« Seminary Enrollment: Do the Numbers Reveal Decline? by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Alcohol & The Church: A Three Part Series by Peter Lumpkins »

2010.03.12

Comments

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

AKuyper

"Those who simply want to register insults, do not waste the thread here for that."

Sir,

Do you think the cartoon was insulting?

It seems that rather than taking the time to respond to Dr. White you have instead attempted to poison the well.

I await evidence of understanding and argumentation on your part. That is not intended to be an insult nor am I trolling. The point is that you are not offering anything of substance (a cartoon?) in response to Dr. White.

AKuyper

Further, I am not a "follower" or "minion" of Dr. White. It seems that when someone has even the slightest disagreement with you over some matter related to Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, James White, Tom Ascol, Founders, your behavior or your argumentation you resort to categorizing that person as being in a kind of 'group' with White that must, by virtue of how much you dislike either Dr. White or Calvinism or both, be immediately dismissed. Again, this is not argumentation nor is it persuasive to those who are not already in agreement with you on everything (such as myself).

DGard

I was just eating my lunch...or your lunch while thinking about the debate that never happened. Or perhaps a future debate. PETER, may I label you post-modern...you know, for the heck of it?

Michael

I am a UK Christian who enjoys listening to different opinions on scriptural interpretations. I have found James White's contributions thought provoking and useful.

But, coming from a UK perspective, I'd just like to say how shocked I am at the level of personal animosity that appears to be developing between some US Christians, and between apologists (on both "sides") in particular.

peter

AKuyper

Thanks for your response.  First, allow me to state this once again:  "Those who simply want to register insults, do not waste the thread here for that."  Now, if there is something vague about any part of the short statement, AKuyper, please let me know; I will clear it up. 

In addition, I did not suggest you were a White ‘minion’ but since you bring it up, I'm wondering if you got to my site via AOmin.org?.  Nor do I believe all or perhaps most Calvinists are White ‘minions’ as you appear to imply.

Second, you asked, "Do you think the cartoon was insulting?"  It could be, depending on how you take it.

Third, you assert, "It seems that rather than taking the time to respond to Dr. White..."

Look, immediately after I saw White's posting from the airport, I stated on this present thread (see above 2010.03.13 at 04:32 PM) the connection between this posting and a "response" to White's supposed "irrefutable" documentation was a concoction of White's creativity, not mine.  Hence, to suggest as do you that this cartoon offers no substance in response is true enough.  But it is also patently absurd for the simple reason it has no connection to White's "irrefutable" documentation post. I made that clear.  Whoever drew those dots have jack squat evidence for his/her assumption. 

I suggest you start with James White and query just why he did not make it clearer to his readers that I did not personally offer the spoof piece as a response to him. And, while you are at it, why not ask him precisely why he did not mention in his airport email that I indeed responded to his "Case Study" post and it was not with a cartoon (see below)? White's retort to my response was, "Honestly, Peter, does what you just wrote even make sense to you?" Ummm. Now where have I heard that before ;^)

Furthermore, as for waiting on "evidence of understanding and argumentation on [my] part," I suggest you look in the appropriate place.  I logged a response immediately after White logged on and gave the link to his “Case Study” of yours truly. Note I responded to the issue at hand, not the completely irrelevant nonsense White created (one example of many:  I’m apparently infected with the “tyranny of denominational traditionalism”) rather than focus on the single issue.

Now admittedly, AKuyper, you more than likely will not accept my response.  Fine.  But please do not project here again I gave no response.  I most certainly did.

With that, I am…

Peter

peter

DGard,

You may label me as you wish. Now, admittedly, there will be a few limitations here ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Michael,

I honestly wish I could dispute your perception.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

DGard

So the namecalling is over and the debate is on!!! Awesome! Can't wait for the mp3!

Robert

Ok....I've just read 40 comment posts by Peter and others and I will say that though it was asked more than once...I'm still in the dark as to how Peter L defines "(H)hyper" calvinism...?

Is it so hard to give a simple answer to a simple question without calling people minions and other derogatory names?

peter

Dear Robert,

You may have read 40 comments. Granted. But if you did not follow the links, I'm sorry; that is not my problem.

With that, I am...
Peter

RazorsKiss

Just wanted to point out something, Peter - I noticed you're allowing Jonathan's commentary. Jonathan is a Muslim.

I don't personally hold to that viewpoint, and have argued against it. I've responded to his assertions on the blog - but you've made it quite clear that Muslim accusations against Christians are not admissible in other threads/posts.

So, now that I've informed you of Jonathan's position, are you going to leave Jonathan's accusations, despite his Muslim perspective? I would remind you that such would be inconsistent with your prior comments on that subject.

As we say, truth is truth, or lies are lies - no matter what the source may be. You, on the other hand, have claimed that the source invalidates any claims, as was seen in the assertion that gleaning from a "muslim hate site" was grounds for dismissal of the comments. By your same standard, Jonathan also runs a "muslim hate site". Just thought you'd like to know, for the purposes of consistency.

(Jonathan - I don't have any animus against you, and as I you know, I've responded to you - I'm just pointing out a consistency issue. Thanks!)

Andrew Disque

Peter said,
"Look at the footnote of my comment above recording James White's latest blog."
There is no response in your footnote. (Unless you count "Umm" as a response)

"I knew a bit of sophistry such as you've just spun would sooner or later come up."

You "knew" that this would happen??? Yuck!Your tone is completely disrespectful.

I am a lowly person without much education. What is "sophistry"? (seriously) And what did I spin? (again, seriously)

"Sheer unmitigated nonsense, I'd say. "

Oh yuck! Are you too good to explain what you mean? Even the snootiest athests I know do not dismiss other people in this way.

"Now if you have a valid point to discuss, be my guest."

Peter, I am still waiting for you to deal with what I already asked you. To my first point you refer to a "footnote in a comment" that does not respond (except "umm"). My 2nd point you did not respond to at all. And you did not respond to the question I asked.

Your condescending and dismissive remarks leave me wondering why anyone would consider you a credible witness.

peter

RazorKiss

Point well taken.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Andrew,

So far as I am concerned, you have my express permission to discount me as a credible witness.

With that, I am...
Peter

Coram Deo

Mr. Lumpkins,

By granting express permission to Andrew to discount you as a credible witness, are you thereby declaring yourself to be untrustworthy to accurately report facts, and therefore an unreliable source for truthful information?

In Christ,
CD

Ron Phillips, Sr.

Peter,

Besides your four years of posts on Calvinism, I guess many here missed your J316 coverage last year, or even your most recent posts. They also must have missed the hardshell pieces that Bob Ross has posted and ignored Tony Bryne too. However, it really is easy to find on any of your sites. No need for your to repeat yourself ad nausem for those unwilling to do a quick search much less read the citation to which you link in this OP itself. But I fear it is not a lack of reading comprehension, but a desire to defend their protagonist paladin whose version of Calvinism deviates from the classical/historical doctrine of Calvinism.

On another note, I am really looking forward to Whosover Will being published.

Blessings my brother,

Ron P.

peter

CD

Honestly, no. From my end of the keyboard I was being clearly facetious toward a comment whose author apparently does not connect dots so well. Admittedly, that's my fault at times. However, when someone comes back to me, leaving me with a "wondering why anyone would consider you a credible witness" comment, all I have time for is facetiousness.

Besides, nothing I can write here is going to change the mind of someone like Andrew D. He logged on telling me why he came:

"Which brings me to why I came to visit your blog today... (it was not to see the video). No actually I came here to find a response from you. SO: have you confessed yourn [sic] false accusation that James made up a conversation with Tony Bryne about Reymond being hyper? Just wondering if, when I come to your blog, I am reading the words of a man of integrity.

Andrew D. openly came here doing what others are not quite so open about: openly admitting he came already believing me "guilty as charged"

Hence all the evidence I could marshal is futile in the face of a man convinced I am guilty as charged before I open my mouth.

That said, Andrew can believe as he so wishes. Others like him--though not as open as he--may as well. And, I am by no means being facetious now.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Ron,

Thanks for your encouragement Ron. Also, I received my copy of Whosoever Will from Amazon Sat. I scanned it. It's going to be good, I think. I took special note of D.Allen's chapter for obvious reasons. From my perspective, his essay alone is worth the book.

Indeed, no future conversation in the SBC about the atonement's extent will be complete without referring to Allen's piece. SBs owe him an incredible debt. He just kicked some theological tail.

With that, I am...
Peter

Steve Grose

Hey Peter,
While I still consider myself a 5 pointer or close to it, I have always wondered why I favoured you above the calvinist writers on other blogs... I think I like M Yarnell's observation that anachronistically (perhaps as a consequence of our Laodicean worldliness .... yes I am premill) our reformed baptist brethren have so concentrated on the formal theological definitions in reformed thought that we have not followed through with the one characteristic that sets Baptists and other believers churches off against the reformed churches: the tendency to maximise personal discipleship and personal piety as the central feature of our Baptist Christianity.
Our Baptist position is a that the most essential thing is a personal and deepening commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour... a deepening love for Him demonstrated in "the law’s requirement would be accomplished in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:4.
May I encourage both sides here to maximise their commitment to being disciples of Christ, rather than feuding. Both sides (reformed and non-reformed)have an interest in winning the lost to the Saviour as a key part of our discipleship. Why not focus on this?
Blessings,
Steve

Milihamah

Your post exemplifies kitsch to which you have reduced yourself due to lack of arguments and abundance of emotions...

volfan007

Wow, Peter, the extreme, aggressive five pointers that come into this comment thread look viscious. They really appear to be mean, hateful people. It's amazing to read the comments from them. What's so ironic is that they seem to pride themselves on being defenders of the doctrines of grace, and yet they dont show much grace in their attitudes and words. lol

Another amazing thing to me is the amount of comments you're getting from a cartoon!!!!!! Wow. lol

Have a great day, Peter. BTW, has anyone told you that you really favor the UPS guy on the commercials that uses the grease board?

David :)

sidney

Hi Peter,

I've never been here or, obviously, posted here before and I am a calvinist. I happened upon your clips this morning from another site and think it's very, very funny! I get the humor in it and have to admit that sometimes, some calvinists come off like this. But, as I'm sure you know, fighting and/or winning arguments is not the motivation of us all. I think we appear to come off this way at times, because we are passionate about the extent of God's efficacious grace towards us in salvation. When I first saw the doctrines of grace in scripture, after years of denying some of the reformed distinctives, it was like being born again - again! And I couldn't hold it in! :o) God bless.

Sidney

AKuyper

There is nothing vague about your request that people not waste the thread registering insults and I have not done so. I did get to your site via AOmin.org but wonder how this is any more relevant than your knowing that a link to your site is located on Aomin.org. You are either implying what I have explicitly denied or asking an irrelevant question. How might the cartoon be taken so as not to be insulting? Was it not offered as an insult toward particular individuals? You are missing my point entirely when I speak of responding to Dr. White since I am not referring to past responses on your part. I never intended to imply that your cartoon was meant to be another response to a specific post of Dr. White’s. Since Dr. White has responded to the material you have produced and promoted as of late in addition to the current subject before us you are left as the one who will either respond or refuse to do. Posting what you have with the intent to antagonize someone you have not responded to (again I do not mean in the past) is a bit telling though.

With that, I am...

Done, but thank you for your responses.

peter

Sidney,

Thanks brother. I am glad some Calvinists got a giggle from the cartoon.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

David R. Brumbelow

Ordered my copy of "Whosoever Will" by David Allen, etc. today.
David R. Brumbelow

Ron Phillips, Sr.

Peter,

A couple of more thoughts...

If I were Spike or a follower thereof, this little cartoon does not seem to speak so much to him. It is more of an indictment of Little Chester's sycophantic desire to do whatever he can to please Spike. It seems if anyone would be offended, it would be Founders, as it seems that is who you appear to equate with Little Chester. So I do not get all the uproar from AOMin followers when the cartoon caricature was clearly (at least by the title of the OP and subtitles embedded) to highlight Founders (Little Chester) willful partisan subordination to White in the name of and for the sake of Calvinism.

Again, to take caricature for what it is, and actually reading what you linked to, and posted, it is clear to me that you are calling on Founders to not so eagerly embrace White's view of Calvinism, just because he calls it Calvinism. This is especially relevant since White is not a historical/classical Calvinist, but as documented, is a hyper-Calvinist. Maybe you were being too subtle. :)

I also find it strange that no one has addressed the scripture reference you embedded at the end of the video. It too seems directed at Founders, for which you rightfully call upon them to follow Paul's advice that he gives to Titus.

Blessings,

Ron P.

peter

All,

I've been away and have had a ton of stuff. I'll be midnight just catching up with emails.

I did want to respond briefly to this continued harping about this cartoon spoof.

Consider:

Those Calvinists who continue to cry foul over my spoof here need to aim their sights toward Phoenix for a while. Remember this?

Or, recall White’s assessment that the the Ergun Caner talking doll was amusing? Other well-known James White supporters thought the spoof hilarious as well (//link //link). 

Indeed, the interesting thing is, Ergun Caner got a big laugh himself, showing it to 5,000+ Liberty students. In fact, I wish I would have been there. It is belly-bustin funny.

Yet when Calvinists are spoofed—including White--they all of a sudden get “serious.”  Please. 

You boys need to bag up your tears and sell them for some diapers. Some of you are among the whiniest dudes I’ve ever run across.

With that, I am...
Peter

Steve G

I agree Peter.. hey bye the way... the end of the cartoon in its full version has Spike sliced by the "cat" a panther: And fearful of Silvester... and Chester beating up Silvester and Spike now his minion...
Can we draw analogies further.. ummm maybe we should not go there...there may be a post modern interpretation to this cartoon.
Steve G
(I am not the Steve who commented after my recent comment)

peter

AKuyper,

a) I'm glad I was not vague
b) Unfortunately, you do not get to define what wastes thread life here; I do. Anyways, if you cannot understand what constitutes an insult, then you surely cannot determine if time is being wasted because of them
c)Questions are normally posed to solicit information; hence, the "You are either implying or" is two pints short of goofy. All I did was ask a simple question, AKuyper. Just calm down...
d)when the cartoon is seen for what it is; a spoof containing a grain of exaggerated truth (see links above about how White & Co. like to have fun with spoofs too)
e)Missing your point? Not referring to past responses? What on earth do you mean? The responses I linked are directly related to the posts White has put up on this issue. I posted them before the ink was dry on his site. Nor has he logged any additional info so far as I know. His last statement was, "I am through dealing with PL" (paraphrase).
f)Posting to "antagonize"? "Antagonize" whom? James White? Who in all of blogdom could antagonize the Kingpin antagonist himself? You give me more credit than I deserve, I think.
g) Honestly, I'm glad, AKuyper. The exchanges have been far from edifying to me.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

David,

Beat you. I got mine Saturday. I scanned Allen (obviously why, of course). And, I read Yarnell's since his was not presented at J316. I'm telling you, he nailed the lid tight about how strict Calvinism (Founders type) may affect the future of the SBC. Every church needs a copy of this book in their library.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Ron,

Where were you two days ago? Your reading of this little spoof is a bulls-eye. The relationship of Founders Ministries is entirely too close with a breed of Calvinism which theologians identify as Hyper-Calvinism. Now understand: Founders can do anything they so wish. I have no beans in that pot.

However, when Founders Ministries portrays themselves as the theological heirs of historic Southern Baptist theology, attempting to suggest they are mainstream "Southern Baptist" we're in for a fight. Founders has much more in common with the anti-missionary Baptists of the early 19th century, what we call today, "Primitive Baptists" as does James White.

Thanks for your assessment.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

My Grosey,

Yes. The cartoon backfires on Spike for sure. One dude twittered on this thinking he was gouging me in the eye with my own spoof. If he knew the ending as do we, I'm afraid his poke at me was not well-taken.

Grace, Grosey. And, know I appreciate the focus you mentioned earlier, a focus Yarnell makes in his "The Formation of Doctrine"--a theology of discipleship.

Thank you my brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

David N

Peter,

First, I am neither a Baptist nor a "follower" of James White (though I do listen to the Dividing Line frequently), so please fight the urge to lump me into a group with whom you can make me seem guilty merely by association. I only wish to make an "exegetical" point in defense of Mr. White's statement. He says:

"...fired up the MacBook long enough to get my mail. Not only did another loving missive from Peter Lumpkins come through, but I was directed to..."

He makes two distinct statements here. The first is that he received an e-mail from you, the second is that he was directed to this post. Since he makes these two statements immediately after saying that he got his e-mails, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that he is merely referring to two of those e-mails. In other words, if you merely inserted the word "also" into the above quote so that it read: "Not only did another loving missive from Peter Lumpkins come through, but I was ALSO directed to..." there would be no question that White is simply referring to two different e-mails. I'm afraid that's thin ice for you to build your case on, and makes it extremely unfair for you to dismiss this "solution" to your proposed "problem" as mere sophistry.

Moreover, as a somewhat unbaised observer of this continued debate (i.e. I don't really care about Ergun Caner or whether all of his statements are true), this is now your second attempt to make it look as though Dr. White is just as guilty as Ergun Caner of making things up, and now you are pathetically (I don't mean that as a personal insult) and desperately grasping at straws.

peter

David,

Thanks. First, I noted in the very comment I placed the possibility that White meant another email directed him (though I honestly doubt it did). In fact, I've pointed this out perhaps about three times now on this thread. Check my comment and the * note.

However, supposing for the sake of argument you are correct, that since White didn't mention me in the latter part of the sentence he did not mean to imply me. Fine. Nothing changes. Why? Because James White already knew I had verbally responded to his "Case Study" of me.

Hence, if someone else directed him my way, why did he connect the dots to this spoof as if it was my response to him? He definitively knew it was not. If another indicated it was, why did he not point them to the response I gave? There was no reason whatsoever for White to associate this post as my response to him when we'd already discussed the matter on another thread.

Either way, White was doing nothing more than stirring the pot at another's expense--namely me, this time. That's all. Just another silly game he's learned during the years of contention he's had with better people than me, I assure.

And of course, it worked. Perhaps more commenters than not came here assuming this was my official response to James White's post about me. There were even twitters to that effect.

So, David you may think as you wish about my "grasping at straws." I'm perfectly content with you leaving here believing that.

With that, I am...
Peter

Andrew Disque

David, don't you know? He already "responded" to that question with "Ummm..."

Now "connect the dots"

peter

Oh one more thing: you suggest I've twice now made "it look as though Dr. White is just as guilty as Ergun Caner of making things up." Look: that is White's concoction, not mine. You're simply parroting his words. I said no such thing about one being as bad as the other. And wouldn't have. Nor would I have implied such because I do not believe 'all sin is equally sinful' as a principle.

The interpretation White imposed is sheer nonsense. Period.

With that, I am...
Peter

Stephanie

After reading one of your older blogs about White, it got me to do some research on James White. I do tend to think White is not a hyper calvinist at this point but nonetheless I agree that we should not allow hyper-calvinism get into the church.

David N

Peter,

First, I know you mentioned my "solution" as a possibility (several times). I never claimed that you didn't. However, in response to Andrew D you also said:

"Look at the footnote of my comment above recording James White's latest blog. I knew a bit of sophistry such as you've just spun would sooner or later come up. Sheer unmitigated nonsense, I'd say."

My contention was that it is neither sophistry nor "sheer unmitigated nonsense", a point which I assume that you have now conceded. However, it is worth pointing out that your use of such strong language effectively undermines your supposed admission of this solution as a possible explanation. In other words, it really isn't honest to claim that you have allowed for a certain possibility, while at the same time rejecting said possibility as sophistry and nonsense.

Second, you cannot honestly claim total innocence in a White-Caner comparison and attempt to make White look guilty of the same "sin" as Caner. You made the comparison yourself in the e-mail you sent to David Hewitt. And then in the comment you made in this thread, while you did not bring up Caner specifically, you did suggest that White was making things up to make his point stronger and drew a comparison to his comments against Tony (which, of course, were directly in response to your first accusation in which you DID compare White and Caner). I don't see any point in your pretending that your two (or one and a half?) accusations against White's honest have absolutely nothing to do with your defense of Caner. It would be better if you just faced White's challenges head on.

Of course, I'm not in the SBC, and I personally hope that White stops talking about Caner (and other related issues) and gets back to doing exegesis and theology.

Thanks for your responses.

TurretinFan

David N,

I think Mr. Lumpkins' point is that while he suggested (wrongly, as it turned out) that Dr. White might have been guilty of the same kind of sin as Dr. Caner, he did not suggest that Dr. White was guilty of that sin to the same degree as Dr. Caner.

My own preference would be for Mr. Lumpkins to direct some of his effort toward a positive defense of Dr. Caner, to the extent that is possible, rather than merely running down Dr. Caner's critics. I have attempted that myself, and would welcome any assistance that Mr. Lumpkins or others can provide. I've also provided a resource list of Caner materials that one can obtain on-line for investigating the claims made against him.

- TurretinFan

peter

David, TurretinFan, et al,

This is my last statement on this.  For me, it’s time to move on.

First, I conceded nothing to my knowledge.  However, I will do so now:  the description I used which David quoted “Sheer unmitigated nonsense, I'd say” was an overstatement.  Yes. I concede.  And, to Andrew to whom I wrote it, my deepest apologies.   The language was much too vigorous.

On the other hand, do I concede my description of probable sophistry at work here?  No. I do not concede.  For White to leave a statement vague enough to implicate another without, as David says, inserting a qualifying word (also) surely qualifies as potential sophistry. Adding to this, White well knew when he linked to this spoof that I had already logged a response  to his post about me (along with a brief exchange between us following).  Nevertheless, he still wrote “I was directed to what can only amount to [Lumpkins’] published response of my documentation of his false accusations.”  It is entirely bogus to defend such as less than creating needless conflict.  Clearly the impression is, Lumpkins answers my documentation with cartoons.  Indeed he admitted such when he concluded, “I think this speaks volumes about the level of "dialogue" amongst many when it comes to the substance of their argumentation against Reformed theology."

Now, call it what you wish. But James White created this needless and obviously fruitless exchange by logging a brief but potent suggestion that I answered his documentation of “my false accusations” with this cartoon. If anyone desires to continue defending White about this particular issues, do it elsewhere please.

As for David’s insistence that I cannot “honestly claim total innocence in a White-Caner comparison and attempt to make White look guilty of the same "sin" as Caner” apparently because I “made the comparison [myself] in the e-mail [I] sent to David Hewitt” I’ll now address.  First, and insignificant really, David N apparently confused the first email I sent to James White with an email I never sent to David Hewitt.  To my recall, I’ve never emailed David Hewitt but only exchanged with him on two posts here.

More significantly, I do claim “total innocence” in my Caner/White comparison and do so honestly. I answered this once for David but he apparently overlooked it in the thread.  But I will state it once again:  I never compared the allegations made by White against Caner to allegations made by Byrne against White—at least in the way White-David N frames it.  Nor would I compare the two in such a way.  Why?  Because I do not hold to a vis-à-vis understanding of sin. Granting for argument sake the twin guilt of Caner-White, to conclude that the latter sinned to the same degree that the former did is not only patently and morally absurd but it is also entirely sub-biblical.  Hence, not only did I not suggest such a comparison the way White caricatured my words, I would not make the comparison that way. I don’t think in those categories. Hence, David N, I do not concede your point here either.

In addition, the email I sent to White which he subsequently posted on his blog and to which he chose to respond focused essentially upon the question I posed in the subject box: “So Now Who is is it Making up Conversations?” From that question, he framed his conclusion: “[Lumpkins] impugns my character.”  He did this despite his knowledge that on my blog I carefully qualified my statement about him.  Hence, when he asked for a public retraction, I strongly resisted and still do.  Why is a retraction needed for a statement which was carefully qualified?

More significantly, White’s actions entirely ignored here reveals much about his supporters, many with whom I have contended here.  In short, they completely overlooked the questionable actions of their hero and chased after the critic of their hero. To what do I refer?  Basically this:  White intentionally created the circumstances to publicly accuse me of “impugning” his character by publishing the email.  Now understand:  I knew when I wrote the email, he would probably publish the email if he so wanted.  That’s what James White does.  Everybody knows this.  So that wasn’t a surprise to me (in fact he even dropped me a line about it).

The question is, why publish a private email when I quoted in the email my entire comment I publicly penned to Tony Byrne concerning James White?  Why did James White not deal with my public comment instead of the private email ‘subject box’ question?  I contend because the question in the email favored more his desire to publicly proclaim “Lumpkins impugns my integrity” than did my carefully qualified statement on my public blog.  To my recollection, he never mentioned my blog comment’s qualifiers.  It was the email, a private email, an email with a question which could be exploited but offered no public defamation toward White whatsoever until White created the circumstances for it to do so.    This is the strange and discouraging world of James White.     

Finally as for my alleged “pretending” that my “two (or one and a half?) accusations” toward White's honesty having absolutely nothing to do with Caner, let me be brief.  First, I posted my thoughts concerning Ascol and White’s coalition in dissing Ergun Caner. No real response to my knowledge.  But even if there was from White, I have never practiced in the past nor do I foresee practicing in the future a quid pro quo enterprise in blogging.  I post something about which I’m interested.  If someone challenges it with a post of their own, I may or may not offer a rejoinder.  Nothing is proven whether I respond or do not respond.

I mention this because I get the impression some are insisting I answer White point for point.  May I just say, if you are, you’re wasting your time.  I will post what, when how, and where I have a mind to post.  It’s really that simple. 

Therefore, David, know I’m “pretending” nothing really.  And, to read Caner into these last two posts is your decision.  But I assure you, you do not know what you are talking about.  What else can I say?

Like I said, this is the last I will post on this.

May our Lord give us all greater understanding.

With that, I am…

Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.