« Former megachurch pastor and now convicted sex-criminal Jack Schaap gets 12 years | Main | The 2013 John 3:16 Conference, Criticism, and the Calvinist Controversy in Louisiana: Part II »

Mar 25, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e2017ee9bbc7d2970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The 2013 John 3:16 Conference, Criticism, and the Calvinist Controversy in Louisiana: Part I:

Comments

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

David (NAS) Rogers

I read the citation of JD Hall's quote "our first Southern Baptist forbears" as "our first Southern Baptist for bears". Well I'm for bears also. I think they are interesting creatures. Yogi is one of my favorite.

By the way, I think JD Hall meant "forebears".

hariette

I think JD Hall was probably just having a bad day and mis-spoke. He probably didn't mean that, Peter. He probably wishes he had not said such a stupid, ridiculous, moronic statement as he did. Maybe someone else was tweeting for him. Surely someone as influential as he who will be rubbing shoulders with the great White soon wouldn't have said such an idiotic thing about the Georgia school? surely not.

David (NAS) Rogers

I posted my above comment before reading the complete article. I think it is shameful what Hall has said and I hope my above comment does not detract from the seriousness of what the rest of the article emphasizes.

By the way, I just finished reading yours and Harwood's Free Church Press booklets and found them both helpful. I do have some comments and minor critiques, but I'll e-mail those later.

This is news worthy?

I'm telling mom.

MOM! J D said something mean about one of my friends!

Now make him sit in time out.

Lydia

Newsie,

And mom will say, "Now son, you and I both know it was divinely determined JD would say such pedantic things so it is not a sin. He has no control, you know, he is being controlled"

bigfatdrummer

Thanks for proving your ignorance Mr./Ms. "This is news worthy?" Maybe you should go back to your "Piper" book; I mean if this isn't worthy, then why would you be here reading it, alas even commenting?

Truth4achange

As offended as you all are with Mr. Hall's statement where were you guys when Norm Geisler equated the doctrine of election with God's rape of sinners? Or did you not know? Come now, have none of you read "Chosen But Free"? Yes it has the same tired anti-calvinistic rhetoric you'll read on this blog.

Max

Farewell JD. I offer the following quote from Charles Finney as you go:

"It is evident that many more churches 'need' to be divided. How many there are that hold together, and yet do no good, for the simple reason that they are not sufficiently agreed. They do not think alike, nor feel alike ... and while this is so, they never can work together. Unless they can be brought to such a change of views and feelings as will unite them, they are only a hindrance to each other and the work of God. In many cases they see and feel that this is so, and yet they keep together, conscientiously, for fear a division would dishonor religion, when in fact the division that now exists may be making religion a by-word and reproach."

Words of wisdom from Finney in his "Revivals of Religion" which SBC leadership should carefully consider regarding that which now separates us. The effectiveness of our mission going forward and our corporate witness to a lost world are at stake.

Lydia

"As offended as you all are with Mr. Hall's statement where were you guys when Norm Geisler equated the doctrine of election with God's rape of sinners? Or did you not know? Come now, have none of you read "Chosen But Free"? Yes it has the same tired anti-calvinistic rhetoric you'll read on this blog"

Never read it, sorry. Never read or listened to Geisler. Never plan to. Plan to read Harwood's book, though.

peter lumpkins

Truth4change,

If you're referring to Geisler's statement "God is love. True love never forces itself on anyone. Forced love is rape, and God is not a divine rapist!" then, a) it's not the same as JD's slanderous remark since Geisler was actually defending God's character, not denouncing God's actions or, as you wrongly assert, equating "the doctrine of election with God's rape of sinners." That's simply rhetorical hullabaloo you've created as a smokescreen for Hall to hide behind.

Even so, b) I'm particularly uncomfortable using an image which undeniably depicts the real-life violent abuse of women and reducing it to a literary category for critical purposes. This would include my strong reservations in Geisler employing it as he did. Clear enough?

More significantly, when Geisler employed the image, he may very well have had in mind R.C. Sproul who, in his novel, Johnny Come Home, speaks about the "divine rape of the soul" when describing Johnny's born-again experience. If I am correct, then we should not be so hard on Geisler but should look to Sproul who spawned the very image you attribute to Geisler! Namely, Sproul equated the doctrine of election [including regeneration and irresistible grace] with God's rape of sinners. What a Georgia hoot!

Thomas

J D's comment was inappropriate...just like Caners acts 29 tweet, and many of Falways comments

Jonathan Jenkins

Harriette, if you check out JD Halls twitter feed you will see that his statement is but par for the course so to speak. I engaged with him in that forum and was regaled with more of the same toward me. Including a question of my manhood because I criticized his vulgar comments.

peter lumpkins

Thomas,

Just like Truth4change, your approach is nothing more than a subtle form of Tu Quoque. This thread has exactly jack squat to do with Geisler, Caner, or Falwell. It's rather about Hall's remark.

Nor is Hall's remark remotely related to Caner's A29 tweet. And, it's much more than "inappropriate". In Wax's words Hall's remark dishonored a Christian brother and dishonored God.

Bill

TMC's own president has made disparaging remarks about Acts29 in a slanderous way....is there a post about that remark in your archives, Mr. Lumpkin?

Bill

Whoops....Lumpkins....

Debbie Kaufman

In Wax's words Hall's remark dishonored a Christian brother and dishonored God.

Agreed.It's this type of thinking that needs to be dealt with. I'm glad Trevin admonished him. This should not be tolerated no matter which side of the debate one is on.

Max: I would disagree with Finney's quote. It's one of the many reasons Finney should not be heeded. In Southern Baptist life you are going to have a variety of beliefs. It has always been this way, it should always be that way. Everyone having a equal voice in the Convention. That is how the Convention was built. This quote would be no different than the way JD seems to feel. It's why there is always infighting of some kind.

Lydia

I should think you guys should at least acknowledge Mahany's lawsuit for protecting and helping molesters and his connections to SBTS. but the entire Reformed wing of big dogs is mum on it yet actively promoting/supporting him. Would that include the statement they put out using the first amendment for pastors to protect molesters?

At least more than sweeping it under the rug like you did with Driscoll's pornovisions and teaching sodomy. Seriously if we want to go down this road of bringing up problems with all the guru's at least clean up your own movement first, please. Please keep it up so I can bring up Mahaney and his shepherding cult that is so loved by the YRR crowd. Frankly, I am sick of the gurus. So, you wanna play whose gurus are worse?

Debbie writes:

"Max: I would disagree with Finney's quote. It's one of the many reasons Finney should not be heeded"

We should not like the quote because one reason is you disagree with it?

peter lumpkins

Bill,

Either speak to the Hall quote or don't speak at all. Even if one could definitively show I favor one over another, that counts exactly zero toward whether or not Hall's remark needs to be denounced. Instead you skirt the issue here and blow smoke thinking you're actually making a real contribution. Again, speak to Hall's remark or don't speak at all. Clear enough?

JD

Thanks, Peter. My words were indeed harsh. I could have chosen a different, less offensive term to convey my grave concern with Harwood's teaching on Original Sin and its implications for future generations of Southern Baptists. Nonetheless, Trevin's rebuke was appropriate. Apologies, to everyone.

peter lumpkins

All,

We can do no other but express our gratitude to J.D. Hall for logging a genuine, sincere apology for his harsh remarks toward TMC and Adam Harwood. I hope we have all learned a good lesson in communicating our grievances better. And, let's be honest: who among us has not logged words we wish we could take back?

peter lumpkins

In the spirit of accepting JD at his word, I've decided to close the comments on this thread. If any would like to express your appreciation to JD for his apology, you may log it on Part II or shoot me an email and I'll try to put the two of you together...

The comments to this entry are closed.