An Open Invitation to James White: My Response by Peter Lumpkins

I’m ashamed to admit it, but I must keep James White up at night. Surely, no Southern Baptist blogger gets under the old boy’s skin like I do. Alas, I hold that to be no real accomplishment. I’m a peace-loving guy. I ‘m actually not internally wired for conflict. But when conflict comes to my door, begging to come in, neither do I slam the door in conflict’s face. This is especially true when it comes to bullies. And believe me when I say this, James White is perceived within a broad circle of identifiable casualties, composed of believers and unbelievers alike, as a veritable bully who reckons to strong-arm his opponents in submitting to his particular way of looking at things.

When I meet and perceive people to be bullies, I confess it’s hard to just walk away. So, in the spirit of succumbing to what I perceive to be James White’s bullying, I want to respond to what he just logged a few hours ago. After all, White ended his “Open Invitation to Peter Lumpkins” with an anticipatory hope: “I look forward to hearing from him very soon!” I trust this is soon enough for James.

First, may I note this isn’t the first “open invitation” James has offered to me to come on his DL broadcast. He issued a similar invitation in March, 2011, roughly two years ago. Frankly, nothing’s changed much since then and now. The questions I had for White were fairly just yes-no type questions, questions he’s not bothered to answer in the past two years. In addition, the most recent question I asked of him in the form of an invitation to “pop over here” and “defend his ridiculous debate trick” calls for no formal rules, special schedules, 10 minutes for him, 10 minutes for me, and 5 minutes each to rebut. All it calls for is a simply logging of his rationale for lumping 4 Southern Baptists into the same clump as Open Theist, Gregory Boyd, and how that should not be perceived as a form of either a “guilt by association” or “poisoning the well” debate trick, tricks with which I’m firmly convinced White is familiar.

Second, I’m also appreciative that in his latest invitation James White dropped the “Petey” and “Lumpy” forms of ridicule which he’s used to refer to me for several years now. That’s sort of a move in the right direction for James White. Not that I can’t take it. Know I can. I’ll bet I can take James White’s junior-high, snickering, giggling, “here’s Lumpy” type of juvenile ridicule when he refers to me longer than he can take my serious critiques of his words. I’m willing to bet a week’s worth of Starbucks on it, James. Wanna bet?

And, yes, whether or not James admits it, my critiques are serious to him, if only serious in the sense of seriously driving him bananas. I mean, think about it. Here is an accomplished author who’s written numerous books, books including a fairly major book on Islam (approximately 300 pages+-) recently published and on the shelves in bookstores. I happened to scan his book just yesterday while at the bookstore. The truth is, while it’s not my cup of tea, it’s undoubtedly going to be a very helpful tool to those who need assistance dealing with Muslims on a more intense level (for the record, the reason and only reason I mention it assisting others and not including me in that is not because I need no assistance with Islam but because my ministry field does not demand from me more about Islam than I already have in my present library. It’s that simple. I have no hidden insults toward White’s book lurking around in my psyche).

Back to my point: think about it. Why would an accomplished author, an author who just released perhaps a major new study on Islam want so desperately as does White to get me into a one-on-one personal encounter with him? In addition, White has taught in seminaries, Bible colleges, and debated in dozens of formal debates with both formidable and not-so-formidable opponents, besides numerous other public arenas; and, in even in light of all that, he desperately wants to debate me. Perhaps more reflective of what I personally perceive, James White doesn’t just want to debate me; James White also needs to debate me for some undisclosed reason or else he seems he will lack fulfillment...satisfaction… self-worth…and maybe even inward peace. It's very, very strange to me White's haunting obsession to particularly debate me. I almost feel like those who talk about being stalked.  Errrrrrrr.....

Third, James White mentions my “new book” on Calvinism, which he describes as “actually, a pamphlet of about 34 pages of actual text written by Peter himself.” And, this is a revelation to whom, James?  From the beginning I made it clear my intention for each booklet in the Free Church Press series as a brief summary of the subjects the series addressed. Adam Harwood’s booklet has (if I recall correctly) 36 pages. Others booklets scheduled in the series will be precisely the same length. I also made it clear the audience intended was people in the pew neither pastors nor others with theological backgrounds. Nonetheless, James repeatedly ridiculed the length of the book as if the number of pages was a standard criteria for the value of the content no matter whom the intended audience was to be.

In fact, James brought this up to me in an email to which he responded before he critiqued my booklet on his radio broadcast. While my booklet was not the subject of the email I sent, James nonetheless broached the subject of my booklet by inquiring that since he just found my booklet on Amazon if there was an error in the listing. The Amazon listing apparently states it has 44 pages. I responded: “Yes, it is an error. My booklet is not 44 pages. It's 42 pages (including the back-of-the-book-stuff)!” I further included the rationale for the book’s length, the same rationale as below:

“My little volume fits nicely into a literary genre Christians have produced effectively and successfully no matter their theological orientation. For example, I'm staring at two little volumes sitting on a shelf to my right by the astute and capable High Calvinist, John H. Gerstner. One is entitled A Primer on Free Will (P&R Pub, 1982) and the other A Primer on Dispensationalism (P&R Pub, 1982). After removing them from the shelf,  I quickly discover the titles having a total of 28 pages and 37 pages respectively--neither having more pages than mine. Supposing similar contextual factors in the release of Gerstner's book, would you suspect P&R to have made an error on the page number? Why not? After all, I'm now looking at another book on Free Will by Robert Kane entitled The Significance of Free Will; it has a whopping 268 pages compared to Gerstner's 28! Do we dismiss Gerstner's measly 28 pages because it does not match the 268 page, difficult-to-wade-through mammoth production by one of today's leading authorities on the subject? We do. But we do so only if we're idiots.”

That was my rationale before James’ critique and repeated ridicule of the short treatise, and it remains my rationale presently since ridicule hardly qualifies as sober reflection. Ideological bullies ridicule when they have no intellectual point to make. But, like I say, it’s hard for me to walk away from bullies like James.

Fourth, James next reveals what may exist as the reigning theory to explain why he’s so visibly desperate to get me into a one-to-one personal encounter: “In any case, he [Peter] was one of the main defenders of Ergun Caner in 2010, and remains in that camp, despite the overwhelming mountain of evidence that all fair minded people have concluded convicts Ergun Caner of dishonesty and deceit.” Well I wondered how long James could hold off in his invitation to me to debate him until he brought up Ergun Caner. My count—and James can pop over here and correct me if he desires—is one sentence. That’s it.One sentence into offering to debate me, James ushers in the obsession of obsessions he’s pursued for the last 7—that’s s-e-v-e-n—years. Namely, to destroy Ergun Caner.

So let me be as clear as I can at this point so James will know where I stand. Yes, he’s right; I was one of the main defenders of Ergun Caner and even sometimes felt like I was the only defender of Ergun Caner. But I neither defended Ergun Caner because he was my friend (he was not my friend when I first got into the grueling battle, at least not in any personal way. I’d heard the guy preach once period, and I think shook his hand after that single sermon. That was the full extent of my involvement with Ergun Caner in the beginning) nor as you wrongly maintain “despite the overwhelming mountain of evidence” that all “fair minded” people conclude. Begging pardon, there are a great number of “fair-minded” people--even highly respected evangelicals--who concluded no such thing as you describe. Unless, of course, we are bullied into accepting James White’s definition of just what “fair-minded” people are required to be. And, given my history with you, James, since I’m afraid your rigid definition of “fair-minded” requires they look just like you, I don’t think I’ll be accommodating to your definition today.

And, allow me to be clear here: you mention I “remain in that camp.” Yes. I love in the Lord Dr. Ergun Caner, and I support and encourage him if that is what you’re getting at. And, know something else, James. Not you, nor your “camp,” nor any other single person on this planet is going to tell me with whom I can and cannot associate. Got it? Nor will I mind if guys like you either spurn, condemn, or ridicule me for it. That goes for anybody. I decide with whom I will invest my life, my love, and my circle of influence. If you really knew me, you’d know I possess an undeniable dose of a free-bird spirit. So that “camp” remark is actually pretty funny. The truth is, I belong to no one but Christ. And, while it’s true I’m intrinsically connected to the divine spiritual community we call the Body of Christ, I nonetheless embrace the reformation spirit of the radial reformers. So pump that into your bicycle tires the next time you go riding. Clear enough for you?

Fifth, you claim you “documented many times before” my supposed “category errors.” Interestingly, outside a tweet you sent only last evening, I never recall James mentioning “category errors” concerning anything about me. But I wanted to be sure. So, I did a google search of “category errors” on White’s site. The search bore 66 hits for “category errors,” two hits of which were identified with me. And, which two do you suppose showed up identified with me? The two hits of “category error” on your present post, James. So, the two times on the present post coupled with the one time in tweets equals altogether three times James White has associated “category error” with me. I happily concede I could be wrong. Maybe google just didn’t work right. Granted. But it serves me no purpose to look further.

I can only conclude, therefore, that unless you can demonstrate contrarily, your claim that you’ve documented my “category errors” many times in the past remains sort of an emotionally-driven “stretch” so to speak (be careful, James. I’ve learned the hard way to make a good use of my Windows “snipping tool” to now capture screen shots to verify if someone who’s caught with his skirt up attempts to sneak in and change things a wee bit).

Sixth, you complain I took a video down you desired to link; but I “wisely” made it “private” in your words, as the personal “act of one who knows he has acted dishonestly but refuses to admit it (note the parallels between Lumpkins and Caner).” In response, it’s true I had a sympathetic moment several months ago because a Calvinist friend suggested I start to make some changes to assist in opening up dialogs with Calvinists, Calvinists including you, James. So I took a lot of stuff down I’d put up on video but not for the reasons you suggest. But since you want to link it, allow me. I’ll be right back…I’m back. Now, be my guest. So far as I know all the videos are now active. Link to your heart’s desire. While I know you think you had me where you wanted me over that video and publicly and explicitly called me a liar, know your readers and mine just might like to hear your explanation to a number of misguided statements about that video, statements including you own confusion about what you actually said. As I show in this specific response to your criticism of my video, you couldn’t even get your own words right.

As a side-note, James, you strangely suggest I “wisely” took the video down but knowingly acted “dishonestly” in doing so. How “wisely” and “dishonestly” belong in the same moral sentiment I cannot tell. Maybe we can save that for the next time you offer an open invitation.

Seventh, you claim I’ve “gone back into the same mode of attack he and his compatriots demonstrated back in 2010.” But wait a minute. You said earlier I was on the defense team. Now you suggest I’m on the attack team. No wonder my head swims dealing with you, James. You can’t make up your mind what I’m supposed to be doing here. 

Eighth, you state “lacking the ability to defend his booklet in any meaningful fashion, Lumpkins has resorted to classic ad-hominem and category errors,” Well, how do you know I lack the ability to defend what I wrote, James? That’s an assertion without documentation. You’re an experienced apologist. Do you think that’s a reasonable statement to make? Please don’t say, “That’s why I’m calling you out to debate, Peter.” Excuse me. You stated your claim as if I’ve already demonstrated the lack of ability of defend my book. Now, here’s your chance to shine, James. Here’s your chance to body slam me so hard, I couldn’t possible get up. Just show us the place…quote us the words…which unequivocally show I lack the ability to defend my booklet. Could you do that for me, please. If you can show where I’ve attempted to defend my booklet, and demonstrated an inability in defending my booklet, I’ll call the DL first thing Monday morning. Deal? 

Of course, you can’t do so because I haven’t done so. This is just another one of your oft repeated emotionally-driven rhetorical “stretches” so to speak that you continually get by with under the protection of your followers. They won’t challenge you, James. My guess is, many of them are scared of you.  They’ve seen the literary scud missiles you’ve launched toward your opponents. So, a country-hick preacher like me will challenge your emotionally-driven rhetorical hullabaloo. Put up or, as we say in the south from my days in the fields, shut yo cottin-pickin mouth, boy.

Ninth, you claim I complained because you “dared to address multiple topics in a single program, and then make a general concluding statement that inconsistency in theology and exegesis is detrimental to apologetic activity.” I’m glad you brought that up, James. Well, no that’s your emotionally-driven rhetorical “stretches” once again opening it’s big mouth without thinking anybody will listen to what’s actually said. Do you really expect, James, that no one will check out your claims and just take them as pure, objective fact without the least hint of strain? Be assured, James, I’ll always check the original source when you make claims. Interestingly, one of your followers came on my site and gave almost verbatim the response you offered on the broadcast. He claimed you made a “summary” statement about Harwood, Hankins, Caner, Lumpkins, and Boyd after you’d dealt with them all. That’s what you said on the broadcast. Well, it’s not true, James. Here’s what you said in response to me about your lumping 4 SBC men into the same category with Greg Boyd:on your broadcast:

“So, this is called… let me explain this to Mr. Lumpkins… this is called a summary statement. So everybody who listened to the program knew why I had mentioned everybody that I mentioned because I had already dealt with them.”

Here’s my response to “Albert” who parroted your explanation on my site:

“You suggest that "Maybe because those were the people he had already discussed on that particular podcast". That would be false. This is what James White said in his explanation the day following. Is that where you got this answer?

Anyone can check the broadcast. Immediately after White deals with Harwood's presentation as BP recorded it, he made the statement lumping all four men in with Boyd. He most certainly hadn't "already discussed" those men. Check the broadcast beginning at 14.00 and going approximately through 14.26. That's where you'll find the clip above. And, you'll find White's words clumping us in with Boyd came after he dealt with Harwood but before he dealt with Boyd, Hankins, Caner, and me.

So this little diversion created by White suggesting the above was a summary statement after dealing with all the men is verifiable nonsense.”

Thus, it wasn’t a “summary” statement as you suggest after and because you’d “already dealt with” these men. Instead you made that statement immediately after Harwood and before Hankins, Caner, Boyd, and last of all, me. Unless you can show otherwise, then stop misinforming people about what you stated, and when you stated it, thank you very much. By the way, anyone can check out the timeline for themselves.

Tenth, you claim the connection between Boyd and the J316 platform men was a “general one, defined by context.” Well, my connection between you and Fred Phelps was also a general one defined by context. Phelps is a five-point Calvinist; so are you. You are an elder; so is he. Your church embraces the 1689 confession of faith. So does his. You frequently oppose and debate homosexuals, and so does he (with a vengeance I might add). There are difference between you and Phelps to be sure. But why should I name them? You offered no differences between the J316C platform and Boyd when you clumped them together.

You conclude by saying “if Mr. Lumpkins wishes to make his point, he will have to do two things.” Well, no James, I don’t. The fact that you are so thoroughly enraged about this demonstrates for me quite nicely, in fact, that my point has been pretty doggone effective already. The truth is, you offered a silly little debate trick with using either some form of “poisoning the well” or “guilt by association” to criticize the J316 platform speakers. Boyd was completely off the theological map and you know this. But you used him anyway without the least qualification. And, given your record in this one piece for emotionally-driven rhetorical “stretches” you make, it becomes almost fantastic to expect anybody would believe you didn’t purposely clump a known objectionable figure into the mix of the J316C speakers. Sorry, James, I ain’t buying what you’re peddling.

Nor would I expect anyone to think it a fair comparison to clump you in with Fred Phelps. But instead of conceding your tacit mistake, you try to create a rationalistic “contextual” answer which is “detrimental to apologetic activity.” Piddle-pooh, James. Start taking responsibility for your reckless responses and scathing, emotionally-driven rhetorical “stretches” you claim for debate tactics.

Finally, I made it clear above when I’d find time to appear on the DL—when you can please offer one clear piece of evidence for just one of your rhetorical lapses. I’ll log it again so there is no miscommunication:

Just show us the place…quote us the words…which unequivocally show I lack the ability to defend my booklet. Could you do that for me, please. If you can show where I’ve attempted to defend my booklet, and demonstrated an inability in defending my booklet, I’ll call the DL first thing Monday morning. Deal?

Outside of that, James, don’t hold your breath. I’m doing just fine showing others the emotionally-driven rhetorical “stretches” you pen not to mention demonstrating that your bullying tactics just don’t work on some people. Unfortunately for you, you done tried to bully the wrong redneck.

Nope.

I say, just keep on writing, James.

Keep on writing.

With that, I am…

Peter 

Comments

[peter lumpkins]

All,

Under no circumstances will comments be posted--pro or con--pertaining to the Ergun Caner discussion. I refuse to rehash that debate, refusing moreover to feed the insatiable appetite James White has for chewing on a rotten piece of meat. If you mention the Caners, don't expect the comment to go anywhere but the trash...

[Deakon]

hey Peter, sounds like you and this joker have some serious beef - hope you get it worked out...

you said " I’ll bet I can take James White’s junior-high, snickering, giggling, “here’s Lumpy” type of juvenile ridicule when he refers to me longer than he can take my serious critiques of his words."

You did type out all a bunch of "uhs" a few days ago when quoting him - thought it was kind of juvenile of you...don't stoop man!

and you want him to come here, but you won't go there? why is that? like a homefield advantage type thing? - I mean if he's a terrible debater who employs all sorts of fallacies, maybe it would be awesome to intellectually destroy him on his own show...

[John]

I think you and Mr. White have too much time on your hands.

[peter lumpkins]

Deakon,

Thanks. Well, funny or not, my typing the "uhs" and other sounds was not intended to make White look bad nor certainly to reflect a similar juvenile behavior. Including "uhs" and pauses in transcribing voice to written medium is standard protocol so far as I know.

I thought I made it pretty clear in another comment (it's another thread, however), I really have little desire to have a personal one-on-one with White. I've been explicitly called a liar, a deceiver, a dishonest man who has absolutely no regard for the truth so many times by White I stopped counting--all documentable by the way. White's even questioned if I am even a redeemed man. So, Deakon, I don't think I'll be stepping up on the platform with him anytime soon...

[Adam Pace]

You boys need to clean this up. If I'm a lost person reading this mess I'd run from the church as fast as I could. It is contrary to the spirit of Christ to talk to each other this way, especially in full view of the entire world. Do you care more about winning points against each other or loving each other? Loving the lost? Somebody needs to take the high road and let this stuff go.

[peter lumpkins]

John,

Thanks. I suggest you not waste your time reading and find something more edifying to do. Lord bless...

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Adam,

Sorry, but this blog is not a church. Nor have I written anything on this site, including this post, I'd fear for a lost person to see. I've done nothing other than answer James White's open invitation to me. And, I'll suggest to you as I've suggested to others: the moment you find this post or any I write unworthy of your attention, the most edifying thing you can do for your soul is not stop and type out a complaint on a keyboard or preach me a sermonette. Rather the best thing you can do for yourself, for me, for the body of Christ, is a) stop reading; b) pray for me. Hope this helps...

[Thomas]

Seriously, both of you remind me of junior high school.

[Andrew Barker]

Deakon, John, Adam;

It's not my place to act in defence of Peter, I think he's capable of looking after himself, but I would ask you this question. Do you apply yourselves with the same rigorous criticism on James White's blog as you seem free to do so on this one? I trust you do.

For my part, I am still waiting to receive a copy of Peter's booklet, ( all 32, or is 44 pages of it, "never mind the quality feel the width" ;) ) at which point I will come back to him with my comments. I'm not expecting to find too much to surprise me, but you never know. But I doubt I'll be using the 'h' word. And if I do disagree, I expect to receive a forthright but honest response from him for any criticism I make.

So let's be a bit more open here than perhaps you are being? You disagree primarily because you are of a Calvinist/Reformed persuasion and commenting on behaviour is easier than tackling the substance of his book?

I cannot find anything of substance from James White to back up his criticism of Peter's book. If you can find it or site where Peter has factually got Calvinism wrong, let me know then I can bear it in mind while I'm reading it.

If I've got you all wrong, my apologies in advance .......

Posted by: Andrew Barker

[Mary]

Peter, OT somebody needs to straighten out Stetzer and his guest because it looks to me like they pretty much admit that sometimes Calvinists allow their theology to get in the way of evangelism! Since we're told over and over that's a lie because everybody knows that Calvinists are the bestest evangelists in the world I expect the blogosphere to blow up any moment now denouncing this Stetzer latest blog post!

Here's a quote:

But there are others in the Reformed/Calvinistic camp who want to see their churches grow. They're preaching the Gospel every Sunday in half-empty auditoriums built in cities where people need to hear the truth of Jesus. They're afraid to violate their theology, so they don't formulate a strategy to get the Gospel out to people who need to hear it. They don't mobilize their people for mission. Their belt is missing some key tools, like mine was

[Tim Bushong]

Peter-

I'm with Adam on this one- this has gone on long enough. Encouraging you to simply obey Jesus:

“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift." (Matt.5:23-24)

As "Deakon" said earlier: "... if he's a terrible debater who employs all sorts of fallacies, maybe it would be awesome to intellectually destroy him on his own show"

It would be totally awesome- it sounds like a fair offer from James White, and you would both be on-the-record for all to hear.

[Wyman Richardson]

Peter,

Respectfully, you and James White have reached a very unhealthy point in this exchange. I know, I know: then don't read it. That's fair enough and duly noted. But, honestly, the whole tone of these posts between you guys is deeply saddening and, oddly, ironically similar. It just looks ugly.

From one follower of Jesus to another, may I suggest that you unplug, take a long walk, and back away a bit from this until a calmer spirit prevails. White should do the same.

And I know - no need to say it: I'm doing the same.

Wyman Richardson

[Lydia]

Adam, The "world" already knows we don't fool them, only our own. The worst thing we do is the pretend we are who we aren't to the world. It is a lot like the SGM lawsuit....who are we kidding? Not the world, that is for sure.

[hariette]

Peter, it occurred to me that it is perfectly okay for James White to rattle on and on and on about you, and others and these debate-encouragers of his seem so excited about you going there--however.... Since I do not frequent his spew and splatter show after hearing some spew a few years back, I wonder if these same folks like JD Hall and others White-backers are encouraging the self-professing great and powerful debater to come here and open his banter box? if not, maybe they should try harassing him a bit...

I get so tired of the self-righteous admonishments being thrown in one direction. it is tiring. and so so silly. it's time for JW to grow up and put on his big-boy trousers and see if he can write a coherent word to defend his blather and bluster. until he is able to come here, which I highly doubt he is, he needs to put his little white glove back into his little boy knickers and hush.

[John]

Mr. Lumpkins,
Thank you for your advice. Respectfully sir, I encourage you to consider your condescending attitude in general towards commenters who may not rally around your comments or observations. Have a blessed Lord's Day!

[Ryan]

Typical Calvinist schemes - bully others, initiate the mean-spiritedness, arrogance and condescension and then ratchet up the debate until they can accuse both sides of being in error. What a bunch of spineless men. And to those who are worried about the lost seeing this ... why would all of you Calvinists be worried about this? Isn't the eternal destiny of every soul fore-ordained by a deterministic "god"?

[hariette]

Ryan... well, now, that is the 64,000 dollar question, isn't it?

[Alex Guggenheim]

I cannot commend Peter Lumpkins enough, here, for demonstrating how one rebutts their brother in the Lord who has chosen to go beyond debate but into fallacious forms of argumentation. Those of you complaining appear to misunderstand what PL is bringing to light which is not merely contextual errors but White's absurdities.

[Scott Alt]

To those who are accusing Peter Lumpkins of incivility here:

Peter Lumpkins illustrates the second of two schools of thought when it comes to James White: (1) ignore him; (2) be fierce and firm in striking back.

The first school of thought says that James White wants the attention, and even negative attention feeds the beast. Don't give him what he wants. But White still comes round on regular occasions to wonder why certain individuals "aren't answering his questions" or "aren't brave enough to debate him."

The second, Howard Beale, school of thought says there comes a time when you've got to tell the schoolyard bully to cut the crap.

[Mark]

John,

With your 12:24 remark to Peter, how is it possible that you can insult and wish somebody blessings and expect us to recoginize authenticity in that remark?

Calvinist and Christians in the SBC have been accusing each other as being Heretics in an attempt to change or convert each other.

Stealth Calvinist who embrace some or all POINTS of TULIP are going into churches not revealing themselves as Calvinist. Even the Reformed Calvinist are choosing to drop Calvinist from their title, when they should be openly disclosing to church elders, the level of Calvinism they embrace.

There are several levels of Calvinism that makes it impossible for Calvinist to come up with a concensus to what they believe.

Can you answer this question.
The very fact that within the Calvinist School there are some that refer to some Points of TULIP as being authenticated by scriptures and some Calvinist refer to all Points of TULIP, doesn't this put Calvinist at risk of questioning each others belief, of which parts of the Bible/TULIP is "Truth" and which parts aren't?

Lastly, if Christian Professors are being removed from SBC Seminaries simply because they don't accept Calvinism then those that are responsible for removing those Professors need to be removed from the leadership positions of the SBC and removed completely out of SBC Seminaries.

[eric]

Peter,
One reason I read this blog is my interest in the current debate within the Baptist Church over Calvinism.
As you know I am reformed, so I have an interest. I also listen to James White from time to time.
I would also implore you, brother, to seek reconciliation with James White. I assume he (or his staff) is also reading this, so this same comment goes to him as well. I would post on his site but don’t think he allows comments.
I hope that James White has someone in his wings that can challenge and correct him on his continued “disrespect” towards you. What comes to mind is referring to you as “petey”. (after listening to his podcast) I am offended at that, considering his standing as an active Elder. (I should say that I’m assuming he is making fun of you and that this isn’t a recognized nick name). Even assuming the worst…that you are his enemy, we have clear biblical instruction on how to relate to our enemies Luke 6:35. That said, I don’t think you are his enemy when you are both “in Christ”.

I would ask you to reconsider your response to Adam. You might also consider this a “sermonette”, I will not fault you for thinking that. I will encourage you to think about this and the other comments about coming to peace with White, thru the lens of Scripture. I trust that your heart is already inclined to be at peace with all men.

I will commend you for allowing post like mine thru your site, some other bloggers would not forward comments which have an air of criticism. Some other bloggers will not even open the comments section to allow any comments or rebuttals to their post.

At this time I have more interest in hearing that you and James have reconciled, confessed any sins towards one another, and have used this as an opportunity to grow in Christ rather than hearing you “debate” James White.

I do hope that James White has a bigger interest in reaching out to you for reconciliation before he debates you. I also encourage you to reach out to him (in private) for reconciliation.

I think you have made your position clear and I’m not looking for a response to this. Use it as another nudge in a direction.

John 13:34 A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

1 john 4:20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

1 Cor 13:1-13If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; ...

Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

Sorry I have not been active. I've been gone most of the day but was able to pop in a couple of times to approve some comments. I've got a few. But have to run and pick up hun at airport...

As I privately predicted, James White's support base came to his aid, acting as ambassadors to persuade me, contra my clear words, to "debate" him. I don't have it in me to hunt for clearer words than I've already written. Even so, I'm going to say it once again and then give his convoy instructions on how to accept my words whether they understand them or not. Here goes:

I remain unmoved...utterly absent...devoid of all desire...completely convinced...with not an iota of doubt...forged and fixed...happy as a full pig about my staying put right where I'm at and answering those issues and criticisms I think need to be addressed which James White brings up on his blog. What part of that is unclear I can't begin to know. Hence, there is nothing...nothing...N-O-T-H-I-N-G any James White supporter can say, or even James White himself can say, which will affect either where or when or how or on what topic I take my stand.

Now James White and/or his supporters are free to interpret my stand anyway they wish. They can assert I am scared to face James White; they can assert I lack honor; they can assert I have no ability; they can assert I'm smart; they can assert I'm dumb; they can assert non-Reformed views just can't match up; they can assert ad nauseam ad infinitum to their heart's desire all they wish about what my decision means. I think that's swell.

But know none of their barbed complaints move me. I will not defer from my course. I decide what I address. I decide when I address it. I decide in which available venue I'll address it. And, I don't need James White's permission or blessing.

Finally, it's already been rightly pointed out that James White is the one that started this. I most certainly didn't. Period. And, the ridiculous nonsense logged by some on this thread implying either I just need to leave James White alone or worse condemns me for answering White's absurd assertions only makes me dig my heels farther down into the dirt.

And please know, if James White wants to critique the J316 Conference, I think he has every right to do so. And, he put it on his blog. But I also have every right--and duty when he slurs, mocks, ridicules, and in some cases, condemns as heretics, Southern Baptist scholars, pastors, and people--to post a correction on my blog, the very same venue White used to offer his critique. But upon my using the same venue he employs, White calls "foul ball!" "You must meet me. You must call me. You must debate me." Yeah...right...

Truth be told, sometimes I get the eery feeling either I'm from another planet or White and his supporters are.

Now here's my instructions to all of James White's advocates and sympathizers for future logons. Ready? Here goes:

Since I've been clear I'm making my stand here and will not defer to James White's preferable venue to address his horrendous, emotionally-driven rhetorical "stretches" among many other debate tricks he often employs, and since James White employs his blog to offer those criticisms I find needful to address and therefore will address them on my site, do not log back on here again and make the same, redundant comment about switching to James White's preferable venue

I've given many of you guys lots of space to spew not only some frustrated emotion, but space to try and persuade me to change my mind on the above. The time has come to drop it. Period. That part of the exchange is over.

[peter lumpkins]

Eric,

You simply haven't a single clue what's transpired. I appreciate your words, but you're too much in the dark about this to fully appreciate it. This is not simply about personal offense which is how your framing your counsel and corrective. It's about right and wrong. If you think I'm biblically disengaged about this, that's your privilege. But I remain unmoved.

[John]

Dear Mark,
I am responding top your earlier post directed at me. One of the problems with what is written in black and white is it does not covey intent not emotion. That leaves the reader to interpret and often incorrectly. I did not insult Peter Lumpkins by suggesting he not be so condescending to those who differ. It was just a brotherly encouragement. I have read Peter for years and have never commented till now. I have great respect for his faith and immense writing skills and ability to communicate. Nor did I insult him by wishing him a blessed Lord's Day. I truly desire him to feel God's joy and power in the pulpit and receive the blessings from exercising his gifts and glorifying God. I am sure he wishes me the same. (Sunday is my first day retired from the pastorate in 41 years of ministry.) You proceeded sir to discuss the debate of with Calvinists. I did not reveal my theological leanings nor am embroiled in such a debate, nor will I in the future. I don't follow James White not read his blog. My encouragement to you is not to read in to things, and don't be so quick to assign motives and judgments. And, I truly wish you and all the readers a most blessed Lord's day, a harvest of souls and the joy from preaching God's word.

[Mark]

John,

Being a Pastor for 41 years is quite an achievement.

You were critical toward Peter of having an attitude toward people who didn't think like him or his Ideology. Peter is challenging abusive tactics that some Leaders and Pastors in the SBC are Practicing. Much of the dialogue that is being debated in this site are from people that simply support the abusers because their Theology lines up with their own.

He gives the opportunity for countering views to express why they support these abusers and then states his own.

Maybe you haven't seen the magnitude of strife in the SBC that is based on the Doctrinal Indifference among the Biblical Academics, that is causing church splits.

This site challenges and raises concern of the Un-Christ-Like abuse that Stealth Calvinist are Practicing on unsuspecting Christian Churches within the SBC, who don't embrace TULIP.

This site also addresses Calvinist Leadership in SBC Seminaries who are weeding out Christian Professors and replacing them with Calvinist.

This site also challenges the Heretic Rhetoric that Calvinist and Christians are practicing on each other, simply based on Biblical interpretations.

As for people rallying around him, Peter has been aggressive in wanting unity to exist in the SBC.

I have challenged Peter raising doubt that unity between Christians and Calvinist is possible. I have even suggested that Christians and Calvinist in the SBC need to split, which he aggressively rebuked my suggestion wanting the Rich History in the SBC to be preserved.

My former Stealth Pastor split churches back to back in the first 2 Churches he was a Pastor, aggressively staying within the perimeters of TULIP.
(he was 40 when he started Pastoring and he is 45 now)

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Mark,

Here is the truth as I see it: few I know have grasped the breadth of my general purpose here than you in what you've just expressed to John not to mention in the short time (presumably) you've been on this site. I would count it a senseless endeavor to try and improve upon it myself.

Further, so unlike many others I've engaged through the years when I found myself challenging a certain proposition they might offer, you did not angrily or resentfully take your marbles and go play elsewhere. Instead you acknowledged my position without necessarily giving up ground of your own, setting the mark for a genuine exchange of ideas from which we may both gather from each other greater enlightenment for our minds and food for our souls.

Indeed it is such an environment which nurtures authentic conversation without sacrificing vigorous exchange of varying ideas. And, this remains almost opposite the environment called for by many here generally and, if I may, James White particularly, where "debate" seems to be the main arena to determine truth. "Debate me!" is the clear and present purpose we see coming through the present lens. Unfortunately, "debate" is, like it or not, more about competition than it is about conversation; more about winning than about wisdom; more about who lost the debate than what was learned from a dialog. I'm sorry. Something seems to me to be upside-down in a world like that...

Thanks gain Mark. You've made my Sunday afternoon, brother...

[hariette]

Peter, read something attributed to Aristotle today:
"the only way to avoid criticism:
do nothing
say nothing
be nothing." ~Aristotle
Thank you for doing something, saying something, and being who you are in Christ. selahV

[peter lumpkins]

H,

Thanks my sister. I receive the encouragement, and will very much enjoy the encouragement...

Lord bless...

[Mark]

Peter,

Thanks for the feedback.

John graciously expressed his views. (along with the rest of us) I did in fact feel he was insinuating a lack of balance in this site, which I disagree.

I just thought his timing was off in how he was being a little critical and spreading blessing at the same time.

I except the his correction in that I shouldn't jump to conclusions.

[Craig]

Peter...be strong.
I know the story about how Docktor Jimmy attacked two unnamed men for years in this EXACT fashion. Sending his minion to do his bidding and publicly belittling and them at every turn. James White is the Reformed Ric Flair. He is a cartoon-character of a man. When these two unnamed men finally had enough and agreed to the debate he was screaming for...he backed down and made that "Hominah" sound like Ralph Cramden used to make. Doktor Jimmy is an excruciatingly insecure man who needs to keep screaming and yelling and bellowing in order to shout down the voices of the demons in his head.
His goal is to get his name mentioned on YOUR blog because your following is so much larger. If he ever wants to leave the basement bunker and broadcast on a real radio station...he'll need a following. And since only people in dire need of a cult leader follow Her Doktor, he has to try to swipe a few of yours.
You're a good man Peter...I hope he comes here and gets waxed. But his legendary cowardice precludes that.

[Doug]

"I'm a peace loving guy. I‘m actually not internally wired for conflict." Pppppssssshshhhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

[peter lumpkins]

Hi "Doug"

Well, I had to shorten your laugh abit. Hope you don't mind. Glad to accommodate you, though...