« Free Will, Ignorance, and Reformed Internet Apologetics by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Free Church Press Releases New Volume »



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

Robert Warren


I've been searching for the Homely Mormon Women Anti-Defamation League website for years...and now I found it!

Jonathan Dupree

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

What is the difference between saying 'whipped mongrel' and saying 'you sir are a liar'.

22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:44)

Now definitely there is a world of difference between Mr. Lumpkins giving us an image of a cowed creature. A creature that was whipped or taken to task for his lack of knowledge or expertise about a particular field.

Sure Peter McNeely stood toe to toe with Mike Tyson but we all know what happened to McNeely. All that Peter did was paint a picture. He didn't call James a Dog.

Now compare that with saying people are liars. Satan is the father of lies. The liar is the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ.

I am simply asking you people as Christians (Arminian, Calvinist or what ever) the theological implications of painting a less than picturesque view of a person as a 'whipped mongrel' and calling someone 'a liar'?

So than we are have nick names for Peter Lumpkin in our chat channels by the name of 'Lumpy'? That sounds very Christ like indeed.

Notice the difference between saying something like, "Peter comes off like lumpy bowl of mashpotatoes." (implying his approach is uneven) and actually calling him 'Lumpy' a name! Name calling that is what is childish!

It was not Peter that fired the first shot in this lattest interaction. Sure his choice of words were not picturesque of a champion of the faith walking away triumphantly. That was the whole point.

As far as Tuesday's dividing line. There was only one Muslim who commented here to my knowledge. Moi! Nothing I said was mean spirited or vile.

Richard Pierce has my e-mail address, as I have e-mailed Alpha and Omega ministries (no response...) and he knows if he wants to furnish a document with Ehrman's signature agreeing that the material is copy write I would be more than happy to receive it! Any time...Rich.

Knight captures Bishop. Check!



I appreciate your amiable response. And please understand that I do not say the following to be harsh or mean, but to answer your question.

No, I do not agree that we are "all Christians." I do not believe that James White is a Christian, but that is my opinion alone.

It is not because of his Calvinism, as I have many dear friends and brothers and sisters in christ who are calvinists.

It is because his vicious and hateful treatment of others, which indicate an, as he would say, "unregenerate" predisposition. I have read email exchanges between he and people he disagreed with, in addition to other things he's said on his radio show, and I am convinced he does not have a love for people, or the likeness of Christ in his walk. I believe he has absolutely no understanding of 1 Corinthians 13. Like I said, he reminds me of the guy who played Eric Liddell in chariots of fire, who studied the part(reading the entire bible), but didn't live it(he later died of HIV). James White has some knowledge, but this, to me, is more likely to indicate that he is a gnostic than a believer.

In short, I believe there is nothing he wouldn't do to destroy someone he disagreed with. This is not, in any way, the behavior of a Christian.


Chris Gilliam

If evaluations cannot be made but by those who are "really in the know", what is the purpose of a debate to begin with? Perhaps it is just a chance for egos to blow....


Roy, I call Dr. White a 'Dr.' because he has earned that title.

He did not have earned it at an institution you care to recognize because of some preconceived bias against alternative forms of Christian education.
That is an issue of your bias and says much more about your fairness as a critic than Doctor White.

Speaking of you as a critic, I have to say that you have demonstrated no sense of fairness, even mindedness, or intellectual honesty in your dealings in these posts.

Your insistence that Doctor White is a hyper-Calvinist (he is not; hyper-calvinists wouldn't be out preaching the gospel to Mormons; as I said, Doctor White subsribes to the historic Reformed Baptist Christian tradition which is closely akin doctrinally to Presbyterianism) and that because his degree is not from an accredited institution, it is somehow fake, just betrays a serious refusal to deal fairly with the subject. This is pure irrationality on your part.

I, furthermore, can simply not take you at all seriously because your 'descriptions' and 'criticisms' of Doctor White go so far askew of what I myself have experienced, as to demonstrate objectively to me that you have lost grasp of any tattering shred of objectivity regarding this man that you seemingly abhor.

Mr. Dupree, you quoted an excellent refutation of your own argument. Thank you.

Peter, I simply meant that your analysis didn't fit the content of the actual video, as if you had not actually listened to it.



I agree that neglecting a proper education would be disastrous.

Do I understand, again, that there are absolutely no absentee or subject requirements placed on your children by, for instance, a state body? They could go to school one day a week and only learn the Bible, for instance(no English, math, etc), and Alabama would find this acceptable? I'd be interested to know.

I should expand on the "accreditation" issue. Specifically, the part of some type of standard. In the case of Mr. White's education, there is no standard that he or his supporters have required of himself. In the case of colleges, for instance, they will require a previous student to have such things as a standardized test, a high school diploma, a GED, etc. Some with uncontested doctorates have pointed out that a normal accredited Th.d requires, I believe, four foreign languages. Mr. White's did not require this, among other things, and also allowed for him to make up much of the curriculum himself. So, to circumvent this issue, Mr. White and his supporters say such things are not important, as he has shown his scholarship by his “post doctoral” work, his books, etc. This is unacceptable in the world of doctorates. He cannot make up his own standard, but claim the title that others, who have met the standard attached to a Th.d., have. This is like me saying I'm an M.d., although I have not gone to medical school, passed any state exam, etc, but I have read lots of books and played with a cadaver or to.

“existence of such accreditation is not the sum total of any institution. Someone who is willing to learn can achieve a first rate education with little more than the desire and a well-stocked library.”

I COMPLETELY agree with you. There are many people in the world and even in this country who cannot afford the education they would desire, and through persistence and self-determination, they educate themselves(such as Abraham Lincoln and Strom Thurmond). However, this does not give them the right to claim a title RESERVED for those who meet specific educational requirements. I have no problem ceding that Mr. White or anyone else can become an educated person without going to an accredited seminary, but I do not accept that they can call themselves after a title that is defined as having been bestowed from an accredited seminary with a specific and rigorous curriculum requirement. Otherwise, why don't we just start equating people who print out a “reverend” certificate online with those pastors who go to seminary? Let Mr. White depend on his scholarship for his credibility, not a title that he did not earn and others have earned. Any basic research into Mr. White indicates that this has been a constant source of incredulity by others, including by the communities of those who he debates. Why doesn't he be above reproach?

@Robert Warren

A true James White disciple you are, it seems, continuing to make fun of the looks of women lost in a cult. What examples of Christ you people are, ridiculing the ones that we should be evangelizing.

@Jonathan Dupree
Do you have any comment on Mr. White's Arabic speaking? Specifically, I mention the fact he made a video making fun of Ergun Caner's Arabic skills, when his own are downright awful. Specifically, there's a video that Peter Lumpkins posted a while back showing White pronouncing “Muhammad” as “Mukkkkkkhamad,” seemingly to sound more ethnic, although even an Arab child would not make such a linguistic error. I mention this all as a recurring theme, as Mr. White is so proud and unteachable that his own Arabic teacher is not able to give him simple corrections, yet he makes videos ridiculing the same problems in others.



Regarding your earlier post regarding Tom Ascol, he made this twitter post a while back in reference to Ergun Caner:


"Tom Ascol reading exposes on "fake former Muslims;" fascinating...and sad"

Regardless of what you think of Ergun Caner, if you have a CLUE about Turkey, and about Islam, how in the world do you claim he's a "fake" former Muslim? If his parents and family before him were Muslim, he was, by Turkish, and Islamic, law, born Muslim. If he's no longer Muslim, how can he be a fake former muslim? Even if he's not a Christian, he's certainly not a muslim anymore.

This is why facts matter.


Roy, for someone who loves to accuse another of failing in the teachings of 1 Corinthians 13, you sure are needlessly belligerent and cynical in your derision of said person.

Again, your commentary is fundamentally contrary to my personal and objective experiences with White, albeit limited ones.

I have seen nothing he has said or done in the last two years that could warrant your very extreme and exaggerated and baseless opinions.


Looks like Mr. White has taken to attacking "Peter Lumpkins and company" on his facebook wall.


Just amazed at the vitriolic hatred and irrationality of Lumpkins and company---wonder what prompted this eruption of their anger?

-- richard pierce, true to form, pining about the meanness of Lumpkins and friends. No mention of his comments about mormon women.

Looks like he may have just linked his twitter to his facebook, though.

I did see an interesting response from a whitehead... notice the irony...

"jmdearras jmdearras
@DrOakley1689 found his blog. He's just a hate-filled idiot.

A hate-filled idiot. How does one respond to that?

Yahya Snow


I hope you are well, it appears James White has taken umbrage with your comment. I think the renewed scrutiny of the debate is a good thing but the charged language directed at White may be a little unwarranted.

However, I understand you are emotional as this is your faith which is being represented by this man against prof. Ehrman.

In my review, as a Muslim, I noticed the over-reliance on Wallace, on the part of James as well as gaps in his knowledge.

I think the evangelical community will soon start to rethink their way in dealing with prof. Ehrman. I just don't understand why folk don't stick to what their BEST scholars have WROTE and propagate such refutations. In my view this would be more scholarly and beneficial to students of knowledge rather than sending everybody and anybody into the ring with Ehrman.

The other problem with White was his attitude. He clearly offended Ehrman and was far too confrontational - perhaps it was due to the evangelical Christian audience egging him on.

I do agree there was some embarrassment, however I don't believe it to be as bad as some are making out. My in depth review is here:


Of course, the "mongrel" comment has to be contextualised and the best person to explain the said comment is Peter Lumpikins.

anyway, I got to get back to the day job. May God all of you.

Paul Owen


The SACS document which you linked is self-explanatory. The fact is that Montreat College is fully accredited, and is working to address all of the stated concerns, which in the long run will only serve to strengthen our academic programs and institutional effectiveness. This sort of regular review process is precisely the kind of thing that is lacking in non-accredited schools.

Yahya Snow

Sorry, should be "may God bless you all".

And I just rembered, I should take this opportunity to ask you folk whether White's (and Richard Pierce's) insulting of Russian and Mormon women was Christian or not:


A Christian (minoria) did denounce it as sinful but White maintains repentacne and apology is not required as he doesn't think the audio was that bad.

I personally do not think it is a Christian act...

Debbie Kaufman

Roy: In response to your reply to me. Since you obviously do not want to know the truth of the answer, I am the last person you want to ask that question. Believe me, ask Peter, I am the very last person you want to ask this question. :)



Thanks. I recall commenting on your site sometime back and you were very warm and receptive. I only hope I may be the same.

As for the "whipped mongrel"image, it is just that--an image. An image of defeat...an image of being outdone...an image of being conquered...an image of a "duh" moment...an image of failure...an image of better luck next time...an image of get your P's and Q's together...an image of if-you're-going-to-represent-me-then-get-with-the-program-buster...an image of I-thought-you-were-supposed-to-be-fully-prepared-for-cross-examination...

I could just have well wrote,

"James White didn't do so good against Bart Ehrman during this cross-examination"

But, I'm afraid that's just not me. I think so much in word pictures. Admittedly the pics are at times provocative. But, what can I say? I refuse to turn the volume down on word pics when the pics are not, a) immoral, b) dishonest, or c) dirty.

Interestingly, James White employs word pictures too. For him, I'm "Alexander the coppersmith" a biblical heretic who is against the Christian faith. For my part, I see no wisdom in employing images like that against another Christian brother, and I don't. I employ innocuous animals and inanimate objects.

So, that's the scoop on the "whipped mongrel." As for being "emotional" you are quite right. I believe being made in the image of God means I have emotions. So emotions cannot be completely separated from any aspect of my inner humanness. On the other hand, my observations on White's poor performance was not emotionally-driven I do not think. Speaking in images ("whipped mongrel") cannot be a foolproof criteria for emotionally-driven language, can it? I do not think so.

Thanks again.
With that, I am...



Of course. Anyone who disagrees or points out White's hatred is actually hateful themselves. And, they, sir, are a liar. I do not "love" to accuse another. This is not some childish fantasy of mine I am finally realizing. I am amazed that believers justify this guy's hateful behavior.

@Debbie, ah, but I do want a response from you. It seems you have no idea what you are talking about, and are blinded by your adoration of White. You do not seem to understand how the Islamic religion works. One of the ways you become a Muslim is that You are BORN into it, whether or not you choose or believe in it. If Caner's parents were Muslim, he WAS a Muslim. You cannot legally change your religion in most Muslim countries, even if you did not choose it. This is enough to get him killed. This isn't difficult to comprehend, unless you are willingly trying to avoid doing so. But I do like your classic White approach of, "oh you don't WANT me to answer that question, nyah nyah nyah nyah!" You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter if he's a liberal or non-Christian now... if he's not a muslim, he's not a FAKE non-muslim.

@Yahya Snow: we have mentioned on this thread the attacks on Mormons by White. You have to understand, White and Pierce, and their followers, see Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, etc as fruity curiosities to poke fun at. Nothing more. They depersonalize them constantly.


Looks like Mr. White is keeping up on your blog, Peter...


DrOakley1689 James White
@ThomasWendrock Peter Lumpkins and Yahya Snow: a match made in...uh...somewhere. Tells you a lot. Both fair unbiased reviewers!

Obviously something is corrupt and amiss if both Christians and non-Christians have begun to notice the unchristlike behavior of Mr. White, and his dishonesty in terms of his "doctorate."

Mr. White, since you are obviously reading this blog regularly, will you apologize to the mormon community for your unchristlike attack on the appearance of mormon women? Do you think Jesus would have done such a things? If any mormons are reading, we apologize for Mr. White and Mr. Pierce, as apparently he is unwilling to do so himself. Obviously, his mature Christianity restrains him from biblical humility and christlike behavior... may we all aspire to attain such.

Also, Mr. White, do you think you could chill out with the whole Dr thing, since it's obvious that people have caught on? You're giving Christians a bad name with your continued dishonesty on the subject. Whether we like it or not, we're being associated with you.


Very nice statement, Dr. Owen. However, you completely neglected to answer the question I put to you; which was, "will you maintain your teaching position at Montreat should it lose its accreditation?" So I will rephrase it. In light of your strong public statements regarding academic accreditation, Dr. Owen, will you resign your position at Montreat College should Montreat lose its SACS accreditation?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.


Two James White tweets about Mr. Lumpkins just this week.

Peter is getting famous! Is he the post-Caner obsession?



Seems the place your content in placing your argument is, that accreditation doesn't matter at all, nor do standards. Why not just demand Mr. White comply with standards if he's going to CLAIM he meets them(calling himself Doctor) instead of tearing down others who comply with standards and arguing they don't mean anything?

Seriously, this reminds me of the nonsense we heard during the Clinton years.... "everyone lies about sex." In other words, let's tear down standards for everyone instead of demanding the one person violating them, actually ADHERE to them.

Jonathan Dupree

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord,

"@Jonathan Dupree
Do you have any comment on Mr. White's Arabic speaking? Specifically, I mention the fact he made a video making fun of Ergun Caner's Arabic skills, when his own are downright awful. Specifically, there's a video that Peter Lumpkins posted a while back showing White pronouncing “Muhammad” as “Mukkkkkkhamad,” seemingly to sound more ethnic, although even an Arab child would not make such a linguistic error. I mention this all as a recurring theme, as Mr. White is so proud and unteachable that his own Arabic teacher is not able to give him simple corrections, yet he makes videos ridiculing the same problems in others."

Well, Roy I have White making a very basic error on reciting the most oft repeated verse of the Qur'an in front of his Arabic tutor without correction. So let the world know!


I believe both Yahya Snow and myself pointed this out to him. White has yet to remove the video from youtube. It is simply dishonest on his behalf. It is dishonest on behalf of his supporters not to ask him why the duplicity on his behalf.

Trust me if there is a top 10 list of people White loath I am sure I am right up there with Peter some where!

Here is just a tidbit from the link above....when he was caught red handed making this blunder...

So let's look at what James says again,

"We have a Christian (not a former Muslim) quoting the text BY MEMORY, not having ever been taught it, but only having heard it in Syrian culture so often that it "stuck," and he misses a single phrase, and this is somehow relevant?"

So let's get this straight. James White's Arabic tutor who makes a huge blunder on the Qur'an is allowed this because of a faulty MEMORY. Yet Ergun Caner (a man who's father was Muslim and mother was Christian who became a Muslim at age 15) can make mistakes in Arabic when recollecting from memory and it's time to hang him out to dry?

James White is very charitable indeed to fellow Christian Ergun Caner!

The person who pointed to White's facebook page yesterday it showed under languages that White "knows" ....Arabic!?!

Huh? What does he mean by "knows" talk about an embellishment!

Want to know how this whole thing really got kicked off lately? Quick summation.

White on his way back from London (as well as his supporters) were traveling light speed through the google machine checking up on his favorite web sites (he won't admit it but peterlumpkins.typepad.com is one of them) ....

He came across Peter's post. He gave a big sigh (which most likely disturbed the person next to him on the plane) and than proceeded to raised his right pinky finger and started to chew a bit on his nail and said to himself, 'oh no honey child this just won't do'.

Most likely sent an e-mail over to Rich ...'We are going to have a very interesting DL on Tuesday......very'....

Ergun Caner
Louis Ruggerio
Norman Geisler
William Lane Craig
Peter Lumpkins...

I think it's pretty clear that White and his followers would hope that the SBC would be crushed into oblivion.

White you have been weighed in the scales and found wanting....


Roy, I wasn't addressing you. And quite frankly, I really can see no occasion where I would value your opinion about anything.


When I said you need to "own your words," I was not insinuating that you were in any way trying to divorce yourself from what you wrote... I was trying (poorly) to point out that, often, the things we say get received differently then how we intend them. The choice of the word "mongrel" for instance. If we fully unpack the meaning of that word, one can see where it becomes offensive. If you go to Google and type "define mongrel" the first result is a: "...derogatory term for a variation that is not genuine; something irregular or inferior or of dubious origin." I had to remove the first word from that definition to pass the filters.

Still... as offensive as that is... I'd rather be called a mongrel than an "Alexander the Coppersmith." Like I said... James White has to own his own words also.


Alabama does have some minimal requirements for home schoolers in order to pass muster with the State's truancy laws, but not in regard to curriculum. Rather than reiterate all of that, let me just point you to a link: http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp?state=al

Regarding your statement that you do not believe James White to be a Christian... I hope you don't use that same criteria to judge everyone. We could all do with a bit more of the fruit of the Spirit. A large portion of those who have commented on this thread have not displayed the kind of love that 1 Corinthians 13 describes. I've known many people, my Mom included, who display the kind of love that Paul describes, yet aren't Christians in any way shape or form. We are saved by grace through faith, both of which are gifts of God. Our ability or inability to love is not the basis of that salvation. In fact, our inability to love either God or our neighbor to the degree that God would require is one of the things Christ died on the cross for.

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 13 to a people that he recognized as being part of Christ's Church. It is also evident that he wrote this chapter specifically because the Corinthian Christians were NOT displaying the kind of love that Paul describes.

If James White does not display the kind of love that you would expect of him, this does not mean he isn't a Christian. Although it might mean that you wish he weren't so that you don't have to treat him like a brother in Christ. Is James White a Christian? He professes to be one. I'd be interested to know what, if anything, you believe a person must do, apart from belief and confession, in order to be saved.

Jesus said that the whole law can be summed up as loving God with all your heart and loving your neighbor as you love yourself. Paul says that we are saved by grace through faith apart from the works of the law. That means even apart from love.



And that's ok. We're not still burning people at the stake for their disagreements, so it will be just fine if you don't value my opinion.


@Jonathan Dupree

I recommend calling into his show, or getting someone to, and speaking in Koranic Arabic to him. If he doesn't understand that, try a dialect, even something like Lebanese or Palestinian.

If he doesn't understand any of that, tell him to stop misleading people about his Arabic.

Robert Warren (AOMinion wannabe)

"ridiculing the ones that we should be evangelizing"


I'm guessing they are dead by now.

Besides, I wasn't ridiculing the poor women, I was pointing out the silliness of the big deal being made out of it. I'm sure that if the comments would have been about Calvin's wife or Owen's sister or something that the same sanctimony would have been raised.

Paul Owen


Your question, like most hypothetical questions of the sort, has no value or meaning to me, and I am not on a witness stand, so I don't have to give you an answer at all. I am familiar with Montreat's situation from the inside, and I know what we are doing to address the issues raised by SACS in their report. Thus I have no worries at all about the future of the college, and see no need to speculate about what I would do in a scenario that I frankly do not in any way anticipate becoming a reality. I'm sorry if that answer doesn't satisfy you, but it's pretty much all I have to say.

And you completely ignored my point, that accredited colleges have to go through these sorts of reviews, and when areas of concern are raised by governing bodies like SACS, they have to address them in order to maintain the institutional standards that are expected of accredited schools in this country. I am very gratified and blessed to be teaching at a college which operates within that sort of framework of accountability.



I never said any act of love that we do saves our souls. I'm not sure where you got that idea. I DO believe that part of the evidence of a true Christian is our love in terms of our actions, which 1 John supports.

The argument that you seem to be putting forth, that since James White has said he's a Christian, he therefore is, is not something that I believe biblical at all. That's more a Muslim thing, as they believe if you say the shahada, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not. I certainly do not subscribe to the idea that simply muttering some words in a “sinner's prayer” are sufficient for one to be saved. The reason I believe what I do about James White is there is little OTHER than his claim that he is a Christian that would cause people to believe he's a Christian. The parable of the sheep and the goats made clear that our actions bely our heart and whether or not we are truly saved. It doesn't mean it saves us.

Saying that I wish that Mr. White is not a Christian is not helpful to your argument, and also seems to imply you have some insight into my heart that only God has. You seem to be taking the White approach in terms of assuming there must be some sinister or ulterior motive that is going on, instead of just the fact that yes, I oppose James White because he acts very unchristlike and he is dishonest. It's that simple. Really.

I would encourage you to stop assuming that anyone who opposes James White has some horrible, secret motive, and accept the fact that there are justifiable, and biblical, reasons to oppose him.

peter lumpkins


One reason there is so much confusion and non-communication is precisely illustrated by your response to me. Note carefully your words:

If we fully unpack the meaning of that word, one can see where it becomes offensive. If you go to Google and type "define mongrel" the first result is a: "...derogatory term for a variation that is not genuine; something irregular or inferior or of dubious origin." I had to remove the first word from that definition to pass the filters

You are correct as far as you go.The difficulty is, jaiotu, I know and you know I used this term in no such way nor any such context. The analogical connection I made was clearly and explicitly to an animal beat in a fight not a person of bastard origin. Hence, for you to deliberately pull the worst possible meaning from this term while ignoring the other meanings and then pose the worst meaning as the obvious meaning, therefore making "whipped mongrel" much more offensive than being beat in a debate hardly fits your exhortation to "fully unpack the meaning" of my term now does it?

Indeed were I asked, your "unpacking"--not fully unpacking but partially unpacking--perfectly illustrates precisely why so much fodder exists on the internet. Grab one meaning from many--the meaning which agrees with one's point--and run with it regardless of the context in which the questionable term found itself employed. This qualifies for "fully unpacking the meaning" of a term? Not from my side of the creek it doesn't.

In closing this out, from my perspective, to make more out of my use of "whipped mongrel" than James White didn't perform up to snuff, so to speak--which fits the meaning exactly--is nothing more than being argumentative not to mention absurd by insisting I meant--or the term necessarily implied--the offensive nuance you purposely chose from a list of possible options, options which included the nuance I myself employed.

Now, I'm done with this one.

Thanks for logging on.

With that, I am...


@Robert Warren
“I'm guessing they are dead by now.
Besides, I wasn't ridiculing the poor women, I was pointing out the silliness of the big deal being made out of it. I'm sure that if the comments would have been about Calvin's wife or Owen's sister or something that the same sanctimony would have been raised.”

I see, so to justify their and your unchristlike behavior, you create a hypothetical that is impossible to ever verify. Can't argue with that. And of course, we know such comments have probably brought many Mormons closer to Christ. Unbelievable.


I'm certainly not assuming that everyone who disagrees with James White has some sinister motive. Sorry if you read me that way. When I said, "...it might mean that you wish he weren't (a Christian) so that you don't have to treat him like a brother in Christ," I wasn't trying to say that you simply don't want White to be a Christian. I did say "might," which implies the possiblity of "might not." I am sorry if you took offense.

I agree with you regarding the "sinner's prayer." It's a horribly abused standard by which to judge salvation. My point is that, aside from someone's profession of faith, there is very little in anyone's daily conduct to seperate the sheep from the goats. We all sin and fall short. You sin, I sin and James White sins.



I think you miss my point, and I'm sorry if my language isn't precise. What I mean't by "fully unpacking" the meaning of "mongrel" was to examine all of the possible meanings. I didn't think there would be a need to entertain every possible definition in order to point out that there is at least one possible definition in which it could be taken in an offensive way. If we own a puppy of mixed breeds we affectionately refer to it as a "mutt," while we refer to the neighbor's dog who uses our lawn as his bathroom as a "mongrel."

Peter... I'm certain that you didn't use the term in an intentionally venemous way. But certainly you can see how someone could read that definition into your comment, can't you?

If I offend someone, I'm usually pretty quick to offer an apology. I wasn't trying to say that you intentionally used the term "mongrel" in a derrogatory manner. I simply wanted to point out that sometimes other people hear what we have to say and take offense because of how they interpret what we've said. In that spirit, I would like to offer my sincerest apology. It wasn't my intention to offend, but offend I did. Please forgive me for having done so.

Peace and bless.


Okay, we can all now see who is little more than an internet big mouth that likes to rant and rave at his opponents, and then refuses to apply those same standards on himself that he demands of others.

peter lumpkins


Look. First, I didn't miss your point. Your point was when the word is "fully unpacked" it shows I implied something I did not imply which is absurd. Only partially "unpacking" could lead to such a conclusion. And, you partially "unpacked" not "fully" unpacked.

Second, why would one need to examine all of the possible meanings of a term when the term in question was not ambiguous in the least the way I employed the term? I not only used "mongrel" but "mongrel" was cradled neatly within "crawled away like a whipped..." Only pedantic nonsense could make the offensive nuance you offer to be the possible meaning, jaiotu. And, continuing to argue the point only makes your point grow ever more weak.

Third, "I'm certain that you didn't use the term in an intentionally venemous way." Then what the Sam Hill are you continuing to exchange about? Are you not speaking to the wrong person? Why not drop JW a note and tell him "I'm certain that Peter Lumpkins didn't use the term in an intentionally venemous way. Therefore there is absolutely no need to be offended."

Fourth, yes I can see how someone could read that definition into my comment. But not because of the term itself. Rather because there are other matters driving someone to make it an issue when it obviously is not. If I am correct, then my term caused no offense. Offense was already a state of being prior to my employment of the term.

Fifth, allow me if I may, jaiotu. While I appreciate your spirit, you owe me nothing. Why should I be offended because you offer another opinion? I think you are dead wrong and attempting to argue for an impossible point. Even so, you need not apologize to me for being wrong.

All's well in West Georgia, I assure. Lighten up! Grace is good, God is great.

With that, I am...


"Okay, we can all now see who is little more than an internet big mouth that likes to rant and rave at his opponents, and then refuses to apply those same standards on himself that he demands of others."

Tom, we're glad you finally see James White as we do. Thanks.


Seriously, you can't make an implication like that and jump back and just say, "might" when I call you on it. That's dishonesty on your part. "I only said you MIGHT be a liar, Sir!" You did the same thing to Peter, here. Don't play innocent and act like you didn't throw the bombs you are throwing.

Very little that separates? Jesus went through several examples of what separates. Many other passages in the NT show the difference in actions between those are saved and those who are not saved. I'm going with Jesus on this one.


Seriously. When I said "might," that was exactly what I meant. It't not back peddling. I'm not intentionally throwing bombs. And I'm sorry that you feel that I am. I'm not trying to be dishonest. Will you please forgive me if I insinuated you had any motive other then your own for saying that James White is not a Christian?

Thanks. In regards to the fourth point where you said, "...yes I can see how someone could read that definition into my comment." That's all I was trying to point out. I greatly benefit from much of James White's work and find it very valuable. But I think it's true that he is often too quick to take offense, and so are many of his supporters. I'm sure that many of White's regular supporters would take offense just to me saying that.



Sure I'll forgive you. Only you know if you're being sincere, though. I'm just saying that you don't make a comment like, "you might be a child molester, but I'm not saying that you are." That's right up there with asking, "how long have you been beating your wife?" and then wondering why someone would be insulted.


I get that. I really do. My comment was intended to be taken in more of a rhetorical sense. Much as St. Paul's statement in Romans 9 (hey, I'm a Calvinist, that's the only part of the Bible we read) where he asks, "You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”" Not everyone who reads Paul's epistle will actually ask that question.

I should have chosen my words more carefully. That's my fault. Thanks for your forgiveness. I appreciate your kindness in giving it.


I am kidcudder11 from youtube. When I first received notice about the possible copyright infringement I wasn't sure if that was actually the president of Alpha Omega Ministries or just some disgruntled James White fan. Later on when I checked their website and realized he really is who he says he is, I personally removed all videos promptly and have now closed my youtube account to ensure there are no further problems down the road.

Jonathan Dupree

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

"kidcuddler11" assuming that is truly you I would have simply asked for the statement that Bart Ehrman and James White have cosigned stating that any video, written or audio material of the debate is copyrighted and that Alpha and Omega ministries has the sole right to it's distribution.

I can tell you right now. Dick Pierce (President) of AOMIN is not being forward with you.

Bart Ehrman to my knowledge never signs any such statements with his debate opponents. He wants the material to be widely distributed as possible.

White and Ehrman have the right to copyright material done by them exclusively.

So don't worry too much about what Dick and James have told you.



he was just doing damage control. from what I can tell, on your comments section, anyone who came to your youtube channel wouldn't have bought the debate anyway, they aren't his audience.

and anyway you can get the transcript for free here:



This really is Kidcudder. The video was just your average yt upload so obviously it was 100% non-profit and non-downloadable. I never claimed any ownership of the material. I had a fair use disclaimer and like what you said Ray, it wasn't really their audience anyway. But whatever... a youtube video is not worth the trouble. I didnt feel like dealing with a problem so I just took it down.


Im still fairly new to the religious debate community by the way. I dont know who a lot of these people are like Dick Pierce, I wouldnt know who James White is if he didnt debate Bart Ehrman.

Dave Armstrong

James White comrade Rich Pierce stated on White's blog on 2-17-11:

"We . . . have yet to have a single critic actually interact with Dr. White's reasoning for following the path that he did."

This is untrue. I myself have done so, twice, in 2004 and again last year:

James White's "Doctorate" Degree: Is it Legitimate? (vs. James White and Mark Bainter)

Anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist Apologist James White's Bogus, Non-Accredited "Doctorate" Degree Defended Yet Again (vs. Jamin Hubner)

As I wrote in a paper about the topic today on my blog:

"It's one thing to say that no one has overthrown or refuted a piece of reasoning (which is subjective), but quite another to claim that no one has even attempted to do so (which is an objective claim of fact)."

For the record, I am a Catholic (if it is relevant at all; I say it isn't, on this issue).

The comments to this entry are closed.