Lumpkins disposable morals

What remains entirely regrettable is, while one could predict--and even understand--they would support The Gospel Coalition, it hardly follows that thinking men would also support The Gospel Coalition’s premature, public hanging of Emergent misfit, Rob Bell, condemning him for theological heresy, heresy they claim he apparently holds in his soon-to-be-released book, Love Wins.

There is a problem--none of his critics have read the book.

I've got to say, from my standpoint, Southern Baptist educators have no business prematurely entering into knee-jerk assessments of doctrinal pieces no matter how severe the error. Southern seminary could have done what academic institutions do and should do thorough and as exhaustively as necessary--wait to properly, soberly, and definitively offer a response to Rob Bell’s alleged heresy in their journal as well as their own writing ministries once the materials to be criticized are actually published and officially available.

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/03/note-to-southern-baptist-educators-take-a-clue-on-how-to-deal-with-outing-heresy-from-dr-ben-witheri.html

Instead, he argues (especially in his book)...Mike Licona has opened pandora’s hermeneutical box, however, by boldly claiming one may hold inerrancy while denying a biblical text’s prima facie historicity, a denial apparently based solely upon extra-biblical literary argumentation.

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/09/memo-from-mike-licona-to-al-mohler-and-norm-geisler-unpersuasive-and-misguided-by-peter-lumpkins-matthew-27-resurrection-sain.html

So why do I quote these two statements back-to-back? Well, if Lumpkins had actually read Licona’s book, he’d know that Licona doesn’t deny this historicity of this incident “based solely upon extra-biblical literary argumentation.”

To the contrary, on pp550-551, Licona also appeals to biblical literary argumentation from OT prophecy. And, on p552, he appeals to the chronological implications of the Matthean syntax (as he construes it).

Lumpkins also says:

Finally, it’s interesting how Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary got pulled into this fiasco, and it bears worth watching how Danny Akin is going to handle an issue which could split the Southern Baptist Convention. One wonders as well if Akin’s professors will judge President Mohler, along with Norm Geisler, to be both “unpersuasive and misguided.”

So this is no longer about the inerrancy of Scripture. Rather, this is now about the inerrancy of Albert Mohler and Norman Geisler. Lumpkins has amended the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy to include St. Mohler and St. Geisler.

That may, indeed, split the SBC–between traditional Baptists who affirm sola Scriptura and Baptists like Lumpkins who substitute Mohler and Geisler as their rule of faith.