So Peter Lumpkins his been acting like a punk on his blog in his treatment of James White, indeed, his treatment of any Calvinist. He's a loving, nice, civil, irenic Arminian. White and other Calvinists are angry heresy hunters who comment on books without reading them (I know, demented, right?).
I called out Lumpkings at his blog and pointed out some hypocritical reasoning of his vis-a-vis his treatment of Justin Taylor &c. I tried to point out the incoherence of his position on the matter, which I detail here.
I posted at his site as Frank Rizzo, infamous "Jerky Boy," and I even called Lumpkins "sizzle chest," Rizzo's famous line. I also told him I had "recordings" out. Type in "Frank Rizzo," sizzle chest" and "recordings," and see what you find (some R-rated language, so be advised).
Anyway, everyone knows Calvinists are big meanies, most don't know they're consistent. Same behavior in public as in private---if you've earned the derision. But Arminians put on a friendly public face. They're the kind, loving, civil branch of Christianity. Especially Peter Lumpkins. He's got a book out on abstaining from alcohol. He's a squeaky clean teetotaler (IOW, a conscience-binder). But this isn't necessarily the case, for they may act worse than Calvinists in private. After posting my critique of Lumpkins I was harrassed with several emails, given Lumpkins' attacks on White &c and his questioning of their credibility, I think it's time to question Lumpkins' credibility:
*********************
From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:08 PM
To: Paul
What's the matter "Frank" can't you get anybody to read your devastating expose? Or, is it they just don't want to comment? What a hoot...
With that, I am...
Peter
----------
From: Paul
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:31 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins
Yeah, my audience usually reads more sophisticated material and is more interested in real players in philosophy and theology, which would explain the disintrerest. The post has had about 100 views so far, so they must not want to comment. Probably gave them a good laugh at your expense.
Anyway, where's my nickel, or are you a liar? What a hoot
With that, you are...
Pwned
----------
From: Paul
Date: Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:41 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins
What, couldn't let all of my comments through so your readers could "judge for themselves?" But now they're "judging" without "reading everything," something you staunchly forbid. Should you give them all the info before they judge, just like you wanted Taylor &c. to do?
With that, this is...
Too Easy
----------
From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:39 AM
To: Paul
Unfortunately, "Frank" you didn't earn a shiny new nickel. Not even close. And, speaking of "liars" I think it's you who ought to fess up on that one. Talk about moral irony! You come to my site to make me out the 'hypocrite' because I hate Calvinists and was just bent on getting Justin, et al. But you do so incognito and even flat out lied when I asked you to reveal yourself and to note my commenting policies. So, you attempt to bait me with your "one" question, all along knowing what you were there to do. And, to top it off, you were dishonest about it.
Yessirreee. You really got me where you want me, I'd say. What a double Georgia hoot, guy! Youz crackin me up~!
----------
From: Paul
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:29 AM
To: Peter Lumpkins
Yeah, but who's acting like the 5 yr old and harrassing like a school girl?
Where's my nickel?
Know your limits.
----------
From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:24 PM
To: Paul
Rather harass like a school chick than flat out lie for no substantial reason. I mean, you weren't exactly facing the Gestapo as Corrie when she lied to protect the Jews. And, in order to qualify for a shiny new nickel, you've got to produce the goods. You did not and, apparently, cannot.
----------
From: Paul
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:28 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins
You're such a goon. Frank Rizzo is one of the characters in The Jerky Boys. I though you were culturally savy anough to catch the reference; indeed, I even called you "sizzle chest" (his signature line) and told you I had several recordings out.
I produced the goods via a valid (and sound) three step argument.
Now run along, you're bugging me.
----------
From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:36 PM
To: Paul
you lied
goodbye
----------
From: Paul
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:13 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins
oh yawn.
anyway, makes it convenient to not have to deal with the arguments.
sarcasm, satire, and parady are not lies. If I had said I was Brad Pitt, would you be playing the goodie goodie, two shoes too? No. Why? Because it's obvious. Likewise, Frank Rizzo, Not my fault you're a sheltered and fragile flower who didn't get the reference.
Run along, you're losing the debate again.
----------
From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:37 PM
To: Paul
Please. Such sheer rationalization is nonsense, "Paul" and you know it. Whatever satire you do on your site has not a single application on mine. I point blank asked you to go by my commenting policies and you a) was dishonest about it b) continued to ignore the commenting policies. It's guys doing what you did which ruin the blogging experience. You somehow think *you* do not have to play by other's rules when you're on their turf. Simply put, you, "Paul" are both dishonest and a coward. You would not come and straight up ask a question on my site. Instead you had to "hide" and do it. A sort of a literary bushwhacker. And, when your little sheet over your face was about to blow away, you did what cowards do--run for deeper cover--this time through explicit dishonesty. Imagine it--you accusing me of being dishonest about my hatred for Calvinism all the while you were dishonestly hiding behind a lying sheet. You talk about writing a blog whose readership demands intellectual acumen and more sophisticated theology and philosophy. Give me a break. Here's one--how about a blog where you own up to who you are and stand behind your words. It's called integrity, "Paul" or whoever the heck you are.
Now. I am done. I'd appreciate it if you'd go back to your make-believe world where you can you know all the sophisticated theology and philosophy your readership can handle. With good old, Rhett, I say, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a d_ _n!"
----------
From: Paul
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM
To: Peter Lumpkins
Wait, you email me and then act as if I'm harrassing you?
Here's a hint: get a life.
Maybe people wouldn't come to your site and engage in those kinds of tactics if you weren't such a pompous, self-important, overbearing, proud, arrogant jerk.
You also have not once engaged the arguments I've given you, not even the arguments undermining your charge of lying.
I also didn't run for deeper cover you didn't post my comments with the link to my blog so your readers really could "judge" for themselves. You tried to make it look like you had the last word and there was no response to your most awesome objections.
Look, you got schooled and it seems all of this outrageous and infantile behavior on your end is because your fragile ego can't take the pwneage.
Does your mom still know you're up?
---------------
From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:48 AM
To: Paul
When one is caught lying, the honorable thing to do is admit it. Cowards routinely rise up in anger...kinda like you did, jackass. Now, don't bother Emailing me again because I just flagged your email on Google as spam.
Oh, btw, I do have a life. But know I ain't wasting another moment exchanging with a hotheaded bean-brain (not to mention a cowardly liar).
Now, go back and play your I'm-a-real-intellectual-blogger pretend game. And, when you think of me, recall Rhett's words I left for you...
Tak (więc) długi (długo), nieuczciwy człowiek i lepszy wy
---------------
From: Peter Lumpkins
Date: Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:32 PM
To: Paul
Dear "Frank" "Paul" and/or "Hiteish Ghupta"
So, what are you a stalker or something? Are you really that desperate for attention that you must continue harassing me like this? Does your readership know what a high-ranking Internet skank you are? Oh, but they don't. You sound so smart and learned on your blog. And, when unsuspecting people ask for a recommendation for a book, you sound so well read. Ah, but behind your sheet, what we have is a puny little gnat, buzzing around the Internet in disguise annoying people.
Here's the deal, Jack: Get lost. I wouldn't give you the time of day now for any thing serious because you're too darn creepy. You deny you don't lie, but then log onto my site and yet once again, lie through your sheet---
"I tried to weight the merits of the discussion between "Frank" and Peter and then I found this site, which would seem to favor Frank Rizzo as the winner."
Well liar. You know what the Apocalypse says: all liars burn in the Lake of Fire. I wish you'd remember that before you slobber down your chin with another one.
Oh brother. Talking about a mistake letting you on. You are why I have moderation. And the only reason--Internet tirds like yourself not knowing when to quit....
Now for the last time--and YELLING--I HAVE NO INTEREST IN EXCHANGING WITH YOU! NONE! PERIOD! GET LOST, CREEP!
*********************
Sorry, forgot to mention that Lumpkins' emails demand a R-rated warning too---though I confess to not knowing what a "tird" is. Also notice that he first emailed me. He then ends by demanding I quit harrassing him, as if I emailed him. Anyway, it would appear Lumpkins needs to deal with his own internal problems and demons rather than busying himself about James White, Justin Taylor, Peter Pike, etc. He wants to question White's credibility? Perhaps people should begin to question his.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query lumpkins. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query lumpkins. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, March 25, 2011
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Fragging James White
A friend drew my attention to Peter Lumpkins’ hit-piece attacking James White.
1.Hovering in the background of the immediate dustup is the future of the SBC. Lumpkins is a diehard who views the Reformed resurgence in the SBC as a hostile takeover. If he laid his cards on the table, that’s his ulterior agenda.
2.Apropos (1), although I’m not at liberty to disclose my sources, I do have insider information regarding the Machiavellian tactics that anti-Calvinists in the SBC engage in. And I’m not using “Machiavellian” hyperbolically. They really are that ruthless, unscrupulous, and cutthroat.
So I’m afraid I can’t buy into the victimology of the anti-Calvinists.
3.The charge of cowardice is ridiculous on the face of it. White engages in formal, public debates with notable representatives of the opposing position. He also has a call-in radio show. Those are not the tactics of a coward.
Indeed, as far as cowardice goes, why doesn’t Lumpkins level his allegations in the live, public forum of the DL? He’s very brave as long as he’s talking about White, but when it comes to talking to White, with others overhearing the exchange, his valor deserts him.
4.White also has to contend with fraggers, of which Lumpkins is just another case in point.
While White is out on the frontlines, arguing down various enemies of the faith, you have professing Christians who shoot him in the back.
And, of course, enemies of the faith use this as additional ammo to attack White. They quote this stuff.
The unprovoked fragging of a Christian apologist, where someone in the camp tries to cut him down in plain view of the enemy, is mutinous to the cause of Christ.
I suppose Lumpkins would say that White is guilty of the same thing in reverse, but to my knowledge, White is responding to these attacks, not initiating the attacks.
Fraggers like Lumpkins never defend the faith themselves, yet they attack those who do. Lumpkins is just a fifth-column anklebiter who does nothing useful in his own right, but make every effort to sabotage the fine work of others.
5.As for the ethics of posting private email, if a man says one thing in public, but another thing in private–then it’s sometimes necessary to set the record straight.
Confidentially is not absolute, especially when confidentially is misused as a shield to conceal unethical behavior–like the relationship between the Don and his consigliere.
6.The issue of Caner is the issue of resume inflation. Did he pad his resume with bogus achievements? Did he get his job under false pretenses?
I’m not going to volunteer an opinion on that since I haven’t bothered to study the question in depth. But there’s nothing wrong with raising the question if there’s prima facie evidence of resume inflation.
Does Lumpkins think that Christians should engage in a cover-up? That’s the attitude of the Catholic church, which has been stonewalling the authorities for years on the priestly abuse scandal.
Is that Lumpkins’ position, to? The code of silence? The SBC version of the Mafia omertà?
7.His response is to turn the tables and accuse White of resume inflation. But even if, for the sake of argument, that were true, how does that exonerate Caner?
To my knowledge, White has never falsified his record. He never padded his resume with bogus degrees or awards he never received.
8.As to having degrees from unaccredited institutions, there are various reasons why some people attend unaccredited institutions.
i) It some cases the reason is financial. Not everyone was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Most folks don’t come from money. Their parents can’t bankroll an Ivy League education.
And since, historically, the SBC has been a working class/middle class denomination, I don’t know why Lumpkins would look down on unaccredited institutions. He sounds like a stuffy, snobby Episcopalian.
ii) Another problem is the lack of a Baptist equivalent to Westminster. Where is a Reformed Baptist supposed to study?
He can study at a seminary like WSC which is Reformed, but hostile to Baptists (i.e. Scott Clark)–or he can study at a seminary which is Baptist, but hostile to Reformed theology.
The closest thing we have to it nowadays is SBTS under Albert Mohler. But that wasn’t an option when White began his studies.
iii) Some seminaries also opt out of the accreditation system to avoid the censorship of accreditation agencies.
That has its tradeoffs, but it’s a respectable rationale.
iv) Some people do so for convenience. The programs may be more flexible, or closer to home. Or have a distance education option.
From what I’ve heard, James White did his academic work at CES because it was never his ambitious to be a college prof. or seminary prof. He wasn’t pursuing a tenure-track career. Instead, he prefers the local church as his base of operations.
1.Hovering in the background of the immediate dustup is the future of the SBC. Lumpkins is a diehard who views the Reformed resurgence in the SBC as a hostile takeover. If he laid his cards on the table, that’s his ulterior agenda.
2.Apropos (1), although I’m not at liberty to disclose my sources, I do have insider information regarding the Machiavellian tactics that anti-Calvinists in the SBC engage in. And I’m not using “Machiavellian” hyperbolically. They really are that ruthless, unscrupulous, and cutthroat.
So I’m afraid I can’t buy into the victimology of the anti-Calvinists.
3.The charge of cowardice is ridiculous on the face of it. White engages in formal, public debates with notable representatives of the opposing position. He also has a call-in radio show. Those are not the tactics of a coward.
Indeed, as far as cowardice goes, why doesn’t Lumpkins level his allegations in the live, public forum of the DL? He’s very brave as long as he’s talking about White, but when it comes to talking to White, with others overhearing the exchange, his valor deserts him.
4.White also has to contend with fraggers, of which Lumpkins is just another case in point.
While White is out on the frontlines, arguing down various enemies of the faith, you have professing Christians who shoot him in the back.
And, of course, enemies of the faith use this as additional ammo to attack White. They quote this stuff.
The unprovoked fragging of a Christian apologist, where someone in the camp tries to cut him down in plain view of the enemy, is mutinous to the cause of Christ.
I suppose Lumpkins would say that White is guilty of the same thing in reverse, but to my knowledge, White is responding to these attacks, not initiating the attacks.
Fraggers like Lumpkins never defend the faith themselves, yet they attack those who do. Lumpkins is just a fifth-column anklebiter who does nothing useful in his own right, but make every effort to sabotage the fine work of others.
5.As for the ethics of posting private email, if a man says one thing in public, but another thing in private–then it’s sometimes necessary to set the record straight.
Confidentially is not absolute, especially when confidentially is misused as a shield to conceal unethical behavior–like the relationship between the Don and his consigliere.
6.The issue of Caner is the issue of resume inflation. Did he pad his resume with bogus achievements? Did he get his job under false pretenses?
I’m not going to volunteer an opinion on that since I haven’t bothered to study the question in depth. But there’s nothing wrong with raising the question if there’s prima facie evidence of resume inflation.
Does Lumpkins think that Christians should engage in a cover-up? That’s the attitude of the Catholic church, which has been stonewalling the authorities for years on the priestly abuse scandal.
Is that Lumpkins’ position, to? The code of silence? The SBC version of the Mafia omertà?
7.His response is to turn the tables and accuse White of resume inflation. But even if, for the sake of argument, that were true, how does that exonerate Caner?
To my knowledge, White has never falsified his record. He never padded his resume with bogus degrees or awards he never received.
8.As to having degrees from unaccredited institutions, there are various reasons why some people attend unaccredited institutions.
i) It some cases the reason is financial. Not everyone was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Most folks don’t come from money. Their parents can’t bankroll an Ivy League education.
And since, historically, the SBC has been a working class/middle class denomination, I don’t know why Lumpkins would look down on unaccredited institutions. He sounds like a stuffy, snobby Episcopalian.
ii) Another problem is the lack of a Baptist equivalent to Westminster. Where is a Reformed Baptist supposed to study?
He can study at a seminary like WSC which is Reformed, but hostile to Baptists (i.e. Scott Clark)–or he can study at a seminary which is Baptist, but hostile to Reformed theology.
The closest thing we have to it nowadays is SBTS under Albert Mohler. But that wasn’t an option when White began his studies.
iii) Some seminaries also opt out of the accreditation system to avoid the censorship of accreditation agencies.
That has its tradeoffs, but it’s a respectable rationale.
iv) Some people do so for convenience. The programs may be more flexible, or closer to home. Or have a distance education option.
From what I’ve heard, James White did his academic work at CES because it was never his ambitious to be a college prof. or seminary prof. He wasn’t pursuing a tenure-track career. Instead, he prefers the local church as his base of operations.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Funny Fridays: "Defending" Peter Lumpkins From the Viciousness of a Chuckle by Peter Lumpkins
Seems my tactic of ignoring the honest publisher’s summary, the online videos, the other sermons that the fellow has preached, the folks who’ve read a book before saying the author was dangerously close to hypocrisy, or any number of other ways one could state a prima facie ignorant assertion about the hoopla surrounding the hoopla surrounding Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, keeps catching the attention of some. In fact, one of my posts on the Bell fiasco so far may best be expressed something like this: a bunch of words pretty much unrelated to the content of anything remotely similar to the topic at hand. And, it seems to naturally follow from that: if you ignore the evidence for something that other people do not ignore then they are the fools, not you.
Truth be told, my granddaughter, who is but 3 years old, has a higher IQ than I.
On the other hand, your average band of “scare quote” websites which specialize in reason and rationality instead of hating on James White, has this to say:
What is there to say? Some people read to understand and write to clarify. Others--unfortunately, like so many Internet apologists named Peter Lumpkins--read but do not understand and write but only confuse. But just because a post starts pretending to be from the National Enquirer as reported by Mitty Muckraker in no possible way could indicate this column could possibly be satire.
We know who is really behind it. James White*.
With that, I am…
Peter
* Some unaccomplished theologians** insist White embraces what is known as historic Hyper-Calvinism
** These are collectively known as “Peter Lumpkins.”
UPDATE LUMPY RESPONDS!!!
Oh noes!!! Whatever shall I do. Peter Lumpkins has responded to this post:
Apparently, Lumpkins believes the average reader is only as intelligent as he is, and he actually feels the need to inform you that yours truly did "purposely add statements to the piece as if I wrote it--statements I most certainly did not nor would not" (sic). No way! In a piece clearly marked as "satire"?! Who would have possibly been able to tell that?!
Certainly not any of those unsophisticated losers on that militant Calvinist blog. Good thing we have Lumpkins to save us from ourselves lest the world be completely doomed.
Truth be told, my granddaughter, who is but 3 years old, has a higher IQ than I.
On the other hand, your average band of “scare quote” websites which specialize in reason and rationality instead of hating on James White, has this to say:
But the Bell kerfuffle was just a trap which Schultz cleverly set to ensnare the grand muftis of modern Arminianism: Ben Witherington, Peter Lumpkins, Scot McKnight, and Roger Olson. He knew they’d take the bait, rushing to the defense of Bell.
What is there to say? Some people read to understand and write to clarify. Others--unfortunately, like so many Internet apologists named Peter Lumpkins--read but do not understand and write but only confuse. But just because a post starts pretending to be from the National Enquirer as reported by Mitty Muckraker in no possible way could indicate this column could possibly be satire.
We know who is really behind it. James White*.
With that, I am…
Peter
* Some unaccomplished theologians** insist White embraces what is known as historic Hyper-Calvinism
** These are collectively known as “Peter Lumpkins.”
UPDATE LUMPY RESPONDS!!!
Oh noes!!! Whatever shall I do. Peter Lumpkins has responded to this post:
peter lumpkins said in reply to Benjamin Musclow...
BTW, Mr. Musclow
Just for kicks, here’s a another link for you concerning the website I cited as an example of “Reformed Apologetics websites which specialize in Calvinism on steroids.” Not content to allow the spoof of me to stand as is with a bit of humor most can appreciate, the good old boys there must needs copy/paste the post here to their site. But instead of letting it speak for itself, they instead purposely add statements to the piece as if I wrote it—statements I most certainly did not nor would not. Such stands as fairly good evidence why few if any not in their particular club gives them the time of day.
With that, I am…
Peter
Apparently, Lumpkins believes the average reader is only as intelligent as he is, and he actually feels the need to inform you that yours truly did "purposely add statements to the piece as if I wrote it--statements I most certainly did not nor would not" (sic). No way! In a piece clearly marked as "satire"?! Who would have possibly been able to tell that?!
Certainly not any of those unsophisticated losers on that militant Calvinist blog. Good thing we have Lumpkins to save us from ourselves lest the world be completely doomed.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Lumpkins
According to Peter Lumpkins:
***QUOTE***
It stands amazing, at least to me, how many Calvinists seem to suggest that Calvinism is such a natural hermeneutic when it comes to interpreting Scripture. Sometimes I get the feeling that Calvinists maintain that the classic five points are so clear, so basic and so incontrovertible that to question any single petal of the TULIP is to question Scripture itself.
More interesting is the theological ambiguity which Calvinism’s founder, John Calvin, possessed toward at least one of the famous five points—Limited Atonement. As the selected quotes from Calvin’s Commentaries will show, Calvin evidently did not hold to the unalterable view of Definite Atonement that his modern day disciples have inherited.
These represent some of the many statements in John Calvin that cause not a little difficulty for those who not only believe the Geneva don himself unwaveringly embraced the doctrine of Limited Atonement, but also those who themselves unwaveringly hold to the questionable doctrine. It appears at least odd that modern Calvinists apparently are more Calvinist than John Calvin.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2006/10/john_calvin_and.html
***END-QUOTE***
A couple of basic issues here:
i) Have you ever noticed that when some folks discover something for themselves, they act as if they’re the very first person to ever make this discovery?
They then express their amazement that no one ever discovered it before.
Needless to say, this is a very old debate. Here are a couple of Calvinists who’ve gone into some detail on that very issue:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/NicoleRogerCalvinsLimitedAtonement.htm
Will of God and the Cross: An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin's Doctrine of Limited Redemption (Princeton Theological Monograph Series) (Pickwick Publications 1990)
by Jonathan Herbold Rainbow
Has Lumpkins ever bothered to read Rainbow or Nicole on this subject? If not, why not?
If Lumpkins is sincerely interested what wanting to know what Calvin taught about special redemption, then we look forward to his review of these two works.
But if Lumpkins fails to explain what, exactly, is wrong with the detailed argumentation of Rainbow and Nicole, then we’ll know that he’s just another frivolous critic of Calvinism.
ii) But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Calvin did not subscribe to special redemption. Suppose there’s a discrepancy between Calvin’s own position and Reformed Orthodoxy? Then what?
At the risk of deeply disillusioning Mr. Lumpkins, I can think of equally shocking examples.
For instance, if you compare the 1828 edition of Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language with the 2006 edition, you will discover that the 2006 edition contains a whole lot of words and definitions absent from the 1828 edition. And yet the publishers continue to market this dictionary under the name of the original lexicographer.
By Lumpkins’ benchmark, it must seem awfully odd that modern lexicographers appear to be more Websterian than Noah Webster.
Continuing with Lumpkins:
“Thus, I simply refuse to allow non-essentials to drive me from my fellow believers. ‘By this, all will know you are my disciples’, Jesus said, ‘if you have love for one another.’"
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/about.html
If this is how he views the alternatives, then why is he attacking Reformed Baptists in the SBC? Doesn’t he regard them as fellow believers?
Either he regards the extent of the atonement as a nonessential doctrine, in which case he should refuse to allow this nonessential to drive him away from the Reformed Baptists in the SBC—or else he is attacking 5-point Calvinism because he does regard the extent of the atonement as an essential doctrine, which disqualifies a Calvinist from being treated by him as a fellow believer whom he’s entitled to love.
So, which is it? How is he going to act out his stated policy? We look forward to seeing him lead by example.
Continuing:
“I choose to consciously self-identify as non-calvinist--or, perhaps even post-Calvinist--in the main because I fail to identify with the much too aggressive spirit of many Southern Baptist Calvinists.”
Which Southern Baptists does he have in mind? Are they more aggressive than some of their critics in the SBC?
Also, when Lumpkins launches a public attack on 5-point Calvinism, does this manifest an aggressive spirit as well? Or is it only aggressive to defend Calvinism, but not to oppose it?
“I simply do not sense the urge nor possess the passion to convert the evangelical world to classic Five Point Calvinism, as apparently many of them do.”
Obviously not, since what he instead senses is the contrary urge or passion to dissuade the evangelical world from converting to 5-point Calvinism.
***QUOTE***
It stands amazing, at least to me, how many Calvinists seem to suggest that Calvinism is such a natural hermeneutic when it comes to interpreting Scripture. Sometimes I get the feeling that Calvinists maintain that the classic five points are so clear, so basic and so incontrovertible that to question any single petal of the TULIP is to question Scripture itself.
More interesting is the theological ambiguity which Calvinism’s founder, John Calvin, possessed toward at least one of the famous five points—Limited Atonement. As the selected quotes from Calvin’s Commentaries will show, Calvin evidently did not hold to the unalterable view of Definite Atonement that his modern day disciples have inherited.
These represent some of the many statements in John Calvin that cause not a little difficulty for those who not only believe the Geneva don himself unwaveringly embraced the doctrine of Limited Atonement, but also those who themselves unwaveringly hold to the questionable doctrine. It appears at least odd that modern Calvinists apparently are more Calvinist than John Calvin.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2006/10/john_calvin_and.html
***END-QUOTE***
A couple of basic issues here:
i) Have you ever noticed that when some folks discover something for themselves, they act as if they’re the very first person to ever make this discovery?
They then express their amazement that no one ever discovered it before.
Needless to say, this is a very old debate. Here are a couple of Calvinists who’ve gone into some detail on that very issue:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/NicoleRogerCalvinsLimitedAtonement.htm
Will of God and the Cross: An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin's Doctrine of Limited Redemption (Princeton Theological Monograph Series) (Pickwick Publications 1990)
by Jonathan Herbold Rainbow
Has Lumpkins ever bothered to read Rainbow or Nicole on this subject? If not, why not?
If Lumpkins is sincerely interested what wanting to know what Calvin taught about special redemption, then we look forward to his review of these two works.
But if Lumpkins fails to explain what, exactly, is wrong with the detailed argumentation of Rainbow and Nicole, then we’ll know that he’s just another frivolous critic of Calvinism.
ii) But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Calvin did not subscribe to special redemption. Suppose there’s a discrepancy between Calvin’s own position and Reformed Orthodoxy? Then what?
At the risk of deeply disillusioning Mr. Lumpkins, I can think of equally shocking examples.
For instance, if you compare the 1828 edition of Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language with the 2006 edition, you will discover that the 2006 edition contains a whole lot of words and definitions absent from the 1828 edition. And yet the publishers continue to market this dictionary under the name of the original lexicographer.
By Lumpkins’ benchmark, it must seem awfully odd that modern lexicographers appear to be more Websterian than Noah Webster.
Continuing with Lumpkins:
“Thus, I simply refuse to allow non-essentials to drive me from my fellow believers. ‘By this, all will know you are my disciples’, Jesus said, ‘if you have love for one another.’"
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/about.html
If this is how he views the alternatives, then why is he attacking Reformed Baptists in the SBC? Doesn’t he regard them as fellow believers?
Either he regards the extent of the atonement as a nonessential doctrine, in which case he should refuse to allow this nonessential to drive him away from the Reformed Baptists in the SBC—or else he is attacking 5-point Calvinism because he does regard the extent of the atonement as an essential doctrine, which disqualifies a Calvinist from being treated by him as a fellow believer whom he’s entitled to love.
So, which is it? How is he going to act out his stated policy? We look forward to seeing him lead by example.
Continuing:
“I choose to consciously self-identify as non-calvinist--or, perhaps even post-Calvinist--in the main because I fail to identify with the much too aggressive spirit of many Southern Baptist Calvinists.”
Which Southern Baptists does he have in mind? Are they more aggressive than some of their critics in the SBC?
Also, when Lumpkins launches a public attack on 5-point Calvinism, does this manifest an aggressive spirit as well? Or is it only aggressive to defend Calvinism, but not to oppose it?
“I simply do not sense the urge nor possess the passion to convert the evangelical world to classic Five Point Calvinism, as apparently many of them do.”
Obviously not, since what he instead senses is the contrary urge or passion to dissuade the evangelical world from converting to 5-point Calvinism.
Monday, January 01, 2007
I Wonder as I Wanda
Is not the Calvinist’s claim that the elect “come most freely”, because they have been “made willing” and cannot fail to choose otherwise similar to Ben’s “I-Will Pill” taken by Wanda? If Wanda could not choose otherwise after taking the pill, how could we say she was free? Was the love she possessed genuine love for Ben or was it manufactured? And if Wanda’s love was produced artificially, could Ben ever really be satisfied with it? Would not he always know that Wanda really did not choose to love Him but was made to love him? Would we consider Ben’s use of the pill moral or immoral? Could Ben be prosecuted in a court of law if it could be proved he created this substance and gave it to Wanda to change her mind?
From my vantage point, Ben’s “I-Will” Pill makes me wonder whether the Calvinist’s view of irresistible grace, free will and “regeneration preceding faith” is correct. At least for me, I am not so sure. With that, I am…
Peter
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/calvinism/index.html
Several issues here:
1.There is the matter of theological method. As is generally the case, libertarians like Peter Lumpkins begin with their seat-of-the-pants intuitions or canned illustrations about freedom, and then, if they do any exegesis at all, impose that on Scripture as their interpretive grid.
2.And because they begin with intuition rather than revelation, they are oblivious to the theological context of the discussion.
Notice the implicitly Pelagian cast of Lumpkins’ little parable. It assumes that Wanda is a normal person, and Ben must resort to brainwashing to “make” her love him.
What’s wrong with this picture? Well, to play along with his illustration, but bring it more into line with Scripture, Wanda is not a normal person. Rather, Wanda is a fallen human being.
So Wanda, left to her own devices, is more like a drug addict who’s tripping out on acid, or a cancer patient who’s delusional because she has a brain tumor. She isn’t in her right state of mind.
What God does in regeneration would be analogous to a neurosurgeon who removes the tumor, thereby restoring her sanity.
The effect of the therapy is to restore the individual to a natural and normal state of mind.
3.Even in human affairs, there are cases in which one individual makes decisions for another individual.
If Wanda is clinically insane, she cannot give informed consent for the operation. But without the operation, she will die of brain cancer.
It is possible, under such circumstances, for the patient to be declared mentally incompetent and then have a family member act on her behalf. This is sometimes done by court order.
I suppose, though, that Lumpkins would let her die rather than “violate” her freewill.
Or an individual may be involuntarily committed to a rehab facility. As long as the junkie is enslaved to his addiction, he can’t act in his own best interest.
Or take the case of letting your best friend drive drunk. If he’s had one to many, do you let him get into the car and drive way, or do you confiscate his keys and drive him to your place to sleep it off?
After he has a chance to draw out, you return his keys—but not before.
Well, unless you’re Lumpkins. If you’re Lumpkins, you’d respect your best friend’s freedom of choice. He chose to drink too much, so if he kills himself by slamming into a tree, that’s the price of freedom.
4.It isn’t the intervention that’s coercive so much as the addiction or inebriation or insanity. The point of the intervention is to remove the coercive force which is controlling the individual.
That’s why we speak of someone driving “under the influence” of alcohol or hallucinogens.
5.But people like Lumpkins are default Pelagians. They don’t take the power of sin seriously.
So they always frame the debate between freedom and determinism in implicitly antelapsarian terms, as if Wanda were in the Garden of Eden.
6.In addition, not everyone has the maturity to make responsible decisions. That’s why we treat a five-year-old differently than a 50-year-old.
Do we let the five-year-old play in the street? Or play with the chemicals under the sink? Or play with the medicine cabinet? Or play with Daddy’s service revolver?
No, a loving and dutiful father (or mother) will severely restrict his child’s freedom of choice.
Wouldn’t we expect God to make decisions for shortsighted human beings?
7. People may undergo treatment to restore their natural desires. Lumpkins uses the example of romantic love. It’s always funny to me how theological libertarians think this is a knockdown argument for voluntarism.
To begin with, what is the basis of romantic love? Doesn’t it have something to do with sexual attraction?
Do we choose to have a sex drive? Do we choose to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex?
Does Lumpkins believe the average adolescent has to consciously choose his sexual orientation? Does he think a normal teenage boy must will himself to be heterosexual? Did he decide that girls are fun to be around?
Or was he biologically programmed to feel that way? Something that just comes naturally at a certain age?
By and large, most forms of love are spontaneous. A mother’s love for her child. A child’s love for its mother.
Or the whole business of “falling” in love. Not to mention related feelings like jealousy and betrayal.
Nothing is more patently artificial and utterly out of touch with the real world than the way in which libertarians like Peter Lumpkins talk about the dynamics of love.
They don’t begin with Scripture, and, what is more, they don’t begin with experience. Instead, they begin with the pat little theory of what freedom entails, and then they come up with canned little just-so stories that bear no resemblance to real life.
Little cardboard characters who make dry, disinterested choices.
Libertarian theology inhabits a grocery store lined with aisles of unlabeled boxes. Do I choose the white box or the brown box?
From my vantage point, Ben’s “I-Will” Pill makes me wonder whether the Calvinist’s view of irresistible grace, free will and “regeneration preceding faith” is correct. At least for me, I am not so sure. With that, I am…
Peter
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/calvinism/index.html
Several issues here:
1.There is the matter of theological method. As is generally the case, libertarians like Peter Lumpkins begin with their seat-of-the-pants intuitions or canned illustrations about freedom, and then, if they do any exegesis at all, impose that on Scripture as their interpretive grid.
2.And because they begin with intuition rather than revelation, they are oblivious to the theological context of the discussion.
Notice the implicitly Pelagian cast of Lumpkins’ little parable. It assumes that Wanda is a normal person, and Ben must resort to brainwashing to “make” her love him.
What’s wrong with this picture? Well, to play along with his illustration, but bring it more into line with Scripture, Wanda is not a normal person. Rather, Wanda is a fallen human being.
So Wanda, left to her own devices, is more like a drug addict who’s tripping out on acid, or a cancer patient who’s delusional because she has a brain tumor. She isn’t in her right state of mind.
What God does in regeneration would be analogous to a neurosurgeon who removes the tumor, thereby restoring her sanity.
The effect of the therapy is to restore the individual to a natural and normal state of mind.
3.Even in human affairs, there are cases in which one individual makes decisions for another individual.
If Wanda is clinically insane, she cannot give informed consent for the operation. But without the operation, she will die of brain cancer.
It is possible, under such circumstances, for the patient to be declared mentally incompetent and then have a family member act on her behalf. This is sometimes done by court order.
I suppose, though, that Lumpkins would let her die rather than “violate” her freewill.
Or an individual may be involuntarily committed to a rehab facility. As long as the junkie is enslaved to his addiction, he can’t act in his own best interest.
Or take the case of letting your best friend drive drunk. If he’s had one to many, do you let him get into the car and drive way, or do you confiscate his keys and drive him to your place to sleep it off?
After he has a chance to draw out, you return his keys—but not before.
Well, unless you’re Lumpkins. If you’re Lumpkins, you’d respect your best friend’s freedom of choice. He chose to drink too much, so if he kills himself by slamming into a tree, that’s the price of freedom.
4.It isn’t the intervention that’s coercive so much as the addiction or inebriation or insanity. The point of the intervention is to remove the coercive force which is controlling the individual.
That’s why we speak of someone driving “under the influence” of alcohol or hallucinogens.
5.But people like Lumpkins are default Pelagians. They don’t take the power of sin seriously.
So they always frame the debate between freedom and determinism in implicitly antelapsarian terms, as if Wanda were in the Garden of Eden.
6.In addition, not everyone has the maturity to make responsible decisions. That’s why we treat a five-year-old differently than a 50-year-old.
Do we let the five-year-old play in the street? Or play with the chemicals under the sink? Or play with the medicine cabinet? Or play with Daddy’s service revolver?
No, a loving and dutiful father (or mother) will severely restrict his child’s freedom of choice.
Wouldn’t we expect God to make decisions for shortsighted human beings?
7. People may undergo treatment to restore their natural desires. Lumpkins uses the example of romantic love. It’s always funny to me how theological libertarians think this is a knockdown argument for voluntarism.
To begin with, what is the basis of romantic love? Doesn’t it have something to do with sexual attraction?
Do we choose to have a sex drive? Do we choose to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex?
Does Lumpkins believe the average adolescent has to consciously choose his sexual orientation? Does he think a normal teenage boy must will himself to be heterosexual? Did he decide that girls are fun to be around?
Or was he biologically programmed to feel that way? Something that just comes naturally at a certain age?
By and large, most forms of love are spontaneous. A mother’s love for her child. A child’s love for its mother.
Or the whole business of “falling” in love. Not to mention related feelings like jealousy and betrayal.
Nothing is more patently artificial and utterly out of touch with the real world than the way in which libertarians like Peter Lumpkins talk about the dynamics of love.
They don’t begin with Scripture, and, what is more, they don’t begin with experience. Instead, they begin with the pat little theory of what freedom entails, and then they come up with canned little just-so stories that bear no resemblance to real life.
Little cardboard characters who make dry, disinterested choices.
Libertarian theology inhabits a grocery store lined with aisles of unlabeled boxes. Do I choose the white box or the brown box?
Friday, September 16, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Psst! Triablogue's nefarious plot to take over the world!
“To argue as does the author that James Arminius in particular and contemporary Arminianism in general are essentially Manichean is too historically ignorant for words.”
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2009/09/internet-calvinism-the-rubbish-of-reformed-thinking-by-peter-lumpkins.html
Where, in my post, did I argue that Arminianism is historically indebted to Manichaeanism? I didn’t.
Rather, I compared some different groups which think alike in some basic ways. Which share a similar outlook.
The difference is the Manicheans and Zoroastrians are more consistent. They take their faulty assumptions to a logical conclusion.
There’s a name for this type of analysis: reductio ad absurdum. Is Lumpkins so philosophically naïve that he can’t recognize that type of analysis?
Of course, people with a faulty belief-system often get hot under the collar when you take their position to a logical extreme, or point out that their position is a just a variant of an even more radical and consistently misguided position. It’s no fun to have your errors exposed to the harsh light of day.
If, however, they resent the comparison, then they should make the necessary adjustments in their belief-system to avoid the comparison.
“My advice, however, is to forfeit the idea of finding good solid teaching on the internet. ”
Since Lumpkins is, himself, a blogger, that’s an oddly self-incriminating statement. By his own admission, you can’t find good solid teaching at the weblog of Peter Lumpkins.
Well, let me be the first to congratulate Lumpkins for volunteering that candid confession. But having disqualified himself, when is he going to exit the blogosphere?
“Know the only reason I'm concerning myself with Triablogue is its profound influence among many Founders Calvinists.”
Well, we tried to keep it under wraps for as long as we could, but Lumpkins has now blown our cover. If you must know, Albert Mohler, Roger Nicole, Tom Ascol, Tom Nettles, Mark Dever, et al. used to be dyed-in-the-wool Arminians until they began to read Triablogue, and the scales fell from their eyes.
In fact, I can’t tell you how many bottles of Madeira I downed with Roger Nicole before I was able to talk him out of his lifelong infatuation with Charles Finney.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2009/09/internet-calvinism-the-rubbish-of-reformed-thinking-by-peter-lumpkins.html
Where, in my post, did I argue that Arminianism is historically indebted to Manichaeanism? I didn’t.
Rather, I compared some different groups which think alike in some basic ways. Which share a similar outlook.
The difference is the Manicheans and Zoroastrians are more consistent. They take their faulty assumptions to a logical conclusion.
There’s a name for this type of analysis: reductio ad absurdum. Is Lumpkins so philosophically naïve that he can’t recognize that type of analysis?
Of course, people with a faulty belief-system often get hot under the collar when you take their position to a logical extreme, or point out that their position is a just a variant of an even more radical and consistently misguided position. It’s no fun to have your errors exposed to the harsh light of day.
If, however, they resent the comparison, then they should make the necessary adjustments in their belief-system to avoid the comparison.
“My advice, however, is to forfeit the idea of finding good solid teaching on the internet. ”
Since Lumpkins is, himself, a blogger, that’s an oddly self-incriminating statement. By his own admission, you can’t find good solid teaching at the weblog of Peter Lumpkins.
Well, let me be the first to congratulate Lumpkins for volunteering that candid confession. But having disqualified himself, when is he going to exit the blogosphere?
“Know the only reason I'm concerning myself with Triablogue is its profound influence among many Founders Calvinists.”
Well, we tried to keep it under wraps for as long as we could, but Lumpkins has now blown our cover. If you must know, Albert Mohler, Roger Nicole, Tom Ascol, Tom Nettles, Mark Dever, et al. used to be dyed-in-the-wool Arminians until they began to read Triablogue, and the scales fell from their eyes.
In fact, I can’t tell you how many bottles of Madeira I downed with Roger Nicole before I was able to talk him out of his lifelong infatuation with Charles Finney.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Thou Hypocrite
Says Dave Armstrong of James White over at Peter Lumpkins' pad:
It's a pattern of years and years of hypocrisy: condemning things and doing the same things himself; saying one thing and doing another . . . it becomes more significant insofar as it is one thing of a long line of questionable practices.
Yeah, Dave, like saying you won't address other bloggers or talk trash about them...
Update: Matt over at Peter's either didn't read this post or has a reading comprehension problem:
He writes:
Gene Bridges @ Triablogue followed up on this post.
Mr. Bridges is of the uber-Reformed variety. He also would like to dance to Duffy's "Mercy". Maybe Mr. Lumpkins is a hypocrite, at least according to Mr. Bridges, but maybe Mr. Lumpkins can be vindicated if he can also dance to "Mercy" by Duffy
1. No, I didn't follow up on Peter's post, Matt. I followed up on Dave Armstrong's comment on Peter's post.
2. My response is not directed toward Peter or anything written by him; it is directed towards Dave Armstrong. Dave accuses Mr. White of the very thing ("condemning things and doing them himself) that Dave has been doing for years on end with respect to a multitude of bloggers. I find that rather comedic.
I'm not defending James White - I'm not criticizing him either. I'm not defending Peter Lumpkins; I'm not criticizing him either. This post isn't about Peter Lumpkins, Matt - it's about Dave Armstrong and what Dave said at Peter's place. Peter is, to me, as inconsequential a person in my life as he ever was.
Oh, and for the record, I would much rather dance to the Ralphie Rosario mix of Donna Summer's Billboard #1 Dance hit, "Fame, the Game" than Duffy's Mercy. Duffy is sooo 2008. Donna Summer has much more staying power.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Hopeful universalism
Rob Bell is NOT a Universalist (and I actually read “Love Wins”)
On the basis of a publisher’s promotional paragraph and an advertising video in which Rob Bell questions someone’s certainty that Ghandi [sic.] is in hell, Justin Taylor sounded the web-wide alarm that Rob Bell’s forthcoming book Love Wins espouses universalism (the doctrine that everyone will eventually be saved)...I suspect I have a slight advantage over some who have expressed strong opinions on Love Wins inasmuch as I have actually read the book (I received an advanced copy).
Second, given Rob’s poetic/artistic/non-dogmatic style, Love Wins cannot be easily filed into pre-established theological categories (viz. “universalism” vs “eternal conscious suffering” vs. “annihilationism,” etc.)...I strongly doubt Rob would describe himself as a “Universalist.”...And this holds true even if Rob believes he has warrant to hope everyone will eventually be saved. And for this reason, I would argue that Rob cannot hold to Universalism as a doctrine: he cannot be, in the classic sense of the word, a Universalist.
Addendum: As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s accurate to describe Rob’s book as a defense of Universalism, though it expresses a hope for all to be saved. If you’re looking for defenses of Universalism as a doctrine, the best I’ve found are...Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist...
i) As a matter of fact, there is a “preestablished theological category” in which to fit Bell’s book (as Boyd himself describes it). There are varieties of universalism. And in the typology of universalism, there’s a distinction between “hopeful universalism,” “dogmatic universalism,” and “hopeful dogmatic universalism”:
Is universal salvation something that Christians can reasonably hope for or is it something they can be certain of? Ludlow and Walls point out that most Christian theologians who have been universalists had held to a form of “hopeful universalism,” whilst both Talbott and Reitan in this volume defend a form of “certain” or “dogmatic universalism,” R. Parry & C. Partridge, eds. Universal Salvation: The Current Debate (Eerdmans 2003), xviii.
Some Christians describe themselves as “hopeful universalists.” By this they mean that Scripture gives good grounds for real hope that all will be saved, but there is no certainty…Other Christians are dogmatic universalists. They argue that it is certain that God will save all. I agree but with a qualification. The theology outlined in this book is one that espouses a dogmatic universalism, but I must confess to not being 100% certain that it is correct. Thus I am a hopeful dogmatic universalist, a non-dogmatic dogmatic universalist, if you will G. MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist: The biblical hope that God’s love will save us all (SPCK 2008), 4.
I said right at the start that I am a hopeful dogmatic universalist. That is to say that, although, according to my theological system, God will save all people, I am not 100% certain that my system is correct,” ibid. 176.
I believe that Jason Pratt, of the CADRE, is another hopeful universalist. And I think Randal Rauser also identifies himself as a hopeful universalist. So this is well-established usage in universalist circles.
It’s odd that Boyd would mischaracterize universalism when, in fact, he cites a book (which he says he read) that draws that very distinction (more than once).
ii) Boyd also perpetuates the falsehood that Justin Taylor had no firsthand knowledge of the book.
Moving along:
The stew keeps cooking on controversial mega-church pastor, Rob Bell, and his latest book, Love Wins. Today, Greg Boyd, hardly a non-controversial figure himself among evangelicals with his open theistic views, went on record saying Bell is no universalist.
Sometimes the best test for discovering what someone really believes is right or wrong is observing how he or she reacts when another person treats him or her in a particular way.
Notice that Lumpkins relies on secondhand information. He continues his attack on Justin Taylor and others based, not on his own reading of Love Wins, but based on hearsay information–what Boyd says Bell says.
Lumpkins is guilty of the very thing he faults in others. So he flunks his own test.
Lumpkins is a bigot. And because he’s a bigot, he’s oblivious to his own bigotry. A bigot thinks the other guy is the bigot.
In Lumpkins’ priority system, if a man who happens to be a Calvinist says something right about a heretic, then it’s more important to attack the Calvinist and defend the heretic, than vice versa.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Peter Lumpkins' kangaroo court
peter lumpkins
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
steve hays
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
Monday, December 02, 2013
Libertine moralists
Based on rumors that Ergun Caner may be a candidate for the presidency of another SBC educational institution, Jared Moore and Mark Lamprecht have been attempting to forestall that eventuality by reminding people of Caner's past transgressions, for which he remains evasive, impenitent, and even defiant. Moore and Lamprecht are simply endeavoring to maintain minimal standards of ethical purity in a Christian denomination to which they belong.
To my knowledge, Cancer decided to cash in on 9/11 fervor by recasting himself as a jihadist who converted to Christ. It was a smart career move while it lasted. But from what I've read, critics like James White and Turretinfan have produced stacks of evidence implicating Caner in a scam to reinvent his past.
And it isn't just outside critics. The fact that Liberty U eased him out, despite the institutional incentive to put the best face on the situation, is independent corroboration.
However, Peter Lumpkins has, once again, been running interference for Caner. Here's what's striking. Lumpkins is a classic example of a legalist and moralist when it comes to teetotalism, but an antinomian libertine when it comes to a genuine ethical issue like Caner's résumé inflation.
The Pharisees forbad what Scripture permits or prescribes while they permitted or prescribed what Scripture forbids.
Lumpkins is a modern-day Pharisee. On the one hand, Scripture permits (even praises) moderate alcohol consumption. Conversely, it condemns the kind of blatant, massive fraud that Caner stands accused of. On the other hand, Lumpkins invents a nonexistent virtue (teetotalism) while condemning a nonexistent vice (moderate alcohol consummation). Conversely, he defends genuine wrongdoing.
Where's the standard of holiness?
Monday, February 28, 2011
Arminian hatefest
It’s hatefest week at sbc tomorrow. Indeed, every week at sbc tomorrow is hatefest week. Here’s a sampler:
On Rob Bell: Burn Heretic! Burn! by Peter Lumpkins
Hence, when I see the latest huffing and puffing about Rob Bell coming from a select network of blogging kingpins, I‘ve got to be honest, it’s tempting to help them gather wood for a bonfire to see Rob Bell burn. After all, he’s a heretic, is he not?
So who’s building a bonfire to burn Rob Bell? Joshua Harris: so convinced was Harris about burning Bell in a bonfire...Candidly, I think more will join the crew gathering wood.
That's such a charitable way for Lumpkins to characterize his Reformed opponents, right?
Friday, December 06, 2013
Team colors
i) I'm going to do a wrap-up on the Driscoll/Mefferd kerfuffle. I'm less concerned with the details of this particular controversy than how it's been handled. Unfortunately, this controversy exposes an identity-politics mentality in evangelicalism. By that I mean two things:
a) Do you judge each issue on the merits? On a case-by-case basis? Or do you apply guilt-by-association? Are you predisposed to take sides based on baggage that has no logical bearing on the specific issue at hand?
b) Do you pick your in-group based on your positions, or does your in-group pick your positions for you? In other words, do you first make an independent judgment on what's the right position to take, then affiliate with a group that shares your outlook, or do you begin with your in-group, which, in turn, predetermines what positions you will take?
In the Driscoll/Mefferd Kerfuffle, I'm struck by the degree to which many participants automatically line up on one side or the other based on their prior affiliations rather than the issue at hand. They seem to be oblivious to how their position is dictated by their group-identity.
Try a little thought experiment. Suppose a reporter went to the campus of The Master's College and conducted one of those man-on-the-street interviews. Suppose he quotes some statements by John MacArthur which he attributes to Joel Osteen. And suppose he quotes some statements by Joel Osteen which he attributes to John MacArthur. The tendency is for people to agree with statements based on who they think said it, rather than the content of the statement itself. If you're a fan of MacArthur, your reflexive impulse is to agree with a statement by Osteen attributed to MacArthur and disagree with a statement by MacArthur attributed to Osteen. And if you're a fan of Osteen, the same is true in reverse.
That's the kind of dynamic I often see in play in this particular controversy.
ii) Mefferd has issued a retraction. Among other things she says:
I now realize the interview should not have occurred at all. I should have contacted Tyndale House directly to alert them to the plagiarism issue. And I never should have brought it to the attention of listeners publicly. So I would like to apologize to all of you and to Mark Driscoll for how I behaved. I am sorry.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2013/12/04/janet-mefferd-removes-evidence-relating-to-charges-of-plagiarism-against-mark-driscoll-apologizes-to-audience/
I don't know what to make of this. Speaking for myself, it isn't clear to me that she has anything to apologize for.
Peter Lumpkins reacted by saying:
For my part, her obviously sincere apology should strengthen our respect for her as a credible journalist, radio host, and committed believer. Thank you, Janet, for following both godly Christian counsel and your mature Christian conscience.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/12/janet-mefferd-pulls-documentation-alleging-plagiarism-against-mark-driscoll.html
That's classic double-talk. Whatever she does, she can do no wrong. She was right when she was crusading against Driscoll, yet she was right when she backed down. People like Lumpkins were rooting for her when she went after Driscoll, and they are still rooting for her when she suddenly folds. But if she was right to do it in the first place, she was wrong to break it off and reverse course. And if she was right to back down, then she was wrong at the outset.
iii) Apropos (ii), I saw a "lead pastor" touting an article coyly entitled "Journalist Accused of Committing Sin of Journalism". And I saw other supporters invoke her journalistic credentials. But that, by itself, proves nothing. She got into a dustup with Joe Carter, but he teaches journalism–so that cancels out the journalism card. Both can play that card.
There are good journalists and bad journalists. Geraldo Rivera is a journalist. Dan Rather is a journalist. Martin Bashir is a journalist. Rachel Maddow is a journalist.
iv) Ironically, Mefferd may be guilty of the very thing she accused Driscoll of doing. Mefferd furnished evidence that Driscoll failed to credit his sources. But that raises the same question in reference to Mefferd. Was the incriminating evidence she adduced the result of her personal investigation, or did an uncredited staffer do the actual research? Did Mefferd really comb through all that Mars Hill material by herself to find a smoking gun? Or did an anonymous staffer do the spadework, while Mefferd gets all the credit?
v) Mind you, I think TGC should have pulled the trigger on Driscoll some time ago. To judge by reviews, Real Marriage was sufficient grounds to cut ties. And before that, his "pornographic divination" (in Phil Johnson's apt phrase) was sufficient grounds.
vi) For his part, Justin Taylor weighed in:
Among other things, he said:
I thought that Ms. Mefferd acted unprofessionally and that authors should know something about her modus operandi here. First, she has every right to raise the issue, but it should have been done first to Mark or his publisher offline. It’s a violation of the Golden Rule.
I find that odd because he seems to be alluding to the Mt 18 criterion. Yet I believe Justin agrees with D. A. Carson on how often that's misused:
Since Mefferd was publicly commenting on something that was already in the public domain, I don't see the relevance of Mt 18. And even if it wasn't in the public domain, some things ought to be brought to light.
Justin continues:
Third, she told an untruth (conspiracy theorists notwithstanding) that he hung up on her. Her producer even emailed a breathless report to bloggers trying to make a story out of this. Maybe she has apologized for this but I haven’t seen it.
That's a technical issue which I'm in no position to confirm, but it raises a valid issue.
Justin goes on to say:
This is not the first time I’ve observed this behavior from her. I think it is very problematic that she has given a platform to a known slanderer regarding the SGM situation. She also tried to try the case in the court of public opinion and proceeded in an unbiblical way. In other words, this didn’t seem like a one-off situation.
I don't have an informed opinion to offer on the SGM allegations. I do think it was imprudent as well as premature for Carson, Taylor, and DeYoung to go out on a limb in defense of Mahaney.
In fairness to Justin, whom I like and respect, it's a fact of human psychology that if you're constantly subjected to unreasonable criticism, you are apt to discount even reasonable criticism from the same malicious source.
vii) I've already alluded a twitter war between Mefferd and Joe Carter on the Driscoll affair. This was preceded by an earlier shootout between Mefferd and Carter, which generated yet another comment thread:
So that supplies some of the background leading up to the current hostilities.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)