« Heritage Foundation Fellow hounded by Piers Morgan and Suze Orman for his position against gay marriage | Main | Women's Conference at Woodstock First Baptist Church »

Apr 04, 2013

Comments

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

Mary


And this this morning:

"William, no need to name drop on the Calvinists. It’s not like we have whole conferences devoted to pointing out why Arminians are wrong and dangerous to the Convention"


Until Calvinists are willing to acknowledge that yes they do have conferences and an annual breakfast - a whole movement that has been going on for over 30 years now whose avowed purpose is to reform the SBC by kicking out "Arminians" there will be no "unity" There needs to be an acknowledgement by the Calvinist leadership about all the division and discord that lays at the feet of the Founders Movement and then repentance from these people. I'm not holding my breath since it since the Founders have proven to be successful in their reformation of of the SBC.

Kyle B. Gulledge

Great post, Peter.
I have to say that I was very surprised that BP gave such a balanced report on the John 3:16 Conference. Like you, I too, am thankful to them for that.
Also, thank God for Dr. Harwood for having the courage and conviction to name names. I'm tired of painting the Calvinists/reformed group with a broad brush and trusting everyone to know who we are talking about. It's time to start calling them out and force them to respond. And yes, Dr. Mohler, as a seminary head (funded by CP gifts) you owe Southern Baptists a response!

Lydia

I really think that Mohler does not see the need to respond to those he sees as beneath him. I really believe he is that arrogant.

Kyle B. Gulledge

I think you are right, Lydia.

peter lumpkins

Mary,

When I first read the comment, my initial response was, well, they hardly need a conference when the president of our oldest seminary uses his blog to blast us all as identifying with semi-pelagianism...

Max

Peter writes "Does Dr. Mohler not realize that he arguably remains responsible, at least in part, for much of the misdirected, useless, and unkind rhetoric coming from aggressive Calvinists toward non-Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention?"

I, too, appreciate the Baptist Press coverage of the conference. There is no doubt that Dr. Mohler is passionate about his theological position and leadership role in the reformed movement. The young, restless and reformed idolize him and hang on his every word. But should he ignore the concerns of majority Southern Baptists when it comes to the aggressive way some New Calvinists are sweeping through our churches ... in part due to his prompting?

With words like the following, Dr. Mohler surely stands accountable to majority Southern Baptists who would not agree with his assessment: "If you’re a theological minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going to end up basically being Reformed ..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6lRMMvNCn8

Nate

I really think that this issue is slicing an apple in half and calling one half an apple and the other an orange. I don't know anyone in the SBC that will state that man is born sinless and then only becomes sinful when they actually commit a transgression. If so, that is Semi-Pelagianism and the SBC doesn't support it. So, the issue is not whether we are born sinners, but rather when the imputation of that sin nature condemns us to hell. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

As for cognitive knowledge being the damning judgment, well perhaps the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists disagree over the when and how and ifs connected with infants and the mentally impaired, but all ultimately are leaving that in the hands of a gracious and merciful God, because the reality is that none of us deserve anything but judgment.

I think all parties, in trying to start a war inside the denomination, should ask themselves if there is profit on the Day of Judgment for it? Unless charges of heresy ensue (which nobody has accused anybody of) then there are plenty of souls that need to hear the gospel and quit hearing our cat-fighting. (And, yes I know that Dr. Mohler has spoken about Semi-Pelaginism, but he hasn't, by name, accused anyone of it) Again, I don't know anyone in the SBC that holds to Semi-Pelagianism.

Until someone actually claims it to be true, I will take their word, if they felt someone called them a Semi-Pelagian, but they deny it. Now, if they don't deny it... well???

Mary

Peter, that comment just either shows someone who has no clue what's going on in the SBC or the intentional burying the head in the sand of some Calvinists. Calvinists cannot whine and moan about J3:16 unless they are willing to call out Founders and now Reformation Montana. Calvinists show themselves to be complete hypocrites with such comments as the above.

Max - the more you read Calvinists like Mohler the more you understand that only Calvinists are Christians - you're either too dumb to know you're really a Calvinist or you may not actually be a Christian but a heretic.

peter lumpkins

Hi Nate,

You suggest “this issue is slicing an apple in half and calling one half an apple and the other an orange.” I don’t follow your analogy. Harwood makes a clear distinction between inherited nature and imputed guilt. Where your “slicing” comes in at I don’t know.

You also state you “don't know anyone in the SBC that will state that man is born sinless and then only becomes sinful when they actually commit a transgression.” It depends on what you mean by “born sinless.” If you mean born without a sinful nature, then I agree with you. Neither do I know anyone whom I can recall believes any such thing. On the other hand, if you mean by “born sinless” born without Adamic guilt imputed to their account, then I disagree for that’s precisely Harwood’s point.

Third, you “think all parties, in trying to start a war inside the denomination, should ask themselves if there is profit on the Day of Judgment for it?” And I would ask you why you think anyone is trying to start a war, and how do you know that, Nate? I don’t want a war inside or outside the denomination.

Fourth, you deny anyone has accused others of heresy—“Unless charges of heresy ensue (which nobody has accused anybody of)…” Perhaps you read neither Hall’s nor Fryer’s tweets I referenced. I advise you to do so; then you can honestly say you’ve heard others call people heretics. I also offer you this post wherein Harwood’s position was referenced as being “heresy if not worse,” “dangerous,” and even “another gospel.” So apparently, Nate, you haven’t been reading broadly enough on the issue.

Fifth, one doesn’t have to name names to get one’s point across. Mohler mentioned the signatories of the Traditional Statement, a statement he characterized as semi-pelagian, as not knowing what they were signing. Carefully read Harwood’s challenge to Mohler again.

Finally, as for your characterizing this exchange as “cat-fighting” I can only dub uninformed. It seems fairly obvious, at least to me, you’ve not read well enough about this issue to substantiate your view that it amounts to nothing more than a “cat-fight” in the SBC.

Even so, thanks for your contribution, Nate…

Mark

Peter,

When I read the dialogue between Calvinist and Non-Calvinist I fail to recognize what part of the "Rich History" that linked Calvinist and Non-Calvinist together in the SBC in 1845, that is in existance today. (except maybe people that profess to be Baptist that believed in preserving States Rights and Freedom to Worship)

I already believe in States Rights and Freedom to Worship but so do many other denominations that profess the Gospel but aren't linked together.

I'm failing to recognize the kind of unity we all want watching Albert Mohler attempting to guide the SBC toward Calvinism.

Peter, go easy on me. (please)

Nate

Peter,

I understand that I replied broadly. I do think I answered that I believe (and I think all in the SBC believe) that man is not born sinless, because I said, "So, the issue is not whether we are born sinners, but rather when the imputation of that sin nature condemns us to hell. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." So I think we are in agreement on that point.

As for "starting a war inside the denomination" I am, again, speaking broadly about throwing stones across the aisle at each other. Perhaps I am just frustrated that few one either side (Calvinists/Non-Calvinists) can work together for the glory of God without attepting to justify themselves above the other. (Which is what I was trying to imply by stating that that the issue doesn't begin with whether we are born sinners, but rather the hows/whys of how God damns). Obviously, this is far deeper than can be developed here, but if both sides agree that salvation comes from God alone, then (in my humble opinion), both sides can quit trying to defend a precarious line in the sand, that (again in my opinion I pictured as a sliced apple being used as both an apple and an orange.) Probably too simplistic an analogy.

As for the issues of heresy I was referring more to Dr. Mohler and Dr. Harwood. I realize there are people all through the SBC that might quickly raise the issue of heresy and actually attach names, but that was not what I was implying. And, Dr. Mohler's statement concerning the Traditionalist Statement says "appears to affirm Semi-Pelagianism", it does not state unequivocally that it is and no names or charges of heresy were leveled. I certainly understand hard feelings, but these were not charges of heresy. Dr. Hardwood retorted quite some time ago to Dr. Mohler's statement, so how many times will we go back and forth from here.

That was, I guess, my larger point. Too broadly stated, and poorly defended. Forgive me for that.

Seemed like it is meat for the bloggers though...

Lydia

"Peter, that comment just either shows someone who has no clue what's going on in the SBC or the intentional burying the head in the sand of some Calvinists. Calvinists cannot whine and moan about J3:16 unless they are willing to call out Founders and now Reformation Montana. Calvinists show themselves to be complete hypocrites with such comments as the above."

Mary, If you read a lot of their comments it is obvious they have not been taught "how" to think. they have been indoctrinated. They think they make the rules for engagement which is why they cannot. In fact, in reading many of them they hang on Reformed doctrine over people and believe this is love. They have redefined Christianity. This is a very cultish tactic that they do not understand. They think this is pleasing to God.

Nate writes:

"I think all parties, in trying to start a war inside the denomination, should ask themselves if there is profit on the Day of Judgment for it?"

Think about this one. Who started a war in the SBC? Can it be traced back to Quiet Revolution which actually teaches deception as biblical because they have "truth". Mohler takes that and runs with it using his power in an institution. And the result are many arrogant young guys who think only they have the real truth and the folks who pay their salaries and subsidized their education are ignorant peasants who should be hanging on their every word.


"Unless charges of heresy ensue (which nobody has accused anybody of) then there are plenty of souls that need to hear the gospel and quit hearing our cat-fighting. (And, yes I know that Dr. Mohler has spoken about Semi-Pelaginism, but he hasn't, by name, accused anyone of it) Again, I don't know anyone in the SBC that holds to Semi-Pelagianism."

See, as long as he did not name names then there was no charge of heresy. Did he in fact mention some of the signers of the Trad document as not knowing what they were signing? He was too cowardly to name names so he makes a vague statement.

As far as I can tell with his promoting and protecting Mahaney, his protege's now presiding over quite a few of our entities, his arrogant response to the trad statement and invited to be on the "unity" committee spells it out very distinctly. He can do whatever he wants.

And he has trained enough young men in that sort of thinking to believe that is perfectly normal behavior.

That is why I do not think unity is really that possible. Their foundational strategy is deception and their outward behavior is arrogance. It has been institutionalized. How could we ever trust these people?

CASEY

WHILE DR. MOHLER 'clarifies' his Calvinist statements and harshness(if he does) he might add clarification of his homosexuality statement in PHOENIX, his support and con-
fusing statements on the NIV gender debate, his continued support of Jonathan Merritt's statements, his continued associations with the SGM....and on and on and on. It seems a man who spoke with such clarity some 8+ years ago is now a source of great and continued confusion.

Nate

Lydia, Seriously!!! It's all the Calvinist's fault or Al Mohler's? The non-Calvinist's are pure as the driven snow...

Again, you are making my point. Are there Calvinist's that want to keep driving the argument? Yes! And, there are Traditionalists, like you, who want to return the volley, again, and again, and again...

What will ultimately satisfy you Lydia? Mohler's resignation? Calvinist's get out? You say, "Unity is not possible." Not if you are unwilling, but your argument is the other side will never quit, therefore it's all their fault.

Seems like both sides can't see the other's splinters for the railroad ties in their own eyes.

Lydia

Nate, the non Calvinists were asleep at the wheel, not paying attention. We (many of us peasant pew sitters) have been RESPONDING to the "Quiet Revolution" tactics carried out by Mohler and his coharts and that has only been publicly acknowledged over the last 6 years or so.

The internet changed everything. Now we can find one another and are finding that many have experienced the YRR in various ways and it has not been pretty or Christlike experiences at all.

Nate, your "tone" in your comment is exactly why there cannot be unity. I would like to see some serious repentence for Quiet Revolution and Mohler's behaviors that are emulated by so many young men he has been the hero for. If that is not coming how will the YRR ever learn about real love for people over Reformed doctrine? These young men tend to follow their celebrity Reformed gang and emulate them. (This is especially concerning when it comes to Mahaney and his shepherding cult and Driscoll) How many Driscoll clones have we sponsored in churches? My heart breaks over it.

People really are more important than Calvin's TULIP or this version of Calvinism in the YRR. Getting power and trying to control people is NOT of Christ. I am simply amazed that so many YRR today cannot see it. I am amazed that so many YRR have disdain for the very people who pay their salaries and subsidized their education. If the pew sitter cannot speak in theological terms to them they are considered ignorant. When they are most likely salt of the earth types who love Jesus and sacrficed to help these arrogant YRR get an education.

The Trads responded to what is becoming a HUGE problem. They are very late to it. It is freaking the YRR out that anyone dare question them. They are not used to it. They have been indoctrinated. They simply do not know how to exist outside their YRR ghetto of group think.

Nate

Lydia,

I never stated that there couldn't be unity (you did), and in fact, my original post was attempting (rather poorly obviously) that both sides were talking past each other.

You responded with the "there can never be unity" argument, so it was your tone that set our interactions in motion. So, I apologize for misreading you if you truly want unity.

I personally think you are stretching Mohler's connection with what you call the YRR. I agree that Driscoll is part of that movement (YRR), but Driscoll is not SBC, so I'm not sure how that fits with our discussion of SBC unity. Mahaney is also not SBC, so again, to imply he and Driscoll are the reason for this issue in the SBC is somewhat paranoid. Granted, there are Calvinist's in the SBC that read both Driscoll and Mahaney, but I personally think you are giving them far too much credit. Of course, it is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

However, your broad brush-stroke of Calvinist's (People really are more important than Calvin's TULIP) does indicate that you are assuming all Calvinist's are YRR or Hyper-Calvinist. That is pure subjection and again, demonstrating that you are not willing to admit there are fringes on both sides of this argument. Furthermore, unless you are a member in a church led by what you deem YRR, you are speculating on their leadership, or getting second-hand information. Either way your tone belies your so-called desire for unity.

"Calvinist's have a disdain for people (they are arrogant). Traditionalist's are salt of the earth." Is this really a helpful statment or a desire to talk across the aisle?

I'll close with what I closed with before. Your interactions with me (who did attempt to state both sides should try to come together) show that you have no desire to work hand-in-hand with Calvinist's. Until you recognize, Lydia, that all Trads are not pure as the driven snow, that they can have agendas just as readily as the Calvinist's, then you will continue to fire your salvos and refuse to look inwardly and see where you can compromise.

There are Calvinist's, who I have interacted with just as harshly on Reformed blogs, that are just like you. And until both of the extreme's desire to come together, we will continue to have blog-posts about how one side or the other is the enemy and needs to be put in its place.

peter lumpkins

Nate,

"both sides were talking past each other." Look. It's time to either put up or stand down. Either show without "broadly" speaking how I'm talking past the issues or drop the point, Nate. What I've done in this post is show clear differences between how non-Calvinists were castigated for embracing heresy at the J316C while they repeatedly and irenically challenged Calvinists on their position as brothers in Christ. Harwood repeatedly affirmed both Calvinist Southern Baptists and non-Calvinist Southern Baptists as being orthodox on human depravity while Calvinists threw grenades at him for holding an heretical, dangerous, position even earlier characterizing it in one place as "another gospel." What do you do? Ignore it and suggest we're all equally to blame.

Let me say it again clearly, Nate: either show where I have spoken past Calvinists, been unfair to Calvinists, or used language which suggests Calvinism is heretical or drop your point.

Wayne

Nate,

If you want to have a discussion with Lydia... you're wasting your time. Many before you have tried and failed. She has her mind made up.

peter lumpkins

Hi Wayne. And just what substantial contribution do you think logging on addressing Nate but addressing him with a sideways insult toward Lydia makes? Please respond...

This is news worthy?

Nothing is more embarrassing than making what you think to be a great public statement and no one listens or cares.

Well, come to think of it...

There is one thing that is more embarrassing. Publicly crying and pouting about the fact no one listening to you and demanding they answer.

You guys have cried wolf so many times the town's people don't pay attention to you anymore.

Mark

This is news worthy?

Your 4/4/13 5:16 p.m. comment is strange and rather cryptic and really isn't saying much about anything.

Did you just fly in from outer space or do you embrace some kind of Doctrine that condones abusive behavior using a reckless interpretation of scriptures to authenticate your existance?

Now, if your genuine intent was to share some meaningful dialogue about the abuses this web site is addressing, I missed it.

Eric Lockhart

Not meaning this in anyway as instigative or implying anything other than what I write, I am just honestly curious to your reasoning: seeing that JD has publicly apologized for that, you even footnote that response, why would you even post it?

peter lumpkins

“This is newsworthy?”

The sheer irony of your comment is, the total of three comments you’ve logged on my site may rightly be summarized as “pouting” and “whining” about us here. Anyone doubting this may observe the your other two contributions here and here. Even so, because you appear to be so new here, you seriously underestimate my allegiance to the Baptist principle of dissent. The truth is, I’m much more guarded about my Baptist right to vocally and publicly dissent than I will ever be about somebody like Mohler answering a question I might pose. After all he also possesses the Baptist right to remain silent and silence might very well take the form of dissent under certain circumstances. So, your focus on us being “embarrassed” here is misguided at best. In short, you don’t have the faintest idea what you’re talking about.

Now, here is the deal: since you have a 100% record for logging on and “pouting” about us, I think if you continue to comment, you ought to log on with your real identity or drop me a line and tell me why you cannot in good conscience do so. While I make exceptions, I do have an aversion to anons, an aversion I specifically explain in my commenting policies. The obvious question is, since I am so loyal to dissent, do you not have the Baptist right to dissent from posting your name. Absolutely!  But you’ll have to do it elsewhere since I also have the Baptist right to dissent paying for it!

peter lumpkins

Just because somebody apologizes for something doesn't remove it from consideration, Eric. If I hit somebody in the mouth in a fit of anger, but later apologized, does that remove the fact that I hit somebody in the mouth? Now, had I put this up without the least acknowledgement Hall apologized you'd have a legitimate point. But, as you note, I didn't...

Eric Lockhart

Thanks for explaining your reasoning.

Nate

Peter, most of my comments were directed at Lydia, not at you.

I believe I apologized to you for my poor job of broadly speaking, but we will have to agree to disagree about Mohler actually calling people heretics. (And if I am mis-reading your inference, I apologize). I quoted the only mention of semi-pelagianism from his article and it clearly states it "appears to affirm", it doesn't state that it does. Mohler is entitled to his opinion as is Harwood.

I never accused you of calling anyone a heretic, nor did I accuse you of belittling Calvinist's. I did Lydia, but not you. So I apologize if you think my responses to Lydia were directed at you, but they weren't.

And I'm sorry, but I do think both sides are talking past each other. That doesn't have to directly imply that you are Peter, but the continuation of posts on both sides over this issue, does seem to suggest(at least to me) that neither side is ready to kiss and make-up.

Obviously that is my opinion. Sorry if that offends.

peter lumpkins

Nate,

"Appears to affirm" means exactly what? Just because Mohler employs "appears" does not relieve him from suggesting that, to him, Harwood and the TS "appear" to affirm Semi-Pelagianism. And, yes, Mohler is entitled to his opinion as is Harwood. But surely you're not suggesting Mohler is entitled to his opinion hundreds of Southern Baptists in the SBC "appear" to be heretics and that's the end of that. Moreover, how does his "entitlement" to suggest hundreds of Southern Baptists "appear" to affirm what he believes to be heresy supposed to count in his favor that he does not actually identify hundreds of Southern Baptists as "appearing" to affirm heresy? Your defense of him is absurd, Nate.

The fact is, Mohler repeatedly gets by with language like this and people like yourself come here and complain about what we say when we never so much as mention the term heresy. Why not indict Mohler for using language which naturally provokes strong responses rather than logging on here trying to get us to tone down the supposed rhetoric when its Mohler's rhetoric which strikes the match, Nate? Why? Please answer that.

Nor is this the first time Mohler provoked non-Calvinist Southern Baptists with language naturally soliciting the strongest reaction. He mentioned on video that any thinking person who is interested in theology, interested in missions, etc has no alternative but to embrace New Calvinism. He mentioned in Christianity Today than non-Calvinists do not have the theological strictures in place to defend inerrancy and/or the gospel. These are the kinds of things said by one of our seminary presidents while guys like you come here and preach to us about how we ought to all get along, stop our "cat-fighting" and live at peace with one another. The sheer duplicity is staggering. Yet you still go right ahead and do it, Nate.

And, even when the "H" word is used, you somehow find a defense for it like, "well, he didn't name anybody" or "well, he actually didn't say you were heretics" when he obviously implied as much.

You seem like you're wanting to project a decisive neutrality about your view but it's clear, Nate, it's all one-sided. For you, Mohler essentially gets a free pass while we should just all play nice. The most you might imply is some vague, meaningless "we're all to blame" type of approach. Well, brother, I reject that flat out. I'm not calling Calvinism heresy, and never have called it heresy, and I resent Calvinists implying either I or my church or the professors under whom I studied do or ever have embraced anything like heresy.

Thus, I will not stand down while Calvinists like Mohler, Hall, Fryer, and many many others shout to the housetops, either explicitly or implicitly, that I embrace what "appears" to be heresy. It ain't gonna happen, brother.

Adam Harwood

The leader who announced last June "It's time to talk" was asked a direct question at the John 3:16 Conference. When asked by Baptist Press for a reply, his spokesman said there would be no comment. Ironic?

Lydia

No wonder my ears were burning while out to dinner this evening. :o)

Nate

Peter, you've got some serious conspiracy theories to read that much into my responses. I was looking for common ground, but as with Lydia, you have no desire for it.

peter lumpkins

Nate,

So much answering questions.

Now, as for "common ground," when you defend and/or ignore one side who implicates the other as "appearing" to embrace heresy while exhorting the side implicated in heresy--and the side implicated in heresy only--to get along, stop "cat-fighting," and reach for "common ground," I'm afraid, Nate, you've got an entirely different understanding of "common ground" than do I. With interest our readers can note that not once did you remotely suggest Mohler, Hall, or Fryer employed rhetoric beyond reasonable boundaries of seeking "common ground." Nope. Your judgment was thrown in this direction entirely.

Finally, Nate, readers may judge for themselves if I "read that much" into your comments here. The fact is, I responded to your words and nothing more. Recall you're the one who "poorly" worded a much too "broad" response by your own confession. Now you possess the effrontery to characterize me a conspiracy theorist because I take your words seriously? What a Georgia hoot!

peter lumpkins

Dr. Harwood,

Thanks. Dr. Mohler did say it was time to talk about this issue. And, as you point out, he flat out rejected the perfect opportunity to explain either why he believes your position "appears" to be heresy or how his words fit into the overall thrust of his role on the "task force" assigned to explore a way forward for better relations between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. I'd like an answer to both questions but would settle for an answer to yours. It could be that this is what Dr. Mohler meant when he said some in the SBC need to be "marginalized" in the conversation. Maybe by ignoring you, he is merely practicing his idea of marginalization. ;^)

Meanwhile, advocates for Mohler (see as an example the exchange between Nate and I above) continue to publicly exhort non-Calvinists to stop "cat-fighting," learn to get along, and seek, what was referenced above as "common ground" all the while his advocates either defend and/or ignore Mohler's provocative accusation that Southern Baptists like you "appear" to embrace semi-pelagianism, definitively judged a heresy from their point of view. Heck, according to Nate above, Mohler apparently even has a right to his opinion that you "appear" to embrace heresy, so that's that! And, when we see the exhortation for what it is--unmitigated, unilateral nonsense--we're dubbed conspiracy theorists who possess no desire for "common ground."

Whew. This thing begins to wear a guy completely out.

Have a great weekend...

Mark

Peter,

Debates can be healthy and constructive.

Trying to find common ground and preserve the Rich History of the SBC while influential Leaders in the SBC are instilling their views toward Non-Calvinist as heretics, is going to be a stretch.

(although the word heretic did roll around in my head that was stimulated by the Stealth activities of my Former 5 Point Pastor)

When Christ becomes more central in the SBC, we won't be focused on different "Methodologies" as long as those different "Methodologies" keep Christ Central.

For me I have to have a sign, if the Methodologies start to become more toxic one toward the other, real heresy effects the unity we all want.

It was instilled in me that Christ can't contradict himself. How can Christ stay central in an organization when a certain "Methodology" oppose the other in a way that isn't Christ like.

I have to ask myself who the real heretics really are?

Calvinism to me was a none issue, until a Calvinist Preacher retaliated against me for not embracing TULIP.

I don't see Mohler easing up, I see him quietly becoming more aggressive. And the heresy language toward Non-Calvinist to intensify.

Mary

What Mohler meant when he said it was time to talk was that the peasants were getting out of hand and so talk needed to commence on how to margenilize the people stirring them up. Mohler will tell us what topics are acceptable for discussion. What a joke that anyone thought they could dare question the Pope of Louisville. Mohler doesn't have to answer to the peasents. I'm sure someone at Baptist Press is getting a "talkin" too for daring to seek a comment without first clearing what questions they are allowed and not allowed to ask.

peter lumpkins

Mark,

Thanks. I do hope you're wrong but, frankly, I have my moments of doubt and think you may be right. Whatever the case, I still hold out hope that as God breathed His Spirit into a valley of dry bones and they stood as an "exceeding great army" so He might see fit to do the same for us. Lord bless...

Mark

Peter,

As long as the SBC keeps Christ Central through this transitional time of Doctrinal Debate the Son will be glorified.

It's the debater's responsibility to keep Christ Central, by toning down the rheutoric and be more Christ-like. I know I made a regrettable personal and un-Christ-like comment @5:37 4/4/13 on this post, suggesting "Newsworthy" may be from outerspace.

Nate

Peter, you are a liar. I never said Dr. Mohler had the right or that he did in fact, say that Dr. Harwood "appeared" to be a semi-pelagian. Mohler was speaking about the document and never called out anyone. And yes, Mohler does has a right to his opinion, but so does Dr. Harwood and I respect his opinion. My hope is for common ground between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. You, however, I have no hope for you. You will probably delete this post, but anyone who has read through my posts and your responses knows that you are lying when you sanctimoniously try (through numerous evasions) pit yourself as the self-righteous warrior.

I don't know what a Georgia hoot is, but I couldn't care less about whatever hoot you pretend to hide behind.

Max

Has anyone else noticed that it's darn near impossible to have spiritual fellowship with some folks in our ranks? It's tough enough just trying to get along to go along and agree to disagree. I'm not sure that even Barnabas could handle this Paul and John Mark dispute!

Lydia

"Calvinism to me was a none issue, until a Calvinist Preacher retaliated against me for not embracing TULIP."

Bingo! The entire problem is that this has been a stealth operation and once you recognize some flags, if you do not go along you become a heretic, enemy, lacking truth, not saved, etc, etc and must be marginalized. I have heard it from the YRR in my neck of the woods emulating their leader. For some reason all of this seems perfectly normal to them. But when you dare repeat their words back to them, they claim they never said it. It is as if they are being indoctrinated and sent out.

So to even suggest there is "common ground" upon those tactics is to suggest the Munich Pact was perfectly reasonable for its time ignoring lots of red flags. The young men involved seem to have fallen for group think. (Anybody ever see that training film about the Challenger disaster and how it happened because of groupthink at Morton Thycol?)

I am in awe of the thinking of that movement because it is a text book example of mass groupthink. It sort of goes this this: You are the ones who don't understand that "common ground" means you are to be insulted and go along with our tactics. We want to be able to insult people, use their money and have power. It is sinful of you not to want to go along. We use the words "unity" but you just don't understand we have the real definition of "unity". You are too ignorant to see we are right.

I might as well join SGM to buy into that. I think SBTS has become like SGM and uses Mahaney's definition of "humble".

Max

Lydia writes "It is as if they are being indoctrinated and sent out."

Good Lord! There should be no doubt about that at this point! The young, restless and reformed are definitely being influenced by the likes of Mohler, Piper, Keller, Driscoll, Platt, Chandler, etc. etc. They think they are in some grand new reformation, without realizing it's really rebellion.

Lydia

"Has anyone else noticed that it's darn near impossible to have spiritual fellowship with some folks in our ranks? It's tough enough just trying to get along to go along and agree to disagree. I'm not sure that even Barnabas could handle this Paul and John Mark dispute!"

Yes Max, that is part of the tactic that has been instilled and the followers cannot even see it. YOU are to be nice and Christlike while being insulted by your "brothers" in Christ. So, if you respond in any way they do not deem as Christian, then you are mean and hateful.

What does this remind you of?

We need a book, "How to talk to a YRR, if you must"

See, in their world, they have been taught their illogical and obnoxious behavior is Christlike. But any response to them they do not like is considered unbiblical and YOU are the one being mean and they resort to victim language. It is a no win situation and one reason people simply must come to grips they are dealing with both little and big Pharisees.

That is why the "unity" language is a misnomer. What is "their" idea of unity?

peter lumpkins

Nate,

I was wondering how long the "common ground" pleas would last before nastiness gained traction. So, let's see:

You: "...it [Mohler's blog piece] clearly states it "appears to affirm", it doesn't state that it does. Mohler is entitled to his opinion as is Harwood" (italics mine)

Me: "... Mohler apparently even has a right to his opinion that you "appear" to embrace heresy..."

Now you again:Peter, you are a liar. I never said Dr. Mohler had the right or that he did in fact, say that Dr. Harwood "appeared" to be a semi-pelagian."

So:

a) Mohler states the document Harwood not only signed but was one of its chief authors and current defenders "appears" to be semi-pelagian; and,

b) Mohler is entitled to his opinion; and,

c) I state you indicate Mohler apparently even has a right to his opinion that you [Harwood] "appear" to embrace heresy...; that you conclude from this,

d) Peter, you are a liar. I never said Dr. Mohler had the right or that he did in fact, say that Dr. Harwood "appeared" to be a semi-pelagian.

Well, Nate, I can assure you, I have no desire to delete the comment. Why would I take down such a dazzling example of the kind of knee-jerk nonsensical rhetoric coming from the Calvinistic side of the equation. No, I say let's leave it up and see if another advocate like yourself can manage to make sense out of your denial and thus prove I'm the liar you publicly declare I am. I hope somebody will take a stab at it.

What is even more interesting to me is, you continue to employ that term "appear" as if it actually negates the force of Mohler's point. Well, perhaps I can also employ a similar term to negate the force of your alleged point. Consider:

You said, Nate, "Peter, you are a liar. I never said Dr. Mohler had the right or that he did in fact, say that Dr. Harwood "appeared" to be a semi-pelagian." Well, look at what I actually wrote, Nate: "Heck, according to Nate above, Mohler apparently even has a right to his opinion that you "appear" to embrace heresy..." See the emboldened word, "apparently." Well, I didn't say you said Mohler had a right to...; rather, I wrote you indicated Mohler apparently even has a right to... So, to be fair, Nate, if Mohler gets cut some slack because he used "appears" why is it you cut me no slack when I clearly used "apparently"? Unfortunately, I not only get no slack, I'm publicly slandered a liar as well.

See what a tangled, literary mess one gets in when emotions override the brain in these commenting threads? I suggest you relax, have a coke zero, and take in some of this delightful weather we're having.

Finally, Nate, I do not view myself as what did you call it? Oh yes, a self-righteous warrior. If I wanted to lift myself up, I'd probably refer to myself as a humble warrior not a self-righteous one. What benefit could I gain publicizing myself as self-righteous for heaven's sake? No, I really view myself as just a concerned Southern Baptist who refuses to stand down when folk like yourself try to insist I--and thousands of others like me--have little, or perhaps nothing of value to say, but we are nonetheless pretty much responsible for all the bad relations between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. And, besides all that, we're liars to boot.

Have a good weekend, Nate.

Mark

Nate,

I know sometimes when I say or write Un-Christ-like retaliating remarks without thinking things through it only exacerbate more Un-Christ-Like rheutoric.

Your 11:30 a.m. Un-Christ-Like remark will hopefully help me realize that I need to stay focused to the point and avoid accusing a Christian of sin.

Calling other Christians a Liar or not caring a "hoot" about what they embrace is pretty heavy rheutoric and makes the writer more vulnerable of being recognize of having a weak charactor.

I just want to thank you, your note should provide some inspriation on how we should or shouldn't conduct ourselves, if we want to be Christ-Like.


By the way do you lean more toward being a Calvinist or embrace parts of TULIP or are you completely a Non-Calvinist?

Blessing to You

Nate

By the way Mark, you should have read from the beginning and found who was un-Christ-like first and who originally said "What a Georgia hoot." And after you found the truth that Peter lifted my remarks as he desired to portray me as demeaning him, then you can thank him for showing you how to not conduct yourself.

peter lumpkins

Hi Nate. Back again? Yes, I encourage all to read where Nate says I "lifted" his remarks. I'd also like someone to explain how Nate gets I "lifted" his remarks!

Now, as for "What a Georgia hoot" supposedly being an "un-Christ-like" remark, I am ROFL. Sweet, heavens! I'm so glad that someone is so desperate to make me out as being "un-Christ-like" that they must point to my "What a Georgia hoot" remark as the smoking gun. Help me Lord. I can't take much more of this...

Max

"Help me Lord. I can't take much more of this..."

And everybody said AMEN!

Why Lord why? When Lord when?

Mark

Nate,

I asked you what Doctrine you are leaning because it seems those with different Doctrinal views are discussing their differences, defending their Doctrinal positions.

Now if you have Calvinist, Reformed or embrace certain parts of TULIP, that would explain to me why dialogue with you isn't going anywhere.

You need to come the realization that Stealth Calvinist Preachers within the SBC are "force-feeding" TULIP down the throats of Non-Calvinist and then aggressively retaliating against those who struggle to embrace it.

It's called control and abuse.

Wayne

"Hi Wayne. And just what substantial contribution do you think logging on addressing Nate but addressing him with a sideways insult toward Lydia makes? Please respond..."

My contribution was to Nate. I could be wrong (It wouldn't be the first time), but it seems to me that the comment section on your blog is a waste of time for someone who wants to have a meaningful discussion. What I observe, over and over, is the pot calling the kettle black. I shouldn't have called Lydia out specifically, you're right - I didn't intend to be unkind, but I'm sure that I would have taken it as an insult had it been directed at me. I apologize.

Peter, I appreciate what you're trying to do with this blog. I think (of course I could be wrong, I think I've already covered that above) you see yourself and others like you as fighting the good fight in what you deem to be a serious threat to the SBC. While I don't share your opinion, I can understand and respect that from your perspective, there can be no other interpretation other than a hostile takeover of a convention that you love.

We've got plenty of evidence of foolish people (myself included) who enter the comment section trying to make a point, and then it degenerates into harmful back and forth nonsense. No one is listening. No one is trying. All anyone wants is for everyone to see their point, but no one else REALLY cares about the point of their opponent - and to me, the comment section turns everyone into opponents.

That has been my experience and I thought I would warn Nate. I'm sure it was a colossal waste of time. I don't know what tone you will pick up from the post, but I don't feel angry, combative, or vindictive... just hopeless.

Sorry for the comment. I think I'll try and steer clear in the future.

The comments to this entry are closed.