sorry, but I don't dance to your beat, bud. You've pulled your pistol on me before by suggesting I "never answer" James White. Well I do.

But, I do not have to answer point-by-point whether James White caught Norman Geisler in public lies. James White catches most of his critics in public lies! For me, it is prima facie absurd and I want absolutely no part of it.

You, on the other hand, can believe anything you wish.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Darby Livingston]

Pulled a pistol? Maybe a squirt gun. :)

[RazorsKiss]

Sure did, Peter - same answer I got - that you made "factual claims that were self-contradictory" ;)

But in your world, that means "exonerated" - so is there really a point to bringing that up? Orwell comes to mind now - and every time I read your blog.

[Craig Daliessio]

Quoth the raven:
"Peter: If and it is a big if your information is correct, all that shows is the price being paid for telling the truth. A sad price indeed, but worth paying I assure you. I would certainly do this all again under the same circumstances. And I'd be willing to bet so would James White. It's sad that the world of Christianity in the United States is this way. But it is, and it also shows why God is moving solidly in China, Haiti, but the United States is being so far passed by. That's all your statement says. Norman Geisler did not give a response to any of the evidence given. Nothing. And it showed."

Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2010.07.03 at 10:46 PM

Fantastic!! That is nearly a verbatim recitation of one of Whiteys rambling, arrogant, self aggrandizing now FOUR part rebuttals to Dr. Geisler, posted on his wall of shame. I spotted Debbie Kaufman as a Whitehead water carrier about a month or so ago and I knew she'd prove me right. Thanks Debbie...or shall I start calling you "Bobbie Boudreaux"?
That's some high quality H2O

[Craig Daliessio]

"RazorKiss,

Why, of course, it did RazorKiss. And why? Because James White says so, that's why.

I fear the credibility issue is going to follow White not Geisler. Already, White is hinting of lost opportunities because he dared "speak up." We know he lost his adjunct teaching at GG because of his mad pursuit of EC. When will supporters such as yourself help him instead of cuddling him is a question you may one day ponder.

With that, I am...
Peter"

Because, my dear friend Peter, THAT is the textbook definition of a cult leader. One strong willed personality surrounded by unquestioning, unbendingly loyal lapdogs who only say yes and who anticipate their leaders needs so as to gain his fatherly approval. They end up becoming him to an exponentially more intense degree. Think Jonestown, Manson, Torqemada, to an only slightly milder degree of violence. One needs only look at James White's FOUR part (and no doubt growing) response to Dr. Geisler to see in real-time what it looks like when one's ball of yarn is unraveling, and when one who sees himself as Sherlock Holmes has actually lost his Professor Moriarity. White is a man frantically looking out every possible window for a new windmill to call a giant.
Alas...there is always the charming Dulcinea

[Craig Daliessio]

Peter, et al...
Today has not been a good day and I need to raise my spirits. As a true Philadelphian and smartalec Yankee trapped in the south, I do this with sarcasm and off beat humor. In that spirit...
I am instituting a contest...with your permission of course.
I will give a personalized copy of my new book, "Harry Kalas Saved My Life!" To the two regular threaders here to your blog who can come closest in guessing the number of "parts" James White will add to his Geisler rant, and what the final word count will be. We will depend solely on time stamps for who-posted-the-winning-number-first arguments. It's a great summer read and a real feel-good book. It would bring me a smile on a day when I am not feeling like smiling.
Let me know...
Craig

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Peter, you said:
"But, I do not have to answer point-by-point whether James White caught Norman Geisler in public lies. James White catches most of his critics in public lies! For me, it is prima facie absurd and I want absolutely no part of it."

I suspect that it is this particular attitude you have disclosed here that causes some to think that you aren't putting out something rational. :)

You say, "James White catches most of his critics in public lies!" Well, to demonstrate that to be true, we'd need a point by point citation and documentation of that, wouldn't we? We would at least need one contextual point anyway I would think. Am I mistaken?

If one wishes to offer a critique of something, then one must deal with the points provided by the other side, correct? Otherwise the so-called critique is often dismissed as nothing more than bluster, regardless of whatever thought may or may not have been behind what was actually published.

So, I ask, Dr. P -- how is what you have said here and in the following post *not* bluster? Bear in mind, that I am not calling what you said "bluster" (whatever my opinion about it is pretty irrelevant) but merely asking you how it is not.

sdg,
dbh

[Craig Daliessio]

Dude...what planet do you people come from? All you Whiteheads post like bad Shakespeare. You are the written form of Picasso, abstract and freakish and yet I just have to read each verbal train-wreck to see if there might be a body sticking out.
Please go away. Oh wait...where would you go? THAT, Mr. Watson...is the problem.

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Craig said:
"Dude...what planet do you people come from? All you Whiteheads post like bad Shakespeare. You are the written form of Picasso, abstract and freakish and yet I just have to read each verbal train-wreck to see if there might be a body sticking out.
Please go away. Oh wait...where would you go? THAT, Mr. Watson...is the problem. "

Interesting that you call what I and others wrote a "verbal train wreck" yet provide no interaction with anything said at all.

Come now Craig, can't you see the irony in that? I suppose though that we can't call what you said a train wreck simply because at the very least, a train has to go somewhere... ;)

dave