Pages

▼

Thursday, March 03, 2011

Peter Lumpkins' kangaroo court


  1. peter lumpkins
    March 1, 2011 at 7:27 am
    Justin,

    I’m also curious concerning the circumstances surrounding precisely how you gained access to Bell’s book. If you were assigned by HarperOne (or legitimate rep) to critique the book, why did you not engage the book, giving the public a genuine review? If you got hold of a copy sorta “under the table,” so to speak, well, that obviously raises questions. Not necessarily for possessing it understand. I get sent lots of things I didn’t request. So I can identify with that.
    Nonetheless, presuming for argument’s sake you received the book “under the table,” and hence could not in good conscience engage the content lest you call attention to your having an “under the table” copy (again presuming only for argument’s sake), to sound a “backdoor” warning based on what you actually read in the book by just focusing on the cover and video does raise profound integrity questions–at least to me–precisely why you were compelled to do so.
    Whatever the case, you evidently made a horrible gaffe.
    With that, I am…
    Peter


http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/28/two-questions-on-the-rob-bell-blog-post/?comments#comment-80961


  1. steve hays
    March 1, 2011 at 7:52 am
    Notice Peter Lumpkins’ Kafkesque duplicity. On the one hand he condemns Justin for allegedly drawing conclusions about the book without having read it. On the other hand, he also condemns Justin for drawing conclusions about the book in case he read it. If Justin is guilty as charged, then he’s guilty–but if Justin is innocent, then he’s still guilty!
    Lumpkins is a one-man kangaroo court.
    This is what happens to men who are blinded by their partisanship.


http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/28/two-questions-on-the-rob-bell-blog-post/?comments#comment-80965
at

17 comments:

  1. Truth Unites... and Divides3/03/2011 6:39 PM

    "Whatever the case, you [Justin Taylor] evidently made a horrible gaffe."

    The hanging judge Peter Lumpkin has spoken.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jerry3/03/2011 7:03 PM

    Why does anyone still think that Peter Lumpkins has any credibility on any matter?

    ReplyDelete
  3. J. Patrick Smith3/03/2011 8:39 PM

    Fixed an error

    Jerry said...
    "Why does anyone still think that Peter Lumpkins has any credibility on any matter?"

    Of course. Lumpkins has credibility regarding the use of alcohol among Christians. He's written a book on it, hasn't he? And in an interview, he's stated that the use of alcohol is a moral issue. Except if a missionary is in a cultural context where not drinking would offend a host. So, morality is a cultural concept? Drinking in America is always wrong... but maybe not if you are overseas?

    Wait. Regarding that credibility issue... never mind.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eric3/03/2011 10:07 PM

    In what circles does Lumpkin have any credibility?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Patrick Chan3/03/2011 11:00 PM

    Eric asked:

    In what circles does Lumpkin have any credibility?

    Maybe the circus?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Coram Deo3/03/2011 11:14 PM

    Peter Lumpkins is the Charlie Sheen of evangelicalism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eric3/03/2011 11:24 PM

    Coram Deo for the win ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. RazorsKiss3/03/2011 11:45 PM

    Tiger blood, Coram. Tiger blood.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous3/04/2011 6:14 AM

    Hey, Ya'll

    Thanks for the traffic. And, by the way, Steve, my response to you here is similar to my response to you on JT's thread: I trust you and all your commenters a very pleasant, grace-filled day.

    With that, I am...
    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  10. Peter Pike3/04/2011 10:09 AM

    I wonder if Lumpkins thinks he's actually saving face with that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous3/04/2011 11:08 AM

    Dear Peter Pike

    I assure you...NO. Precisely what "face" do you think exists amongst your tiny herd which may be saved?

    Nonetheless, Peter Pike...have a great day just the same.

    With that, I am...
    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  12. Peter Pike3/04/2011 11:28 AM

    On the one hand, Lumpkins thanks us for the traffic; on the other, he calls us a tiny herd.

    Not that I expect anything approaching consistency from Lumpkins, mind you.

    BTW, Lumpkins, I especially liked the part whree you wished me a good day after issuing your insults. It makes you seem so genuine and filled with Arminian righteousness.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous3/04/2011 12:22 PM

    You know, I kinda am getting tired of you'al dragging those poor kangaroos into court! Can't you have a little respect for them? It's not their breed that is at issue here, is it?

    with that, I kinda am ...
    natamllc

    ReplyDelete
  14. steve3/04/2011 12:33 PM

    We alternate between kangaroos and wallabies.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous3/04/2011 4:08 PM

    Dear Peter Pike

    Had you read just a gnat's breath's better, you'd see my comment was self-deprecating

    Still wishing you a good day.
    With that, I am...
    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  16. Strong Tower3/04/2011 6:54 PM

    Did Peter mean self-defecating?

    Do you think he missed a key stroke when he scald Triablogue a tiny herd?

    With That

    he would be Peter.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Johnsons4/15/2012 9:06 PM

    I know this is a long dead chain of comments, but I came across it today while trying to get some information on a man who felt the need to block me from posting on his site anymore. He made this decision because I had the audacity to ask that he be as Biblical towards people as he demands of them in his meandering and often narrow-minded posts. Nice to see more and more proof (it's not hard to find) that most people recognize Lumpkins for the person that he truly is: prideful and misguided at BEST (and that's just me being gracious because it's Sunday!). Thanks for being one of many, many sites pointing out the constant errors of this man. Blessings!

    ReplyDelete