Dave Armstrong said:Hey Dave,
If White would ever simply say he's sorry (as Peter noted), and messed up (like all of us have many times, being mere sinful mortals), this thing could be so over, and he would gain a lot of people's respect for such an acknowledgment.
While you're calling protestant apologists to admit their errors, do you have a similar call to repentance for Ergun Caner?
Thanks,
Evan
Comment has been blocked.
Hey Dave,
ReplyDeleteThanks for replying. I'm glad that you agree that Ergun Caner has been dishonest. The reason I bring up the Caner situation is not because I think that Caner's errors would exonerate White's (in fact, I disagree that White has done anything unethical). Rather, my point was for Peter Lumpkins, on whose site the discussion was taking place, who ignores the mountain of evidence against Caner and has chosen to defend him.
"White's fudging about where he is currently teaching"
Dave, it seems that you need to be educated about the context for this dispute. I'll grant that you don't have time for "endless Protestant internal disputes." But I don't think you should then comment on them if you are ignorant of what has transpired. Peter Lumpkins' accusation against White is not about what White has claimed but what a *Christianity Today reporter* claimed about White. See here:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3952
"and whether he has a legitimate doctorate (he does not, of course)."
Nonsense. Even if you want to call White's doctoral studies at an unaccredited institution not "legitimate," White has not promoted any false information here. He has always been very open about the nature of his degree. You may not agree with his value-judgment here, but that is a far cry from him "fudging facts"/lying.
"inconsistency on my part (per the post title)"
My post never accused you of inconsistency. It simply raised a question for you, implying that your answer to it would reveal whether or not you were consistent on this matter. It also serves to reveal the inconsistency of Lumpkins.
"As usual, I wasn't informed that I was mentioned in the post. Such rudimentary courtesies are exceedingly rare in the anti-Catholic blogosphere."
Again, my intention was to post my question to you on Lumpkins' website, in the context that the discussion was taking place, but Lumpkins deleted my comment (presumably because it contained an implicit criticism of Caner, which Lumpkins will simply not allow, hence his attack launched upon White). In any case, I assumed you would notice this post, which obviously you did.
Just to clarify, some of my reply above refers to Dave's post here:
ReplyDeletehttp://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/03/james-whites-stretching-truth-about-his.html
If I may, for Dave's Caner edification, see Ergun Caner’s Secret Biography and Ergun Caner, you moved to Ohio when you were 2 years old.
ReplyDeleteThose two posts give the foundation for Caner's actually upbringing vs. what has been said in print and numerous presentations over the years.
Anyone else note the delicious irony of a freewill holding Arminian who believes that God cannot restrict your ability to freely choose to do evil, is himself restricting people from freely commenting on his own blog? It's almost like Lumpkins believes he has more freedom than God does or something....
ReplyDeleteEvan said:
ReplyDelete"..You may not agree with his value-judgment here..."
I think you nailed here, Evan, though perhaps inadvertently. A doctorate is not a "value judgment", rather it is a peer-reviewed standard set via accreditation. Dave, or anyone else taking exception to JW's doctorate, is not questioning his value judgment; they are questioning his degree.
Matt said:
ReplyDelete---
A doctorate is not a "value judgment", rather it is a peer-reviewed standard set via accreditation.
---
Which is itself a value judgment.
You know how much a PhD is worth to an employer? Nothing. Don't believe me? Try getting an engineering job having a PhD in History.
What matters is the knowledge you've earned. The hope of the employer is that the knowledge on the diploma is relevant to the job, but PhD applicants still have to pass the interview. It's not a free pass to a job.
And when it comes to writers, it is the readers who are the employer. We decide whether we think someone's book is worth purchasing based on whether or not we think what he says is relevant, not whether or not he has a sheepskin in a picture frame. That's why I don't buy theology books from Stephen Hawking.
That's a good point, Peter. But it misses the point. The same can be said of a Masters, Bachelors, Associates or High School Diploma. Do you profess a certain expertise implied via your education?
ReplyDeleteI think there is at least some measure of subjectivity in the "legitimate doctorate" question. But I agree that James White has, to the best of my knowledge, always been open about the nature and history of his studies. At no time, that I'm aware, did he lie and say that his doctorate is an accredited degree when it is not.
ReplyDeleteI would hope that those who oppose White's claim to a "legitimate" doctorate will see and acknowledge the difference between a lie and a perspective. It may be argued that White is wrong about his point of view of his doctorate, but it has been proven to my satisfaction (and to that of many others) that Ergun Caner is a liar, and has been for years.
Let me put it another way. I have been involved in Government / Regulatory Compliance for a number of years. I am not a lawyer, but my body of knowledge in my particular field commands the respect of some JD's who advise and practice in my field. This speaks to your initial objection re value judgment. I offer advice and opinions, but I don't have the props to write opinions and argue cases in front of a court of law. This, seems to me, is JW's position. He certainly has worked hard to earn some respectability in populous apologetics. However, until he earns his props, he will never be considered a "Dr." by anyone who has had to go through what is required by every accredited institution that grants doctoral degrees.
ReplyDeleteThe day may come when Dave Armstrong can put a Dr." in front of his name. That will definitely mean you take him seriously then, no? :}
Matt:
ReplyDeleteDo you agree or disagree with the accusation that James White has lied about the nature of his doctoral studies?
Evan,
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone is arguing about what he says concerning the NATURE of his doctoral studies. I don't doubt that JW believes he earned a doctorate. Do you have a specific example where someone says JW lied about earning what JW says is an accredited doctorate degree?
Matt,
ReplyDelete"However, until he earns his props, he will never be considered a "Dr." by anyone who has had to go through what is required by every accredited institution that grants doctoral degrees."
How do you know his unaccredited degree program was not just as rigorous as an accredited one?
Matt,
ReplyDeleteSee Dave Armstrong's reference above to White "fudging facts."
Hi Evan,
ReplyDeleteI have not read the above link re Dave Armstrong's "Fudging Facts", but if he (Dave) says that JW claims to have an accredited Doctorate degree then Dave needs to quote JW making that claim.
Matt says:
"How do you know his unaccredited degree program was not just as rigorous as an accredited one?"
Who cares? Read my earlier post in this thread.
With respect to James White's education:
ReplyDelete1. It's rather ironic to find men like Peter Lumpkins complaining about White's non-accredited doctorate on the one hand and holding out as a guardian of Baptist tradition the other. He sounds more like a high church Episcopalian than a Baptist when he does that. Savor the irony.
And it isn't as if Dave Armstrong has an qualifications whatsoever to level complaints in that regard.
2. A Master's level education is all that is required to teach as an adjunct faculty member at an SBC seminary. Take a stroll through their faculty lists through the years.
3. Many laypersons without a Master's degree are more proficient in biblical languages and hermeneutics than many pastors with those degrees.
So, what's the problem here exactly?
The problem here, bro, is that reformed can't dance....don't you get it !?!?!
ReplyDeleteSo does anyone know what ATS, the accrediting agency, has to say about White teaching at one of the schools accredited by them? Or how about what GGBTS has to say? Does ATS hold the position that GGBTS is in any way violating any of their standards? Isn't this what ultimately matters?
ReplyDeleteAlso, graduates of CES, where White got his doctorate, have been accepted at accredited schools such as Liberty University and TEDS.
Mark said:
ReplyDelete"So does anyone know what ATS, the accrediting agency, has to say about White teaching at one of the schools accredited by them? Or how about what GGBTS has to say?"
Is this rhetorical, or are you going to answer it.
Mark said:
"Also, graduates of CES, where White got his doctorate, have been accepted at accredited schools such as Liberty University and TEDS"
See Gene's post above. Can you confirm whether JW's "doctorate" got him into Liberty University AND teds? I think you're conflating degrees.
Matt, if you don't know what my point is about CES grads transferring then why don't you ask instead of assuming things?
ReplyDeleteYou come here and make statements about the legitimacy of White's doctorate, but know nothing of what ATS or GGBTS has to say about it? White teaching at GGBTS did not violate any ATS standards. It is not the norm for those with unaccredited degrees to be listed with those degrees and be adjuncts. It is essentially up to the school. If the school notes exceptional gifts in an individual who can contribute to the goals of a degree program then the normal qualifications may be overridden.
Apparently, White has demonstrated his abilities to those at GGBTS. His relationship with the school and students have always been good.
While White's doctorate may be unaccredited it does not mean he did not do any work for them. Whatever one thinks of the quality of White's work, he did not just buy a degree.
Matt said:
ReplyDelete---
That's a good point, Peter. But it misses the point. The same can be said of a Masters, Bachelors, Associates or High School Diploma. Do you profess a certain expertise implied via your education?
---
No, you don't. Degrees are essentially worthless these days. It used to be that a degree would secure you a job and reflect your level of education, but these days so many people get degrees with so little value that they are essentially worthless when considering such things as whether or not someone is employed. At best, a degree would function merely as a tie-breaker (that is, two applicants have the same set of skills, so you hire the one with the degree).
If you don't believe me, you can simply go ask managers who make hiring decisions. Unless you've got a very specific field that requires a very specific high level degree to get into, you simply won't find the level of slavish devotion to the wonders of a higher degree that you exhibit.
I daresay that anyone looking to hire Dr. White as a teacher is going to look far more at his 100+ debates and his dozens of books and listen to the thousands of hours of archived programs to gauge whether or not he's what they want in a teaching job, rather than saying, "Gee, I wonder if you really earned that diploma."
In fact, given how much he has done, it's only people who have an ideological axe to grind against him that are concerned about his degree status. No one else cares.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteAgain, I agree w/ your overarching point - degrees don't matter in the uber-aggregate:
"In fact, given how much he has done, it's only people who have an ideological axe to grind against him that are concerned about his degree status. No one else cares"
So, as far as you're concerned, it's James White, GED. I'm okay with that.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteTo quickly follow-up. I do agree, degrees do not carry the weight they used to, but do you really think hat JW does not give weight to his his "doctorate" - why else would he call himself a doctor?
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
"He certainly has worked hard to earn some respectability in populous apologetics. However, until he earns his props, he will never be considered a "Dr." by anyone who has had to go through what is required by every accredited institution that grants doctoral degrees. "
ReplyDeleteWhat is interesting about this is the perception that accredited institutions require more. I've had a lot of exposure, both direct and indirect, to accredited institutions.
Simply put, CES probably requires more work than accredited institutions. My brother, while attending an accredited seminary, took a course with CES (which the accredited seminary accepted for credit!). Interestingly, the work in the CES course was much more intensive than at this institution.
Incidentally, I have a degree from a secular university, and I am studying for an M.Div at a major theological seminary. My crowd is primarily white-collar. I have had hundreds of conversations about programs of study of every sort - that's the social strata in which I live. Comparisons of 'what they had to go through' are simply silly.
Also, it should be noted that the quality of education fundamentally depends on the individual who learns. Many self-learners prove themselves far more apt than degreed individuals.
Well Dave, had I been addressing your points I would have mentioned your name. I was, instead, replying to Matt and expanding my thought to some more general issues concerning accreditation, qualifications, etc.
ReplyDeleteSo please read your own reply of "who said this?" because I was not "saying that" toward what you referenced. Please try to keep me in context.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Considering that Dave Armstrong has deleted about 99% of the comments of his that have ever been deleted, I agree with his characterization that they are "malicious deletions."
ReplyDeleteComment has been blocked.
Hi Mike:
ReplyDeleteyou say, "What is interesting about this is the perception that accredited institutions require more..."
Simply put, what is required is that certain peer-reviewed standards have been met / fufilled. Whether CES requires more is not pertinent to what is required in order to obtain an accredited, and by default, a recognized degree. Its apples an oranges.
"... CES probably requires more work than accredited institutions."
That may or may not be true. From what I can tell, however, the work required for JW's degree at CES was substantially less than what is typically required from other phd candidates pursuing acrredited degrees (unless theology degrees are just plain thin).
"Many self-learners prove themselves far more apt than degreed individuals."
I think we can all agree on that. IT is an example that comes to mind.
That's it for me, folks. Thanks for the courteous exchanges.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Dave, if you take my words and apply them to something I was not responding to and say your application is still valid, you have an "interesting" way with words. All I can do is laugh.
ReplyDelete"Simply put, what is required is that certain peer-reviewed standards have been met / fufilled."
ReplyDeletePeer review unfortunately suffers from the Matthew effect; its benefits are limited.
Comment has been blocked.
I note that once again Dave cannot leave the "anti-Catholics" alone, despite his numerous claims to the contrary. It's really no shock that he and Lumpkins get along so well.
ReplyDeleteComment has been blocked.
I'm glad to see you left third grade, Dave. Now go back to your own playground, troll.
ReplyDeleteComment has been blocked.
No, Dave. You're a troll because you're trying to divert attention on to me. It's pretty obvious what you're doing.
ReplyDeleteNow go back under your bridge and get some more little kids for your priest's fun time.
Gads Peter! Come on now! We really need to take a breath and ask if it's God-glorifying to liken Catholic apologists to pimps for their wayward priests. This conversation is a stink in His nostrils as it is, but way over the line there, bro, in my view.
ReplyDeleteI'm more concerned with their souls.
ReplyDeleteBTW, you made the assumption that it was mollestation I was referring to, not me.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to argue with you, Peter, but I'm also not an idiot. I think it's disingenuous to expect people here to think that "your priest's fun time" in reference to "little kids" wasn't a euphemism for a very specific known atrocity within the Roman Catholic church.
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, I'm glad you are concerned for the souls of little children, however ineloquently stated. Perhaps now we can all agree to bring this miserable mess to some kind of conclusion.
Pilgrim,
ReplyDeleteIt was an intentionally ambiguous reference to Dave Armstrong being a troll, similar to fairy tales told to kids.
Was I aware someone could make that assumption? Of course. But if the Catholic Church didn't have that problem to contend with, it would have been a perfectly innocent comment, wouldn't it?
If that's the first place you went to when you read it...well, that says more about the Catholic Church's reputation than I did.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI understand. I confess to deficiencies in my troll lore.