Some will remember Peter Lumpkins, a blogger and author of a new book on all you need to know about Calvinism—actually, a pamphlet of about 34 pages of actual text written by Peter himself. In any case, he 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.
In any case, a few days ago on the Dividing Line I worked through, fairly quickly, the main errors in Peter’s booklet, demonstrating that Mr. Lumpkins, as has been documented many times before by myself and others, has a major problem with category errors. Remember, this is the same Peter Lumpkins who could hear one thing on a video, but put something else on the screen of a video he was making. I would link to it, but Peter, wisely, has made it “private,” the act of one who knows he has acted dishonestly but refuses to admit it (note the parallels between Lumpkins and Caner). Here is the article about it anyway.
Since I took the time to respond to Lumpkin’s booklet, he has gone back into the same mode of attack he and his compatriots demonstrated back in 2010. This has included the same kinds of hate filled rhetoric on his website by well known compatriots of his that marked the 2010 situation. I guess some things never change. In any case, lacking the ability to defend his booklet in any meaningful fashion, Lumpkins has resorted to classic ad-hominem and category errors, this time complaining that I 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 (shocking statement, no?). Now, Peter wishes me to invest my time in posting comments on his blog where, of course, he is in control, he has his nasty-tongued compatriots to help stoke the fires, and, of course, he has a track record of editing and deleting as well. A fool’s errand to be sure! Here is his “invitation”:
Now, let’s put this to rest immediately (something I did on the last DL, but evidently, Mr. Lumpkins was not listening). His point is clear: he will make an invalid connection between myself and Fred Phelps and therefore prove that the alleged connection I made between Boyd and the few folks from the John 3:16 II Conference I reviewed is invalid.
1) The connection I made was a general one, defined by context: that exegetical error and theological inconsistency is detrimental to apologetic activity since, of course, apologists must have a consistent theological basis upon which to make their case.
2) Mr. Lumpkins has not grasped #1, hence, he has produced an allegation without substance. He has not provided the very connection I did by providing meaningful, and accurate, commentary either upon my own position, or even that of Phelps. This I had done on the DL, as any fair minded person knows.
Hence, if Mr. Lumpkins wishes to make his point, he will have to do two things: 1) address my actual comments and dispute the following statement: “Theological and exegetical inconsistency is detrimental to apologetic proclamation.” 2) He will have to demonstrate this very kind of theological and exegetical inconsistency on my part so as to make a connection to a similar demonstration of inconsistency on Fred Phelps’ part.
So, I would like to ask Mr. Lumpkins to let me know when he would be available to appear on The Dividing Line to undertake #1 and #2 above. He will be given 10 minutes uninterrupted time to do so. Then I will have ten minutes to respond, and then we will have five minutes for him to ask me questions, and five minutes for me to ask him questions. Seems like a generous offer, and, given that I have a long—decades long—track record in being able to engage in such encounters fairly (and Peter does not), I cannot think of any reason why he would decline. So, I look forward to hearing from him very soon!