« The Next President of the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Ergun Caner Releases Statement by Peter Lumpkins »

2010.02.23

Comments

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

peter

Why shamgar, I'm surprised. Is Tom Ascol now not a reliable source either?

With that, I am...
Peter

Matt Svoboda

Peter,

Sometimes we have gotten along, other times we haven't.

My only suggestion to you is to not answer all of your critics/anyone who disagrees with you with mockery and sarcasm. It is unhelpful and unproductive.

peter

Dale,

It's been a while, my brother. And, I completely understand about your teaching duties. Thanks for the warm words about my book (I'm searching for a school who'll trade me a master of theology for it. Do you have any suggestions? :^)

More seriously, it is sad. White & Ascol's actions are simply indefensible. And, perhaps even more indefensible is stooping to defend their godless tearing down of another brother being logged by some here. Where is shame?

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Billy,

Always great to have you stop by.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Matt,

I do not answer all of my critics/anyone who disagrees with me with mockery and sarcasm. Like right now, for example. However, I'm old enough to know that sarcasm is sometimes all someone will hear.

Have a great afternoon.

With that, I am...
Peter

sermonfire

I just don't get the point.

let's say tom, james, and ergun are all equally culpable of hypocritical posts.

so he adds to their lies by...

being a hypocrite himself?

I don't get how this is not sinful.

i wont waste anymore of my time here, especially with your mocking response to my deadly serious comment.

peter maybe you think I'm just joking around or I'm someone who exaggerates to the point of hilarity. no, I assure you that I stand by what I said and I assure you I'm not screwing around.

you are hurting ministries.

all of them.

and your's.

Matt Svoboda

sermonfire,

I dont understand either... All of the men are at fault at some level and then Peter decides to jump in and make himself a part of the sinful, hypocritical mess.

Not a good decision.

peter

sermonfire,

You've had your say now. I've been quite generous in allowing guests to heap upon me the wonderful title of hypocrite.

As for hurting ministries, I'm hurting no one. Dr. Ergun Caner has been unrighteously butchered by two men in the post. Hence, I suggest you have mercy on a brother and call your wayward heroes to account.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Matt,

Look. If all you want is to continue making me the issue, I suggest you pack a picnic lunch and go for a nice little outing (that's sarcasm).

Now why don't you make it plain for us to know: Was or was not Ascol & White loving their neighbor as themselves when they cited a Muslim hate-site? Was or was not Ascol right in offering to his FB readers a hate site which allegedly exposed Caner as a fake?

And, please not of this post-modern gobbledy-gook that all 4 men are at fault. Caner was minding his own business. So, man up and tell us, Matt(not-sarcasm).

With that, I am...
Peter

sermonfire

i do appreciate the say, you are generous in allowing comments.

the book of nehemiah never made more sense than it did right now, so thanks for that.

sermonfire

also "appreciate" the dig you make that I'm of Paul or of Apollos.

makes me "feel good" when people wrongly accuse me.

catching the sarcasm there?

you know they are human, you know they do sin.

assuming all these accusations are true.

all of them sin.

even that guy who debacled the debate. (and he did, history is not up for debate, no pun intended) even the guy who has a degree from an "unacredited" seminary. even the guy who posted links from muslim sites against ergun.

all of them.

the point is that Christ's blood should get rid of all the bad blood instead of blogging about the guy "who started it" or those "who antagonized it".

that's the point.

and i'm out.

volfan007

It looks to me like Peter is defending someone, who was attacked, and has been attacked for a long time by certain people.

Yall can call it what you want to, but it sure does look like Peter is just simply defending Dr. Caner against the attacks leveled against him.

David

Shamgar

Why shamgar, I'm surprised. Is Tom Ascol now not a reliable source either?

That doesn't even make any sense. I have said nothing about the Ascol situation. I don't know anything about the site in question so I have opted not to comment.

You claimed, as I quoted, that Dr White was in some way claiming that Dr Caner was a false muslim, and that he was using this site as a reference. You linked to a specific page. On that page (and indeed in any current posts) I cannot find anywhere that he has referenced that site, or claimed that Dr Caner is not a muslim.

So...I again ask you, where did Dr White do what you claim he did?

peter

Shamgar,

If you do not take time enough to read the post and the evidences I offered before making the claim about making no sense, I can't help you much. I am not going to spoon-feed it to you. Sorry.

On second thought: just read Ascol's twitter and follow the yellow-brick road (for Matt's benefit, that was sarcasm).

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. BTW, if you think you're going to negate the post's thrust on a mere "technicality," which is why I personally think this question means so much to you, shamgar, think again. Swatting gnats but swallowing camels is no option, I assure...

Matt Svoboda

Peter,

Don't be a fool. While Caner might not of said something in this one particular instance he is as much at fault in this childish feud these men have going on as anyone else is.

So, as I have already stated- YES, White and Ascol were in the wrong as they have been before. They were also in the wrong as Caner has been many times before.

All of these men need to get off each other's back. You, my friend, are not helping this feud with your highly hypocritical post.

God Bless, as I am done commenting here.

Matt

Shamgar

This question means a lot to me because it seems to me to be the thrust of your entire post. I suppose it's possible I could be as ignorant as you suggest -- but I would hope you'd be willing to at least put a little effort towards demonstrating that.

I don't see this as a technicality, but let me spell out what I'm thinking, lest you continue to think I'm somehow trying to angle for a technicality.

Your post addresses two separate and distinct issues. One (1) Tom Ascol linked to a site that you allege to be of questionable veracity due to biased nature of its operator. (I say alleged, because I have not investigated the site at all myself. I have no idea how truthful it is, and as such I won't attempt to defend it or by extension Tom Ascol linking to it)

The second issue is a claim that Dr White has likewise questioned Dr Caner's muslim credentials using the same source material as Tom Ascol, and you linked to a specific post that presumably supports this assertion.

Then you go into a bit of a rant, trying to illustrate your problems with this reasoning through some rather uncharitable language and claims in a hypothetical argument that would supposedly parallel the reasoning you claim he is using.

The problem I have is, I followed the link to what Dr White said, and I read it, and reread it. I watched the video. I neither see, nor hear any claims as to the veracity of Dr Caner's claims regarding his muslim heritage and I definitely don't see any links or references to the site Tom Ascol links to whether as evidence or otherwise.

What I see are claims that Dr Caner has made in interviews or on video tape regarding his experience and what he believes transpires in formal debates, and Dr White demonstrating evidence to the contrary from direct first-hand sources.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Tom Ascol's link. So I again ask you, please tell me where I can go to see what you were referring to when you said:

The other link Ascol gives is his good buddy, James White. And, what evidence does the famed, self-described fearless apologist offer as clear, objective proof Dr. Caner is a "fake Muslim? Why, he gives the same type of evidence Ascol gave—the Muslim attack sites.

I submit that you completely and utterly failed to actually read what Dr White wrote in its own context, separate from what Tom Ascol had to say and link to.

peter

Matt,

Well, thank you very much. Your contributions are extremely timely and helpful.

With that, I am...
Peter

WretchSavedByGrace

"It looks to me like Peter is defending someone, who was attacked, and has been attacked for a long time by certain people."

Why doesnt he defend himself? Whatever happened to Dr.Caner's " Ill debate anyone, anywhere"?

Ill remind everyone. We still havent received any proof of these many debates Dr.Caner claims to have done.

peter

Shamgar,

And I submit to you, you are quite wrong. Ascol & White are buds. Ascol knew what he was doing when he tagged White's video dealing with a 'fake' muslim.

Now, if you don't agree with my answer, I suggest you
go write a post about it and tell the world what a big old hypocrite I am by employing your own mentor's methods.

Have a great evening, shamgar.

With that, I am...
Peter

Shamgar

Ok, well, at least I understand how you got to point A from point B then. I guess I just expected more than a conspiracy theory.

peter

Well, at least you now know what's in my cup, shamgar ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

Kevin Jackson

Awesome post. Thanks for your work here Peter and for the courage of calling out Ascol and White on their behavior.

Tom Parker

Peter:

It looks like my earlier prediction has come true.

Eric L.

Did Peter accuse anybody of anything? I thought Peter presented us source material without accusing anybody of anything substantial—and nothing substantial seems to have been Peter's point. Very clever, Peter. Notwithstanding, Peter, against your role-playing assertion that Arminius was a pushover, know that after Arminius was installed as a pastor in Amsterdam and eventually got around to preaching on Romans 7, wherein his preaching stirred up a rats nest of all kinds of suspicions, for his part, Arminius defended himself against allegations to the degree the presiding court changed their position and approved of Arminius' teaching. Skipping over his call to be installed as Professor of Theology at Leyden University, eventually Arminius preached on Romans 9 and that stirred up a hornets nest. As Kaspar Brandt sums it in The Life of James Arminius, Arminius was accused of

1. ...when expounding the ninth chapter of the Romans, had taught, "that no one is condemned except on account of sin"—thereby excluding all infants from condemnation.

2. He had also declared "that too much could not be ascribed to good works, nor could the be sufficiently commended, providing no merit [was] attributed to them."

3. He had affirmed that Angels are not immortal (pp. 64-65).

Notice that there is nothing about predestination in the charges against his person. The reason why is that the Reformed Church of Holland hadn't framed itself in what we view as Calvinistic terms at the time. At any-rate, in a formal state-run court Arminius defended himself so convincingly that the entire court took him to a local tavern afterward. Has White done the same?

Ron Phillips, Sr.

Peter,

Thanks for the post and bringing this out. I read Tim's post too and all I can say is: amazing. With both you and Tim, it appears that the hyper-calvinists among us practice the fine art of shooting the messengers. How dare you offer critical analysis of such boorish behavior of their Sainted Dortian Warriors.

This is nothing more than an attempt to make the argument about the person rather than substance. This also seems to me that "Dr." White is equally, if not more guilty of the same tactics. By making Dr. Caner the issue, he can avoid the real issue. Clever.

Great job by both you and Tim.

Blessings,

Ron P.

The Seeking Disciple

Wow Peter you really did your homework on this one. I agree with you though I wish that the rift between "Dr." White and Dr. Caner would end in a debate. I think that Dr. Michael Brown showed that Dr. White can be answered by non-Calvinists and I think that Dr. Caner would hold his own against James White.

I enjoy your site! Keep up the good work brother.

Micah

"I didn't mention any debates--except the many "Dr" White boasts...."

Ah yes... you're ignoring the facts for your own bias. Thanks for the admission.

Dr. James Galyon

Just curious, would you consider Ergun Caner's words of Jan. 22 (when he appeared on Calvary Chapel's "The Pastor's Perspective") inflammatory (when he insinuated, at best, that Calvinism is "from the devil"? Or when he said something to the effect that Reformed apologists turn debates into the "Jerry Springer Show" with "passive/aggressive garbage"? Or would this be a "hyper-anti-Calvinist practicing the fine art of shooting the messengers" (to borrow from Ron's verbiage)?

Perhaps "both sides" should step back, simmer down, pray, and proceed with cautious and gracious concern.

peter

Micah,

Yes siree. I have to admit. You really got me where you want me...

James,

I'll respond once. That's all. No, I do not endorse the implications, at least the way you've framed the words.

Now back to the questions raised here...

With that, I am...
Peter

Dr. James Galyon

Peter:
I was asking the question of all in general, not to you specifically, but thank you for consenting to respond to me once. Glad you do not endorse the implications. Hope you're not implying I've taken Dr. Caner out of context (e.g., "the way you've framed the words"). Please recall it was Dr. Caner's statements in the Calvary Chapel interview which provoked the response of James White on his blog (to which you and Tim have responded). Sorry if I've gone off topic, but for some reason it seems relevant to the questions raised here, not to mention many of the statements which have been made.

Steve G

G'day Pete,
You guys need to learn to play a different type of football than Grid Iron.
I admire you Pete for runnng with the ball and taking the tackles!
Its a shame that when the White/Ascol team threw the ball which you intercepted, that they didn't have the good grace just to admit their fault rather than pile on.
Still , you can tell the guy who has endured has the muscle to be admired!
Well done Pete!
Steve

RazorsKiss

I'm amazed, frankly, that you deleted Mohammad's comment. Especially since you're talking about him here.

peter

RK,

Thankz!

With that, I am...
Peter

Squirrel

Peter,

Why did you delete Mohammad's comment? I thought he was a lot more polite and respectful than many of the comments I've read here today.

~Squirrel

peter

Squirrel,

See my comment to Razorkiss.

With that, I am...
Peter

Resequitur

Its amazing to see what folks will do to suppress the truth. Guess poor ole Pete couldn't bear to look at Mohammad's comments while at the same time being utterly hypocritical. Its amazingly clear to anyone with intellectual honesty, and hunger for the truth whats going on here.

peter

Resequiter,

A) No suppression here. I think anyone who wants to ought to be able to blog to their heart's content. But not necessarily on my nickel
B) Why of course I'm hypocritical. You and your buds' criticism has in one accord made that very clear. So, thank you.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Oops!

C). I think it's very telling that absolutely no one wants to tackle whether or not the sources are valid pertaining to "Dr" White's "academic" degree.

With that, I am...
Peter

Chris Poe

Peter,

Do you have any thoughts regarding the discrepancies about Dr. Caner's degrees?

RazorsKiss

Dr. White addresses that himself on his website, if you've cared to read it.

So, since we want to play "tit for tat" - where has Dr. Caner addressed this on his?

But, as we both know, there was nothing of the sort even hinted at by Dr. White. We are also both well aware of the actual nature of the criticisms mentioned by Dr. White. They concern things documented in Dr. Caner's own words - which I have yet to see anyone address in any substantive way, whatsoever.

I personally think there is nothing to the allegations concerning Dr. Caner's degrees. However, his frequent seeming problems with expressions of basic muslim terms, his frequent seeming problems with recalling who he has debated, and his dearth of substantive response concerning these issues, worried me far before I'd ever seen any of these videos, or heard anything from muslims.

Take that as you will.

peter

All,

This is what I am going to do. I'm dead dog tired, so I think I'm going to bed. But since I don't want my "Attack-site" to gain entrance via stealth, I'm going to shut the comment thread down for this evening.

Those of you who think you have something worthy to contribute (worthy means something other than proclaiming me a hypocrite, since White's choir boys have already sung that tune to death, were one to ask me), hold on to it until tomorrow. I promise bright & early I'll open the thread back up.

With that, I am...
Peter

Wes Widner

"..no Christian could remain spiritually healthy in such a horribly divisive environment."

Truer words have seldom been spoken. Peter I think you've hit the nail on the head and have also managed to accurately point out why most of James White's minions are just as repulsive and whiny as he is (as I see you have already found out).

I too think it is very telling that White's followers (and White himself) prefer to "shoot the messenger" rather than deal with the topics at hand (be they Calvinism or White's credentials.

BTW: To the White minions; You might want to consider Peter's words above to White about getting over yourselves as well. Your repeated rabid defense of White smacks wholly of what Paul wrote against in 1 Corinthians 3

peter

Good morning

First, I realize this has been a difficult post for some to read. Hence, I was prepared for becoming the target. I'm glad I was prepared. The opening comment demonstrates it. I'm just a hypocrite. No concern that maybe, just maybe two brothers were out of control in attempting to ruin another brother's life & ministry. Nope. That is not possible. Instead, the one raising questions is hypocritical. And that's that.

Second, since the 'opposing' community has already publicly and thoroughly made known their belief that the bloghost is a hypocrite, no more comments will be allowed about my alleged hypocrisy. Hence, if you're still itching to say it, go right ahead. You'll just have to do it on your own nickel, not mine.

Third, anyone confused about who can and cannot comment here, read my guidelines. I have not changed them since I first started blogging in 2006. Given that, there's no reason whatsoever to waste time placing "I think so & so was deleted unfairly". First, no one is deleted. Second, read the guidelines. It's that simple. If you think I'm unfair, that's your privilege. Go tell somebody on your own dime.

Fourth, no one AND I MEAN NO ONE is going to hijack one of my threads. That's precisely what happened at SBC Today on Tim Rogers' post. He simply could not keep up. And, when he explicitly stated he was going out to do ministry--on a Sunday afternoon, no less--he was mocked for it. He did the right thing. He shut the thread down. I commend him for doing so.

If anyone else has a contribution to make, be my guest.

Grace today.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Eric,

Thanks. I like your balancing out the implication pertaining to Arminius. I see your point and agree. Mostly, I had in mind, thinking from White's perspective--'If no one can beat me in debate, and James Arminius is a one, then he cannot beat me in debate.'

Grace, my brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Testing

peter

The test above was logged because I got an email saying several attempts were made to log on without success.

I am unsure what's wrong. If you've attempted to log on without success, please drop me an email.

With that, I am...
Peter

volfan007

Wow, while I was waiting on this blog to come up on the screen, I said to myself that this post might be up near 100 by this morning. I wasnt far wrong...there was 96 before I began to write. lol.

How did I know this? Why did I think this? Because I know how rabid some Founders type Calvinists are, and how they love to argue and debate; and how they love to attack anyone who doesnt agree with them. I've been there...done that....many times in the past in dealing with aggressive, obsessed 5 point Calvinists, who are out to win the Christians to Calvinism.

God bless all of you.

David

Mark Turner

I have been monitoring the comments on this post with some interest. While I have a Biblical position on the 'theological' debate between Calvinism and Arminianism, it appears that the blogosphere has devolved into mere name-calling (or name-defending).

I think Christians would do well to discuss the ideas involved. Leave conjecture and innuendo aside. If someone prefers 'ad hominem' attacks there is no need to defend oneself or anyone else.

"Why not rather be wronged?"

The only reputation I find worth defending is the reputation of Jesus.

cb scott

Peter,

I do not think you to be a hypocrite at all.

But I do think as Jane Woodall discovered "Gorillas in the Mist" you have stumbled upon "Hypocrites in the Mist"

Or better yet, you choose be as Bob Newman who wrote "GUERRILLAS IN THE MIST: A BATTLEFIELD GUIDE TO CLANDESTINE WARFARE" and write a book yourself entitled: HYPOCRITES IN THE MIST: A BATTLEFIELD GUIDE TO CLANDESTINE WARFARE.

Nonetheless, my friend; "walk circumspectly" for you are navigating a minefield. And quite well, I might add.

cb scott

Peter,

I have got to stop walking and typing with one hand.

That should be:

"....you "may" choose "to" be as Bob Newman...."

I want it to be your choice Peter. Never would I desire to "hypocritically" force you into something by "hounding" you obsessively for years. :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.