Pros Apologian: Thoughts from the Apologetic
JAMES WHITE OFFERS AMUSING HUMOR
ON HIS WEBSITE, IF NOTHING ELSE [04/27/05]
In response to my email earlier today, James "the Apostle of Pre-Faith Regeneration" White has posted the following blog on his blogsite --
Ol' Bob Ross Keeps On...Doing His Thing
For those of you who get Bob Ross' e-mail updates, yes, I know he's still on the warpath. I feel for him, but decided last year that he is beyond correction, and in light of his encouragement of Wilkin's efforts, and his manifest ignorance of Wilkin's views, and his continued comments about a debate he did not see or hear (there's a lesson in there somewhere), he's only proven my point. I shall let him continue on his rant undisturbed...he will move on to some other target eventually. Lord bless him.
If nothing else, the Apostle James is at least good for a little humor, so we will react to him in that vein. Is there any reason for getting "serious" over the palabbering comments of one who is obviously just making an effort to get a few laughs via satire?
If you want a really huge laugh, go to the link on James' website where he has this giant picture of his head. >http://18.104.22.168/images/jpeg/JRWHiRes.jpg<
When I first pulled that one up on my computer screen, I liked to have fallen off my chair. I felt like I would have to get out of the way to allow space for the Apostle's head! I first thought it might be the head of Moby Dick slowing unfolding on my screen! This is the largest head I have yet to come across on the Internet. It just shows what a great sense of humor the Apostle James has.
James says he regards me as "beyond correction," and I accept that in all the redoubtable "seriousness" of which James apparently is capable. Coming from one who has compassed land and sea to make such a great name for himself by ostensibly correcting others thru what he facetiously calls "exegesis," I consider this a very high compliment.
I'm sure if one is perceived by James to be vulnerable to correction, he would most likely be among the first to ply his trade. I know this from experience, for he has engaged himself in seeking to correct me in the past, but unfortunately he fell on his face -- as for instance, when he jumped on me with both feet in regard to my criticism of John MacArthur's view on the Sonship of Christ, which view MacArthur has since recanted and endorsed the creedal view of Sonship which we hold. MacArthur's recantation only served to embellish James' corrections as theological comedy.
James also once got onto my case in regard to my use of "cartoon" depictions of Ruckman's "King James Onlyism." Evidently, James has had a change of heart about "cartoonery" for he himself is now using it to get laughs on his website. [See above, for instance].
There is even further humor in James' blog wherein he refers to my alleged "encouragement of Wilkin's efforts." This is funny, since it suggests that James evidently thinks he has some sort of gift along the lines of "ESP." He might indeed be suffering from "weariness" such as the gentlemen said in his review of the White-Wilkin debate. If he doesn't think he has ESP, then I can only suppose he may be having some sort of "hallucinations." Perhaps too many visits to Mormon country? I've heard that that stuff can be "catching."
It is also hilarious to read James' remark in his latest blog about a "debate he [Bob Ross] did not see or hear." Well . . . what I did at least see was James' piece of comedy on his blogsite where he alleged that "Bob Ross Supports and Encourages Anti-Lordship Viewpoint," and what I now see is that James is evidently resorting to comedy instead of acknowledging his error in making such a misrepresentation. Does humor cover a multitude of blunders, too?
James, the standup comic, further says, "I shall let him continue on his rant undisturbed." Which -- being interpreted -- probably means that once again James will perform his "disappearing act" and go about seeking someone else whom he thinks he can "correct" with his marvelous gift of "exegesis."
After reading blogs the likes of those written by the Apostle James, does anyone fail to understand why I long ago referred to "apologists" of his stripe as "appallingists"? All in the spirit of humor, of course. -- Bob L. Ross