« You, sir, are an Unregenerate by Peter Lumpkins | Main | William Thornton on SBC All-Stars by Peter Lumpkins »

2010.07.10

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Craig Daliessio

David,
As a writer, may I suggest Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style". Point most emphasized..."use fewer words".

Craig Daliessio

Volfan007 said: "There's the while whale, Capt. There she is."

I believe the proper term is "Thar".
The unregenerate are so bad at seafaring lingo...sheesh!

Jobezking

Craig, Peter, David and others:

I agree that it is probably time to abandon this conversation. But I will close by telling you something about myself. In 2008 after 9 years, I was "laid off" (fired!) from my job. I was in a panic, primarily because the nature of the work I was doing (basically computer programming on long outdated hardware) and the amount of time that I had spent there left me unqualified to do anything else, or at least anything that paid nearly as much.

So, I began to fear - among other things - losing my home, having to take my kids out of school (and this was after they had suffered real harm from horrible experiences at bad schools and we had spent years before we FINALLY found a good one), the student loan people coming after me, divorce (as financial pressures is the leading cause) and so on.

So, I began putting my resume out, and got no response. And the resume experts, both the professionals and the ones at the unemployment office, told me that my resume was holding me back. Though it was 100% truthful, it was "too weak." So I had to "spice it up a little." Or truthfully, A LOT. It had to be done, I was told. My getting a job depended on it, I was told. Besides, EVERYONE ELSE WAS DOING IT!

And so, I listened to them. Actually, I cannot blame them. It was my decision. I did it. Now I never said anything that was 100% factually incorrect. Instead, I exaggerated. I distorted. I made my background, skill set and accomplishments sound much greater than they were. The trivial things that I did became outstanding, and areas where I was a novice I became an expert. An example: whenever we hired new programmers, I was often told to help train them, assign them projects, and oversee their work. The resume pros told me to pass that off as MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE!

Now it didn't work. And you know what? I am glad. I thank God that I was not hired based on a resume filled with distortions and exaggerations. It is not as if I wouldn't have been able to do the work upon getting a job. After all, I'd been a professional programmer for years and can pick up what's required in no time. (I didn't even know the language or the system for the job that I had before.) But I would have attributed getting hired to the liberties - none of them outright lies, but liberties - that I took with my background in "marketing myself", and over time I would have rationalized it. My "management experience" would have become "until I was 15 years old, I was training to do that which was done on 11 September." Something that is "kinda true in the right context" ... but not really.

Do you understand what I am saying? So, I am not saying that Dr. Caner is "an unrepentant liar." I am not saying that he is a charlatan or a crook. (Until I joined an SBC church recently, I had a Word of Faith/prosperity doctrine background similar to what you see on TBN, and I know charlatans and crooks in the pulpit when I see them.) And I am not saying that Dr. Caner is unsaved. The reason is that were I to say these things about Dr. Caner, I would have to say the same things about myself when I was frantically looking for exaggerations and distortions to put on my resume in order to keep my family home from being foreclosed.

And it is because that I have been through these things myself that I sincerely believe that Dr. Caner has not dealt with this matter appropriately and needs to. And because I am absolutely convinced that Dr. Caner is a born again Christian, I know that he will. Not on my time or yours, but on God's time. And I say this PRECISELY BECAUSE I just happen to be one of the "hyper-Calvinists" that Dr. Caner attacked over the years. Now I never held Dr. Caner's attacks on Reformed theology against him, because I myself used to attack Calvinism before I became one. I used to go around saying that John Calvin was OBVIOUSLY demon-possessed, because election, predestination and limited atonement were so OBVIOUSLY warped, twisted and contrary to clearly revealed truths in scripture that it COULD ONLY come from a demon of high rank and great evil.

So with that, I bid you fine Christian fellows with whom I sincerely disagree on this matter adieu, and thank you for allowing me to participate in this discussion.

Jobezking

P.S. If any of you fellows know of anyone that is hiring in the Atlanta area, or could perhaps critique my NOW TRUTHFUL resume, I'd be much obliged :-)

volfan007

Craig,

lol

David

David Benjamin Hewitt

God help me as I post this. It has been a stressful evening, but our God is gracious. May He enable me to be the same.

Dr. Peter, you wrote at the beginning of your OP:
"Contra the Muslim-Calvinist coalition led by British Muslim, Mohammad Khan and Reformed Baptist and Hyper-Calvinist, Rev. James White. . . . ."

Not entirely sure how to address this, or in what order, but there are two points that I wanted to talk about, namely:

1.) There exists a coalition of Muslims (notably, MK) and Calvinists (such as Dr. White and presumably others such as Phil Johnson, myself, TF, etc.).

2.) That Dr. White is a hyper Calvinist.

I suppose I'll start with the first.

I suppose that I would have to ask what you mean by a coalition; that is about the only way I'd be able to proceed, save to say a few qualifying remarks.

I have no love whatsoever of Islam. I hate it; it is abhorrent to me. It is a false religion that teaches blasphemies against the One True God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and perpetrated its lies throughout the world through violence and apologetics, that latter of which, though argued badly, reinforces lost millions in the error they accept. Islam is an evil, wicked, loathesome thing, and I thank God that there are people out there such as Nabeel Qureshi, David Wood, Sam Shamoun, and yes, James White, who are addressing its wickedness in a biblical manner.

So then, given that, and I would suspect the men I named would hold a similar if not identical position on Islam that I do, I must admit I am in the least puzzled by the statement that there exists some kind of coalition between Muslims and any Christian, be they Reformed or not.

I see M. Khan's statements like I would see a prostitute, or hardened gang-banger, or serial killer who might have said the words to a passerby on the street who was arguing with his wife, "Hey buddy, you shouldn't be harsh with your wife."

It would be a terrible mistake for the man to reject those words on the basis that the person from which they came is steeped in sin. However true that may be, it doesn't change the fact that the man should not have been harsh with his wife as he argued with her. Why? the reason is simple; the statement was true:

Colossians 3:19 ESV Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.

The Bible explicitly prohibits husbands from being harsh with their wives -- remember that, men! -- so the fact that it came from a serial killer or prostitute is irrelevant. To dismiss the statement out of hand because of the background of the one speaking it rather than considering the statement itself is the very definition of the genetic fallacy in argumentation and consideration of evidence.

Mohammed Khan's motives can and should be suspect; he is a Muslim. However, it does not follow that everything he says about Dr. Caner is false. His claims should be taken on a case by case basis, examined for truth, and then those who love the truth (should any be found) should take appropriate action based on that truth. This is why people such as TurretinFan, Dr. White, and myself have rejected the claim that MK makes about Dr. Caner never being a Muslim at all.

That said, I have no desire to be in a coalition (how I understand the term) with a Muslim at all (or a Roman Catholic even, different context of course). The only thing remotely related to MK that I would wish to be in concert with would be the truth found in what he has said. I would of course be kind and cordial to the man, but also firm in what I have already said.

So, Dr. Lumpkins -- a little help on the term "coalition" if you would please. :)

Now for the second, and I hope to be a bit more brief. I know we have discussed this to a small extent before, but I never felt I received closure on the matter. You continue to say that Dr. White is a hyper-Calvinist despite:

1.) His own protestations and evidences to the contrary.
2.) Phil Johnson's argument to the contrary and the use of his primer.
3.) Tom Ascol's arguments to the contrary.
4.) Quite a few others I could name, myself included.

I cannot but help to think you are using a definition other than the historic definition(s) of hyper-Calvinism in your referring to Dr. White as one. Though I feel I should know better and understand what you mean, whatever knowledge you have or have not previously imparted to me in this matter has since exited the space between my ears. I would appreciated your clarification here as well.

Many thanks in advance.
sdg,
dbh

peter

David,

A) I’ve already answered the “coalition” question, David, in a comment above to Job.  I have nothing to add  (by the way, the only one I specifically mentioned is White. Don’t know why you pulled P.Johnson into the mix).

B) As for the hyper-Calvinist label, David, this issue has been discussed ad infinitum ad nauseum here and elsewhere. You know my reasoning, the scholarship behind it in D. Allen, C. Daniels and others. Hence, I am not going to exchange in a fruitless discussion. You will not accept the reasons I offer. 

Suffice it to say, just because J. White denies the hyper-Calvinistic category applies to his position does not necessarily mean he nonetheless embraces the position.  Besides, Norm Geisler definitively does not claim he is Arminian.  However, J.White and his supporters routinely categorize him as such. Many refer to me as a Fundamentalist.  I am not. But people nonetheless continue to label me Fundamentalist.

Hence, those are the realities of life, David. I’ve learned not to take people’s views about me too seriously (except when they want to employ, “you, sir, are a liar/unregenerate”).

With that, I am…

Peter  

Craig Daliessio

I have to confess, dear brothers, that with every regurgitation of this "Ergun Caner owes me an apology" line I want more and more to see the earth open up and White and his toadies like Souptureenfan, Kaufman and now, sadly, DBH sucked into a pocket of molten Mag-ma (in my best Dr. Evil voice) Are you aware that a MAN...a dad, a husband, a brother and a friend, is now not doing the one thing he was placed on this planet to do? Do you, or have you considered how that feels? It's like losing your arms...or your eyesight. Have you even ONCE considered what it must be like to BE Ergun Caner this morning? To have your contract not be renewed, to be offered a teaching position at the school that demoted you. To have THE preeminent apologist of our time and a widely respected man like Norman Geisler completely endorse you AND deconstruct each "charge" in full and it still not be enough. To realize that what these people really wanted was your professional death. (Make no mistake about it, James White wants to dance on Caner's grave. If you can't see that in every vile word that scumbag speaks you've just been in bed with him for far too long.) You toss out there the STUPID offering of some sort of summit with Caner. I suggest we televise it live and just go ahead and bring in the rack and maybe some thumbscrews. Or we could waterboard him until he says what you want to hear. Then you know what would happen? Here's my scenario if you got your way...Let's say Ergun decided to just give you what you want in the hopes that this finally stops. So he offers to "meet" with some "objective" detractors (assumably shipped in from Uranus because I have YET to see one on this planet) and let's say he swallows hard and apologizes for whatever it is you lay on the table. (which, in fact, would be a lie because he is guilty of nothing, but lets play along) So he "confesses". Within seconds James White would seize it and run this cycle all over again. He'd write for months about how Ergun "lied" and his confession proves he was right. Then he'd run months worth of pontification about how he is owed an apology from every single person that defended Caner. He'd be holding "councils" all over the country. He'd be Torquemada...(he might as well be, he behaves like him already) then he'd go after L.U. for months for not dispensing the proper punishment. Then he'd be on a months long rant against the SBC for any member who sided with Caner...there'd surely have to be a purge. Then he'd start a year long series of attacks on how long before Caner should be restored to the professorship, the pulpit, or even using the men's room at TRBC. He'd then go after every church that hosts Caner. (which he is already doing by the way. Several churches have been harrassed by Whiteheads) He'd question his salvation more so than he does now. James White has created a cottage industry of Caner-hate. My references to Moriarity are dead on. Moriarity was the source of all the evil Sherlock Holmes was battling. Behind every caper, every mystery, and every container of spoiled milk was Professor Moriarity. Now White's Moriarity is silent. If he responds in ANY fashion this thing will be going on literally until the coming of Christ. Ergun Caner has shown amazing courage by not saying a word.
That not a ONE of his attackers cares a whit about the harm they are PERSONALLY inflicting on this man SCREAMS the content of their heart. Nothing but darkness there folks...move along.

Ian D. Elsasser

Peter said, "Many refer to me as a Fundamentalist. I am not. But people nonetheless continue to label me Fundamentalist."

Peter:

Well, you have ruined my fun. Now I can't say to you, "You, sir, are a Fundamentalist." :-)

*sigh*

A.M. Mallett

David,
Why would you assume that Calvinists are the one's who should define "hyper-Calvinist"?

David Benjamin Hewitt

Wow, Craig.

I'll respond to what you said in turn after I post a reply to Peter's comment and more of his OP.

A.M. Mallet:

Why would you assume that Calvinists are the one's who should define "hyper-Calvinist"?

For starters, hyper-calvinism is a perversion of biblical Calvinism. Since HC's pervert biblical teaching and do so whilst trying to abide under the label Calvinist, it seems to follow that Calvinists should sound the alarm against them. I could probably say more, but some of it will overlap with what I'll say to Peter.

More after I put my kids to bed; I'm late in that already.

sdg,
dbh

David Benjamin Hewitt

Peter, you said:

A) I’ve already answered the “coalition” question, David, in a comment above to Job. I have nothing to add (by the way, the only one I specifically mentioned is White. Don’t know why you pulled P.Johnson into the mix).

I'm still foggy on the coalition thing a bit; the only thing I found (and part of the reason could be that I'm blind ;) that you mentioned to Job was this:

For argument’s sake suppose one feels strongly that another professing believer not only tarnished his ministry by spreading gossip and half-truths about him causing untold turmoil on himself and upon his family, but also had teamed up with non-believers to do it.

I had gathered that you thought the issue was "teaming up" -- that is part of what a coalition entails. However, it still doesn't explain it in light of what I said in my comment. The issue of causing turmoil and tarnishing his ministry -- these I think will wait until I respond to Craig.

That being said, does your understanding of a "coalition" mesh with my explanations of the relationship between MK and JW?

You asked why I brought Phil Johnson into this. The reason is simple: He is on record as having largely agreed with Dr. White and what White has said. That being the case, I think it would be fair to say that Dr. Johnson is (at least to some extent) an ally of Dr. White in this.

Dr. Peter Lumpkins continues:
B) As for the hyper-Calvinist label, David, this issue has been discussed ad infinitum ad nauseum here and elsewhere. You know my reasoning, the scholarship behind it in D. Allen, C. Daniels and others. Hence, I am not going to exchange in a fruitless discussion. You will not accept the reasons I offer.

I am aware that the issue has been discussed a great deal. You are correct; I will not accept the reasons you offer. I am also aware of what Dr. Allen has said in the matter more than two years ago at the John 3:16 conference. It is well known that Dr. Allen made reference to Dr. Phil Johnson's HC primer and used it as evidence that Dr. White was a HC. In the link I provided above, Dr. Johnson specifically addresses that issue and refutes the claim that one can use his primer to say that Dr. White is a hyper-Calvinist. Dr. Johnson further denied that White was a HC, as did Dr. Ascol. Given that Dr. Johnson, and especially Dr. Ascol know White a bit better than Allen, and that Johnson indicated that the primer couldn't be used to claim what Dr. David Allen claimed, I am forced to reject Dr. Allen's conclusion on the matter.

Further, you said:
Suffice it to say, just because J. White denies the hyper-Calvinistic category applies to his position does not necessarily mean he nonetheless embraces the position.

This is, of course, true.

Besides, Norm Geisler definitively does not claim he is Arminian. However, J.White and his supporters routinely categorize him as such. Many refer to me as a Fundamentalist. I am not. But people nonetheless continue to label me Fundamentalist.

Dr. Geisler is not a pure Arminian; I know that, you know that, Dr. White knows that. If I remember correctly, it was in The Potter's Freedom where Dr. White said that Geisler embraces a *form* of Arminianism. It isn't historic Arminianism to be sure; most "modern day Arminians" are removed from that as well, not completely embracing all five points of the Remonstrance (though they get close). IIRC, Dr. Geisler holds to what most Southern Baptists do with regard to soteriology:

Partial Depravity
Conditional Election
Unlimited Atonement
Resistible Grace
Eternal Security

...or PCURE for short. :D The point White makes I believe is that such a soteriological understanding has more in common with Arminianism than Calvinism and that it would be more consistent for Dr. Geisler to call himself a moderate Arminian than a moderate Calvinist. But I digress.

I for one will not call you a Fundamentalist. :) Such a term seems to have deviated from its understanding back in the early 1900's in the days of J. Greshem Machen when it meant one who held to the fundamentals of the Faith unswervingly. Now it tends to carry with it the idea of one who is typically loud and uninformed about what he believes, not having thought through it. Such a term then has become a pejorative, and it is used as such most often when people call others "fundamentalists" -- would you agree?

This is part of my point with regard to calling Dr. White a HC. The term has always been a pejorative, and Phil Johnson's explanation of HC explains why this is so. After listing five varieties of HC, he says: "All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message."

Anything that undermines evangelism is rightly condemned and avoided. Dr. White loves evangelism and probably engages in it more regularly than most people commenting here, proclaiming the Gospel indiscriminately, as we should.

I suspect (don't you as well?) that when someone reads you saying that James White is a hyperCalvinist, this is the understanding with which they come away from your post. You made the statement without explanation. Though you have discussed it elsewhere, I for one have found a way to miss it, and I suspect others have as well. So, can you perhaps see that you have put forward an idea that is condemning a brother about something of which he is not guilty?

More in another comment with regard to what Paige Patterson said and then something about the last part of your post.

sdg,
dbh

David Benjamin Hewitt

You all might find this interesting. :)

Dr. Paige Patterson said,
"In a day of negativism and bad news, I am rejoicing today over many things. I rejoice over faithful witnesses of Jesus in a small Ohio Baptist church that loved two Moslem boys to Christ and then encouraged them to live for Jesus. I am grateful to God for the many people that have come to Christ through the witness of those two men. I continually thank God for His unbelievable plan to use sinners and mistake-prone men like the Caners, and even more amazing, people like me, to accomplish some things of great value in His kingdom business. Only eternity will reveal the good that two former Moslems have done."

I agree completely with what Dr. Patterson has said here, and I thank God also for what He has done in and through Drs. Caner for His Gospel.

sdg,
dbh

David Benjamin Hewitt

Peter, you said:

Perhaps Ankerberg and Rhodes could spearhead a query and resolution from within evangelical apologetics to potentially censure apologists who cankerously thrive on other Christian apologists, especially distancing themselves from apologetic ministries which favor sub-Christian "debate" tactics.

What exactly do you mean by "sub-Christian debate tactics"? This statement, if standing alone, could suggest that you are meaning Dr. White's entire ministry is sub-Christian. However, given what you have said in other threads, I suspect you mean something other than this. However, since I am uncertain, would you please clarify?

May our Lord raise up a new army, a better army of Christian apologists who speak truth in love to all people not just to the elect.

Do tell me on this one, if you would please: who are those Christian apologists who are not willing to speak the truth in love to all people but rather are wanting only to speak to the elect? I am afraid I am unfamiliar with them. And no, everyone, I am not saying this in some foolhardy attempt at being coy; I am quite serious.

sdg,
dbh

Don Johnson

David,

1. Yes, I did mean on the other thread.

2. Naturally I beg to differ that there is such a thing as "Biblical" Calvinism.

3. The difference between a Calvinist and a hyper Calvinist is quite simple. A Calvinist believes the 4 or 5 points in his head. A hyper Calvinist believes the 5 points in his head "AND" in his heart.

peter

David,

A)  “I’m still a bit foggy on the “coalition thing…the only thing I found…”  Then you didn’t look very far, David.  Job and I only had a few comments together. To him, I responded:

“Nor have I ever suggested caner critics are exclusively Calvinists (those who are Christian critics). Instead I have maintained that Caner’s critics are a) chiefly Calvinists; that is, led by Calvinists; b) there is an odd alliance between Calvinists and Muslim critics. The former is a matter of examining the record. The latter is more subjective yet expressed by a number of diverse sources including Christianity Today and Washington Post. In other words, the liaison is observed broadly and not exclusively by polemical sources.” 

B).  “You asked why I brought Phil Johnson into this. The reason is simple: He is on record as having largely agreed with Dr. White…it would be fair to say that Dr. Johnson is…an ally of Dr. White.”  O.K. David, have it your way.  But please don’t deduce people’s names in my words  I have not mentioned.  On the other hand, is not Mokhan an “ally” of James White?  Has Mokhan not “largely agreed” with James White and vice versa?  If so, why would you protest about someone suggesting Mokhan as being “partnered” or “allied” with James White?

C). “I am forced to reject Dr. Allen's conclusion on the matter.”  I think you have every right to reject whatever you wish, David, which is precisely why I am not going to engage this with you.  The reasons I would offer are a priori rejected by your own testimony. 

D) “Dr. Geisler is not a pure Arminian; I know that, you know that, Dr. White knows that. If I remember correctly…Dr. White said that Geisler embraces a *form* of Arminianism.”  Tell me David,  does form of Arminianism imply a true form of Arminianism or a false form of Arminianism? If it is a true form of Arminianism, why would you attempt to weaken the assertion"? Why not just say, “Geisler is an Arminian albeit a moderate Arminian but an Arminian nonetheless?” If it is a false form of Arminianism, why are you referring to him as an Arminian? To do so is theologically ignorant.  Hence, your explanation does not succeed.  Indeed, from my side of the fence., these are games played when somebody's skirt gets pulled up.

Yet, even granting for argument’s sake, you are correct.  Let’s say Norm Geisler embraces a *form* of Arminianism…not pure Arminainism, mind you…certainly not classical Arminianism…but a *form* of Arminianism. O.K. David,

Will you then grant I could, at minimum, suggest, James White embraces a *form* of Hyper-Calvinism?… not pure Hyper-Calvinism, mind you…certainly not classical Hyper-Calvinism…but a *form* of Hyper-Calvinism?  You know, like you argued Geisler embraces a *form* of Arminianism.  Would you be pleased with such a concession?  My own guess is, you would not.

Even so, David, you will not get James White off the hook that easily in defending him as merely suggesting Norm Geisler holds to a "*form* of Arminianism..  He only recently wrote:

“We all know what Norman Geisler means by "extreme Calvinists," that is, real Calvinists as opposed to Arminians, like himself. That has been established for quite some time” (all emphasis added, JW, //link)

And other places:

  • “Evidently, Ross has no idea what the Hodges/Wilkin anti-Lordship viewpoint is all about. Its synergism, its embracing of a Geisler-style Arminianism…” (JW, //link)
  • “How many times have I documented the most ridiculous misrepresentations of the Reformed position by famous Arminians? The number of straw-man arguments I have documented on the part of Norman Geisler, Ergun Caner, Dave Hunt, etc., is legion” (JW, //link)

Moreover, on A&O, White’s fellow wrote, “Geisler is solidly Arminian in his theology, and has attacked Reformed doctrine, particularly Calvin's Five Points, in various fora, always with the same misunderstandings and misrepresentations as detailed in Dr. White's book” (CS, //link)

To now attempt to dilute these clear references to Norman Geisler’s alleged Arminianism which, according to White and A&O, has been “established for quite some time” is too much for words.  This is why it’s frustrating to dialog with you, David.  Not only do you attempt to deny whatever criticism—even the smallest criticism—against White, your points end fairly easily overturned with just a few references.

If I am correct—i.e., about James White labeling Norm Geisler an Arminian when Norm Geisler believes he fits squarely in mainstream moderate Calvinism--please drop the whining about some scholars concluding James White embraces Hyper-Calvinism. And, as far as I am concerned on this one, you need to drop it.  It just ain’t workin’ for ya.

E) You have my express permission to theologically label me how you see me, David.

F) “So, can you perhaps see that you have put forward an idea that is condemning a brother about something of which he is not guilty?”  How is holding theological differences “condemning a brother,” David?  Besides grossly begging the question—you’re tacitly assuming the one who holds White to embrace Hyper-Calvinism is a priori wrong--do you not understand there are varying presumptions, tighter definitions, looser definitions, etc within theological dialog?     What you’ve just done is dismiss disagreement with the swish of your keyboard.  If I understand Scripture or theology in this particular area or that in a way that you do not, then I’m condemning you.

Now, David: here’s the deal:  I’ve been lengthy in this.  But I am not going to continue this. 

Nor are there as many legitimate questions about this very, very short post as you make out to be.  I end up wading through your extended comments and it just takes too much of my time.  Sorry.

With that, I am…

Peter 

Craig Daliessio

wait wait wait...until I was 21, I didn't know who my real father was. Was I, during those first 21 years, a false Italian? Was I a moderate Italian. Was I merely embracing a form of Italianism?
Blast that Ergun Caner...this is his fault too!

Craig Daliessio

David wrote:
"What exactly do you mean by "sub-Christian debate tactics"? This statement, if standing alone, could suggest that you are meaning Dr. White's entire ministry is sub-Christian. However, given what you have said in other threads, I suspect you mean something other than this. However, since I am uncertain, would you please clarify?"

David...
Peter may not have said it or intended that conclusion but allow me...
James White's attitude, his tactics, his demonstrably evil desire for ruthlessness, his haughtiness, his demagoguery, his total and complete lack of love for the brethren (except his few dozen followers) his arrogance, his complete lack of a shred of true faith that God has, is, and will sharpen and improve Ergun Caner, his megalomania, his obsession with any who disagree all completely belie a sub-Christian ministry and sub-christian life. Being a jump to conclusions sort of guy I will go ahead and connect the final dot and say it betrays the true nature of his soul. Having grown up in a culture steeped in hyper legalism I can spot it when I see it. White is totally dependent on his obsession with the letter of the law and has long ago (or possibly never in the first place) missed the grace behind the law. James White knows much about God. Whether he really knows him...like I know my daughter or my best friend...is growing more doubtful by the second in my mind. James White is Saul of Tarsus, wildly kicking open the doors of innocent believers in some vain attempt at appeasing his own obsessive zeal. I'm hoping he has his Damascus moment but I doubt it will come. I am hoping that I am situated somewhere close to him when we get to heaven and I can get a clear, unrestricted view of his jaw dropping when he sees who God actually invited...and who took Him up on the offer.
You may quote me on that and tell James he can quote me on that too. He will anyway. I'm sure it will make for interesting fodder for the next screaming rant in some beer garden with 13 interested hangers-on in spiritual brown shirts.
Also, I don't debate well but I am one heck of a hockey player. Perhaps James would like to play a little shinny...loser shuts up about Ergun Caner for the rest of eternity. Get back to me on that

Con ciò, sono

The Affable Italian

peter

David,

I've been clear precisely what I mean by "sub-Christian" tactics:

"you, sir, are a liar"

The implication of which now is picked up by at least some of his closest supporters,

"you, sir, are an unregenerate"

Neither of the above is worthy of any kind of exchange, much leas Christian exchange.

With that, I am...
Peter

Craig Daliessio

Peter...
Please stop coming in behind me and being so nice.

You sir have a faulty generator!

Luca Brasi

peter

Craig,

You do not realize how I've needed someone like you on my site, a bigger jerk than I ;^0

With that, I am...
Peter

Craig Daliessio

Peter,
At 6' 4" I probably wear that as more than one crown.

you sir, are a squire!

From Montecassino with love,

The Affable Italian

peter

Hey! We're the same height, 6.4! No, wait. I am 4.6. Well shoot.

With that, I am...
Peter

David Benjamin Hewitt

I may have a few other things, but not many. Peter, I thank you for your correspondence. For now I shall comment twice more:

Craig, you said:

Peter may not have said it or intended that conclusion but allow me...
James White's attitude, his tactics, his demonstrably evil desire for ruthlessness, his haughtiness, his demagoguery, his total and complete lack of love for the brethren (except his few dozen followers) his arrogance, his complete lack of a shred of true faith that God has, is, and will sharpen and improve Ergun Caner, his megalomania, his obsession with any who disagree all completely belie a sub-Christian ministry and sub-christian life. Being a jump to conclusions sort of guy I will go ahead and connect the final dot and say it betrays the true nature of his soul. Having grown up in a culture steeped in hyper legalism I can spot it when I see it. White is totally dependent on his obsession with the letter of the law and has long ago (or possibly never in the first place) missed the grace behind the law. James White knows much about God. Whether he really knows him...like I know my daughter or my best friend...is growing more doubtful by the second in my mind. James White is Saul of Tarsus, wildly kicking open the doors of innocent believers in some vain attempt at appeasing his own obsessive zeal. I'm hoping he has his Damascus moment but I doubt it will come. I am hoping that I am situated somewhere close to him when we get to heaven and I can get a clear, unrestricted view of his jaw dropping when he sees who God actually invited...and who took Him up on the offer.

If any of that were true, then I would have dissolved my friendship and support of James White long, long ago. You sir are in total error, whether you realize it or not. I also find it remarkable (if I am reading you correctly) that you are now calling Dr. White's salvation into question. Remarkable indeed.

You see, I unlike you, DO know Dr. White. I visit with him regularly via his chat channel, have been listening to the Dividing Line and reading his blog for years, have been on a cruise with him and to two of his debates.

You (and I suspect many here) are going from some things that you have read and the presuppositions you have about him. I'll leave it at that.

Don:

I would love to pick up our discussion where we left it, with my continuing to comment on Titus 3 and you responding to my comments on John 1. I doubt here would be the best place, given that this is not the subject of the post. I would be happy to start a thread on my own blog if you would like.

Peter:

Last question that I'll pose to you, one that I tagged on to the end of my rather long series of comments. It is something for which I think I wanted an answer more than the rest of what I asked about. You said:

May our Lord raise up a new army, a better army of Christian apologists who speak truth in love to all people not just to the elect.

Do tell me on this one, if you would please: who are those Christian apologists who are not willing to speak the truth in love to all people but rather are wanting only to speak to the elect? I am afraid I am unfamiliar with them. And no, everyone, I am not saying this in some foolhardy attempt at being coy; I am quite serious.

Thanks again in advance,
dbh

peter

David,

I am through.

With that, I am...
Peter

Craig Daliessio

David,
No apologies necessary...you have every right to be his friend. Even Hitler had Ava Braun. You did miss the sentence where I said I wanted to be situated next to him when we get to heaven and see his jaw drop. Like White, you ignore things like that so that you can play the shock card. Let me make it crystal clear...yep I said all that, Yep I meant all that, (except where I said he wasn't saved...because I never said that) He is a despicable human being and I have a very hard time not wishing ill on him. I am, however, thoroughly enjoying watching what shred of credibility he ever had disappearing like snow on the equator. The man is just plain bad, and everyone is beginning to see it, and, what is more, he is so irritating that nobody even wants to me nice or polite about him anymore. It's turning into hatred David. Right now it's his tactics, methods, manner, attitude and megalomania, and arrogance they hate. But soon they will grow exasperated and just start hating him. Feel free to join him if that's what you want.

The Unapologetic Friend of Caner

Luke

David Hewitt,

It is a shame that you did not respond to TF's charge of Peter being unregenerate the same way you defended White to Craig. Your duplicity is beginning to show through to me enough for me to call you on that and I can guarantee you sure that I do not step into these halls lightly. You cotton glove TF and you lead glove Craig. Why sir do you not see your own bias?

Luke

Craig Daliessio

Luke...thanks. This is what they do. Not only do I no longer let it bother me but I enjoy it when it happens. with every one sided attack their true heart and agenda shows through. In about 6 months Ergun Caner will be a folk hero and James White and his lackeys will be looking for someplace to go where their name isn't spit at when it's said out loud. I am not, as a rule a measured and "nice" man. I am brusk and abrupt and sometimes hot headed. (A true Philadelphian) When I pop off it's not a big deal, when a sweet tempered man like Peter, or Tim or a host of others who have attempted to reason civilly with these yahoos refuses to even engage them...they have hit a new low. I am predicting the Whiteheads hosting his debates in phone booths by next year.

Craig Daliessio

As if being called unregenerate isn't enough, now the divine Ms. Kaufman (the fair Dulcinea as I refer to her) is propping up her anti Caner rants with stories of pedophilia and molestation in the church. She claims that it is fruit from the same tree as the "sins" she perceives Caner committed. At what point do I just stop trying to be even remotely measured and start throwing punches? Seriously.

Don Johnson

David,

Yes, I would be happy to continue on your blog. I was hoping Peter might start a new thread on regeneration or Calvinism in general.

David Benjamin Hewitt

Craig:

Apparently I did miss it. For that I apologize; such are the reasons I qualify my statements as I did, with phrases like "if I am reading you correctly." It was not merely an attempt to "play the shock card." I truly missed your intended meaning and I erred. Please do take that into account. Your forgiveness in such would be most appreciated.

Luke you said,
It is a shame that you did not respond to TF's charge of Peter being unregenerate the same way you defended White to Craig. Your duplicity is beginning to show through to me enough for me to call you on that and I can guarantee you sure that I do not step into these halls lightly. You cotton glove TF and you lead glove Craig. Why sir do you not see your own bias?

I have never claimed to be completely impartial; I suspect that such a thing is impossible to maintain. That being said, the main reason I didn't say anything further to TurretinFan is because he corrected what he said. Had he maintained his comment and further, had he gone after me because I attempted to correct what he said, then I would have said something more. It wasn't necessary, kind of like something I said before (perhaps on another thread) about putting the spade in the corner and showing it to someone from a distance rather than thrusting it in one's face. I hope that explains things.

Peter:
I truly am disappointed that you are done with the matter. I do hope you reconsider, as that piece of information is quite important to me.

peter

David,

I'm afraid you'll just remain disappointed.

With that, I am...
Peter

Craig Daliessio

David,
If you want to do some real correcting, Perhaps you could mosey on over to Debbie Kaufman's blog-of-shame and correct her for making the incredible leap from pedophilia and child molestation to the accusations against Ergun Caner. That is pathetic, cowardly and sensationalism at it's ugliest. Your friends will "win" at any cost David and it is becoming the single most no Christian and unChristlike display I have ever seen. If anyone's salvation should be questioned it would be hers and those who stand back while she does this. The problem with cults is exactly what I am observing at work. A typical cult has one strong, superior personality, teaching heresies, (White) and a legion of people who not only won't question his deplorable tactics but who, in order to curry his favor (and avoid his wrath) wind up becoming more like him than he is. James White doesn't even have to slander Ergun Caner anymore. He has Debbie Kaufman calling him a pedophile.

Fredericka

Peter, this page design does not work for those of your readers who are using the Opera web browser. The white background only makes it part of the way down the page.

David Benjamin Hewitt

Peter:

I shall remain disappointed, save to say this:

Given that the statement you made about "better Christian apologists who speak the truth in love to all people and not just the elect" was in the context of saying that Dr. White's ministry was in some way sub Christian, it is difficult if not impossible to separate the two ideas in your OP. That being the case, it seems logical to conclude that you are suggesting, even asserting, that Dr. White and his ministry is only concerned with sharing the Gospel to the elect only and not to every person.

If that is your point, then sir, I regret to say, you are very mistaken. Your conclusion is demonstrably false, and I would ask you at the very least to reword it if not retract it all together if my understanding of it is correct.

sdg,
dbh

peter

David,

Like I said, David, you may remain disappointed.

Know this on a final note: I definitively *did not state* "Dr. White's ministry was in some way sub Christian..." I have *never* suggested such and for you to implicate my words in suggesting your false claim is just wrong, wrong, wrong. What I have consistently stated--and when asked to clarify I have explicitly expressed--is, James White employs at times sub-Christian tactics especially when he employs the "you, sir, are a liar" strategy.

I have to tell you, one gets completely worn out dealing over & over with so many false claims based on not carefully reading the actual words written.

Now do your googling. If you come up with goods to the contrary, then I will most gladly retract what I've just stated. If not, drop it, David.

With that, I am...
Peter

Craig Daliessio

David,
That was me...I said that. You apparently don't engage me over it because you know you'll get nowhere in changing my mind. Let me explain my logic to you, then you may carry the water back to your lord and master and tell him what I said. It's like this...
Just as He (through his various mouthpieces, yourself included) claims Ergun Caner is invalid because of the now-proven-to-be-phantom charges against him, so James White is invalid because of the voluminous evidence of unChristlike behavior he openly demonstrates. "If it walks like a duck..." is my conclusion. White has less fruit than the Atkins Diet. It was me...not Peter. I am loudly making the sub-christian claim. He is, in fact, behaving in a way that is "beneath" Christ. I think he betrays Him altogether, but I wasn't there the moment when he claims to have met Jesus and will never declare him unsaved.

It's himself

David Benjamin Hewitt

Craig:

My last comment in this thread, but you said something that needs to be addressed.

Let me explain my logic to you, then you may carry the water back to your lord and master and tell him what I said.

May our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, rebuke you for suggesting, even in sarcasm, that another believer would ever consider another to be lord and master.

Such behavior, sir, is beneath Christ.

sdg,
dbh

Craig Daliessio

Please David...don't get high and mighty on me and STOP with the PHONY wounded spirit garbage. YOU sit there watching White and his gang of jackals ripping a man to pieces even now to the extent of shading him with pedophilic priests and a murderous baptist minister and you want to talk about the phrase "lord and master"? Notice that I left it in lower case, like Paul did when referring to slave owners in the NT. Nobody is buying the victimization act anymore David. Nobody on this page thought I was replacing Jesus Christ with James White...NOT EVEN YOU. This is your win at all costs tactics only you aren't dealing with housewives from Enid, Ok, over here. Your feigned surprise and phony insult is a joke. you are merely pathetic now...self marginalized by your own subChristian tactics. Get over yourself Pal.

peter

David,

Though I would not word it quite as provocative as did Craig, I think his point, in large part, is well taken.

Moreover, from the beginning of my involvement in this horrid exchange, I have been personally accused by JW himself of "hero worship" in my defense of Ergun Caner. And, from my understanding of language, I'm uncertain how allegedly worshiping a "celebrity" is any different in substance from what you're suggesting Craig hurled toward you.

If I am correct, would you also request J White to be rebuked from heaven for asserting "another believer would ever consider another" to worship any other but our One Lord?

With that, I am...
Peter

Craig Daliessio

Provocative...been a while since I've been called that

The comments to this entry are closed.