An Open Response From Roger Perkins to James White Part II

RP: On the October 25th edition of James White’s webcast (The Dividing Line) Mr. White continued in his typical condescending and pompous demeanor of my first rebuttal.  I have dictated his remarks below to the best of ability in red, with my counter-responses immediately following.  I copied his words in hurriedly so every single small term [i.e., vowels, articles, etc.] may not be word-for-word, but in 98% of the cases they are exact.  I refer readers to the show for corroboration of the info. below. 

JW:  Mr. Perkins chose to be offended at my remarks on the DL of his previous debates, instead of listening, learning and growing.

RP:  Again, you posture yourself as the teacher, and we all the “learners”.  As I said before, it’s quite hard to “learn” from someone who infers that God did not fully “reveal” His true identity to His OT Covenant people.  Not to even mention the “Three-Separate-Centers of Consciousness within each Divine Individual” position you hold to!?  Or, your comment in your article John 1:1, Meaning and Translation, Section II,  that states “The Logos is not all of God”.  Interesting indeed!  Let me guess, I’m taking the terms you chose to employ out of context again…right?

JW: In the Oneness camp, if someone says you’re factually wrong, it’s automatically an “Ad Hominem” attack.

RP:  As I said to you before, I’ve received numerous emails from all over the country, both Trinitarian and Oneness, who expressed their disdain for your undue polemics.  This includes terms such as “Ridiculous,” “Plain Silly,” “Absurd,” and, now add to the mix, “Lying”!  “Ridiculous” indeed!  If you can dish it out sir, then don’t cry when I return the favor…I can do both.

JW: Perkins arrived on Monday of the week and did nothing all week, and apparently required a lot of looking after, which I typically try to avoid.

Well, the people at Hope Christian Church confirm it was their joy and pleasure to host me and do not feel as though I was a trouble for them. I have been reading your material and studying your stuff for approximately 5 months intently and was fully ready to debate you the moment I stepped off the plane. But, this is all relevant to Theology….HOW???

JW:  Perkins did not engage the actual subject

RP:  I spent 3 hrs. debating your subjects.  I simply did not provide the responses you wanted me to give, thus the ol’ familiar Trinitarian charge, “You’re not answering my questions”.  Hmmm, kinda’ like you did when I asked about the natural ramifications of the anthropomorphical language applied to God as possessing one mouth, pair of hands, feet, face, etc.  To which you replied, “God having a mouth does not infer He is one person anymore than when the Bible says He has feathers He’s a chicken!”  Good for laughs, but also a professional dodge which ignores the point of the question now doesn’t it [I.E., Ignoring the Question!].  Or, when asked why singular personal pronouns in the NT equals one single person, but 9,000 singular personal pronouns applied to God in the OT, the person-hood criteria shifts to being-hood.  You said, “The difference is there’s no personal dialogue in the OT (which is quite strange for co-eternal persons now isn‘t it?).”  I should have responded by asking if there has to be dialogue for a single-person-pronoun to indicate personhood?  But, alas, hindsight is indeed 20/20 vision!

JW: Every time I look up Perkins’ scholarly references, they are in error.

RP:  Hmm, did you take the time to look up the various prepositional usages in BAGD for the baptismal accounts in Acts…which expressly reference an oral invocation of the Name [eis (acc. case) to onama, epi (dat. case), en]?  BTW, it’s quite strange that the lone witness of Mt. 28:19 necessitates the baptismal “formulae,” while the multiple attestations in Acts and the epistles simply denote Christian ‘authority’??  And you’re teaching me about proper “hermeneutics”??  

Did you take the time to look up Louw-Nida’s semantic domain or Thayer’s on para in the dat. case as including “in the judgement of, in the opinion of, or metap., in the mind, Jn. 17:5 [this last reference is Thayer].”  Or, how about Zodhiates with dia in the gen. case in Col. 1:16...was that also in “error,” esp. since Zodhiates & Thayer explicitly reference the verses under consideration, and Louw-Nida says para in the dat. Case “includes” the mng. “in the opinion of, in the judgement of”.  I referenced everyone of these in the debate, to which you offered no response.  BTW, before you call the term “includes” a “weasel word” [as you have charged me before], I’ll simply remind you that you yourself used this word in partially quoting BAGD’s def. of monogenes in the back of your book [pg. 203 or 208 if I’m not mistaken?].  But, this is the typical scholastically hypocrisy I’ve come to expect after studying you for intently for several months now. 

JW: Perkins is a sad example of not focusing on the arguments

RP:  Hmm, seems the unbiased moderator, as well as several in the crowd did not feel that way.  Once again, you set yourself up to be the final authority as to what qualifies as “effective argumentation” and what does not.  Sorry Mr. White, we are not at your mercy in these [or any other] areas.

JW: If Perkins really wanted to refute me, all he had to do was offer meaningful exegesis.

RP:  Let’s see, I touched on Para in the dat. case, dia in the gen. case, plural vs. singular verbs in regard to the subjects they modify, referenced Louw-Nida, BAGD, Thayer, Friberg, Robertson, Moulton, etc.  No, I did not get to offer an in-depth analysis of the Carmen Christie, though I had two pages on it alone.  But, this was due to the format THAT WE DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE DEBATE AND YOU AGREED TO!  I was asked to delineate my position in detail to the audience, then begin our rebuttals in the very short time we had left…which I spent handling your charges in your own rebuttal.  And, even then I fit in Jn. 17:1-5.  So, if it makes you look better, keep singing away, but it’s quite odd the unbiased moderator and several others [Trinitarians] did not feel this way.

JW:  Perkins can’t pronounce Greek words, knows nothing about Greek grammar, and can’t even read the Greek alphabet

RP:  Ahhh yes…here we go.  This is the very reason the moderator had to issue you a warning in the debate, and gave me a few choice words after the debate for you.  Understand, he is a judiciary debate judge well trained on critiquing debates, and I was quite shocked when he told me he thought I won the debate and presented the clearer case.  Again, I never make such claims, but allow others to be the judge.

Now, you are very, very wrong about my knowledge of the Greek language and I have written entire symposium papers about how to read lexicons.  So, here, let me help you out a bit:  The lexicographers give the literal definitions of said terms, then from there begin to place the passages in the category that they best feel reflect their understanding of how the word is used is used various contexts.  It is at this point that carefulness must be exercised lest one mistakes their commentary as grammatical fact.  Thus, the context is the determining factor.  And, I wrote this & many other similar points long before I ever heard you say a thing about it! 

Regarding my reading the Greek language, you are quite in error here also.  Certainly I have a ways to go, but am in the learning process and can indeed read some Greek, but, again, it’s quite an on-going process.  Ironically, the participles are what I seem to pick up quite readily.  Also, there are entire passages that I can translate & read now, but again it’s quite a learning experience.  

However, you do reveal your motives here:  If you thought I could not read Greek, then what was your reasoning in asking me IN GREEK what the verbs in Phil. 2 meant?  If you thought I didn’t know how to pronounce the words…why did you insist on pronouncing, quoting, and reading from the Greek text.  As I was told later, this was to try and loft yourself as the superior, and I as the inferior…which “isn’t an effective form of argumentation.”  But, sure fools the crowd [some of them at least] doesn’t it Mr. White?

JW: I quoted Moulton & Milligan exactly in the English language

RP:  Now who’s “lying” sir?  I challenge any one reading this response to simply reference your article “The Pre-Existence of Christ” from your web-site and look down to about the 5th paragraph on the second page.  You expressly state in quotation marks, “unique God” (10), which is a reference to Moulton & Milligan, pp. 416-417.  When one consults the reference YOU provided in quotes, the words in quotes appear absolutely nowhere in your footnoted source!  Explain it away all you want, it’s right there for the honest in heart.  I have written many symposium papers and the editors would hand me my head if I did this.  This is NOT proper academic authorship…no matter how you try to rationalize it away.  At least have the decency sir to acknowledge you should have written it better and withdraw the quotation and reference source.  I have already included the genre of the quote as it appears in my first rebuttal for readers to view for themselves, especially their specific comments regarding Jn. 1:18 [the very verse you were referencing]...which states the entire opposite of what your paper infers.  I won’t even take the time to rehash your partial quote from BAGD, or your ‘deception by omission’ tactic you used in your “evidence” for Monogenes Theos selected from UBS-4.  Yes, “Abuse” indeed!

JW:  Can any rational thinking person think I wasn’t saying Moulton & Milligan was identifying as “Unique God”

RP:  Then don’t include it in quotes with a footnote reference right beside it citing your source with page numbers!  What does this tell anyone in first year college?  I know it’s a novel idea for you, but how about simply acknowledging your poor reference and move on? 

JW: Perkins has a horrific lack of scholarship

RP:  Said the man who told the world last Fri. night that God exists as “Three-Divine-Individuals, each with their own Separate Center of Consciousness”!?  No one knew a thing about such as existence for 4,000 years and 70% [or the remaining 30%] of the Bible…..and I’M THE ONE WITH HORRIFIC SCHOLARSHIP??  If your peculiar idea of a three-minded God constitutes “scholarship,” I think I’ll stay as far away from your brand of “scholarship” as I can, as well as teach others to do the same!

JW:  Only Roger Perkins has the ability to misread any scholarly source that’s presented to him

RP:  Contrare’ Monfrare’.  I actually presented Friberg to you in regard to ‘aykone,’ with their reference to Col. 1:15...& you just ignored it altogether.  As well as you did my references to Louw-Nida, Thayer, etc. concerning Para in the dat. case.  But, as usual, you simply plod along in your typical ad-hom style, all the while denying the same….a natural out-growth of your “Reformed Theology” [i.e., “Elect”].

JW:  He was lying in our debate

RP:  Ho-Hum and Big Yawn!  If I inadvertently misquoted BAGD, that’s not a “lie” [I suppose my reference to Friberg was also a “lie”?].  Perhaps we should do a home Bible study on the definition of Lying [so typical for reformed theologians BTW]. Concerning Moulton, it was your quotations and resource reference right next to it…not mine.  

JW:  Perkins key argument in ‘trying to get around Col. 1:16’ was his argument from BAGD, which made no sense.

RP:  Actually, I have conceded that I misspoke regarding the passage in the sense that the Son created as to His pre-eminence.  As I’ve already said, as soon as I said this I knew it did not at all come out right, nor did the statement accurately reflect my thoughts.  But, there was no time to correct it during a fast-paced cross-ex.  However, the overriding point remains valid and I have already enunciated this in my last open rebuttal to you.  The Son is contextually presented to us in Vss. 14-15 as the one who redeemed us to the forgiveness of our sins, and the visible image of the invisible God.  The word ‘aykone’ is where we get the English word ‘Icon’ & invariably defines as a tangible, visible representation [see Amplified, & Dr. W. E. Vine].  Clearly this is not the pre-existent world,  but the Human Messiah [God in Flesh] who “redeemed” us.  This is who the pronouns in Vss. 16-18 grammatically point back to, as evidenced by the conjunction hotee introducing a dependent causal clause in Vs. 16, further elaborating on Vs. 14-15.

JW: Over and over, Perkins does not know how to read a Lexicon

RP:  Funny, even if this were the case [which it’s not at all], you have told us that Lexicons only reflect that particular lexicons understanding….which is PRECISELY the point I have made in my teachings about lexicons [symposium papers, etc.].  And, I wonder if this holds true for your beloved A.T. Robertson, Benjamin Warfield commentary, and the 75 sources you reference in your book??

JW: Perkins has never spent one day taking Greek, and yet he refuses correction…which is a mark of Cultism

RP:  Elder David Adams was a Greek professor for 3 yrs. at a Bible college in Parkersburg, WV.  He graduated Greek 5 with a 97% and can transliterate the ancient language. WVU has approached him about teaching Greek in their accredited university.  He has written an entire translation/commentary on the Revelation.  He is an esteemed Elder of mine and he has spent much time with me in the language.  I also have Mounce, Wallace, Dana & Mantey, BAGD, Thayer, Vine’s, Moulton, Robertson, Diesmann, etc….which are the same sources YOU refer to sir.  Yes, I still have much to learn, as do you with the infinitives, but learning I am!  So, your first point above it entirely moot and off-base.

Secondly, if the doctrines of “Reformed Theology” are not “Cultic,” I don’t know what is!  By your own definition, if one refuses correction, they are “Cultic”….said the man who argues for a God who exists as “Three-Divine-Individuals, each with their own Separate Center of Consciousness”!?  Not one Jewish writer from Gen.-Rev. arrives at such a conclusion and, indeed, would likely rebuke one who taught such.  “Cultic” indeed!

JW:  Perkins’ accusation that I misrepresented Moulton is a lie and we need to move on to someone who can read a Lexicon.  It’s simply reprehensible.

RP:  In the first place, I read the Lexicons quite well, though I may have inadvertently looked over the sub-category in BAGD.  Regardless, even the listing you mention, “Christ,” is both definitional and biblically a reference to the Messiah who walked the Earth & redeemed mankind, as opposed to a “2nd of 3 separate divine individuals, each with their own independent center of consciousness”.  Thus, the BAGD reference still stands, as well as Friberg, Vine’s, and the Amplified Bible’s translation [and I have several more references].

Concerning “moving on” to someone else, as long as you continue to offer your critiques on the DL, I’ll be here to offer a surrejoinder.  Obviously, I will not continue forever, as I am beginning a church-plant and am shifting my focus to this arena, though I will certainly always continue my studies. 

As I said to you earlier, you had a perfect example to clearly enunciate your position to our agnostic moderator who is a professional debate judge and came out of interest.  Now, due to your obvious attempts to play the crowd with citations to Australian movie lines, and clear arrogant behavior, if he comes to anyone, it will be us.  To God the Glory!

I await your next DL critique, at which time I will respond accordingly.

Roger Perkins

1 comment:

Jon L. said...

Praise GOD FOR REV. PERKINS! He successfully defended the Oneness of God v James white.

Adversus Trinitas

"...unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." (John 8:24 ESV)