Real Apologetics: Dump Debate Sites, Endorse Recognized Scholarship by Peter Lumpkins

Over the last year, the intellectual inadequacy of debate-site apologetics has been explicitly revealed. Inevitably, the "apologetics" offered at these sites end up tearing down people rather than examining truth propositions. Those who've followed SBC Tomorrow are well aware of sites like Alpha & Omega Ministries, the "debate-site" of extreme Calvinist,* James White, who routinely aims his intellectual six-guns at critics themselves rather than the critics' arguments. Someone recently said to me>>>

James White is a fairly good debater in formal settings.  However, he spends the rest of his time flaming everyone within shouting distance"

Even so, my encouragement is to dump debate sites which focus on personalities. 

Indeed as an alternative to debate sites which specialize in formally debating theology (and trashing personalities), may I recommend to you sites which offer genuine scholarly material which defends the faith, material written and/or communicated by recognized scholars in virtually all academic settings.

As an example of what I am talking about, I encourage you to browse through The Bart Erhman Project (BEP). The BEP was founded by Miles O’Neill, campus minister at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The site boasts many of today's top scholars in their respective fields--Reformed and non-Reformed alike.  Names such as Alvin Plantinga, Ben Witherington, D.A. Carson, Darrell Bock, Dan Wallace, and a host of others. The site deals with many questions raised specifically by Bart Erhman but other neo-agnostics and the "new atheists" as well.

Below is an introductory video:

 

Check out the site. It offers tons of resources, and it's a much better option than the debate-sites which either focus on personalities or actually competing in a formal debate.

With that, I am...

Peter

*some accomplished theologians are convinced James White embraces historic Hyper-Calvinism

Comments

[Tom Parker]

Peter:

It appears your obsession continues. Surely you can find something else to blog about.

[Tim Rogers]

Tom,

Peter places this out there just to keep you reading. He knows that eventually you will see the truth so he places James White as the tease to draw you in. He is doing a great job of it.

Tim

[peter lumpkins]

Tom,

Look.  That's your second strike.  If I flag your IP address again, I will never unflag it.  That means your comments will always go to the spam bucket. I won’t even know you commented because I don’t get emails for comments flagged “spam.”

You come here and simply cannot post a single comment which does not complain either about me personally or someone else personally.  You *never* engage an idea.  And, I challenged you on another thread to point to a single time when you did and you could *not*. That speaks volumes, Tom.

Now, what you conveniently ignore is, I rarely, if ever, have continued mentioning White unless either he continues barbing me personally or a particular idea with which I am interested. I posted this piece yesterday.  However, White posted his hour-long DL broadcast Feb. 22 ending with these words:

“[58:25] Folks, give these people [those who project abject looniness—53:32] the amount of weight they have *earned*. O.K. And, that means someone like a grandverbalizer19, or a Dave Armstrong, or a Peter Lumpkins, or a Ray or Roy, or any of the rest of these people [those who project abject looniness—53:32]. Give them the credibility they have earned. Which is absolutely, positively none. Keep that in mind.”

Please do not show back up here accusing me of perpetuating anything with or about James White. The things I write obviously gets under his skin. Truth be told, addressing anything having to do with me may be, for him, impossible to do with any civility whatsoever. I’m cool with that.  But that does not mean I’m going tuck-tail and run like a whipped mongrel either. I’m willing, at least for now, to be his punching bag, if that’s what it takes.

With that, I am…

Peter

[R.L. Adler]

Thank you for linking this, I'm looking forward checking out The BEP. I was just down the street from UNC when they started forming this and I had no idea it was going on! I'm a huge fan of BW3 and I've learned loads from Plantinga and Carson.

"someone like a grandverbalizer19, or a Dave Armstrong, or a Peter Lumpkins, or a Ray or Roy, or any of the rest of these people [those who project abject looniness—53:32]. Give them the credibility they have earned. Which is absolutely, positively none. Keep that in mind.”

Lord have mercy, so all these people (and literally every critic James White has ever had) are loonies?

This is ridiculous. This is textbook megalomania.

- Ray

[Les Puryear]

Peter,

Great job! The Bart Ehrman Project is a wonderful example of scholarly apologetics.

BTW, don't let Colonel Tom Parker get under your skin. He tried the same stuff on me. He's a liberal and he can't help himself. He was born that way. :)

Les

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter you write at the bottom of this post:

*some accomplished theologians are convinced James White embraces historic Hyper-Calvinism

Can you name these theologians? As for the site you linked, these are also good theologians and another good site.

[Paul]

Hi, Peter,

I couldn't contact you on your private email, so I'm sending you a question here.

I've listened to the John 3:16 Conference, are the essays in "Whosever Will" longer, shorter, or the same size as what was given at the conference? I'm wondering if it's worth my while to buy the book.

Also, what are any other books you'd recommend on the subject?

Paul

[R.L. Adler]

BTW, speaking of BW3 and Ehrman if all y'all wanna see true scholarly debate, check out the Greer-Heard Forum this weekend:

http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/02/top_biblical_scholars_to_debate_accuracy_of_bible_in_new_orleans.html

BW3 mentioned there would be portions of it online.

[Roy]

A few things to mention, as it's obvious James White follows this blog to the point he feels the need to specifically mention each person here who disagrees with him. I should say, is projecting abject looniness better than a “you, sir, are a liar?”

1. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS GUY'S “MINISTRY?” This is “the emperor has no clothes” moment, I think. It seems his radio show and most of his blog posts are nothing more than he and Rich Pierce fighting with people, calling names, and accomplishing nothing but making people angry. He doesn't even have respect from the other religions he claims to be “reaching out” to, as the Mormons and Catholics have “exposed(there is that word)” his dishonesty about his education, and Muslims know he's being dishonest when he claims to know Arabic. Why do people bother giving money to this? Why not invest it in an MMA or WCW match instead? This is nothing more than entertainment for the few people entertained by the conflict that he creates and has with everyone.

2. Mr. White continues his broad-brush nonsense by insulting people on here instead of dealing with what they said. This isn't kindergarten, James. So tell me, do people who believe in standards for education “project abject looniness?” Does that, therefore, mean every educational institution that bothers getting accreditation is “projecting abject looniness?” Do people that question your claim that you know Arabic “project abject looniness?” Do people who actually care about the truth “project abject looniness?” I don't expect a response. Mr. White is all style(if being vicious is a style) and no substance. He will never deal with what is said, he'll just go after the people and call them names, as opposed to dealing with what they said.

I just don't think we can overlook the fact that this guy spends dollars given to his “ministry” conducting a radio show which seems to do little more than attack his opponents and call them names. I mean, to sign off in this way, would John MacArthur EVER do something like this on “Grace to You?” Would White's mortal enemy in Calvinism, Dave Hunt, ever sign off sniping at his critics? It just seems at this point it would be obvious to say, “where's the Christ in this guy's christianity?”

[Roy]

@Debbie,

If James White is not a hyper-calvinist, who would you define one as?

On another note, am I the only one that has noticed that connection between those who disagree with James White, and those who happen to be liars and all around awful people?

[Dave Armstrong]

Proud to be a fellow loon, Peter! I've been called names by White for 15 years now. It's nothing new with me. I've been called every name in the book by the tiny anti-Catholic sector of Protestantism.

It's the surest sign that a person has forfeited the debate. I dared to note that White got his "doctorate" by mailing in 100 proof-of-purchase labels from boxes of Cheerios.

[peter lumpkins]

Paul,

Thanks for asking. For my money, Whosoever Will is a great resource. The book is divided into two parts, with part one being the papers delivered at the J316 Conference. However, the paper in the book are expanded versions and contain many sections not given in verbal format at the conference.

Part two contains five treatises not delivered at the J316C. Kevin Kennedy asks, "Was Calvin a Calvinist?" and surveys Calvin's view on the atonement. Also, Jeremy Evans gives a insightful paper on determinism and human free will which poses particular problems for High Calvinists, I think. Other chapters by Malcolm Yarnell, R. Alan Streett, and Bruce Little round out the volume. Olson judged it the best defense of non-Calvinism in print.

Two other books are favorites of mine if we're speaking about the atonement--The Death Christ Died by Robert Lightner and Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? by Norman Douty. Both of these men are convictional Calvinists yet both of them argue for universal atonement. An older work but still extremely valuable is Puritan John Goodwin's Redemption Redeemed who argues for universal atonement. Of course, as for the standard for Limited Atonement, Owen's Death of Death is without equal. Those are my favorites so far as the extent of the atonement is concerned.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dave,

From one loon to another, thanks for logging on ;^). More seriously, I've read some of your stuff. And, you're no loon, I assure. Obviously, we'd have some profound disagreements in certain theological areas. But there is also much in which we could agree.

One thing seemed certain from my brief reading of your material, Dave--you're careful in your language and you appear to disagree with restraint.

May our Lord Jesus give us all His wonderful grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dave Armstrong]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your kind words, and for reading some of my writing.

There is, of course, much we agree on. The irony is that the same is true between White and myself. We could work together against abortion, homosexual "marriage," KJV-only, Mormonism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, atheism, liberal theology (of all stripes), defense of the inspiration of the Bible and the Trinity and Grace Alone, etc. I've written about all these things, excepting KJV-onlyism.

But White can never acknowledge any of that (I have, the other way around). And that is because he defined me from the beginning of our interactions (in 1995) as never a Christian at any time (I used to be an Arminian evangelical before I became a Catholic), and certainly not now. Therefore, nothing I do, even when he agrees, can possibly be of any worth.

IF there is anything "loony" here (I don't return his insult; I'm being rhetorical), it is THAT foolish attitude. The devil absolutely loves dividing and conquering. It's one of his most successful strategies.

I have always said that if White is ever to be corrected, it would have to come from his fellow Baptists or even his inner circle. The sad thing, though, is that he seems to respond no more to critique from Baptists than anyone else. He attacks Protestants who agree with him just as irrationally and unscrupulously as he attacks Catholics like myself.

Curious, though, isn't it, how White regards me as dumber than a doornail (so he says), yet has challenged me three times to an oral debate (in 1995, 2001, and 2007). It seems to be a cyclical thing (he's due again in 2013). So how can this be? Does it mean that he seeks out the very worst opponents he can find? Or does he look for the best, most able opponents?

I always interact with the sharpest opponents I can find, myself, if I am looking for an intelligent, constructive debate.

[Dave Armstrong]

Typo:

"He attacks Protestants who agree with him . . ."

should be:

"He attacks Protestants who DISagree with him . . ."

[Dave Armstrong]

I wrote a response to White's attacks tonight. I commented on his example of citing a Muslim who commented on my site and made a ridiculous prediction that White was gonna become a Muslim:

* * *

It is beyond silly to blast me for every remark made on my blog by people I don't agree with (this person is a Muslim). It's a little thing called "free speech." I know that White has only a dim familiarity with it because he has never allowed any comments at all on his blog. He used to at least claim that he allowed free debate in his chat room, but I was routinely kicked out within minutes by one of his henchmen (usually David T. King) when I dared to show up. . . . with that background, it is utterly ridiculous for White to make a big deal over this guy's comment (a person I don't know from Adam), as if it has anything to do with me ("Where else, but on good old DA's blog, will you find something as utterly inane as this?"). I get lots of inane comments, but, curiously, they are always from people I disagree with: whether they come from anti-Catholic zealots (White's crowd), or geocentrists, or radical traditionalist Catholics, or atheists. I don't agree with 'em! But they are allowed to express themselves on my blog.

White has great fun noting that the ridiculous remark was made on my blog. What he ignores, of course, was my response, made right below the silly comment about White supposedly becoming a Muslim. I wrote: "That's about as likely as Obama joining the tea party. :-)" I considered a stronger statement than that (such as a Hamas member becoming an orthodox Jew or some such), but my usual policy in the face of ludicrosity is one of three things: ignoring it, resorting to humor, or understatement. I chose the third in this instance; but in any event, I clearly disagreed with it. Yet White thinks it is perfectly ethical to make fun of the fact that it appeared on my blog (that allows free speech), as if this proves anything about me, while ignoring my stated disagreement with it, right below it. That would be context; that would actually be fair, and thus, White doesn't do that, because he has not been noted for his emphasis on being fair to my positions or to me personally (there's another example of my extreme understatement).

[peter lumpkins]

Dave,

You write,

"What [James White] ignores, of course, was my response..."

No better summary...no more perfect caption...than your little nugget of gold on typical, A&O dealings I've had. He ignores what *is* said and beats the tar out of one's soul.

Grace, Dave.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dave Armstrong]

You, too, huh Peter? Well, we're no worse for the wear, and can always rejoice, based on Matthew 5:11-12. Lovers of truth will see through this slanderous rotgut, and those who are taken in by it are beyond reasoning anyway and can only be prayed for: that they would wake up from their deluded reveries of White fan clubdom.

To a person, they will claim that White never personally attacks anyone. It's like a person looking all over the sky on a sunny day at high noon and claiming to not be able to see the sun.

I could easily compile 500+ insults directed towards me personally, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Talk about "inane" and boorish . . .

[peter]

Debbie,

You are correct; your comment will not be posted.

From what I can gather the incorrigible demeanor you unfortunately project in insisting on personally insulting specific people here--including accomplished scholars like those who logged on this thread--is no longer welcome.

I try to be patient with folks who appear belligerent, but there comes a time when continued exchange is best to not take place, especially when it concerns personalities not propositions.

I wish you the best. I trust our Lord's grace and peace to be sufficient for us all.

Have a great Lord's Day tomorrow.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Paul]

Hi, Peter,

Thanks for your book recommendations. I put "Whosoever Will" in my Amazon cart.

Paul