« Doktor James White on Fudging His Teaching Assignments by Peter Lumpkins | Main | James White's Challenge--Peter Lumpkins' Response by Peter Lumpkins »

2011.03.25

Comments

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

Bill Trip

Dear Peter, Why not appear on James White show with him?

Eric Opsahl

Greetings,
You know I have mentioned several times (based on what God commands) that You two should talk and resolve the disagreements.

20 If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

You have been invited to call in and talk this over. Are you sure you will be mistreated? If you are being invited so that they can abuse you, make you look foolish, try and humiliate you etc. I wouldn't call in either. If they tell you (you can call them ahead of time) that they want an honest conversation to clear the air and set the record straight, that sounds like a good thing to me.

Based on all the comments and blog post, I think it is clear that this is personal. I simply don't understand how Elder White can continue to be an Elder and refuse to reconcile with his Brother. Isn't Gods word clear that he would be in direct conflict with God? Am i wrong in thinking he wants to help reconcile thru his invite to call?

The same goes for Mr. Lumpkin's, how can he pray and seek God when he simply refuses to reconcile with his brother? Is he willing to reconcile?

What better testimony to the grace of God than for you two to reconcile and put the conflict behind you. This doesn't mean you will agree.

Doogs

In light of eternity, this thread (including this post) is much ado about nothing!

Scott Shaffer

Peter,

As an aside, what laws are broken if someone shares the contents of a personal email? It seems to me that just because you state via a disclaimer that the contents are private it doesn't obligate the recipient to handle them as such, especially when you send an unsolicited email. I deal with non-disclosure agreements all the time and for them to be enforceable both parties usually have to agree to keep the information confidential. Certainly you aren't distributing trade secrets, proprietary information or copyrighted material are you?

Setting aside the legal issues, this expectation of privacy doesn't make sense to me for a couple of other reasons. For example, when I receive letters via the postal service that are marked "private" I understand that to mean that no one beside me should open and read the letter. However, I'm free to share its contents with others if I desire. Secondly, given the nature of your communication with this blogger, why would you expect the email to be kept private? Thirdly, why would you want him to?

Just wondering.

peter lumpkins

Bill, et al

Allow me to make this perfectly clear:  I have no intention of calling James White on his Dividing Live program.  Is this clear enough?  And, if some of you think by calling me “coward” will sway me, you need to know I gave up taking dares and double-dog dares in grade school.  The nonsense behind this cannot be rationally explained.

Now if that is not clear, I suggest you go to another blog where you can get clear responses to your questions. I know! Head on over to A&O and get James White to be clear concerning the answer he got from seminary officials last June about teaching at GGBTS.

With that, I am…

Peter

peter lumpkins

Eric,

Please. Do you honestly think JW wants me to call in to "reconcile"? Oh my stars. Listen to his 8 min rant I linked above. He doesn't want to talk about reconciliation and explicitly said so, for crying out loud. Where do you guys come from? Even more absurd is, you think we ought to reconcile publicly over the cybernet? For some reason, I don't think Scripture validates such a soap-opera approach.

Now please do not log back on and mention this again.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Doogs,

Then why are you hanging out and commenting? Please observe the implications of your own value judgments. ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Ron & Chris,

Thanks for the support, brothers. I think I suggested White's supporters took a double orbit around the moon last June when I first brought this up. But, since White didn't follow through with his supporters in informing them the bad news from Golden Gate he undoubtedly received last June, they'd completely forgotten their hero had been cut from GGBTS. White kept right on pretending he hadn't, however. And, now see what a mees it's gotten him in.

The truth is, even if White were actually qualified to teach in our seminaries (he would IF he had a recognized degree), his track record for dealing with his critics is not what we need as a positive role model for young ministers.

Grace, guys
With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

All,

James White's bud--Scott Oakland (he's the guy above and the one who forwarded a private email to JW, which, true to character, JW read over the public broadcast)--has "responded" to me over here. Oh my. He basically says when he asked me for evidence to demonstrate my assertions here, I basically would not provide it. Uh? Scott must think I'm supposed to go back through the last two posts and rehash it again in a comment thread. Well, I'm not. What I may do when I return from Nashville is summarize the evidence in a final post, gathering all the links I've assembled in one place together. Then, I'll challenge James White to answer clearly the questions I pose. He doesn't have to call me. He can do just it on his blog.

With that, I am...
Peter

Scott Oakland

I know you won't post it but I have provided the direct link to your so-called incriminating video and refuted all of this mess in its entirety here:

http://www.alwaysreforming.org/2011/03/answering-one-peter-lumpkins.html

peter lumpkins

Scott,

I'm unsure I implied criminal activity but there is surely moral reservations about it. I won't answer now. I simply got to go. But please show back up when I post on this. I'll answer all your questions then. And, it will be soon.

All

I'm out for a while. I may look to see what's posted. But if you're 'not nice' (read my commenting rules above) I'm not going to post it.

With that, I am...
Peter

Scott Oakland

Peter, Again, look in the mirror. Better yet, look at all of your posts on this blog. You've made a hobby out of attacking James White, and everyone on the blogosphere is aware of it. Check out a notable example of what an "ad-hominem" attack looks like here - you may recognize it.

[link deleted by administrator]

Scott: see what I mean? You said you didn't see the "privacy" note on the email implying you would not have forwarded it on had you seen it. At least that's what I gather you meant. Now you attempt to post a link where other emails I sent with a privacy statement are made public as well. And you think you are a perfectly trustworthy podcaster? Not in my view, I'm sorry to say...
With that, I am...
Peter

Mary

Peter, whatever it is Jimmie, is shilling it seems to have very little to do with Christ when one of his sycophants sinks to such depths as to try to defend publically publishing an email. Of course Jimmie and Co somehow seem to think it proper to deceive people into believing that the GREAT DOKTOR is presently teaching at one of our seminaries so the logic follows that their ethical standards are wanting.

Keep fighting the good fight, Peter!

Jared Moore

Peter, I'm not a huge fan of White. However, concerning his qualifications, I believe you're wrong. He has an M.A. from Fuller Theological Seminary. If a professor has at least a Master's, and academic prowess through book writing, debates, conferences, etc., then he is qualified to teach adjunctly at Southern Baptist seminaries. For example, Paul Helm, who is stellar academically, only has a B.A. and an M.A. from Oxford University. He is an adjunct professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Another example is John Frame whose highest completed degree is a PhM (He's completed the course work for a PhD, but never finished his dissertation). Frame has also taught adjunctly at Southern Baptist seminaries.

The fact that White has an M.A. and has published many books, participated in numerous debates, and has over 10 years experience teaching at the College and/or seminary level, more than qualifies him to teach at Southern Baptist seminaries.

Scott Oakland

You ask me to respond, then my posts keep getting deleted when you don't like the content. You have stated that you are going to explain your position again. No, you have already your position and the events clearly and I have refuted them. Fact: you have failed to demonstrate any evidence that Dr. White is "cut off" from GG. All you provide is a 1 min part of a Q&A session at SBC from June 2010. That's all of your proof? Explain again, and I'll refute again. But you gotta let me on here to do it. If that's not acceptable, then come on my blog at alwaysreforming.org and do it. I won't censor you. Or, better yet, we can schedule some time on an episode of ReformedCast and we can discuss this verbally.

Now why would I want to talk to you personally, Scott? If your blog comments are any indication of what it would be like to go on your podcast, know I have little interest. Besides, I cannot trust you. You've proven I cannot depend all things will be above board. Recall your sending private emails to be publicly read over broadcasts by people who really have very little goof things to say about me.

With that, I am...
Peter

Scott Oakland

Jared - That's right. The fact that Peter doesn't like his theology accounts for his obsession with attacking Dr. White's credentials. I wonder if he has examined the academic credentials and/or statements of the big-name SBCers he agrees with? Like, um, Ergun Caner?

Scott: unless you've got something specific in mind, please stop whining, guy. You accuse me of "censoring" you comments, but why would I? Your comments have no real content in them. Just emotionally-driven rhetoric.

With that, I am...
Peter

Evan May

Why was my comment not posted?

SelahV Today by Hariette Petersen

peter, this reminds me of a certain president who won't show his birth certificate because he says he doesn't have to show his certificate, and if he'd just show his certificate,then people would stop talking about the stupid thing. If JW would just post the letter from GGBTS that he received in reply to his question then everyone would just stop talking about the stupid thing. It's simple. personally it doesn't matter much to me other than I prefer you to be writing about anything BUT JW, but that is just me.

seems like every time I see his name it reminds me of his sister's blog in which she was so maligned and hurt over being maligned and hurt and he did nothing to help her pain over the abuse. it's kinda like that whole thing being thrown in one's face all over again. makes me shudder.

I'm glad you are not stupid. what person in their right mind would enter an arena with no chance of getting a fair hearing other than Jesus Christ our Lord? catcha later...will you write a post on discipleship and its place in the SBC educational system?

selahV

Tim Rogers

Brother Jared,

You are correct in your position; "He has an M.A. from Fuller Theological Seminary." But you seem to imply something that Brother Peter has not said when you state; "However, concerning his qualifications, I believe you're wrong."

Allow me to touch on the area of correctness first. You are correct in that you state JW was contracted with GGBTS based on his MAT from Fuller. There are two courses of study one can take at Fuller in the MAT. One is a MAT in Theology. Taken from http://www.fuller.edu/mat/>the online course description this course for these students is directed as follows:

Students in this program desire to be well prepared biblically and theologically in a very flexible program to serve in the church or the marketplace more effectively.
However there is another course of study in the MAT and that is designed for students as follows:
Students in this program have a commitment to ministry in the church, parachurch or the marketplace.
White does not distinguish which course of study he followed, which really is not the issue. But his teaching contract at GGBTS was based on the MAT from fuller. I know this because I contacted a Trustee at GGBTS last May when I found out his doctorate was from an unaccredited seminary. I was informed that his degree for teaching at GGBTS was based on the MAT from Fuller.

Now to the incorrect part of your statement. I have not seen where Brother Peter has questioned his teaching credentials based on the MAT. All I have seen Brother Peter question is the doctoral degree. The reason for that is White espouses his credentials based on his doctoral degree which, if I could write my own curriculum I would also have doctorate, comes from a self-directed course of study. Thus, the non-accreditation of the school where he received his degree.

Just wanted my two cents worth. I can also tell you, from the conversations I have had, White will not teach again at GGBTS under the current administration.

Blessings,
Tim

Remi

You have to love people like Jared, or whichever whitehead is posing as him. They always start out their posts like "I'm not a fan of White, but..."

"Academic prowess through book writing?" Seriously? Would you like a napkin to clean up some of that drool? That's about as silly as saying(and I've read this on here before from other posters), that if a doctor writes books, he can do that in lieu of medical school.

As tempting as it is to get bogged down in trying to figure out why Whiteheads will not just admit James White has been dishonest about his education, Scott reminds us of the bigger picture... as in, they are justified in every unbiblical thing they do.

Is it biblical to require people to air disagreements on the radio show of the person who has sinned? No, in fact, the opposite is true, as we see in Matthew 18. But we all know that James White has his "get out of the Bible free" card and can ignore such inconvenient scriptures and post anything you send to him, and his friends can do the same, so that they might all attack and malign anyone who doesn't drink the same kool-aide.

And despite the temptation to get bogged down in THAT, we must also remember they seem justified in every other unbiblical thing they do. I had seen in an earlier post about how White and his friends are much like the Catholics who claim that, since they are the only ones with the right theology, they are justified in ignoring theology and scripture itself. Silly people like you and I have no right to point out the obvious ways their actions go against scripture, because, after all, we are all unregenerate and God-haters anyway(as they have said on here). Conveniently, it seems all of the people that don't agree with them happen to be unregenerate and God-haters. Hmm.

The bigger, and sadder, picture here is the fact that James White seems incapable of seeing how unserious others consider him due to his dishonesty, but plows ahead and continues to accuse others of doing the same things he does.

Scott Oakland

Hi Sarah - What letter did Dr White receive? There is supposed to be this magical, mysterious letter that exists. No, the one making the assertion has the burden on them to provide the proof. What Peter and Co. is doing is analagous to "I heard from someone that you were beating your wife. Prove that you aren't". Perhaps if Peter can come on my podcast like I invited him, he can explain himself more clearly than he has here.

Scott: You are dead wrong. I have no obligation to divulge a person's name who gave me an official word anymore than JW is obligated to reveal TurrentinFan's real name. Besides, who in their right mind would put that burden upon anybody? You guys would put dead chickens in his mailbox. No thanks...

With that, I am...
Peter

Jared Moore

Tim, look at comment #54 where Peter says, "The truth is, even if White were actually qualified to teach in our seminaries (he would IF he had a recognized degree), his track record for dealing with his critics is not what we need as a positive role model for young ministers."

Peter indeed argued that White is not qualified to teach in our Southern Baptist seminaries without a "recognized degree."

peter lumpkins

All,

Thanks for the participation. I may be able to get back on some of the chatter this afternoon or evening.

Scott,

I am particularly annoyed that you've logged about 10 comments in the thread most of which after I explicitly noted I am going to be out of socket for a while. So, no your comments are not "disappearing" nor have I "deleted" any of them. Why would I? Your contributions are little more than emotions run amuck. Even so, please stop logging them until I can get back in the groove. Nor do I promise to post every one of them. When you log broken records over and over, I have no intention of continuing the nonsense. In fact, I may not post any of them and just do a main post and respond to your post. I'll know this evening what I'll do.

The truth is, Scott, you created the situation for my *not* immediately posting your comments while I allowed others to post. How? Glad you asked. When you hold no scruples about not only forwarding private emails but also approving of the private emails being read over a public broadcast, you, my fellow creature, fed a culture of distrust between us. I have no idea what you will post. For all I know you're posting somebody's words which were not intended for public discussion. Given that, know I have no confidence in what you publicly post. Sorry. I've got to read your stuff fist. Clear enough for you?

With that, I am...
Peter

Jared Moore

Remi, if I felt Peter was being inaccurate about anyone, I would point it out. I really am NOT a huge fan of White. I think his personality and approach are too abrasive, must like Ergun Caner's is, just on the other side. I still however can learn from these two men; and I do consider them my brothers in Christ.

Also, White's book-writing and resume' are impressive. He has multiple published books with multiple publishers. Not to mention his many, many debates with various experts in their fields? If his resume' is so unimpressive, then why are experts in their fields willing to debate him? How can you deny his impressive resume' even apart from his doctorate?

BTW: I don't appreciate your judgmental accusations. Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black when you call me a "Whithead" and then say about White "so that they might all attack and malign anyone who doesn't drink the same kool-aide." Maybe you should look in the mirror concerning how you treat others that don't drink the same "kool-aide" as you concerning White.

R.L. Adler

SelahV,

very poor example of what going on. ever since Hillary's camp drummed up the birth certificate rumours Obama has been nothing but crystal clear about his bc;

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

now, if we are going the route of accusing people of living in a world of delusion and double think. yes, I would say in this example white and his minions are acting like the 'birthers'.

Dave Armstrong

I have done further documentation that may be of interest to readers of this site:

James White Compared to Adjunct Faculty Members at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary Who Are Not Teaching in the Present Semester

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/03/james-white-compared-to-adjunct-faculty.html

You can read it on my site with all the links or most of it (minus links) right below:

Using the GGBTS listing of adjunct faculty and Course Syllabi (by Professor), I have listed a comparison of listed adjunct faculty who are not teaching a class in the present semester, and when they last taught a course, in comparison to Bishop "Dr." White.

James White (not listed: last course taught: January 13-15, 2010):

Listed:

[30 adjunct faculty with the date of their last course taught: all documented from the GGBTS course syllabi]

Grand totals: 30 faculty listed who are not teaching a course this semester; 16 of the 30 last taught a course prior to the date that White taught a course (while one additional person has no listed courses at all); yet they are listed, along with the other 14, and White is not. Why? Is it not reasonable, then, to safely assume that White is no longer a member of the adjunct faculty of GGBTS? One would think so. Why, then, does White keep asserting that he is?

His bio sheet for his publisher, Bethany House, states that he is "an adjunct professor with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary." His bio sheet for his diploma mill alma mater, Columbia Evangelical Seminary asserts that "White, an ordained Baptist minister, is Adjunct Professor teaching New Testament Greek, Systematic Theology, Christology, and Hebrew for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary at their Arizona Campus." The blurb for ReformedCast: episode #26: "The Importance of Apologetics (Pt. 1), 3-21-11, states that "White . . . teaches Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary."

But according to the GGBTS syllabi, White taught about apologetics (secularism, atheism, and Islam) in Summer 2009, and Islam in Spring 2008. In order to date courses taught on these other mentioned subjects, we have to consult White's own bio page at his website, "aomin". There we learn that he hasn't taught anything with "Greek" in the title of the course since 2001 (hardly current). He hasn't taught systematic theology there since 2004. His last (and only course in Christology was way back in the previous century and millennium: 1997. And for Hebrew, we have to go back to 2000.

I guess 7-14 years ago is considered "present tense" and "current" by the good folks at Columbia Evangelical Seminary and the ReformedCast. White, so we are told, is "teaching" these things now. We all regard time in different fashions, I reckon. Einstein's relativity and what-not . . . "Current" is in the eye of the beholder? In James White's thought-world, and that of his rabid followers, apparently this is the case. I guess I "currently" am not the father of a daughter, since my only daughter was born in 2001. But since 2000 and even 1997 are present now, I am simultaneously her father and not at the same time.

This is how ridiculous it gets: Orwellian doublespeak and doublethink . . . Unfortunately for White, GGBTS doesn't play these word games. They don't have him listed as adjunct faculty. He'll have to accept that cold, hard, cruel fact sooner or later. I suggest it be sooner, if he is concerned about his credibility, which has suffered enough through the years as it is, with all of his endless personal attacks on others and myriad other silly shenanigans.

Scott Oakland

What, will you be condensing (read: censoring) my comments now? Why not let them stand on their own and let the dear readers decide? Is this blog Communist Russia?

Scott: if you want to continue a reasonable discussion, please stop the emotive nonsense

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Scott

Log another comment before I get back to deal with thread and assure yourself not a single comment will be posted. Take that literally.

With that, I am...
Peter

Scott Oakland

Dave, I have posted a rebuttal of your assertions at your blog here:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/03/james-white-compared-to-adjunct-faculty.html

Here is the text of it:

Dave, With all due respect, you are twisting the facts to suit your ad-hominem argumentation. You are omitting facts - facts that do not simply go away by ignoring them.

Fact 1: There is NO official at GGBTS that has stated that Dr. White has been "cut off" from the institution. To actually insist that Dr. White provide proof that he has been "cut off" (which Peter Lumpkins is doing at his blog) is laughable. The burden lies squarely on the shoulder of those asserting that he has been "cut off" to provide the evidence. I guess that's why you provided this post in an attempt to do just that. However, it fails to do so because....

Fact 2: The inference you are trying to draw with your chart is inconclusive. Not only does it not prove that he is "cut off", it doesn't even prove that his status has changed. It's all just speculation on your part.

Fact 3: Dr. White is listed as having taught, most recently, three courses on the GG website as you have undoubtedly found from your research. If Dr. White had been "cut off" as Peter and you say, don't you think that there would be a public statement of that somewhere? If that institution was so interested in banning Dr. White, (presumably due to theological differences) it would certainly want SOMEONE in the SBC community to know - not just Peter Lumpkins.

Fact 4: It is impossible to determine anything conclusive about any adjunct's status from any university, seminary or college just by their website. Notwithstanding the fact that websites are not always updated as they ought, attempting to discern who has been fired or in good standing using this method is highly presumptuous at best, and unfair and scandalous at worse. This approach would lead us to conclude that an adjunct who is out of the country on assignnment, for example, and not listed as currently teaching there, should be considered "cut off"

I have asked Peter Lumpkins to come on my podcast ReformedCast to discuss his assertion, so that we can get to the bottom of it. If he accepts, we'll schedule it asap.

Evidence: inconclusive. If this were a court, the case would be dismissed before the jury took their seats.

Scott

Mary

RL Adler, this is completely off topic but Obama most certainly has NOT provided his BIRTH CERTIFICATE. There is a huge difference between a CERTIFICATE of BIRTH which he has provided (your link) and a BIRTH CERTIFICATE. As a mother who has filled out three BIRTH CERTIFICATES I can tell you they have a lot more information than the CERTIFICATE of BIRTH you get for passports etc. I am not a birther as I think Obama was born in the US, but I do think he doesn't want his orginal BIRTH CERTIFICATE shown since it will probably have a place for "religion" or some other information he doesn't want shown. The Obama administration is either intentionally not providing the original to either keep the story going so as to discredit anyone who disagrees with him as a "birther" or there is something on the original they don't want known. It will be interesting to see them deal with someone like Donald Trump who won't be so easy to shut up and discredit.

R.L. Adler

Mary,

In the big picture (at least for someone of reason) BIRTH CERTIFICATES and CERTIFICATE of BIRTH are semantics because they prove the same thing; a legal US birth.

because as far as more info being in the BC, the only info excluded in the CoB (at least in Hawaiin BCs circa 1961) is the following info:

"name of the hospital, the name of the attending physician, name and address of the parents, the race of the parents and the race of the baby."

there's nothing to see here. Birthers ask for proof of Obama's birth and they get it. But wait, it was a "short-form" document! (nevermind that it's just as legal). And I have heard Trump question the "lack" of info about Obama's childhood. Yet there are a slew of pictures and facts available if he would only look. But when/if Trump is provided this proof, he will find something else that bugs him.

this is very much like the whiteheads defense of the doktor. no amount of proof is good enough for these people.

its happening right now. White is not and will not be adjunct professor for ggbts. the president said as much.

so his minions go to the semantics of bending words like 'presently' or 'contract by contract'. rather than admit that yea, White should probably rewrite his bio like someone legit and have it say 'has served ggbts as adjunct... "

now we see someone point out that other adjunct professors who havent even taught there since before white's last "3-day seminar" are recognised on the ggbts site.

let's see how creative his followers are in re-interpeting THAT data.

Mary

RL Adler, I think I'm like a lot of people who don't question that Obama is a US citizen, but having actually myself physically filled out three Birth Certificates - I know that there is way more information on the "long" form such as religion. I also know that some women for whatever reason choose to list the father as unknown. Now perhaps this information varies from state to state, but to SelahV's point why on earth do you not release the "long" form unless there's something that they don't want known? Now the Obama loving press want to portray anyone who questions Obama as a "birther" when the real question about the birth certificate is "what is he hiding?" My personal theory is the religion which shouldn't have been an issue except that they've hidden whatever was put on the original. So please don't dismiss everyone who has questions as a "birther" - yes he's a citizen, yes a Certificate is legal. But why oh why as Selah V first posited do they continue to withhold the original "long" form and when they could settle the thing once and for all. And Trump ain't no dummy - he knows Obama's a citizen, but he also I think like a lot of us suspects that there is something on that original Obama wants kept hidden.

And as to the points regarding the GREAT DOKTOR! Well as we can see with the Obama worshippers is true of the Whiteheads - no matter what James White does they will come out and defend him. Someone up thread stated all White is guilty of is not updating his resume - I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to correct the resume any time soon.

The Catholic Voyager

I came across this post over the weekend, and out of curiosity, I emailed the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

I wrote:
"Dear Sir/Madam, I've been studying a particular topic floating about the internet blogosphere as to whether James White is currently a professor at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. I would like to help clear up speculation on either side. Can you confirm or deny that James White is currently a professor at any campus in any capacity? Thank you."

The reply I got from the GGBTS Communications email was:
"James White has never been a trustee-elected faculty member at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and is not under consideration for such appointment. He has taught in the past as an adjunct, but not currently scheduled to do so again. Thanks for your inquiry."

There you go.

-Sam

peter lumpkins

All,

I am now able to log on and do a bit of response to some on the thread. Know the "warning" I left in comment #75 was exclusively for Scott. Even after I gave explicit notation I would be unplugged, he nonetheless kept piling up comments, some of which were emotional nonsense as well as accusing me of "deleting" and "censoring". One can only take so much internet flamers like Scott. Nor will I ever--hear this, Scott--EVER allow mad cows to graze in my pasture as if it were an open range. I pay the nickel on this blog and I will not allow flaming Calvinists to hijack a thread here (or anyone for that matter). Nor again can anyone be accused of "censoring" for heaven's sake. The beauty of blogging is, if my comment is not logged, I can go back and express my opinion on my own site! Censorship is virtually impossible in cyberspace.

Thanks all for your readership.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Jared,

No, I didn't "argue" White is not qualified to teach at all in our Southern Baptist seminaries without a "recognized degree." Please look at everything I've written as well as the documents I've linked. I'm perfectly aware of White's MA from Fuller. And, so far as "adjunct" status, yes, he *is* qualified. Indeed so far as "adjunct" contracts, even *I* am credentialed for the job, Jared. But to be a Professor, White is most certainly *not* qualified for he has but a doctoral degree from an unrecognized academic institution not to mention the suspicious circumstances surrounding his getting the degree.

With that, I am...
Peter

Scott Oakland

Well, Catholic Voyager, that reply sure sounds official - it was in quotes and everything! Peter - I see you were selective in what got posted and what got trashed. By the way, you still haven't dealt with my challenge to come on the ReformedCast podcast and back up your assertions. You may want to think long and hard about that though....as you can see from my comments on Dave Armstrong's blog here:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/03/james-white-compared-to-adjunct-faculty.html

While David's arguments are exponentially more reasonable than yours, I still shot them down in flames.

peter lumpkins

Scott,

To my knowledge all your comments are posted. Now, if you again so much as hint that I deleted any of them, so long, buddy. I've expended my patience with your unmitigated nonsense. You offer accusatory fluff without any real substance. And, I'd be perfectly willing for readers to point out where I am not giving your comments the weight due them. But I'm telling you this--one more accusation about me "deleting" your comments and I guarantee nothing else will be posted. Period. My patience is gone.

I hope that's clear.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. I probably will put up a short response to your post this afternoon if I can get over to read it...

peter lumpkins

All,

If you are even interested in my response to Scott's, shall we say, emotional rhetoric, since so little needed to be logged in response to each, I simply added embolden text to his comment in the thread. And, contrary to Scott's insinuation I trashed his comments (After all, why would I? The challenge is hardly notable), the only thing I can find Scott posted I actually did delete is a link to a blog post. If some want to find the link, they will be able to, I have little doubt.

With that, I am...
Peter

Sam

Scott - My quotes denoted that it was---a quotation. If you think my quotation from GGBTS was made up go ahead and email them yourself.

Scott Oakland

Sam, Sorry but you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say at all that you're making it up. It's just that it isn't hard evidence. That said, there seems to be some folks are bent on getting Dr. White out of there...Well that's fine and that's their business. BUT, and this is a big BUT, if Dr White is truly "gone from GG" like Peter & Co, assert, why can't someone go on the record at GG and release a public statement to that effect? And not that June 2010 convention floor video. That only proves what the thinking may have been in June 2010. It doesn't speak to what the case is RIGHT NOW. Or, someone should end an official letter (with letterhead) to someone and have it posed there? Surely that isn't much to ask. Especially if so many people are in tight with GG. But to keep sending us to another source to confirm something you are asserting is not going to work. The legwork needs to be done by the one making the assertion.

Remi

Jared,

Seriously? Why would they debate with him if he's not considered an expert? I don't know, maybe because they are aware he has tons of baggage and therefore is easier to show that their point of view is superior?

Why do you think White wanted/wants to debate with Caner? Is it because he believes Caner is an expert, and is impressed with his resume? The reason White debates people is to assist his ego and try to make them look silly and himself look larger.

I am sure you are impressed with his book writing, I am not sure why others should be impressed with his resume. What's impressive about a non-accredited doctorate?

How do I treat others, by the way? Please, tell us.

peter lumpkins

Scott,

You may not have "said"--"you're making it up"--but what in the world were you implying? If you're going to dialog here, then stop the inflammatory language, Scott. Nor is it even remotely reasonable to suggest, "why can't someone go on the record at GG and release a public statement to that effect?" You're not going to get any organization to publicly state a person was "let go" and certainly not state any particulars. Besides, I told you how to find out--get your buddy to tell you what he found out from them last June.

Even so, you email GG just like others have. Get your own statement...

With that, I am...
Peter

Scott Oakland

Peter, I'm not sure what is considered acceptable or inflammatory here. I was using sarcasm that the fellow was placing proof on their post that could easily be dismissed. In any event, the one who needs to secure the "statement" is the one who is bringing the accusation. Peter, that is why the Scripture talks about getting witnesses when bringing an accusation against an Elder. The same principle applies universally, and even our legal system recognizes it. Otherwise, what havoc someone could cause by making any statement they want and, rather than offering proof, they tell everyone else to "prove" it is false. Sorry, but no one is buying it.

peter lumpkins

Scott,

Here's the last time I'm going to post anything about your commenting at SBC Tomorrow. If you were using "sarcasm" there was absolutely no reason to do so. Sam is a first-time commenter here. And, he did nothing but post a straight-forward factual statement. It deserved no sarcasm

I have neither time nor energy to babysit emotionality out-of-control bloggers like yourself who cannot carry on civil exchange. If you cannot or will not deal with content, I suggest you go back to your own blog and write your heart's desire.

Now, I just put up another post. The same rule goes--I'm done putting up with your nonsense. Deal with the content or so long. It's that simple.

With that, I am...
Peter

Scott Oakland

Peter, I'll try stating it a different way:

You and those who conclude that Dr. White is no longer considered an adjunct professor is called "climbing the ladder of inference." It's a common thing outlined here:

http://gwynteatro.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/climbing-the-ladder-of-inference/

As I stated previously, the cold cruel facts are that there is no way from the Golden Gate website that you can accurately and definitively state that Dr. White no longer teaches there. One is not on safe grounds doing so, and is instead simply engaged in speculation. From the very same data, we could conclude many different things, such as; 1) Dr White has been too busy with debates and other engagements to schedule a course since Jan. 2010. 2) Golden Gate has no specific need at this moment - or available slot, maybe due to the economy - for his services. 3) The website may not be updated as we'd all like, and may explain the inconsistencies between the data on the adjuncts that you point out. 4) That Dr White has been told he is no longer adjunct.

Now, one might think that is the case when one views the June 2010 "smoking gun" video. But time has elapsed since that video, and anything could have happened. But to choose Door # 4, which you all seem to be pushing here, is one out of at least three possibilities (and, likely, many others as well).

My intent here is not to provoke anyone - it's simply an attempt to reason with all of you that things are not always like we think they are. To quote R Scott Clark from Heidelblog, "we are not like kittens or babies - covering our eyes doesn't make the world go away".

peter lumpkins

Scott,

The so-called "ladder of inference" is interesting but completely irrelevant. It is a slick way of denying what we know to be so. No evidence whatsoever suggests JW presently teaches at GGBTS except what not only JW tells people but you as well. People have the evidence. And they have it all in one place on the newest post I just put up.

The fact remains if James White presently teaches at GGBTS, then we need to know what and where he teaches. If he does not, then he needs to stop misleading the public. And, so do you, Scott. So do you.

With that, I am...
Peter

Ron Phillips, Sr.

Scott,

Please stop. You are making yourself look ridiculous. Your blind devotion to White comes across as one incapable of reason and that you are engaging in apotheosis. Is it even possible for you to put Mr. White on a higher pedestal? Further, you are doing the very thing you accuse Peter and others of doing: wild speculation. Mr. White has been busy debating for more than a year? Seriously? Your first two statements make him out to be a liar - because your speculation leaves him no wiggle room for claiming to presently teach at GGBTS. You have unwittingly painted him in a corner as a liar with your wild speculation.

Yet when so many, including GGBTS officials publicly state or respond to emails that what Peter and others have communicated is true, you dismiss it because it is not an "official" statement that he does not now nor will he teach at GGBTS. With all due respect and no personal insult intended, how obtuse can you be. Mr. White does not teach at GGBTS.

All you have done is remind us of what Abraham Lincoln said. For me, you have removed all doubt.

Ron P.

Scott Oakland

Ron -

Since the burden of proof lies at the feet of the one making the assertion, I suggest it is not me, but you and Peter's followers here, who are making something out of nothing and being obtuse. I offered those examples of what Dr White MIGHT be doing to simply illustrate that there are dozens of other possibilities than the one you have chosen and desperately hold on to. You know, the nefarious conclusions that Dr. White has been "cut off" from GG. And the evidence that you mention in your post (which so far consists of emails in quote marks, a set-up video from last June, and other hearsay evidence) is no evidence at all. By the way, if the evidence was so air-tight, Peter would agree to come on Dr. White's (or my) podcast to make their case. But that isn't going to happen anytime soon, by the looks of things. Also, I have already stated that there is no course currently being run that Dr. White is teaching. That's a far cry from saying "he has been cut off from GG".

peter lumpkins

Scott,

Please note the comment I left in the latest post. You need to drop the nonsense about podcasts being the medium to magically make all the problems you and White have disappear. And, take my my words literally. Okeedoekee?

With that, I am...
Peter

Dave Armstrong

Scott: While David's arguments are exponentially more reasonable than yours, I still shot them down in flames.

Really? I must have missed that (anyone can read my replies under my latest article on this issue in the link Scott provided above). At best (and this is being as charitable as I can be) you showed that reasonable people could disagree on this, but you certainly didn't establish (despite very vigorous spinning and sophistry) that your take on the White GGBTS issue was a whit more plausible or reasonable than mine or Peter's. You didn't prove that we were being UNreasonable.

And indeed, the reply received from the seminary would bear that out, and show that we are being more reasonable than you. Nor is there any very significant difference between my argument and Peter's: just a few elements where he went a bit further than I did. Big wow. YAWN.

It was a fairly civil discussion, though, for which I am grateful. Any time an anti-Catholic Protestant achieves rudimentary civility with a Catholic is a cause for rejoicing and ticker-tape parades.

The comments to this entry are closed.