Calvinist Derangement Syndrome Case #1756: Peter Lumpkins and the Looniest Muslim Apologist

So I was working through the morning “stuff” on line (RSS feeds, emails, cuing up The Briefing) when someone in channel pointed me to another Lumpkins hit piece against yours truly.  Nothing new, same ol’ same ol’ from Petey, until I saw a section that caught my attention:

Consider the arrogant earful one Muslim apologist apparently received from James White after attempting to engage him:

‘You see Nadir, you are not up to par with me, for I am superior, Because you are not up to par with me, you are just like a regular Joe Shmoe caller who calls in AND THAT IS HOW YOU WILL BE TREATED. Joe Shmoes DO NOT get to establish any ground rules. NONE. Get it?  But no worries, I’ll be equitable with you….But Nadir, if you do decide to call, keep one thing in mind: “You are inviting yourself on my show”‘ (//link, all emphasis original)

Now, let’s keep a few things in mind.

1)  Peter Lumpkins has been documented to be a dishonest man, having posted edited videos in his desperation to discredit me.  He has written articles where he takes the side of all of my opponents, even if they are enemies of the Christian faith.  In one, referencing Bart Ehrman, he admits he hasn’t a clue what is even being discussed, but, he’s sure Ehrman “embarrassed” me anyway.  The hypocrisy is astounding.

2)  Peter Lumpkins recently self-printed a little booklet wherein he actually pretended to tell folks everything they need to know about Calvinism.  He has been a vociferous, vocal, but surely not deep, opponent of Reformed theology for quite some time.  In fact, it seems to be his primary motivation even in defending Ergun Caner.  Evidently he thinks like men like Timothy Rogers and has concluded that it is all just a vast Calvo-Islamic conspiracy.  But in any case, his opposition to simple, biblical theology is a major portion of his motivation.

Now, these kinds of biases and bigotries blind Lumpkins to the most basic and obvious truths right in front of his eyes.  Here we have a personal attack upon myself that flies, of course, in the face of debate after debate after debate available in the public arena.  Hours and hours of actual interaction with Muslims all across the world are available to Peter Lumpkins, and they would all demonstrate his thesis to be absurd on its face.  For example, here is a portion from a recent debate with Shabir Ally in South Africa in the masjid in Erasmia:

But does he take these into consideration?  Of course not.  Instead, he quotes from a single Muslim website run by Nadir Ahmed and, upon that basis, engages in more Lumpkinesque ad-hominem argumentation.  [Ad hominem is all Peter has: he cannot interact with my published works, so he has to attack me, personally.]

The rather embarrassing problem for Lumpkins is again his choice of sources.  Nadir Ahmed is the worst of the worst.  The looniest of the looniest.  An embarrassment to thinking Muslims all over.  In fact, when I did, finally, debate Ahmed in Virginia in 2008 (video below—wouldn’t it be helpful if Caner could provide videos like this?) Nadir only used 7 of his opening 20 minutes and sat down.  He behaved so childishly, so badly, that the Muslims in the audience were yelling at him by the end of the evening.  He’s just that bad.  Here is the video:

Nadir Ahmed had showed up at my church on a Sunday night to challenge me to debate, he was so desperate.  He was given his one chance, and he proved that what I had been saying all along was true.

In any case, Lumpkins believes Nadir Ahmed.  Lumpkins doesn’t believe all the other Muslims out there who are saying Ergun Caner is making things up and is ignorant of Islam, but on this issue, he’s sure Nadir Ahmed is correct.  Even though, ironically, Ergun Caner claimed to have debated Nadir Ahmed on the crucifixion, and even Nadir will tell you that never happened.  But hey, what is a little inconsistency when you have to fight the hordes of Calvinists at the SBC back door, right?  It clearly doesn’t bother Lumpkins at all.

But here’s the real problem: if you actually look at what Nadir wrote, well…he is making this up.  He is not quoting me.  Here’s the old webpage from which Lumpkins took his killer information.  Note there is no attribution, no reference.  I never said those words.  Nadir is whining and complaining about not debating, and so he does what Nadir often does—he makes things up on the fly.  The reality is, I never said these words.  Lumpkins is promoting a myth that is obvious (to anyone who knows Nadir), but hey, what does that matter?  Enemy of my enemy and all that.  Notice the URL Nadir has on that page.  In our new blog format that translates to this page.  That is what Nadir is responding to, and this whole paragraph is his tortured “interpretation” of my actual words.  He did the same in an earlier post, found here.  Note his words:

He started posing riddles to me which can be summed up something like this:

No, I refuse to debate,

but you are inviting yourself on my show for your views to state,

But don’t ask for fair and balanced discussion involving fair time because that would mean it is a debate!

Note the attempt at poetry?  He was trying to do something similar in the stuff Lumpkins is quoting as if I actually said these things to Nadir Ahmed.

See, if Mr. Lumpkins had an even semi-Christian commitment to truthfulness, he would have taken the time to actually watch my debate with Nadir Ahmed.  Despite his outrageous behavior, I managed to hold it together, despite a massive amount of provocation.  As I said, even the Muslims were getting on him by the end of the evening.  And had Lumpkins done this, he would have concluded that Nadir Ahmed is not a reliable source of information.  But again, this post is about Calvinist Derangement Syndrome (CDS), and hence it serves once again to illustrate this dangerous condition.  CDS can cause someone to trust the looniest of Muslims, who has given so many examples of his disconnection with reality (I am not the only one to have encountered the man, to be sure.  Check out a few other examples here and here) that anyone would hesitate to accept anything he has to say at face value.  But, what’s more, he took an unattributed statement and simply assumed it was accurate, without, of course, checking it out.  But, this is the same man who can watch Ergun Caner on video tape lying through his teeth over and over and over again, and ignore it.  CDS often has a much deeper, more serious, underlying condition associated with it.

2 Responses to “Calvinist Derangement Syndrome Case #1756: Peter Lumpkins and the Looniest Muslim Apologist”

  1. I must say that over the years we have seen so many ‘critics’ who seem to be nothing more than ‘hangers on.’ I can easily go down the list of self proclaimed ‘watchdogs’ who do nothing more than take potshots from the cheap seats. The problem is that if we don’t acknowledge them we start getting the ‘James White is afraid of me’ running commentaries. If we respond we get the ‘James White is a big meanie’ commentaries. Either way, they get their fifteen minutes with some taking longer than they deserve. This matter is a case in point.

  2. The more Caner’s defenders speak, the more ridiculous they show themselves to be.

Leave a Reply