Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Fragging James White

A friend drew my attention to Peter Lumpkins’ hit-piece attacking James White.

1.Hovering in the background of the immediate dustup is the future of the SBC. Lumpkins is a diehard who views the Reformed resurgence in the SBC as a hostile takeover. If he laid his cards on the table, that’s his ulterior agenda.

2.Apropos (1), although I’m not at liberty to disclose my sources, I do have insider information regarding the Machiavellian tactics that anti-Calvinists in the SBC engage in. And I’m not using “Machiavellian” hyperbolically. They really are that ruthless, unscrupulous, and cutthroat.

So I’m afraid I can’t buy into the victimology of the anti-Calvinists.

3.The charge of cowardice is ridiculous on the face of it. White engages in formal, public debates with notable representatives of the opposing position. He also has a call-in radio show. Those are not the tactics of a coward.

Indeed, as far as cowardice goes, why doesn’t Lumpkins level his allegations in the live, public forum of the DL? He’s very brave as long as he’s talking about White, but when it comes to talking to White, with others overhearing the exchange, his valor deserts him.

4.White also has to contend with fraggers, of which Lumpkins is just another case in point.

While White is out on the frontlines, arguing down various enemies of the faith, you have professing Christians who shoot him in the back.

And, of course, enemies of the faith use this as additional ammo to attack White. They quote this stuff.

The unprovoked fragging of a Christian apologist, where someone in the camp tries to cut him down in plain view of the enemy, is mutinous to the cause of Christ.

I suppose Lumpkins would say that White is guilty of the same thing in reverse, but to my knowledge, White is responding to these attacks, not initiating the attacks.

Fraggers like Lumpkins never defend the faith themselves, yet they attack those who do. Lumpkins is just a fifth-column anklebiter who does nothing useful in his own right, but make every effort to sabotage the fine work of others.

5.As for the ethics of posting private email, if a man says one thing in public, but another thing in private–then it’s sometimes necessary to set the record straight.

Confidentially is not absolute, especially when confidentially is misused as a shield to conceal unethical behavior–like the relationship between the Don and his consigliere.

6.The issue of Caner is the issue of resume inflation. Did he pad his resume with bogus achievements? Did he get his job under false pretenses?

I’m not going to volunteer an opinion on that since I haven’t bothered to study the question in depth. But there’s nothing wrong with raising the question if there’s prima facie evidence of resume inflation.

Does Lumpkins think that Christians should engage in a cover-up? That’s the attitude of the Catholic church, which has been stonewalling the authorities for years on the priestly abuse scandal.

Is that Lumpkins’ position, to? The code of silence? The SBC version of the Mafia omertà?

7.His response is to turn the tables and accuse White of resume inflation. But even if, for the sake of argument, that were true, how does that exonerate Caner?

To my knowledge, White has never falsified his record. He never padded his resume with bogus degrees or awards he never received.

8.As to having degrees from unaccredited institutions, there are various reasons why some people attend unaccredited institutions.

i) It some cases the reason is financial. Not everyone was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Most folks don’t come from money. Their parents can’t bankroll an Ivy League education.

And since, historically, the SBC has been a working class/middle class denomination, I don’t know why Lumpkins would look down on unaccredited institutions. He sounds like a stuffy, snobby Episcopalian.

ii) Another problem is the lack of a Baptist equivalent to Westminster. Where is a Reformed Baptist supposed to study?

He can study at a seminary like WSC which is Reformed, but hostile to Baptists (i.e. Scott Clark)–or he can study at a seminary which is Baptist, but hostile to Reformed theology.

The closest thing we have to it nowadays is SBTS under Albert Mohler. But that wasn’t an option when White began his studies.

iii) Some seminaries also opt out of the accreditation system to avoid the censorship of accreditation agencies.

That has its tradeoffs, but it’s a respectable rationale.

iv) Some people do so for convenience. The programs may be more flexible, or closer to home. Or have a distance education option.

From what I’ve heard, James White did his academic work at CES because it was never his ambitious to be a college prof. or seminary prof. He wasn’t pursuing a tenure-track career. Instead, he prefers the local church as his base of operations.

21 comments:

  1. For those youngsters in the crowd, Steve is referring to the treacherous practice (first done in Viet Nam, iirc) of throwing a fragmentation grenade at one's fellow soldiers (usually a superior officer, if I recall correctly).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hit that one out of the park, man :)

    *ponders an honorary AOMinion title* ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I'm here: I have a "Common Objections to AOMin" page I'm building - listed are references to hyper-calvinism and accreditation, thus far.

    Oh, and there's a typo you might want to fix, directly next to the work "debates". :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hrmm, typo'd "word" in my own comment. Irony?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,

    Let me contest your claim about WSC. We host the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies. Its Director, Dr James Renihan. has said exactly the opposite. We honor and love each other even as we have significant differences. Jim sits in our faculty meetings and we have good fellowship. The IRBS has a warm relationship with WSC and we with them.

    Inasmuch as the ARBCA, which the IRBS serves is Baptist and we happily host the IRBS, it cannot be said that WSC is hostile to Baptists.

    Further, if you ask Baptists such as Jim Renihan or Mark Dever you will find that they do not regard Clark as "hostile" to Baptists. They understand that Clark is advocating the historic Reformed theology-- which both men have personally encouraged me to do and to continue doing!

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/post-thanksgiving-cartoons-reply-to-james-white/

    R. Scott Clark does seem "hostile" to Baptists in this post.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would suggest that Clark's "hostility" toward Baptists be considered theologically, not personally (similar to the Calvinist/Arminian relationship). Clark's overly hostile language in such posts and others (as on my blog) are connected to his understanding of the Reformed position per his writing of Recovering the Reformed Confession.

    ReplyDelete
  8. *applauds* Hit the nail on the head with that one Steve! Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Lumpkins is just a fifth-column anklebiter who does nothing useful in his own right, but make every effort to sabotage the fine work of others."

    My favorite sentence.

    Makes me think of the LibProts who frag Biblical Christians who hold to positions such as inerrancy (CSBI), complementarianism (Danvers Statement), creationism, biblical marriage, pro-life, etc....

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jame's White is on the forefront of Calvinist apologetics. That doesn't mean he is on the the forefront of Christian apologetics.

    Personally, I am not a Calvinist, because Christ wasn't. The problem is that if one elevates Calvin's teaching to the point one assumes they are inspired, one will become more like Calvin than Christ, which leaves us with a choice; do we want to be more like Christ or more like Calvin?

    James White has made his choice, and proclaims it clearly; unfortunately, he is more like Calvin than Christ and for that reason - deserves to be confronted (with grace).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Andrew said...

    "Jame's White is on the forefront of Calvinist apologetics. That doesn't mean he is on the the forefront of Christian apologetics."

    False dichotomy.

    "Personally, I am not a Calvinist, because Christ wasn't."

    Begging the question.

    "The problem is that if one elevates Calvin's teaching to the point one assumes they are inspired..."

    Straw man argument.

    "...one will become more like Calvin than Christ, which leaves us with a choice; do we want to be more like Christ or more like Calvin?"

    What makes you think these tendentious comments are the least bit convincing?

    "James White has made his choice, and proclaims it clearly; unfortunately, he is more like Calvin than Christ and for that reason - deserves to be confronted (with grace)."

    White, unlike you, presents reasoned arguments for his position.

    You're more like a village atheist than Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve said..

    “False dichotomy.”

    Not so since the above two options were not presented as the exclusive options. In order to have a false dichotomy, one must present only two options as the only two. Your “False dichotomy” claim is thus a straw man argument.

    “Begging the question.”
    Again not so since since what you suppose to be a conclusion contained in a premise is actually a tautology (in logic). Christ's doctrine was not derived from man, but from God [John 13:3]. Therefore it would be false to call Jesus a Calvinist (unless one supposes Calvin to have perfect doctrine equal to that of Christ). If Jesus was not a Calvinist, and one aspires to be like Jesus, one should also not be a Calvinist. This is within the spirit of not calling oneself after the doctrine of man but of Christ (1 Cor 1:12-17)

    “Straw man argument.”
    A straw man argument is when one misrepresents another's position. The comment you suggest is a misrepresentation of a typical Calvinist position is suggesting many Calvinists equate Calvinism with Christianity. If this is true, and one were a Calvinist, one cannot accept non-Calvinists as Christians. You assertion that I am more like a village atheist than Christ is proof indeed that my representation is not a straw man argument.
    For a Christian to label other Christians “village atheists” exhibits lack of grace, charity and indeed all of the fruit of the spirit. This type of interaction is most certainly not Christ-like.


    “What makes you think these tendentious comments are the least bit convincing?”
    Jesus recognized that the Gospel would be accepted by some (though not all) - but also recognized that no arguments could get through to the hardened hearts of most pharisee's. Like Jesus, I don't think that my comments are convincing to many Calvinists since many Calvinists are the pharisee's of this age. Nonetheless, we are called to sew the seed everywhere knowing the some will sprout though not all will.

    It's true White presents reasoned arguments for his position, except that White's goal is to support Calvin's doctrine at all costs; mine is to remain Biblically faithful (even if at the expense of Calvin's errors).


    Finally, Steve, simply brandying about sophisticated labels incorrectly to denote a position as a fallacy with ridicule is also itself a fallacy (Appeal to ridicule). You should make some effort to understand the label you're using, so you can use them correctly, before using them against argument you disagree with, otherwise you will appear a bully, much like John Calvin (who was also seen as a bully by even his supporters); fortunately, Christ is not nor was seen a bully.

    Grace and Peace to you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Andrew said

    "Not so since the above two options were not presented as the exclusive options. In order to have a false dichotomy, one must present only two options as the only two. Your “False dichotomy” claim is thus a straw man argument."

    Calvinism assumes Christianity

    "Again not so since since what you suppose to be a conclusion contained in a premise is actually a tautology (in logic). Christ's doctrine was not derived from man, but from God [John 13:3]. Therefore it would be false to call Jesus a Calvinist (unless one supposes Calvin to have perfect doctrine equal to that of Christ). If Jesus was not a Calvinist, and one aspires to be like Jesus, one should also not be a Calvinist. This is within the spirit of not calling oneself after the doctrine of man but of Christ (1 Cor 1:12-17)"

    By that logic, instead of labeling a cereal by the name of Fruit Loops you should instead name all of the ingredients it makes up, and label it Com Flour; Sugar; Wheat Flour; Whole Grain Oat Flour; Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (One or More of: Coconut, Cottonseed, and Soybean)Salt, Sodium Ascorbate and Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C)Niacinamide, Red No. 40, Reduced Iron, Natural Orange, Lemon, Cherry, Raspberry, Blueberry, Lime, and Other Natural Flavors, Blue No. 2, Yellow No. 6, Zinc Oxide, Turmeric Color; Blue No. 1, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6)Riboflavin (Vitamin B2)Annatto Color; Thiamin Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1)Vitamin A Palmitate, BHT (Preservative)Folic Acid, Vitamin B12, Vitamin D.
    (also you might want to look at a commentary to see Paul's 'real' argument)

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Jesus recognized that the Gospel would be accepted by some (though not all) - but also recognized that no arguments could get through to the hardened hearts of most pharisee's. Like Jesus, I don't think that my comments are convincing to many Calvinists since many Calvinists are the pharisee's of this age. Nonetheless, we are called to sew the seed everywhere knowing the some will sprout though not all will."

    Non Sequitur argumentation

    "It's true White presents reasoned arguments for his position, except that White's goal is to support Calvin's doctrine at all costs; mine is to remain Biblically faithful (even if at the expense of Calvin's errors). "

    The Fallacy of Hasty Generalizations

    ReplyDelete
  15. "It's true White presents reasoned arguments for his position, except that White's goal is to support Calvin's doctrine at all costs; mine is to remain Biblically faithful (even if at the expense of Calvin's errors). "


    I also would like to add one more comment to that:

    It could just as easily be said that we are remaining biblically faithful while you are not (at the expense of holding on to your Arminian, extra-biblical presuppositions) ;)

    ReplyDelete
  16. With respect to my arguments above:

    None of the assertions above were dealt with in your counter-argument. They are simply ignored. Instead you commit a fallacy in your strategy to appeal to authority.

    Each of your counter arguments is simply an attempt to apply a label, without justification that your application is correct, in the hope, that if the labels sticks, my arguments cannot stand. (The authority being appealed to is implied in the use or misuse of authoritative labels.

    So far I've asserted that Christ is responsible for Christianity (not Calvin).

    I've also asserted that it is unBiblical to follow the doctrines of men rather than the doctrines of Christ.

    I grant that Calvinism is the doctrine of John Calvin. Whether or not Calvinism presuppose Christianity, Calvinism is not Christianity since John Calvin is not Christ. Calvinism, as a doctrine of a man is necessarily deficient.

    Therefore it is unbiblical for one to seek to be a Calvinist rather than a Christian simply because the Bible calls us to become like Christ, not Calvin (whether John Calvin was a horrid or a wonderful Christian).

    Resequitur said ...
    “I also would like to add one more comment to that:

    It could just as easily be said that we are remaining biblically faithful while you are not (at the expense of holding on to your Arminian, extra-biblical presuppositions) ;)


    You could say that but you would be incorrect in your prejudice.

    Take Calvin out of the above argument, and replace it with Jacobus Arminus and I agree; we are not called to be like Jacobus Arminus (just like Calvin). We are still called to be like Christ.

    Jacobus Arminus's theology is as deficient as Calvin's was, and so you have no claim your theology is better. Only Christ's doctrine, once fully known, is supreme; and I doubt you know his doctrine perfectly, just as I don't.

    It's arrogance to say otherwise. Even so, both Calvinist and Arminian theology can be examined critically against the Bible, and be shown to be equally far off the mark and based upon equally false assumptions.

    I am, therefore, as much an Arminian as I am a Calvinist; or I am neither an Arminian nor a Calvinist.

    I am most like the thief on the cross, a sinner in need of Christ's redemptive blood, with faith that God is able to make me like Christ; and able to use an imperfect tool, perfectly.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Andrew, are you even aware of what Calvinism is?

    Are you even aware of what Dr. White teaches? Have you read any of his books, have you listened to any of his debates?

    What you keep referring to as "Calvinism" and "A doctrine of man" teaches that God is sovereign over all things. That God uses the faithful saint as well as the unregenerate autonomous man to accomplish His will.

    Whether it be when Joseph's brothers kidnapped him (Gen 37:22), staged his death(Gen 37:23), sold him to slavery (Gen 37:28), and lied to their father . All of which came from desires (Gen 37:32), yet God ordained that they would happen, meaning them for good.

    As for you,you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. (Gen 50:20)

    Or it be in Isaiah 10, when God uses the pagan nation of Assyria, a nation of people who had no acknowledgement whatsoever. Yet God uses them as "the rod of his anger" (v.5) to punish Israel. He sends them "To capture booty and to seize plunder,And to trample them down like mud in the streets. " (v.5)
    God uses the Assyrians in this way "Yet it does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy" (v.7)

    And notice what happens after all of this "So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness." (v.10)

    And finally, according to His foreknowledge, man's greatest sin was the murdering of His Son, The Christ. Even though these men meant evil again Jesus, God meant it for good to save His people. (Acts 2:23) (Matthew 1:21)

    And He does these things "for the good of those who love Him, and are called according to His purposes, For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

    (Romans 8:28-30)


    These are all teaching from Scripture, yet they were attributed to Calvin as though he invented them. He, and Luther, along with many other Reformers brought biblical teaching back to the pulpits against the opposition of Man Centered doctrine from Rome.

    anything less than the above Scripture is sub-biblical teaching. We stand behind Calvin's example of remaining true to the exposition from the Scripture. Not "how we feel" God should be. So before you attribute it to the doctrine of a man, you may want to consider who stands where in Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Resequitur, don't insult my intelligence. Of course I know what Calvinism is and what it teaches (and the diversity that exists within the Calvinist community). I am also familiar with Arminianism and its disagreement with Calvinism. I wouldn't be critical if I didn't first make some effort to understand.

    I know Dr. White and his books. I have even listened intently to his debates though there was frequently periods lacking Christian grace. That doesn't mean that I sympathize. Nor does it mean I sympathize with his opponents.

    Respectfully – for you to imply that I'm coming from an uninformed position shows arrogance.

    Even so, thank you for directing my attention to the Bible and for setting out the standard for what it means to be a Calvinists. If one needs only believe that God intends to conform those he foreknew into the image of Christ, than I must also be a Calvinist!

    Since Calvinists are Bible believing, they must also believe that it was Israel God foreknew (Romans 11:2, Psalm 94:14) and who He predestined (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6). Calvinists much also believe that God elected Israel Ezekiel 20:5,Acts 13:17,Deuteronomy 4:37 and promised to never to cast them away Romans 11:2.

    Since the new covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31 re-quoted in Hebrews 8:8), and since God's covenant promise that Israel would remain his people until at least the sun, moon and stars ceased to shine, the waves of the sea ceased to roar Jeremiah 31:36, Jesus' claim that he was sent only to the House of Israel in Matt 15:24 makes perfect sense.

    I'm not sure where this leaves us Calvinists. Arminians also appear to be in the same boat, given their shared belief that God is conforming those he foreknew (Israel) into the image of Christ.

    Still, it begs the question, Jesus introduced Biblical teaching in the first place, and you say Calvin re-introduced them. Then why would one call oneself a Calvinist, rather than a Christian, since Calvin's role is inferior to Christ's? You concede that it is Christ's image his people are to conform to, and Christ provides a much better example to stand behind than Calvin does - yet you continue to defend keeping the label?!

    Given your excellent advice to consider who stands in scripture, I've checked, and been unable to find Calvin or Calvinism in scripture, but I was able to find Christ, and God's promises to his chosen (who appear to be Israelites rather than Calvinists).

    Understandably, I've had a hard time pinning that Calvinist label on and having it stick, though according to your standard – I am one.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Andrew I have responded to you on my blog site. I will not waste anymore of Triablogue's space doing it here

    ReplyDelete
  20. Much appreciated. I wasn't aware you had a blog, but I'll head over and check it out.

    ReplyDelete