Response To James White

Posted: July 10, 2013 in King James Only Debate, NEWS

Yesterday we posted an article titled, “Where Was James White” in which we asked where was James White on the issues of the sex scandals at Sovereign Grace Ministries while he was eager to attack Ergun Caner. We also noted his sister’s blog where she implicated him in intimidating her over sexual abuse allegations she has made against their parents. White offered an audio response to this article, although he did not address the issues regarding his sister’s blog. Since James White read directly from the article on his show, we are reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not see this.

White begins his audio broadcast by making fun of my name (“Doc Ach” as he laughed), and of course, making fun of my grammar as being “not good English” which as anyone that knows me knows that English is not my first language. But this is typical of many Calvinists who make a habit of ad hominem attacks against their opponents. And while I strive to correct spelling or grammatical errors, I do not make a habit of equating the meaning of an article with the “divine accuracy onlyism” of which White seems to be a proponent of (see his critique of Norman Geislers “Chosen But Free” rebuttal to White’s book for a list of all of Geisler’s spelling and grammatical errors).

At 4:20, White notes that this website makes no mention of his book “The King James Only Controversy” and states that he “almost fainted” in that this is the first website that is KJVO that didn’t mention his book. Well contrary to White’s inflated ego, we don’t think White’s book deserves a highlight on the front page of our website. However, we do have a section on the top of the site that is labeled “King James Defense Sites” as well as a category below that is labeled “King James Only Debate”. As superior and intelligent as White appears to be (just ask him) I almost fainted when he missed both of those obvious clues. We do however, have a section of Will Kinney’s articles of which Kinney has refuted several of White’s contentions about the KJV. (And ironically, Kinney is a Calvinist of whom even though we disagree shows more grace than James White could spell with a thousand word processors.)

We began this article with a clear statement that it may be speculation, and ended the article with “can anyone answer this?”. You would think considering the certainty in which we post the rest of our articles, that such a statement admitting that it could be speculation would be seen as an honest attempt to gather answers instead of an attack on our intelligence from the APOLOGIST (as White critiqued our term “apologeticist” as “not good English” although such a term is commonly used by others, here, here, and here.). White conceded that our assertion that he is popular “is probably true [laughing]”.

We conceded to those who left comments that there actually was no debate between White and Caner as alleged on our article, and stated that the reason we assumed there was a debate was because the You Tube link had erroneously labeled the video “Ergun Caner vs James White on Calvinism”. Nevertheless, our article was never about Ergun Caner or defending Caner. White spent much of his radio show explaining something we really don’t care about, and actually-which may come as a surprise to White-AGREE with James White on this issue that if Caner misrepresented himself as a Muslim to gain credibility among Muslims, he should “come clean”.

At 6:30, White states we should have been aware of this because we “spent hours searching the internet” for it. What we spent hours looking for was White’s response to the SGM scandal, not the Ergun Caner issue. I could almost faint that a man who often accuses KJVO adherents of having “problems with categories” that James White got this wrong and miscategorized that statement.

At 7:00, White states that our explanation of Geisler’s response to White about Caner explains why we are King James Onlyists. Again, another fallacious pejorative jab by White as there have been many King James Onlyists who did not become King James Onlyists because of their assessment of Norman Geisler’s response to White on the Caner issue. Furthermore, we did not contend that White did NOT refute Geisler, we merely contended that both parties IN OUR OPINION presented compelling responses for each of their arguments. White assumes we should have drawn a conclusion in favor of his “thorough refutation” and because we did not, that is what caused us to be King James Onlyists! With logic like this, I am surprised that White has made it as far as he has as an APOLOGIST.

No we don’t believe that White should be involved in EVERY controversy within the church, but the reason that he justified his expose of Caner was ultimately “for the greater good of the testimony of the church”. I would contend that scandals involving sex crimes in the churches present a far greater obstacle to the gospel than one person’s dishonesty about being a Muslim. I have spent countless hours on this website addressing claims of “Do Right” groups, Stuff Fundies Like, Jeri Massi’s “Blog On The Way”, “Baptist Deception” et al, over issues that have led thousands to reject Christ, embrace progressive Christianity, Process Theology, Agnosticism, Atheism, most of which revolved around the treatment of their own children or others involving sexual abuse. So you mean to tell me that Atheism is not an apologetics issue? That when thousands have claimed to have left fundamentalist Christianity because of sexual abuse in the churches, that does not merit some type of response from an apologist? I would submit that far more people have avoided Christianity as well as left Christianity over the issue of sexual abuse in the church, than the issue of Ergun Caner lying about where he was born and who he has debated.

It should also be noted that James White has devoted several hours to the issue of homosexuality on his radio show, and has taped debates with homosexual activists. So James White does appear to believe that sexual dysfunctions are relevant to apologetics, just not ones that reflect issues in his own household?

What is ironic is that in dismissing our question about White’s silence on this, not once did White state that it was an important issue that should be addressed. You would think that since such an issue was raised, White could have at least said something like “As much as I think churches should be more compassionate about this issue, and commit to greater accountability, I am really not qualified to speak on this issue”.  He simply brushed it off as “I’m not qualified to address sexual abuse” and yet James contends that he is not an expert on Islam. If you are not an expert on Islam, and yet engage in debates and write books about it, then why do you have to be an expert in sexual abuse in order to stand up and tell your Calvinist brothers that it’s wrong  and is damaging the cause of Christ?

White contends that he became involved in the Caner issue because he HAD TO, and yet White offered no evidence that Caner’s actions affected his ability to debate or witness to Muslims, nor has White shown that his credibility was affected by anything Caner did. Now White could contend that common sense would lead one to believe that such actions by Caner COULD have that effect, but certainly not enough for White to conclude that he HAD TO respond. But, that’s White’s prerogative and we won’t belabor on this issue since it wasn’t our primary concern.

White states that this is a black eye to the apologetics community who remain silent on such issues as if this is a pattern in the apologetics world when he cites only one example, Caner, of this massive cover up conspiracy that is so prevalent in the apologetics community. Again, I could almost faint at such a sweeping generalization from such a seasoned apologist. And yet the cover ups of NUMEROUS churches regarding sexual abuse which is tearing apart churches all over the world isn’t worth mentioning?

White claims that just because he is a Calvinist doesn’t mean he SHOULD have knowledge about the events at SGM, and then tells me to ‘prove it’. Well at @ the 22 minute mark of the video, White admits that he has received several emails asking him why he hasn’t gotten involved and his claim that it is “utter stupidity” that anyone should assume he has a responsibility to get involved in ministries he is not involved in. If White admits to having received emails asking the same question, then I guess we just proved it!


While we’re at it in talking about dishonesty in apologetics, one blogger,  Peter Lumpkins, noted that James White listed in several places, or at least allowed to be listed, a credential that he was teacher at Golden State Baptist Theological Seminary. First let us state that Lumpkin on one site, attributed these postings to Scott Oakland, but a comment posted as James White to us yesterday, one of which White himself referred to on his radio show as his posting, had a return email address of “droakley” so we are not sure if Oakland, Oakley are different people, or one and the same with James White.

Indeed, on the website for Columbia Evangelical Seminary, the following description is given of James White:

James R. White, D.Min.,Th.D.
Faculty Mentor

(Apologetics, Biblical Studies, Comparative Religions, Cults, Exegesis, Theology) Dr. 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. Here

We do note that James has a Doctorate of Ministry which would be highly irregular for there not to be some course on pastoral counseling or some type of Biblical counseling, and thus it is ironic that James would claim that he is not qualified to speak about sexual abuse. He is also  an apologist that doesn’t have a PhD which is the degree that most apologists have. Nevertheless, Lumpkins asked White to answer some questions about this issue since there appears to be no apparent record of White being a professor at said college as stated in the many references cited by Lumpkins here. Perhaps White will do another show on this issue.


White denies that he ever had a debate with Dave Hunt. But here, is a YouTube video hosted by James White titled, “Is Calvinism Biblical?” in which White is on the phone with a person named Dave Hunt (or perhaps in studio), the man sounds like the same Dave Hunt that I have seen in many other videos, and is the only Dave Hunt I know that has publicly argued against White’s views of Calvinism. Sounds like a debate between White and Hunt to me . This is the debate that White often refers to in claiming that Hunt admitted he was ignorant of the Reformers. Apparently, being an ANTI King James Onlyist affects people’s memory!

White himself admits that Reformers are not necessarily all Calvinists, but yet when Hunt said he was ignorant of the REFORMERS, White was quick to point out that Hunt was inconsistent when he stated he probably knew more about CALVINISM than most Calvinists. Although White claims that it would be unlikely that Hunt learned as much about the Reformers as he should have to have the proper understanding of Calvinism (a claim often leveled against Non Calvinists that we don’t truly understand Calvinism unless we have a thorough knowledge of the Reformers, even though many of them disagree with each other and White never points out just WHICH Reformers we should adhere to properly understand CALVINISM), White can not claim as a certainty that Hunt did not learn as much in six months. Just because White thinks it is unlikely doesn’t mean it is impossible (although White actually made an argument for impossibility).


And finally, we were given a link to a blog of a woman who claimed to be James White’s sister, which was then confirmed by White’s response to her blog in regards to Catholicism (an article in which James posts an email from supporters of his sister in which he used the term “Fr.” (Father) to refer to a Catholic priest by the name of Mitchell Pacwa.).

In these two blogs (here and here) his sister, to whom White refers to as “Mrs Bonds”, Patty (we will be courteous enough to use her first name where her own brother will not) paints a dismal picture of several years of child molestation within her home. She states in part:

I was born into the same family as my brother, James R. White. Our parents were both victims of abuse as young people. They carried those scars as people in those days did: silently. Silently, and without resolution, because no one talked about those things. You just toughed it out and did the best you could.

After spending a lengthy time working through the sexual abuse that my father subjected me to for years, I had to confront my brother with the truth.

“my brother James was hostile, defensive, and threatening. He warned me to “watch what I said” about my parents. He also made a very feeble comment about hoping he could “help me” someday”

If James White would take this kind of attitude toward his own sister about sexual abuse (perhaps because he’s “not an expert” on the subject) then in my opinion that speaks volumes about why he would be unwilling to speak out about the issues at SGM.  Now we agree with much of what White said regarding Roman Catholicism, but just because ones family member is a Roman Catholic doesn’t mean you have to throw her under the bus if in fact she was sexually abused by your father. But of course, we understand coming from a religion where God doesn’t love anybody but the elect and of whose founder enjoyed burning heretics for disagreeing with him (both Augustine and Calvin), but would you say that your response to your own sister should have at least included a little rain on the unjust?

And no Mr. White, I have never been to any of your “big conferences” because I am not willing to PAY to see a minister give a message about the Bible.

Now that we’ve corrected our minor errors from the last article, let’s see if James White corrects his!

DISCLAIMER: No vowels or consonants were harmed in the making of this article. And by the way James, is “COVENTAL” Apologetics still on sale? 


Please someone tell me, that I’m not hearing things, and that at the 9:05-9:30 mark on the audio clip, White does not sound just like Barack Obama!

The latter half of James White’s show was critiquing Michael Brown on Calvinism issues. We are going to go through this thoroughly later this week, but wanted to address one point here. White criticized Brown and agreed with Brown’s opponent about “Praying like a Calvinist” which presumes that Brown is conceding that God saves people against their will (of course, we understand that since God instills a compatibilist form of freedom within the believer according to Calvinism, White would disagree that it was actually against their will). However, on Whites’ Facebook page, he states that prayers should be offered for Dave Hunt’s wife.

If God determines all things whatsoever come to pass (according to the Baptist Confession of Faith ch 3, )then what does White expect to accomplish by asking for prayer? Now I agree that Ruth Hunt should have prayers, but not for the same reasons White’s theology would suggest. Has White now become Arminian in demonstrating that God may possibly alter an event that was predetermined!

For the Calvinist, offering prayers or telling a sinner God loves them is just a convenient lie to maintain credibility within the community so Calvinism doesn’t appear as harsh as it really is.

  1. Andy Miller says:

    Talking about Calvinism: While at Hyles Anderson Collage the first year I registered for a class taught by one Al Waddell (I thought a friend of mine, we had been to his house a number of times before school started) A Bob Jones Product! First day in class we were informed we could not record the class or talk about the class outside of class! I should have left that first day but didn’t, about the 3 month I knew he was a Tulip Calvinist, Told Dr. Hyles, next day first sentence out of his mouth was someone talked outside of class! Second semester I was dumb enough to take another required course from him. This class was all about Election of the Saints. On the first test I finished first and wrote on the bottom of the test I don’t believe a word of it! After everyone had finished, he stated that one person had aced the test AND READ read my statement, started talking about it! I ask what does 2nd Peter 3:9 mean “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance”.? He said well evidently it doesn’t mean what it says!
    I closed my books and my Bible, walked out of the class directly to the Presidents office (DR Evens) and advised him if I had to stay in his class I would quit school! Dr. Hyles allowed him to teach for two more years, The next time I saw his picture it was on America’s Most Wanted!

    More at IMDbPro »
    America’s Most Wanted: America Fights Back: Season 1, Episode 27
    Al Waddell/Lisa Castelone (7 Aug. 1988)

    And may I add I’m saddened by the events that have transpired at Hyles Anderson Collage and First Baptist Church since then! I think some of it was due to the fact that Dr. Hyles didn’t want to confront Harrisy and Sin Hear On!

    • JohnBrian says:

      The problems at Hyles Anderson were centered around Jack Hyles himself. He got away with his immoral relationship and his son-in-law thought he could get away with it too.

      As regards 2 Peter 3:9, if you figure out who the US is that God is long-suffering towards, then you’ll know who the ANY and ALL refer to. Here’s a clue: it’s those who Peter is writing to – ‘the elect” (1 Peter 1:2); “those who have obtained like precious faith with us” (2 Peter 1:1); the “Beloved” (2 Peter 3:1).

      • drjamesa says:

        If you haven’t figured it out yet, this is NOT a Hyles site.

        And 2 Peter 3:9 is not a reference to merely “the elect”. First of all, why would God be concerned about his elect perishing if they were already predetermined to be saved? Secondly, why would it be God’s will to tell an audience that has ALREADY REPENTED that He wants them to come to repentance?
        Just because an epistle was written to believers doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have applications that apply to non believers. Obviously it HAS to have some application to unbelievers since hearing comes by the word of God. Unless of course, you believe that God just by-passes the Bible and simply irresistibly saves the elect without any preaching (1 Cor 1:21).

      • JohnBrian says:

        Because there are more elect that will yet come to faith! The context of 2 Peter 3 is that no matter what the scoffers say about Jesus return He will keep that promise, referenced in v.9 as His return. Peter is explaining the apparent delay by informing those believers that non of ‘the elect,’ or ‘the beloved’ would fail to reach repentance. V.17 and 18 are warning and encouragement to BELIEVERS. There’s nothing in the context that indicates that the words ALL and ANY refer to the NON-BELOVED.

      • drjamesa says:

        That is a whole lot of stretching to reach that conclusion. And it still doesn’t explain why God would mention any of the elect PERISHING if He KNEW they were going to be saved. The verse does not say GOd is not willing that the elect should not perish, He would not have to say that if He’s already determined their salvation by irresistible grace. It says he is not willing that ANY should perish and there’s no way to read any other interpretation into that without mangling the text and make it say what you want.

      • Andy Miller says:

        John Brian I don’t think Jack Hyles got away with anything! I was there the year Hyle’s Anderson started, as a matter of fact the name of their yearbook was my suggestion and voted on by the yearbook staff. I had the privilege to see God’s blessing on the first two churches I attended, Grace Baptist Decatur, Illinois and First Baptist Hammond, Indiana. The first one is where I was saved at the age of 31, 40 years ago Grace Baptist grew from 140 in attendance the day I was saved to over 800 and 3 additions in two short years, when I left to go to Hammond, IN there I again saw God’s blessings as the church had 4500 in attendance the first day I was there, growing in a few short years to over 23,000 in attendance! God allowed me to start the Blind Department the first year I was there, Many Good things were going on during the 5 years I lived in Hammond. There were also some things that I questioned, Like Jack Hyles sending his son Dave to his old church in Texas, knowing he was not walking with God. Allowing a Calvinist man to teach in his school after he knew that he was teaching harrisy and ruining a lot of good young disciples for Jesus! dismissing a very devoted and talented young man that taught me more about properly dividing the truth then any other person there including Jack Hyles. I said all of that to bring out the point that I don’t think he got away with it, if I remember things correctly Jack went in for surgery many people have without trouble, He however never woke up again! I will let you decide for yourself the reason he didn’t, I know what I think. Just like the sermon I heard (Pay Day Some Day) the last time it crossed the Old preachers lips!

        A couple of verses I would like for you to tell me what they mean!
        John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (Did God Lie)?

        John 5: 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Was Jesus big enough to pay for the sins of the whole world,to the END of this world)?

        Did God mean (because of the sin of one man judgment came upon all men)? Likewise did God mean (righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men) If you teach (All Men) for the first half don’t you think maybe you should use the same teaching for the last half?

        Would you say with Al Waddell (You just don’t know how important you are, until you realize God chose you)?

        I think I will stand with the publican! Luke 18:10 (Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican).

        I will not comment anymore on this post I’m just not ed-ju-mi-cated enough to debate with you-all!

        If you want to share how people came to Jesus, when the Gospel was given to them, I will be glad to share some also!

        Andy Miller

  2. drjamesa says:

    James White on Twitter: I obviously was far too generous in hoping a KJV Onlyist could engage in meaningful dialogue.

    What’s ironic is that James White made note on this radio show that he was “shocked” that this was the first article from a KJVO Onlyist that didn’t mention his KJVO Controversy, and even in his Twitter response, is still using the same rhetoric.

    Hello? The issue wasn’t about the KJVO “Controversy” (White is the one that has the controversy, I don’t have a problem with the KJV at all 🙂 ) so that’s probably why it wasn’t mentioned. Not every KJVO Onlyist that knows who James White is sees all of White’s doctrinal blunders (i.e., Calvinism) as limited to the KJVO Controversy. That much should have been obvious to White by his own admission.

    For a man who brags about his academia, he sure knows how to dive into the wrong side of a pool

  3. Tom says:

    When Dr. White addressed your sentence about being a popular apologist, after correcting the spelling of ‘popular’ he chuckled and said (if my hearing is accurate), “and I wouldn’t say that’s probably even true”. He was denying his popularity, not glorifying in it.

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you may have misheard this, and trust that you will amend your comment regarding Dr. White’s supposed self-aggrandizement, if ad hominem attacks are truly as repugnant to you as you claim.

    Regarding the word ‘apologeticist’, it does not appear in any English dictionary. To cite 3 online blogs is totally insufficient to establish the legitimacy of a word. The correct word is apologist, and if you wish to be taken seriously as an English-speaking blogger (whatever your native language may be) I suggest you use the correct word rather then defending your spelling errors using the feeblest of supports.

    There is more to be addressed in this response, but I am not the one to address them. Perhaps Dr. White will respond himself in time, unless he is content to let you have the last word in this case, which would not surprise me.

  4. Andrew K. says:

    When I first saw your articles and comments on Sharperiron, I found them interesting but gradually came to realize that you were not fair-minded in how you dealt with others.

    These posts simply confirm that impression to me.

    1) You misrepresent Calvinism:

    E.g.”If God determines all things whatsoever come to pass (according to the Baptist Confession of Faith ch 3, )then what does White expect to accomplish by asking for prayer? Now I agree that Ruth Hunt should have prayers, but not for the same reasons White’s theology would suggest. Has White now become Arminian in demonstrating that God may possibly alter an event that was predetermined!”

    -The above is simply nonsense, if you had any idea at all what we actually believe. For one, prayer can be a /means/ in response to which God acts. If God predetermines all things, doesn’t that include the prayer?

    2) You are publicly speculating on matters of which you seem largely ignorant, which is unwise, to say the least. To get involved in someone’s personal family matters, particularly when you’ve only heard part of the story is very foolish. Even some Catholic sources are dubious about the value of that particular sister’s testimony, which you should have realized if you had actually researched the matter.

    There is much more I could say, but it would probably not be read. So conclusion I call upon you as a brother in Christ to desist from your slander and display some biblical integrity and responsibility in your posts.

    • drjamesa says:

      If I were given an extra minute of life for every time I heard a Calvinist say “you don’t understand Calvinism” I’d never die.
      I could say that Calvinists don’t understand my accusations because they don’t understand the implications of their own theology.
      Now we’re even.

      I didn’t speculate on anything. I read the testimony word for word about what his sister wrote. For you to claim that it is NOT true is speculation of your own. How do you know it’s NOT true? We have her word, very detailed, and no response that I’ve seen from White. Why doesn’t he just come right out and call her a liar? He has no problem doing so about her religion. Why should I rely on Catholic resources when White can answer for himself?

      I think as Paul laid out qualifications for bishops, that his treatment toward his sister directly affects his credibility as a minister and should at least be responded to. The fact that Baptists are not standing up demanding this kind of accountability is what keeps the other websites busy attacking everything Baptist all the time. With excuses like this, I’m running out of defenses for Baptists.

      By the way, I was a Calvinist long before I was a Baptist. My college textbook on systematic theology was Calvinist (Wayne Grudem) and all of my textbooks for my counseling courses were Calvinist (Jay Adams. In fact, I still use their website as a source for counseling materials if you didn’t notice the section “Find a Counselor” on the left linked to IBCD) and I have studied everything from Augustine, Calvin, Gill, Whitefield, ML Jones, Warfield, Piper, Packer, Sproul, Pink, Spurgeon and even White’s Potter’s Freedom. In fact, I’d say I’ve read TWICE as many books by Calvinists as I have from Non Calvinists.

      And I welcome the accusation that I am not fair minded. I prefer narrowly standing on something then fairly falling for anything.

      • Andrew K. says:

        ‘If I were given an extra minute of life for every time I heard a Calvinist say “you don’t understand Calvinism” I’d never die.’

        Then perhaps you should start entertaining the notion that you /don’t/ understand Calvinism.

        As for the testimony, I never said it wasn’t true. I said you were reporting something as true and valid when you know next to nothing about the actual matter of the case. It’s this lack of attention to detail that is robbing you of credibility. I know only slightly more than you, but it’s enough that I am unwilling to publicly address and speculate about the matter–particularly since it involves a family matter. I commend the same course to you.

      • drjamesa says:

        You never pointed out HOW I misunderstood Calvinism, just THAT I misunderstand it. Don’t make an accusation without qualifying it.

        And I am not claiming to know all of the facts. That’s not the point. This isn’t an indictment on what White has done, but rather on what he has NOT done which is responded to the matter as far as I know, I have not see the response, and nobody from AO has denied it here. I don’t need to have every detail to demand that someone answer accusations about sexual abuse. Evidence is for court rooms. I didn’t ask for White to refute his sisters testimony per se, he can simply deny it, call her a liar, or say he’s sorry for not being supportive or sympathetic. Whatever. Since when does a response require evidence? She is family, so she obviously has a closer connection than YOU, ME, or her Catholic friends. Her accusations were very serious accusations of intimidation and threatening her over her claims of sexual abuse. If you don’t think the Christian community deserves a response to that you’re NUTS.

  5. prayeatlift says:

    Debating a Calvinist ultimately almost turns into learning that the spiritual baptism is learning the “doctrines of grace” and becoming a Calvinist. Then and only then will you be able to talk to Calvinists.

Leave Godly Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s