Saturday, May 15, 2010

Peter Lumpkins vs. the Messengers

Peter Lumpkins who has been faithfully criticizing those who dare to criticize Dr. Caner has added an additional attack to his list. Here's a quick chronology (Last Updated July 5, 2010) (note that the list is in reverse chronological order):
  1. August 2 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
  2. July 17 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
  3. July 9 - Peter Lumpkins goes after TurretinFan (and others)
  4. July 8 - Peter Lumpkins goes after Turretinfan
  5. July 6 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White (and his supporters)
  6. July 3 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
  7. July 2 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
  8. June 6 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
  9. June 5 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
  10. June 4 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
  11. June 1 - Peter Lumpkins goes after - guess who - yes, James White again
  12. May 28 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White (big surprise!)
  13. May 22 (in an update) - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White (yet again)
  14. May 21 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White (again)
  15. May 15 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
  16. May 11 - Peter Lumpkins goes after Matt Svoboda
  17. May 9 (and 10th in the updates?) - Peter Lumpkins goes after "Baptist Calvinist Bloggers" and Wade Burleson and Matt Svoboda
  18. April 18 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
  19. April 9 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
  20. April 7 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
  21. March 12 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White and Founders
  22. February 25 (in the update which appears to be the same day) - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White
  23. February 23 - Peter Lumpkins goes after James White and Tom Ascol
This approach is a classic "shoot the messengers" approach to dealing with criticism. I respectfully call on Peter Lumpkins to pursue a different approach. Some of his posts (such as the May 9 post and the February 25 post) could have been written in a way that deals with the issues without going after Dr. Caner's critics in a personal way. Obviously, Peter Lumpkins' favorite target is Dr. James White, but perhaps Mr. Lumpkins can learn to set aside that particular issue.

- TurretinFan

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

A little leaven leavens the whole Lumpkins

With that I am not

Coram Deo said...

Ad hominem is manifestly the stock-in-trade at the "SBC Tomorrow" blog.

Taken alone this unfortunate fact would simply speak more of Mr. Lumpkins than anything else, but given the amen chorus of regulars there it would seem that Mr. Lumpkins speaks for at least a segment of the SBC denomination.

That particular segment seems to major in:

a.) Ad hominem insults

b.) Ignorant, blind sectarian loathing of Calvinism

c.) Childish insolence

d.) Gross hypocrisy

All in all it's difficult to discern how these qualities taken independently or together serve to honor Christ on what's at least ostensibly a Christian blog.

In closing, if Peter Lumpkins' site is truly representative of "The SBC Tomorrow", then that denomination is in serious spiritual jeopardy.

In Christ,
CD

Tom said...

So rabid are the devotees of so-called "libertarian fee will" in their rebellion against Scriptural teaching that they have turned what should be a simple case of examining whether or not a well-known figure who occupies a prominent position at a Christian university has made a career of violating clear standards of honesty into an Arminian versus Calvinist duel.

The fact is that I've known many heretics, unbelievers, pagans, infidels, and outright atheists who demonstrate more personal integrity than does Ergun Caner. That these anti-Reformed hacks want to shield Caner from bearing the consquences of his misdeeds makes them partakers in his sins. They will have to answer before God for this in addition to their contempt to the Reformed doctrines taught in Scripture.

steve said...

Well, I feel hurt. How come I'm left out? What more can I do to be on Lumpkins' dropdead list?

natamllc said...

CD,

while I believe I understand what your intent is here posting this way, I would ask you a favor, if you would?

In light of these verses, would you open your Bible and extract other verses that build the purposes for them?

Here are the verses:
Pro 24:10 If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small.
Pro 24:11 Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.
Pro 24:12 If you say, "Behold, we did not know this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?

I have several in mind that "bend" my soul to respond to this situation as moderately as TF has here: ".... I respectfully call on Peter Lumpkins to pursue a different approach.".

natamllc said...

Having emotional ties to the assault now, Steve, have we?

Don't feel bad, I feel that when I post on your blog all the time! :)

Turretinfan said...

"What more can I do to be on Lumpkins' dropdead list?"

If at first you don't succeed ...

peter lumpkins said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
peter lumpkins said...

Dear turretinfan,

Drop dead? Drop dead!? Why heavens no. You're much too good for business to 'drop dead'. And, as for "Steve", "Steve" who? Does he blog? Or, is he you? We'll never know I suppose.

Now for your dainty little assertion that Peter Lumpkins "goes after." I think yours is the perfect model to employ 'turretinfan'...the quintessential skeleton of sheer,unadulterated passion for truth and fairness alone.

Here's how it works:

All of the posts I do are a "goes after" piece while all of the posts you do, James White does, Wade B. does, etc. on Ergun Caner et al are bleached white as snow of any "goes after" stain. Yes indeedy.

In fact...

to even think any piece you've put together...any piece James White has ever written on Ergun Caner contains a "goes after" aura is so fundamentally unthinkable, it borders blasphemous!

I for one think that's just swell. And, it also demonstrates very nicely the objective flair you possess, 'turretinfan'

Keep up the good work. Know dazzle has yet to fade from your squeaky clean reputation. Not to mention your mentor's.

With that, I am...
Peter

Turretinfan said...

Mr. Lumpkins, the great archon of charity and wisdom:

Steve is the author of this piece that is surely much more memorable than mine: Fragging James White

As well as this amusing piece: Psst! Triablogue's nefarious plot to take over the world.

More here.

- TurretinFan

Anonymous said...

"In closing, if Peter Lumpkins' site is truly representative of "The SBC Tomorrow", then that denomination is in serious spiritual jeopardy."

It is, unfortuantly, institutionalized behavior. This group learned it young at the knee of their SBC mentors. It is not only condoned but encouraged and quite frankly, how they are intellectually equipped to respond.

It is akin to being perpetually ten years old, emotionally.

natamllc said...

TF,

Peter,

When I go over the links provided on this blog and read the comments, including the most recent post in this comment box by you, Peter, my spirit comes to this verse and with it, [the God Breathed, Holy Spirit inspired verse], I pause, step back, ponder it and gain an insight that has been in my spirit from the beginning of my walk with the Lord but did not come to mind during the last while until now, as this debate on the "Biblical standards" for one who chooses the "good work" of Spiritual Leader among God's Spiritual people:

1Ti 3:7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.


Peter, I ask you in light of that verse, why you would think it is an error to listen to "outsiders" bringing reproach upon Dr. Caner? It is one thing to "accuse" him "falsely". We are to test all things and hold to that which is good. Afterall, we are Sons of Light and not darkness. And as has been reflected many times by us, none of us is perfect.

When you go above that verse and read the following it puts that verse into a light that does not reflect as poorly as you have been reflecting upon both Dr. Ascol's and Dr. White's Godly character, or their judgment, here:

1Ti 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.
1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1Ti 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
1Ti 3:4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
1Ti 3:5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
1Ti 3:6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.

Now, as I am writing this response in defense of Dr. White especially as I am not nearly as aware of Dr. Ascol as I am Dr. White, these words come to my mind too:

Jas 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
Jas 3:2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.

natamllc said...

TF,

you dasterly fella, you betrayer of trusts and confidences, you should be ashamed of yourself for that shout out about Steve Hays and Triablogue to Peter Lumpkins! Grrrrr, talk about letting your enemy know your secret weapons in a time of war!

Are you really a spy for some within the goat skins from eternity or are you really, truly, really, One of His Shepherd dogs baying from the sheepfold on a moon lit night taunting the wolves in sheeps cloth?

Turretinfan said...

LOL NatAmLLC

peter lumpkins said...

Dear 'turretinfan'

Oh, I see. So "Steve" is not you. Or is he? Supposing again we will never know...

Dear 'NatAmLLC' or 'anon' or "Steve" or "aka turretinfan"

Why thank you very much.

And, still the absolutely, undeniable, undebatable 'turrentinfan' reality is...

"All of the posts I do are a "goes after" piece while all of the posts you do, James White does, Wade B. does, etc. on Ergun Caner et al are bleached white as snow of any "goes after" stain.

Thanks again for the superb enlightenment, all.

With that, I am...
Peter

natamllc said...

Peter,

what was that suppose to imply?

I posted a comment on your comment box and have not, as yet, seen it release for publication. Why? Are you going to publish my comment over there?

Here in essence is what I posted:

First, I asked Peter to come over here and answer my question to him, which is posted here, above.

Then my inquiry turned to why he brought up the fact that Dr. White is the sole Elder of the Church Pastor Fry pastors?

In my area here in the North Coast of California, there are three branches/limbs of the "Baptist" Tree. Of these, one branch is the SBC and there are 22 churches in this organization in the greater County. Many of these church bodies have a single Pastor and one Elder.

When a question comes up that is directed towards some reproach within their sphere of one of these Pastors or their Elder, the group of Pastors and Elders of the 22 SBC churches convene and deal with the internal matter.

There is an overseer of overseerers you might say who is elected from this pool of Pastors and Elders. I know him personally. I have one of his books personally autographed by him. I haven't read the book yet! :0) sorry Jerry!

I asked Peter's commentors if any one of them lived in the greater Phoenix area and asked if there was such a commentor just how many SBC Baptist Churches there are in the greater Phoenix area and of these how many of them are small enough to just have one Pastor and one Elder governing that particular body?

I do not find it alarming at all if this is the case with Pastor Fry and Dr. White. Surely the Pastorate in the greater Phoenix area is made up of more than one small Church community of Reformed Baptists and they have no oversight?

This may be a greenish red herring that is being raised to deflect attention from the grave and serious nature that has come upon Dr. Caner, et al?

The gravity and severity of this is far greater in degree when it comes to just how God looks at this sort of tactic:

Pro 6:16 There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him:
Pro 6:17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
Pro 6:18 a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil,
Pro 6:19 a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Turretinfan said...

Mr. Lumpkins,

We're just the messengers. Take up these issues with Caner.

-TurretinFan

Coram Deo said...

There's something to be said for Mr. Lumpkins' consistency, I suppose.

In Christ,
CD

peter lumpkins said...

Dear natamllc,

a) I'm afraid I'm just not on your timetable

b) But I'm also afraid I need not bother for two very important reasons:

1. someone beat me to it with a much better response than I could possibly compose

2). our bloghost wants me to take issues I have with his (or her) dainty little thesis elsewhere. Presumably, it includes yours as well.

Hence, I am more than happy to comply.

I trust your evening well.

With that, I am...
Peter

Turretinfan said...

Mr. Lumpkins:

or her?

- TurretinFan

Mark | hereiblog said...

Below is the comment I left on Peter's latest post. I thought I'd share here.

Dr. Yarnell,

Interesting questions. I wonder though, when did the Lord command Christians to create universities accredited by secular authorities? And when did he command those universities to have Debate Institutes?

It would seem these are worldly tactics that His people are emulating.

Maybe, James White just went to the wrong school and if he had taken advantage of the Liberty Debate Institute he could have:

Learn in one of the finest debate facilities in the country!

Come experience instruction from one of the best institute staffs
in America in our new, state-of-the-art, 3500 square foot facility. Students at the Liberty Debate Institute have access to a private computer lab (no fighting the rest of the student body for time on a computer), an on-site copier, a workroom for cutting evidence, and a high-tech classroom for topic lectures.

Coram Deo said...

Mark,

I just had a crazy idea - now hear me out on this one - why doesn't the LU "Debate Institute" host a debate between - and I'm just tossing around names here - oh, I dunno; let's say Ergun and Emir Caner and....uh...let's see here...I know! James White and Tom Ascol!

If they have all that space, and those state of the art facilities it would seem like a great location to have an actual debate.

Why hasn't anyone thought of this idea before? :)

In Christ,
CD

natamllc said...

CD,

Now you have gone real low and I am disgusted with you! grrrrr

You sure know how to pour salt on an open wound! Ouch!