« Preaching the Gospel to Myself---the Conversation Continues by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Justin Taylor on Critiquing Someone’s Theology by Peter Lumpkins »

Aug 29, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

selahV (a.k.a. hariette petersen)

my brain hurts, my heart weeps, my spirit groans...selahV

CASEY

forgetting his writings for a minute(even though they are very troubling)let's look at "How we hire in the SBC sometimes"....it is a prescription for what happened here. Working for multiple agencies with little or no accountability to anyone. SBTS thinks NAMB is watching/supervising him. NAMB think NOBTS is watching him. And NOBTS thinks SBTS is watching him. A Rx for failure....which has happened here.
We certainly need SENTINELS/WATCHMAN who will guard the 'City'. Where are you?

Wes Widner

You have this exactly backwards. Michael Licona was one of the watchmen you ask about. What is sad is that you are asking where all your defenders while you are busy stabbing anyone who is remotely interested in being one in the back. This is just another example why I consider myself to be a recovering Southern Baptist.

peter lumpkins

Wes,

Of course I am Wes, of course I am. Why? Well, because you, as a "recovering" Southern Baptist (whatever under heaven's name you must mean) have pronounced it so. Yes. By drawing conclusions which affect your friends, I'm a "back-stabber." What a strange definition of "back-stabbing" you embrace, my dear.

Even so, Dr. Licona is obligated to Southern Baptists for his theological writings and views as long as he receives SBC monies.

With that, I am...
Peter

Jason Sampler

Peter,

I'm not surprised at your position on ft#3, but I think you have overstated the case. You write, "but spoiled it all . . ." Do you really believe the post is "spoiled"? For White (and it appears logical to me), Geisler is being hypocritical to call out Licona for failing to answer him after two months when Geisler has left unanswers questions for a year. If Licona is guilty, then that makes Geisler 6x as guilty.

Also, if the post is "spoiled", why do you recommend the "initial comments on the issue"? Would you recommend someone eat the "initial" part of a spoiled can of beans. I know I wouldn't want to eat anything from a spoiled can. It seems to me you just don't like the taste of White's conclusion rather than it actually being "spoiled".

Jason Sampler

Colvin

Casey,

Why attach SBTS to this?

CASEY

Colvin...a clear case you have made for me to wear my glasses at all times. It's not SBTS but Southern Evangelical Seminary. The 'difficulty to supervise' point I made in my first post is still true....but now it's between NOBTS and NAMB. We'll see how that works....or maybe we're looking at the results that 'it doesn't work'.

Bryan

Peter, I've read a lot on your blog over the last few months. As a young reformed guy who's part of an Acts 29 church, I'm sure it makes sense that we disagree on quite a bit. But like a commenter in a previous blog, while I shake my head at some of your posts in disagreement, I am thankful for your presence, especially with this. A foolish mistake that is apparently being made is abandoning wise and biblically faithful exegetical and hermeneutical methods and instead adopting more naturalistic methods. Thank you for this!

peter lumpkins

Jason,

Look. I employed an overused, cliche-like figure of speech--"spoiled it all". Yet you attempt to reduce it to a logical contradiction. Please. I simply gave a recommendation with a caveat, hardly an unusual procedure, much less a contradiction for heaven's sake. Come on man, log on and offer something worth mentioning.

The fact is, White did spoil a perfectly good piece by indulging his past personal grievances in bringing up the Geisler-Caner issue. He easily had at his disposal other supposed contradictions he could have used about Geisler. For example, White could have concluded something like this:

It is interesting to me Geisler's logic is so crystal clear pertaining to Licona's deficiency on Matt 27 but he remains so obviously inconsistent pertaining to his exegesis on Romans 8

With something like the above, White could have kept the conversation free from his personal issues. But noooooooooooooooooo! He had to bring up Caner.

Nor can it be argued both are the same. The two are entirely different. With the Geisler-Caner thingamajig, White definitively focused on integrity not theology. But the Licona issue is strictly about ideas, about theology. So, while Geisler on Rom 8 matches well the Licona fiasco, the Geisler-Caner thingamajig doesn't. Bringing up Geisler-Caner is obviously intended as a message not a mere example of "inconsistency."

Hence, while an example about Geisler's "inconsistency" would have been perfectly analogous had White compared Geisler on Licona to Geisler on Rom. 8, he spoiled--i.e."spoiled it all"--a perfectly good opportunity to offer a studied opinion by taking his trusty little vindictive scoop and slinging a pound of mud on Geisler--but especially on Ergun Caner--for something White apparently cannot get over.

Now, that's really all I got to say about that, Jason. I have no interest in tit/tatting back and forth on this. I'll leave it up to White supporters to take it from here and run with it...on their sites, of course.

Have a good evening.
With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Bryan,

Thanks, brother. I very much appreciate your words. I'm fairly well aware that most pieces I write provoke polar responses. Much of it is due to the writing style with which I am cursed (or blessed, according to some).

Even so, I do try to keep the posts on ideas without getting personal, even though some personalness remains unavoidable, especially because of my commitment I've made to source my complaints. In other words, if I complain about an idea, or offer a critique, or counter-point an issue, I am not hesitate to link precisely the subject or person I'm addressing. For me, it's only honest. I read far too many blogs who offer a generic criticism of such and such but one cannot examine the sources to see if his or her point is one well-taken. Why? The source is not linked and/or the author is not specifically mentioned. For me, this is frustrating. I want to know where a person got his or her info so I can engage it myself. Then I can affirm or deny whether or not I think the source is properly handled.

Sorry, Bryan. Didn't mean to go on. I trust you'll continue reading, and that you'll continue critically engaging what you read no matter the source.

Grace, brother.
With that, I am...
Peter

Max

"Where are the Watchmen for Southern Baptists?"

While some grassroots folks are raising the trumpet to send a clear warning on various issues, certain SBC leaders who should be tooting their horns appear to be silent, dreaming, lying down, and/or loving to slumber (Isaiah 56:10).

"Watchman, watchman what of the night?!" (Isaiah 21:11).

Thank you Peter for keeping your trumpet oiled and ready to go.

Nick

Please tell how Licona's interpretation violates inerrancy.

peter

Nick,

I would hold virtually the same position as Geisler on Inerrancy. hence, read Geisler. And, I'm aware that Holding is not on the same page with Geisler. And, I'm also aware you have personal interest in this issue since it's--at least in part--about "family." So, that's about all you're going to get out of me so far as dialog goes.

With that, I am...
Peter

Nick

Wow. So let's see, I need to read Inerrancy, which assumes that I haven't, when in fact I happen to have a copy I've read on my shelves. Next, Holding is not on the same page as Geisler, and since I'm his ministry partner, I'm obviously not worthy of a dialogue. Finally, I happen to be family, so therefore my opinion must be disregarded entirely. Never mind I raised a real question that could be answered.

Love how open the dialogue is. Let's not look for reasons to discuss the views with someone. Let's look for excuses not to.

peter lumpkins

Nick,

A) I did not suggest (or assume) you *need* to read Geisler (or anything for that matter). I do not know what you *need* to read

B) Well, no I did not assume you haven't read Geisler. Instead I only assumed that if one was interested to know my position on Inerrancy, one *could* read Geisler

C) No again. My response to you implied no value judgment toward your self-worth or even your probable arguments. Rather it implied something about my own willingness and/or desire about the dialog. In short, if anything, I was implicating myself

D) Finally, while you raised a "real question" which could have definitively been answered--at least from my own meager perspective--the very reason I cite--"family"--remains precisely why I have no interest in the discussion with you, Nick. Period. It is a lose/lose for me. I could marshal some very good arguments, I assure, (but not original with me, of course), nonetheless the arguments I potentially posted would be a priori already rejected by you...and for good reason, I might add. It's spelled, F-A-M-I-L-Y.

Now please run along. Blog about it on your site. Tell all what a big-old-meanie I am for not hosting "open dialog" at SBC Tomorrow ;^)

Have a great afternoon.
With that, I am...
Peter

Aquinas

Mike Licona espouses inerrancy but (quite rightly) refuses to make it the kind of central litmus-test doctrine some do. In fact the doctrine of inerrancy as set out in the Chicago Statement would allow Licona to make the kind of statement on Mt. 27 (which I share with him). I don't share Licona's view on inerrancy though and I have Geisler's "Answering Critics" book and find some of his attempts to make the bible flawless very irritating---sometimes offering plausible solutions, often ducking the key difficulties and sometimes giving very implausible responses. Can't we argue about something more central to Christian claims? Inerrancy doesn't feature as an article of orthodox faith in any of the classic Christian creeds---I wonder why!?

peter lumpkins

Aquinas

You write, "Inerrancy doesn't feature as an article of orthodox faith in any of the classic Christian creeds". Nor are Southern Baptists particularly concerned about "orthodox" creeds nor certainly if what we affirm about Scripture is necessarily wed to credal language. We've possessed a rather clear understanding of what we affirm about Scripture, especially since the Conservative Resurgence.

With that, I am...
Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.