JD Hall Refuses To Repent

Taken from our article, JD Hall’s Deliberate Lies and Pious Hypocrisy



I don’t know how one can manage to be piously hypocritical, but JD Hall gives credibility to the term in his recent radio broadcasts and articles regarding his treatment of Baptist pastor Timothy Rogers. A January 4, 2014 article posted on his site, continues that tradition (We will refer to this article as the “Article”.)



For context, see our articles on JD Hall’s Radio Show, and James White Followers Threaten To Harass Detractor



DEFINITIONS:



We intend to use the same definition of “lying” that JD Hall and James White, et al, apply to their opponents.



SUMMARY



To summarize the contentions that we covered in the 2 afore mentioned articles on this site, Timothy Rogers attempted to point out the hypocrisy of James White for the methods in which he has attacked Ergun Caner when White himself has been less than forthcoming in his treatment and responses toward his sister’s allegations of sexual abuse by their father. In one tweet made by Rogers, he made the comment, “in what room did you dad molest your sister in?”. Rogers has since posted an apology for this statement after myself and a few of his other friends had messaged him that although we understood the context in which he was attempting to get a response from White, such wording was probably not the wisest choice of words.



However, JD Hall credits his radio program for Tim’s apology (which we will show is ludicrous), as well as takes credit for the resignation of one of Timothy’s fellow co-workers, Eric Hankins, from the Connect 316 ministry. We will prove that not only is JD Hall a liar, and a hypocrite, but that he has his facts and story backwards.



LIE #1-The Initial Reason JD Hall Threatened Rogers



JD Hall claims on his recent article, that,



The Pulpiteers were alerted to this tragedy, and the Pulpit Notes section of this website listed contact information for Rogers’ church and that of the Connect 316 board members so that concerned Christians could call those in a position to call Rogers to repentance to do so. Apparently, this strategy worked.



There’s one ENORMOUS problem with Hall’s logic here



*Hall made his threat to Rogers about a violation of 1 Timothy 5:19 in agreement with James White, because Rogers had confronted White without 2 or more witnesses (according to the accusation), and Hall’s threat was made at 8:55 pm on December 29, 2013, The comment Hall uses as the example of how his radio show made Timothy “repent” (?-we’ll get to that in a minute), was made at 10:58 pm two hours later (see the screenshot posted on the Article).



Thus not only could this not have been the reason that he threatened to sick his listeners on Rogers, but the context of his initial threat showed that it was in response to James White’s accusation that Rogers failed to follow 1 Tim 5:19, not the “which room” comment. There is a comment made earlier to this effect, but it is clear Hall did not see this comment as he did not enter into the conversation until after Rogers made the comment the first time, and Hall never mentions it until several hours later, and the screenshot he took was of the 10:58 comment.



LIE #2-That Timothy Rogers Repented Over Hall’s Radio Show



It is obvious that Hall wants to justify his threats to Rogers by claiming that his radio show “Apparently worked” so that the ends justify the means. However, Hall is merely speculating at this point as he can not affirm conclusively that his radio show was the vehicle responsible for Timothy’s “non-apology” which presents another problem with Hall’s logic (or lack thereof).



*Hall chooses to use the phrase, “APPARENTLY worked”. Well, did it work or did it ‘apparently’ work? Apparently is a little bit short of certainty, but Hall argues it as a certainty, and includes a vague phrasing that lacks certainty.



*Hall criticized Roger’s apology by calling it a “non-apology”. If it’s a “non-apology”, then Hall is saying that his radio program was successful at producing a non-apology! Furthermore, if it was a “non-apology” then just what is it that Hall accomplished that “apparently worked”? If Hall is claiming that his radio show brought Timothy Rogers “to repentance”, but then calls Rogers’ response a “non-apology”, what did he really accomplish?



Is Hall just as guilty of embellishing his article as Caner? Will Hall repent over this egregious lie and deliberate embellishment?



LIE #3 Eric Hankins Resigned Because of Rogers



Hall titles his article, “Eric Hankins Leaves Connect 316; [sic: Fallout Via Tim Rogers and Ergun Caner”. In support of this contention which he does not address until the middle of the article, Hall writes,



So why, then, did Eric Hankins resign from Connect 316? A better question – how did I know to be waiting and watching the Connect 316 website to see Hankins’ information be pulled down? Answer – it’s a small world. Sources told me that Hankins had resigned over Tim Rogers’ defense of Ergun Caner and subsequent behavior in social media toward James White. Perhaps the source was wrong..…



Critics of Ergun Caner defenders had at one point, whether jokingly or not, stated that Norman Geisler and other Caner defenders had “inside information” about details surrounding Caner’s defense. This logic was highly criticized by James White’s followers (an initial critique that I believe was opined about by Jared Moore, I could be wrong). Yet Hall’s reasoning for claiming how he knows the “real” reason Hankins resigned is….it’s a small world, and that “sources” told him Hankins had resigned. Does Hall name or produce those sources? No. He even admits that, “Perhaps the source was wrong”.



If the source could be wrong, then why post your conclusion as if it is a certainty? “Perhaps” is not the title of the Article. The title of the article leads the reader to believe that Hankins leaving because of Rogers is a certainty, not a “perhaps the source could be wrong”. Proverbs 18 tells us “he that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him”. Was it Hankins himself that told Hall this, or is this all based on speculation from “secret sources”?



The Twitter account for Connect 316 offers the following comment about Hankins’ departure,



Connect316 ‏@JoinConnect3166h Eric Hankins resigned from our Board due to time constraints. Still supports us strongly—giving, praying and speaking at the C316 Breakfast.” (here)



Hall then writes again that,



In real truth, Hankins will most likely not comment on the reason why he resigned, and yet another Caner-related incident will be flushed down the memory hole. Nonetheless, we know what the real reason was.



If Hankins will “most likely NOT COMMENT on the reason he resigned”, then how can Hall POSSIBLY CLAIM THAT HE HAS ALREADY COMMENTED ABOUT IT TO HIS “SECRET SOURCE”???



According to how White and Hall have defined lies, Hall’s presumptuous article qualifies as a deliberate lie. Will Hall repent for it? Should Rogers ministry make phone calls to Hall and his staff demanding that he either retract this information or admit he’s not certain, and then apologize for the uncertainty?



LIE #4 -Rogers Is An Unregenerate, Unsaved Child Of His Father the Devil



We recently commented on this on our recent article where this comment was captured via Twitter, but Hall AGAIN emphasized that Rogers was an unregenerate and unsaved man on his radio program. Yesterday, I responded to Hall with the following quote about this matter,



And where is your evidence that Rogers is not saved? Now here’s a conundrum for you. If he’s not saved, then explain how he could possibly profess to seek Christ when your doctrine claims that Romans 3:10-11 proves that no non-elect person can seek God? Will you also claim that Norman Geisler is not saved? Will you claim that John Ankenberg is not saved? I’m come on, be consistent here, if you are going to audaciously label someone an unbeliever because they don’t agree with your assertions about Ergun Caner, then why not slap the label on EVERYONE that has supported him?



If you can’t prove that Timothy Rogers is not saved, then YOU need to repent and publicly apologize to him for it. And considering that no Calvinist can prove that they themselves are of the elect (even John Piper admits this about his own children) then you can’t possibly claim that he is or is not saved, you can simply say you don’t know, but you CAN NOT say with the certainty of which you so boldly claimed, that he IS NOT saved. (here)



I have brought this to Hall’s attention SEVERAL times now, and Hall refuses to respond to it.



CONCLUSION



Hall has made deliberate embellishments to his story, introduced blatant false hoods, offered extraordinary contradictory explanations for his assertions, and has vilified a Baptist pastor as an unsaved man over a Tweet he made for which Hall offered no proof other than his own angry rhetoric that Rogers is an unsaved, unregenerate child of the devil. While Hall expects others to repent and apologize for every little mistake they make, Hall himself, like the hypocritical Pharisee he is, will not do the same when it has been shown repeatedly that he is LYING and as the adulteress woman does, wipes his mouth and claims to have done no wrong (Proverbs 30:20).



Timothy Rogers DID apologize for what he said, and in much detail. Even though this wasn’t good enough for JD Hall, it is more than Hall is willing to do over HIS actions. But this seems par for the course from Calvinists. Chris Pinto was vilified over his apology from this crowd when they claimed he said something “offensive”. I didn’t see what the offense was, it appeared to be quite petty, but nevertheless, Pinto offered an apology if he had offended anyone because Pinto is just that kind of reserved humble man of God. And what did the Calvie’s do? Raked him over the coals and used his apology against him. These kinds of actions from Calvinists have almost prompted me to write an article, “Why You Should Never Apologize To A Calvinist” but fortunately, I have some Calvinist friends who don’t act like this. It’s as if when a person makes a mistake, if they don’t flog themselves with a cat-o- 9-tails, and walk the plank and survive a shark attack according to their definition of repentance, it’s not a “real” apology. Of course, since repentance by definition is an state of the will, it is ironic that Calvinists demand something from a person (in this case, someone Hall claims is unsaved) that they claim is impossible anyway according to their monergistic view of repentance.



JD HALL NEEDS TO REPENT OF HIS OWN ACTIONS AND APOLOGIZE TO ROGERS AND CONNECT 316.



______________________________________________



Interestingly, of all the people that Hall says called Rogers and made him repent, one of the two comments posted below his recent article stated the following:



Sharon NatsarimJanuary 4, 2014 · Reply



I usually enjoy your blog but I must say that today I feel as though I am reading a “religious” version of a gossip column. No offense intended. God bless.



________________________________________



UPDATE 1/6/14



Not only has Hall refused to repent over his actions, or even respond to our critique even though the link is posted on his website, he re-affirmed his assumptions on his 1/6/14 radio show.



Hall affirms again, the same story he wrote, that Hankens resigned over Timothy Rogers, and he knew to “watch the Connect316 website”. Now here’s how conversations like these go.



*Hankens is going to resign, call JD and tell him



*There is a conflict between Timothy Rogers and JD Hall



*Hankens works with Timothy Rogers at Connect316



*Therefore Hankins is resigning because of Timothy Rogers



*Since we KNOW that Hankins is REALLY resigning because of Rogers, the statement of Hankens resignation on the Connect316 site and Twitter is spin.



What this does is causes conflict among Connect316 members and staff because it gives the impression that someone “on the inside” knows something that nobody else knows, and causes discord among the brethren at Connect316, by sneaking behind their back and giving information to someone that opposes their ministry (Hall). We have asked Hankens to clarify this and await a response.