To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com From: w_w_c_l Subject: Re: ContendingFTF / Erring brethren / Daniel Denham Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:27 PM DanielMessage 1 of 2 , Aug 15, 2006View SourceTo: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: ContendingFTF / Erring brethren / Daniel Denham
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:27 PM
I got booted off the ContendingFTF list before I was able to respond to your many posts in defense of Keith Sisman's plagiarism (please see:
so I have posted my response here.
You had written (message #3284):
> If either of the two Baptist fellowsYes, we shall see. My prediction is that Daniel Denham will neither fish, nor cut bait, but will instead jump clean out of the boat and head for high ground.
> can get themselves a representative
> Baptist congregation in the states
> to endorse them in defense of their
> error, then we believe we could
> accommodate them in a public
> debate. We shall see how they will
> "Will they fish or cut bait?"
Because I don't think I need a "representative Baptist congregation" to unequivocally show that Keith Sisman, revered historian for many in the "Church
of Christ," ripped off a substantial part of his work from old Baptist histories.
Although Keith has altered his website a little in the days immediately following my allegations, there remains, as of Monday, August 14, 2006, ample evidence of his
original plagiarism, not only at tracesofthekingdom.org but on the demaslist.org site and your own little list
on Yahoo!, ContendingFTF.
Furthermore, I don't think I need the endorsement of a "representative Baptist congregation" to logically prove that the modern "Church of Christ," of which you consider yourself a member, was disinclined at the time of the publication of these works to protest their claims
as "Baptist" histories.
Where are the scathing rebuttals one would expect from the "Church of Christ" over Cramp's, Christian's,
Ivimey's and Underhill's use of "their" church records?
Where is a publication from that time period published by a "Church of Christ" scholar, charging them with trying to rewrite history in favor of the Baptists?
You had written (message #3284):
> But give the Landmarkers time,Which is a long, long time before your Mr. Sisman decided to steal their work and attempt to rewrite history himself. Which is the point of all of this, after all. If you have a problem with something that
> after all they have only been in
> the business of rewriting history
> since about the mid-19th century.
was written 150 years ago, take it apart piece by piece and show the world where those old authors were mistaken, and let the readers decide whether your
argument has any merit; DO NOT simply reproduce the old works with the names changed, and act as if those original works never existed.
You had written (message #3279):
> One of the favorite ploys ofSounds like the pot calling the kettle black, to me, because this is exactly what Keith has done. And either one of those points should be easy enough for you to prove:
> Baptists who hold to some
> form of Landmarkism is to claim
> churches that were
>> 1) never really Baptist in
>> doctrine and identity,
>> 2) became such only later
>> because of apostasy.
bring out the church records. If they were "Church of Christ" churches of Christ, in the case of number
1) they should, I gather, be "Word Only" in regard to the Holy Spirit, and, in the case of number
2) there should be a great "falling away" of the true church of Christ membership when the congregations slipped into apostasy by accepting the appellation of <shudder> "Baptists."
Where is the record of angry Christians leaving the congregations and going out to re-establish their own "Church of Christ" when this apostasy began?
Keith supposedly has access to millions and millions of books and manuscripts; why didn't he just plagiarize from
*them*, instead of from these few old Baptist histories?
You wrote (message #3279):
> Many Baptist scholars, who areReferences, please?
> not Landmarkers, have had to
> take such shoddy handling of
> history to task themselves.
And let us not forget that we have "shoddy handling of history" being taken to task right now.
You wrote (message #3283):
> It is fascinating that the documentsAnd E.B. Underhill was a Baptist historian who understood that many churches of that time, including the Catholics
> principally cited by Cramp and all
> of those following his lead since are
>primarily from two books by E.B.
> Underhill, as the endnotes on the
> websites evidence. Each of the two
>books used are titled "The Records
> of a Church of Christ in Broadmead..."
> and "Records of Churches of Christ
> in Fenstantent, Warboys, and
> Hexham" respectively. The
> works were published roughly
> 20 years before Cramp's book.
> It would seem that Prof. Cramp
> is th[e] one who decided to "purloin
> the material" and altered the
> record accordingly.
and Presbyterians, also referred to themselves as "churches of Christ." And J.M. Cramp duly noted his
references by their proper titles. (You did catch that part, didn't you -- that these works have references back to their sources? If Cramp "'purloined the material' and altered the record accordingly," he certainly wasn't trying to cover his tracks.) If there had existed a separated "Church of Christ" at that time, don't you think
Underhill, Baptist historian that he was, would have given his books different titles?
And don't you think Keith Sisman (and Ken Chumbley, too, as we shall see) seized on this use of "church of Christ" and determined to use it in their own "Landmarkism," as you call it?
And don't you understand that this is all neither here nor there when it comes down to Keith's blatant and
undeniable plagiarism of these sources, whatever their titles, whatever their premises, regardless of who wrote
them or when?
You wrote (message #3292):
>There have been a few BaptistThe source of the problem is Keith Sisman's theft of written material and placing it on the World Wide Web
> historians who have tried
> to straigthen out the mess
> caused by historical
>revisionism, espcially the
> revisionist efforts of
> Landmarkers and their kith
> and kin (e.g. Reformed
> Baptists, which just happens
> to be the source of the
> problem here).
as if it were his own research.
Compounding the problem is your defense of such behavior. And apparently, by
your statement, above, those works which Keith plagiarized are not historically accurate anyway.
You wrote (message #3292):
> Vedder, Benedict, and ArmitageYou did notice, didn't you, that one of the links I provided in reference to Henry Denne as an early Baptist minister was to David Benedict's "General History of the
> are a bit more true to Baptist
> history than the Baptist historian
> Mr. Christian...
Baptist Denomination in America, and Other Parts of the World (1813, London: Printed by Lincoln & Edmands, No. 53, Cornhill, for the Author)? Why weren't there "Church of Christ" authors raising holy uproar when this book was published?
You also wrote (message #3292):
> They would rather hurl insultsThat is almost funny. The historical facts are
> over email and from the
> safety of their pulpits then
> [sic] have to face someone
> armed with the historical facts
> and, most of all, the record of
> God's inspired, all-sufficient Word.
(1)that Keith posted, word for word (except for inserting "church of Christ" in a few places), an article on church discipline
he lifted out of a book on Baptist history,
(2) that I, out of curiosity alone, started looking for his source and found
(3) that he had, on his website, other articles copied word for word from old Baptist histories, in which he had
(4) deleted the word "Baptist" wherever it occurred and inserted the words "church of Christ" into the names of the churches.
(5) I composed a reply to the ContendingFTF list and posted it.
(6) Poor Jim Wyly, who I hadn't heard from in over a year, probably, and who I had
no idea was also lurking around your serpent-pit, posted a follow-up.
(7) I went home and went to bed, fully expecting to have somewhat to write about the next day but never suspecting that
(8) you all would make Wyly, too, the object
of your insult-hurling, or that
(9) you would actually so venomously deny the plain evidence of an unconsionable
degree of plagiarism on the part of Keith Sisman.
(10) God's Word absolutely does not defend what you, Keith and others have been up to over there on the
ContendingFTF list, Daniel Denham, with your pharisaical approach to Scripture, your false teaching, and spewing
your hatred out on the World Wide Web for all the world to see. No; quite the contrary.
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From the coCBanned list: Re: ContendingFTF / Erring brethren / Daniel Denham Hi, Jim [Wyly]. ... When I e-mailed him to let him know I had posted a response toMessage 1 of 2 , Aug 16, 2006View SourceFrom the coCBanned list:
Re: ContendingFTF / Erring brethren / Daniel Denham
Hi, Jim [Wyly].
Daniel Denham had challenged (apparently you and me):
>If either of the two Baptist fellows can getWhen I e-mailed him to let him know I had posted a
>themselves a representative Baptist congregation
>in the states to endorse them in defense of their
>error, then we believe we could accommodate them
>in a public debate. We shall see how they will
response to this list [coCBanned], he e-mailed back
and said the challenge still stands; otherwise he
has nothing to say to me.
I suppose the challenge is full of legalistic
loopholes, since you are Church of Christ and I am
a devout Latitudinarian, and there's no telling
what he would accept as a "representative" Baptist
congregation, and since I'm not sure what our
error is, nor am I sure what it is we would be
Baptist history, I guess, but the challenge is
written so that it precludes just asking the
Broadmead Church themselves what they think about
Keith's "history". Baty posted an interesting
link to the Maury_and_Baty list; maybe these folks
would like to take up the challenge:
They certainly seem to have the necessary experience.
In my last post, I had written:
> Although Keith has altered his website a littleand you asked:
> in the days immediately following my allegations,
> there remains, as of Monday, August 14, 2006,
> ample evidence of his original plagiarism...
> Do you have documentation for the plagiarismYes, I do. But "on further review" it turns out
> that Keith had posted on his Website?
I was mistaken in thinking Keith had made some
changes. (*Rick* was *wrong*???) I don't know
how I got that impression -- the last time something
like this happened was with Apologetics Press
and I suggested maybe pterodactyls had been
playing around with the website. I wouldn't put
it past 'em.
> Do you get the feeling that somehow theyI'll tell you, Jim; I just don't know what to
> [ContendingFTF] have missed the central tenet
> of Christianity? Or even of common morality?
think about all of this. The plagiarism, and
the vehement defense of it, might as well have
been another ridiculous claim about moon-dust
or moon recession or fossil human footprints
alongside dinosaur tracks or a fishing reel
stuck in a chunk of metamorphic rock, Civil
War pterodactyls, Ica Stones, glow-in-the-dark
pterodactyls, the falling magnetic field, 15th
Century dragons, fossilized cowboy boots, living
pterodactyls found encased in limestone, brass
bells encased in coal, hyperbaric atmosphere,
plesiosaurs washing up on the beaches, sheep-
killing pterodactyls somebody stop me please
because this list could go on all night; and
when somebody comes along and says, "C'mon guys,
use a little common sense," they attack you.
They don't want to know the truth -- they want
to make up their own truth, and if you don't
believe them you're gonna burn in *HELL!* because
you don't believe the *WORD OF GOD!*
No, I just don't know what to think about it,
but it doesn't seem to have much to do with
Christianity or morality either one.
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism