« Lessons on leadership from a guy with no shirt | Main | »

Jan 30, 2014

Comments

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

Bigfatdrummer

Wow! Peter this is absolutely shocking! Who do these men think they are?! I believe they are usurping Christ's role of judging the heart!

peter lumpkins

Jon

Precisely. Southern Baptists need to know who they're dealing with when radical, unscrupulous Calvinists pop off in the public arena.

hariette

holey camoley... listening to this gave me the creeps. pity both these men for their indictments against Christian men of God. beyond sad. selahV

Scott Shaver

This is the kind of religion that gives Christianity a bad name.

Real lame.

Scott Shaver

Makes me glad I've got more Seiks and Muslims for neighbors than hyper-Calvinist protestants.

Sean B

Of course, the fact that Ergun Caner has explicitly stated that he is unrepentant is clear evidence of the fact that he is saved.... right?

peter lumpkins

Sean

Get real. Dr. Caner has done no such thing and for you to suggest such is just more disparaging and personally insulting rhetoric. You're equating his refusal to kowtow to Hall, White, and Mohammed Khan's harassing allegations that he fabricated his life with genuine repentance before God, an egregious but common verbal crime people like you make. Well, you, et al won't get by with it here like you do on Twitter. Ergun Caner owes to you and your smear campaign no explanation of anything he's ever done much less a bowed knee like you require.

Hence, don't come back here with your morally ignorant claims unless you've actually got the goods to back it up.

Lydia

I MIGHT be able to understand this if JD Hall was preaching against those who enabled and protected child molesters for years and remain stubbornly unrepentant about it but.....seriously? Even then we judge right/wrong. Not Salvation.

Children have value and molestation stays with them their whole lives.

eric

Why don't you do that Scott, Go visit Afghanistan, sit on the corner and proclaim Christ....See how your new neighbors like it?

Come on guys, This has absolutely nothing to do with "Calvinist". Do you want to go down the list of what Adrian Rodgers, Jerry Falwell and others have said about your Calvinist brothers in the past. (just Google it)

Don't know who this JD Hall is and suspect he is not a representative of reformed Baptist (Calvinist) is he....

Sean B

Here in Caner's own words: Ergun Mehmet Caner @erguncaner 56m

And I am ABSOLUTELY UNREPENTANT of your made-up and already disproven charges from 5yrs ago. I won’t confess to whites lies or white trash.

He may not owe anyone any explanation, but he could easily make it all go away by simply producing misstatement free sermons. Is this possible?

Can you define 'Moral ignorance' for me? You've bandied that phrase about a number of times as of late, what do you mean by it?

peter lumpkins

Eric,

Nor have I implied all Calvinists are loony, Eric. But Calvinists like Hall, White, et al are every bit as vicious as Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church. Now, do you condemn the rhetoric on this video or not, Eric? Please be clear.

Scott Shaver

They seem to be far more tolerant, Eric, than know it alls like yourself and J.D. Hall.

My neighbors and I get along far better than I do with Calvinists.

Cody Watson

Was my comment deleted?

D

Claiming that ordained SBC pastor JD Hall is at all similar to cult leader Fred Phelps is ridiculous. As many have said if Ergun Caner wanted this to go away all he (and you as the VP of communication at BPC) would have to do is produce video/audio of him saying he was born in Sweden and emigrated to Ohio as a toddler post 2001 and pre 2010. Or if he made no misstatements but lied all he would have to do is repent publicly. Whether he is regenerate or not no one knows, but his behavior warrants church discipline at the minimum.

peter lumpkins

And your point is what, "Sean B"? You just offered the perfect example demonstrating my point. Caner will never confess to the made-up, disproven charges you and others have unjustly lobbed against him. Namely, that he fabricated his life and experience as a Muslim in order to profiteer from unsuspecting people.

And, as for defining “moral ignorance” why would I need to do that? You just offered the perfect illustration of it. Moral Ignorance: confusing a) Caner’s refusal to “repent” of bogus charges concocted by Mohammed Khan, James White, JD Hall, and you of fabricating his life story for profiteering on one hand; and b) Caner’s openness to daily confession and repentance toward His God and Savior, Jesus Christ on the other. For my part, I don’t think moral ignorance is an unapt descriptor for such a grievous moral error.

Now, stop your disparaging remarks, Sean. This isn’t about Ergun Caner making anything “go away.” It’s about guys like you who needlessly and harass and stalk people on the internet whom you judge are sinners.     

 

peter lumpkins

Cody

No one's comment was deleted.

Scott Shaver

Moral Ignorance = the idea that repentance is something one sinner can demand from another.

Scott Shaver

Lunacy = calling another to repentance for alleged transgressions that did not occur.

Cody Watson

I just commented that I do not believe that this is consistent logic. JD calling Ergun lost because of unrepentant sin is not wrong and to compare that to the heresy and hate that come from Fred Phelps is slander. Please sir repent.

peter lumpkins

"D"

First, either sign on with your real name next time or don't bother at all. This isn't FBCJaxWatchDog site. If you don't have the courage to log your name, take it elsewhere. If you have sober reasons why you cannot log your name, email me and I may allow you exception.

Second, you assert to claim JD Hall is "at all similar to cult leader Fred Phelps" is "ridiculous." Really? Well, from listening to the snippets above, I'm unsure how one listening comes to that conclusion. Both men judge other men's souls to hell. How that's dissimilar and therefore "ridiculous" needs explanation.

Third, I don't have to produce any video of Ergun Caner saying he was born Sweden. It's clearly in his books, a source you and the Calvinist Inquisition led by James White and J.D. Hall never once consider. You pick and choose what you'd like to cite.

Fourth, you claim whether Ergun Caner is regenerate or not "no one knows." Well, JD Hall says he knows. Is JD Hall lying? Will you call JD Hall to "repent"? Does JD Hall's behavior "warrant church discipline at the minimum"? Please let us know.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Cody,

Not consistent logic? A) Phelps judges Graham lost for unrepentant sin; B) Hall judges Caner lost for unrepentant sin. Not consistent logic? Please.

The more I listen to you guys the more I observe an undeniable tendency toward a works-oriented salvation. Someone is lost and hellbound because of unrepentant sin? This is a disturbing gospel interpretation.

peter lumpkins

All,

Got to step away for awhile. Snow finally melted and we can get some groceries!


Dan S

Some Lutherans are actually saying the same thing (See his interactions with Daniel Emery Price and Jordan Cooper) that JD Hall is going too far in some of his rhetoric. Ironically, Ed Stetzer just interviewed some LCMS church planters this week on his website.

Also, in light of this, you might enjoy this video - The Westboro Baptist Chipmunks with does "highlight" another connection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEIqEYP_ZvM

Yes, I agree this has nothing to with Caner (though I disagree with your defense of Caner as a whole).

eric

Peter,
Of course I reject what Hall said in that sound bite.

Even Assuming Caner is guilty of that sin he is accused of....that doesn't mean he is not saved.

Hall better hope that God doesn't judge him that way or he is lost without hope.

God's word is clear...we are to help restore a brother not condemn him.

Though God's word is equally clear that there is a time to put a man out of fellowship when unrepentant. Even with that, the end goal is to restore him to right relationship with Christ.

Scott: You are a judgmental one. It doesn't have to be this way...Christ can free you from that sin......(you say I'm a "know it alls" ?)

chris Gilliam

Psalm 32 & 51, David never specifically acknowledges any sin with Bathsheba. Perhaps he is in hell too? Do these guys read the bible s a whole?

It is morally repugnant to continually try to destroy another man. Even the great apostle Paul understands the providence and sovereignty when he penned the divine words that plainly states he rejoices when people share Jesus regardless of internal motives.

peter lumpkins

Chris,

Hope you are well, brother. Yes. And, my point when I put up the few pieces on Canlvin's treatment of Servetus was that we have no evidence to suggest Calvin ever "publicly repented" of his disgusting treatment of him and much evidence to suggest he was hardened into believing he was right in God's sight to have done so right up until his death. However, given Hall and Watson's claim (see above) that since Caner allegedly has not "publicly repented" it follows he's "lost because of unrepentant sin."

In light of Cody's appeal to "consistent logic" above, does it not follow therefore that if Calvin didn't "publicly repent" of murdering Servetus--and no evidence exists he did--that Calvin died in a state of lostness? Of course, neither Cody nor JD Hall would entertain such "consistent logic."

peter lumpkins

Eric,

Thanks. I appreciate your contribution.

Dan S.

Thanks also. And know I fully appreciate one not accepting, on principle, arguments I might make based and not outright dismissal based upon a priori conclusions I hold none myself. The impossibility of dealing with social media abusers like Hall, et al on principle is thoroughly documented. The you-sir-are-a-liar methodology appears to always win out. In addition, when a man or woman's name and reputation is on the line, publicly, morally, and definitively condemning him or her based upon controvertible evidence is neither wise nor godly in my view.

One caveat I would mention--a caveat please note based upon what you may have implied not what you necessarily implied--concerns "put[ing] a man out of fellowship when unrepentant." Yes, the NT seems clear some sort of disciplinary measures may become necessary and/or prudent under certain circumstances. But a) it's not clear what sin--single or perpetual; degree of sinfulness, etc--becomes the moral threshold to begin excommunicational procedures; b) and, even if it were clear, no official body but the local church is authorized to do so; c) and no ecclesial body exists which may sanction any NT church which does or does not formally proceed with excommunicational injunctions against an alleged erring member since every NT church is one autonomous body under Christ.

Mark

Peter,

What Hall and Phelps are doing isn't isolated other than practicing their version of "Judge Theology" and taking it viral. (it happened in our church by a hyper-theologian)

I'm offended by their words that seem to celebrate and even gloat an arrogant confidence of something they don't know to be true. (only God knows) They acted unconcerned about the destiny of Caner or Graham, which isn't love.

By the way they conducted themselves, I wonder if Hall or Phelps, (like all of us) should be more concerned about their own salvation rather than Dr. Caner or Reverend Graham's place in heaven. But that is between them and God.

There are several passages that warn us from recklessly judging one another. Matt 7:1 comes to mind. So I make my point with caution.

peter lumpkins

So true, Mark. The absolute only reason I post this garbage is to alert others to the unbecoming behaviors and beliefs of guys in the SBC who're going around the internet making life miserable for people they morally despise.

Granting JD's conclusion that person A is a lost sinner in need of Christ, what does his behavior say toward reaching unregenerate people? Again the moral duplicity staggers the mind.

Nor may JD argue that person A, as lost, threatens another's belief or ruins people's souls or 'chances' of coming to faith in Christ. Recall JD doesn't believe *anything* could or can hinder God's elect from being saved since no one can come to Christ anyway before they are born again. This is the ugly dilemma Strict Calvinism places one who blurs biblical teaching on God's sovereignty.

Andrew Barker

Peter: " we have no evidence to suggest Calvin ever "publicly repented" of his disgusting treatment of him and much evidence to suggest he was hardened into believing he was right in God's sight to have done so right up until his death.

Something which has crossed my mind more than once recently, since our 'Pastor' upped sticks and went within a few weeks, is that Reformed thinking can have profound effect on the way a person views and treats others. Essentially it starts with the belief that God 'loves' everyone but for some reason best known to him, God only 'chooses' his elect to salvation. Since we are meant to strive to become more godly it therefore follows that we should become more like God in this respect also. Thus in the background there must lurk the feeling that some 'others' are not regenerate and since God treats them differently, so should we! It's not long before some so called Pastors and leaders who find themselves with an awkward bunch of church members are going to be tempted to start thinking that they are obviously not regenerate!

I picked up on a twitter comment the other day by Jeff Isaiah @SoGoSwell who was bemoaning the fact that Pastors were wasting time pandering to the goats instead of feeding the sheep! When I asked him to say who the goats were, he couldn't! He was quite happy to quote Jesus Matt 7 by their fruit you shall know them, until I pointed out that this was directed at false teachers and not the sheep. I was then blocked on twitter! Ha, a first for me ;-)

The point is, we don't know who is and who isn't regenerate and sometimes we have doubts about ourselves, don't we? So quite how we are meant to dictate to others is beyond me. What's more, we are not called to sort out the sheep from the goats. It's a common enough term, but when I searched for it the other day the only place I could find it was at the end of the age and then Jesus is doing the sorting. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus refer to sheep and goats. I think Paul talks about wolves in his epistles but I suspect the term sheep and goats has crept in to our terminology and maybe should be redefined. Perhaps someone can put me straight if they have chapter and verse. I have no problem with that.

There is a certain hardness which can come with the knowledge that 'I am right' about something which is why we are told to speak the truth in love. Sometimes, we find out that we weren't so right about things after all, which is when a bit of humility is called for. Calvin never managed to find repentance and went to his grave justifying himself. Whether he believed his own propaganda ... only God knows!

Dan S

I don't know if that caveat was added from my comment. I'm assuming you were addressing Peter.

It is for situations like this I becoming more fond of a Presbyterian polity.

One clarification I am curious to here your distinction. What is the difference between the "you-sir-you-are-a-liar" defense and actually attempting to show someone to be a liar? I ask because often time the "slippery slope" argument (used against like gay marriage for instance) is confused with the reductio ad absurdum approach to argumentation. The difference of approach of what one actually believes and what one believes will happen if you believe something. I just curious to hear what you mean by the "you-sir-you-are-a-liar" approach in argumentation?

chris Gilliam

Peter, one note related to your response to Dan. The discipline issue is couched in the context of un-forgiveness. (I happen to believe that un-forgiveness is perhaps the greatest sin of a believer because it maligns the nature of God and his dealings with man.) Could it be we discipline un-forgivers? Hebrews 12 also speaks of the root of bitterness and its corrupting influence. I suggest this might be the case and if so, then the real light is being shined bright on this entire affair. Those condemning and constantly casting stones are in danger of the "RACA" Jesus spoke of.

peter lumpkins

Chris,

An excellent observation. We have a situation with EC where a) an exhaustive background investigation was launched to explore allegations of deceit concerning his past, including allegations of deceit from some of his past sermons; b) a verdict made known by those hiring the independent team of investigators; c) the verdict of which fully exonerated Dr. Caner's past and present of any hint of intentional deceit; d) finding, however, there were instances where discrepancy occurred pertaining to dates, names, places; e) Dr. Caner privately making amends to those under whose authority he remained; f) Dr. Caner publicly apologizing for the harm caused by his verbal errors, lapses of memory, misstatements, etc; g) Dr. Caner forfeiting a presidency because discrepancies had occurred pertaining to dates, names, places; h) but because the investigation found errors were deemed unintentional never meant to deceive, Dr. Caner still had full support of the institution as a teaching professor, with every confidence maintained that he would ascend back to being president after a certain length of time; i) Dr. Caner voluntarily choosing to pursue his academic calling elsewhere; j) but only to face ceaseless hounding and harassment by a group of self-righteous Christians led by James White and Mohammed Khan, obsessed with destroying him altogether because he didn't "publicly repent" for what they judge as fraud, deceit, and fabricating his life to fulfill his depraved thirst for money even when a professional group of investigators were not convinced deceit was ever a motive.

Unforgiveness? Perhaps you're on to something, Chris. Perhaps church discipline is not wrong-headed for those morally twisted enough to continue hounding and harassing a Christian minister and educator after he's been fully investigated, morally exonerated, humbly confessional, and professionally disciplined (and disciplined perhaps too harshly some believe since he lost the presidency when nothing but factual discrepancies were uncovered--that is, Caner was morally vindicated and was found unintentionally "guilty" of no more actually than James White is "guilty" of historically botching Calvin's treatment of Servetus!).

Make no mistake: James White, et al are demanding a real public stoning of Ergun Caner to professional, ministerial death for shamelessly committing the sins White himself alleges against him. White doesn't give two shakes of a gnat's behind how many others have judged Caner innocent or guilty.

For White, he is the final word. Like John Calvin in Geneva, he determines who is a heretic; who is banished; and who is burned at the stake. And, no man can or will resist White's Law because James White will destroy them in debate and cross-examination. So, it's said Calvin destroyed Servetus when he cross-examined him on the witness stand.

Evangelicals generally and Southern Baptists particularly have a monumental problem on their hands. If men like James White ever...ever...get on the real inside of convention life in the SBC, well...just look at what he's doing to Ergun Caner. We will all face Calvin's wrath.

Lord bless, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Dan S

"What is the difference between the 'you-sir-you-are-a-liar' defense and actually attempting to show someone to be a liar?" Both are undeniably a priori in nature. To show a person a deceiver presumes a non-negotiable judgment the person already is a deceiver. However, the former is more a like a "poison the well" debate trick. No one--and I mean no one--works this tactic like James White. Get in a scuffle with him and a) you'll immediately be dismissed as an uneducated buffoon without the least capacity of understanding the issue under discussion; b) the next thing out of White's mouth is how dishonest you are without the least regard for the truth. That's what I mean by the you-sir-are-a-liar tactic.

Finally, I find it morally skewed at best to have a goal in life of making sure everyone knows a person is a deceiver. We have no commission to do such from the NT. Jesus never told us to go into all the world and expose deceivers. Jesus never told us to go into all the world and debate the gospel. Christ said to go into all the world and deliver the gospel. James White, et al wrong-headedly focuses on the first two while Jesus obviously thought the latter was sufficient.

Lord bless.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Andrew,

Again, another excellent insight--a consistent Calvinistic template eventually colors the way we perceive others. In addition to what you've mentioned, also to be noted is the supposed template seems to feed our sinfully depraved selves not our sanctified life so to speak. I mean who could think it's a moral and godly act to actually stalk people wherever they go to "expose" their deceit? We have laws--secular laws--to protect people from the social, psychological, and sometimes bodily harm from this chaotic act committed by perps.

I once worked with a music guy, the best guy hands down I've ever served with in my 35 years of ministry. But he got caught in the very act (i.e. John 8:1ff). Immediately he was both terminated and loved.

I assisted him getting into a "fallen minister" process which was designed to eventually restore him to a role where her could excel in his God-given gifts. He lasted about six weeks or so. He dumped the program and accepted a church in another state though I didn't even know it until much later. After I found out, I sighed, prayed and went on with my ministry. What was I to do? Go there and disrupt the church over whom I had no influence whatsoever? Should I write all the deacons and "expose" the guy there? Should I picket his church on Sunday? Should I hack his membership list and write them about all the moral gunk he'd caused at our church? Perhaps if he were a child molester, should I have? No, because presumably the police/legal authorities would have already done a thorough investigation, and if they saw fit not to charge, then what would I tell them? We scream let the police handle it. Well, they did, and he's clean we must presume.

Even so, I felt no moral compulsion to approach a church about B___. After all, it remains at least possible appropriate restoration could take place outside of the notions about what I think must happen. And, I certainly I had no moral right to harass either B___ or the church about it. There comes a time to give them up to what God can do without me, the strange denial of which, strict Calvinists like White and Hall must surely feel tension. All their theological hoopla about God's absolute sovereignty over the affairs of men and women sinks into an unintelligible sea.

Thanks my brother Andrew

With that, I am...
Peter

DrJamesAch

Now Peter knows as do several others where I stand on the Caner issue so I won't belabor that point here. I have a very curious observation I've noticed among the likes of James White, JD Hall, Fred Butler, et al.

Now perhaps I'm wrong on this observation, and anyone please feel free to correct me. But I have not once, heard James White or Fred Butler claim that Ergun Caner, Peter Lumpkins or Timothy Rogers are not saved. I'm quite sure that James White and Fred Butler hold to a form of eternal security (although I disagree that "P" is the same as eternal security). Thus James White's appeal to Caner to repent seems the normal admonition from one believer to another. JD Hall's appeal to repentance, however, seems to be unto salvation, where he has now claimed that three professing believers in pastoral positions are not saved.

Now of course, Hall doesn't clarify whether he believes these three men were ever saved at all, but in light of his hyper-Calvinist view of election, it is rather humorous how much radio time he dedicates to appealing to someone's will to repent. I can't really tell whether Hall is a Calvinist or Arminian that believes in conditional security.

My question is: Why are the likes of White and Butler, et al, remaining silent on JD Hall's accusations that these three men are not saved? That's a hefty accusation to make against another professing believer without concrete evidence that they are unregenerate. Why is White not rebuking Hall over his accusations? I would really love to hear the excuse or explanation from these folks as to why they are remaining silent about this. Does James White agree that Timothy Rogers is "of his father the devil" as Hall claimed? Why are Butler and White being cowards about this and letting their fellow Calvinist rant about something they themselves have not publicly supported or endorsed?

Now perhaps White and Butler have agreed with Hall on this, I have not seen it, and I stand corrected if they have. But if not, I'm very puzzled by their silence on Hall's repeated accusations that Caner, Lumpkins and Rogers are not saved.

Now, if Hall has any guts, he would stop using misleading rhetoric and just be honest and say that all Non Calvinists are not saved. But, I don't know of too many Calvinists who are yet willing to risk their credibility by being honest about their theology by admitting that God doesn't love everybody, that all non elect are predestined to hell, and that if you don't believe that you are not saved and following pseudo-Christian cults. I think we're seeing a perfect demonstration of fear of credibility tainting by White and co in their silence on this issue. If White and Butler and co don't have the guts to say that these three are not saved, then they should be demanding Hall's repentance for making false accusations.

DrJamesAch

Should've added this on my last post, but I'm still waiting for Hall to respond to my question as to whether or not Norman Geisler and John Ankerberg are saved. I've asked that question a few times and never got a response to it, asked it again a few minutes ago.

Come on now, JD, if Caner and those defending him are not saved, put all your cards on the table and throw Norman Geisler and John Ankenberg in there too. Or are you afraid that you will get too much negative attention by claiming that Geisler is unregenerate. White has already said Geisler is involved in a massive conspiracy, so doesn't that make Geisler unregenerate?

Show me your big boy pants, Mr. Hall. Now don't be ambiguous about it, is Norman Geisler and John Ankenberg saved or not?

Mark

DrJamesAch,

I think a more important question to ask. "Why isn't the SBC doing something about it?"

In my opinion, the SBC (with the Spirit's guidance) needs to come up with a "real" doctrinal statement and make it stick.

Hall and Phelps methodology does not represent my views but to others that practice Election Theology in the SBC, it may.

Debating Spiritual Ideologies (and Methodology) clearly isn't working and continues to generate more strife and Spiritual Abuse among Pastors and within Congregations.

I don't see how it is possible for the SBC to walk the fence when it comes to "practicing" Election Theology. The SBC needs to decide what they are going to do, either embrace it or abolish it.

Hyper-Election movement may actually realize they would have a greater following in the Lutheran or Methodist Church.

Scott Shaver

"Scott...you are a judgmental one...Christ can free you?"

Eric...the very statement implies an act of judgement on your part. And yes, I do exercise judgement and cognitive capacities as God grants the ability to do so.

Don't want to be freed from that Eric.

I fear we serve different Gods.

Scott Shaver

Mark:

I'm afraid that the main problem with the SBC has been its obsession in recent years with "doctrinal statements."

The more "doctrinally sound" these folks write themselves into becoming the more wheels they have flying off their denominational apparatus.

Besides....how many people who form the constituency of "SBC" churches know, care about, read or give a thought to the denomination's confessional statements?

How do you plan to enforce conformity (make it stick)?

eric

Scott,
You have a very interesting way of reasoning.

Think thru this with me.

You are posting on a topic where Mr. Hall is accusing Mr. Caner of not being saved. You oppose Hall's position of misjudging Mr. Caner.

In the same breath, you fear that I am not serving the same God as yourself. which in effect is suggesting that I may not be saved. After all, a true Christian would not follow after a false God...would he?

As we don't know each other, I don't know who you serve. My guess is the one true God.

As such, we are not enemies and should love one another in Christ.

Look thru your many past post in reply to mine and you will see a pattern of the judging I mentioned.

Press on to the high calling in Christ

Dan S

Thank you for your response and clarification.

Since I'm expected to act like a Troll when i disagree with you on Caner/Soterology/History/Alcohol/etc., I now must insult you in some way. [Insert Insult here] Georgia Hoot.

(please take the last paragraph a joke)

Lydia

"How do you plan to enforce conformity (make it stick)?"

Membership covenants and church discipline?

DrAch wrote:

"Thus James White's appeal to Caner to repent seems the normal admonition from one believer to another. JD Hall's appeal to repentance, however, seems to be unto salvation, where he has now claimed that three professing believers in pastoral positions are not saved."

Well color me confused because I thought their doctrinal construct teaches that only God can make one repent. So why is he bothering talking about this at all? All that has taken place with Caner was a done deal, foreordained before the foundation of the world. Right?

JD is not "practicing" his Calvinism. :o) (shhh...If you watch closely, they rarely do. But they will always say I just don't understand it. Seems convenient enough)

Mark

Scott,

You've some valid points that can be considered a challenge or an opportunity for the SBC. Not sure if I have a solution other than an SBC overhaul and I don't have the foggiest idea where to start other then prayer.

If the SBC is unable (or won't) confront rogue Hyper Theologians within the SBC, then why have an SBC?

We have state conventions that has access to local SBC affiliated churches. How hard would it be to delegate proxy voting so that each SBC affiliated church has a single vote who they want to Lead the SBC. (certainly a good way to get churches engaged to what is going on in the SBC and also understand confessional statements)

Some churches that are Pastored by Phelps or JD Hall may discover they shouldn't even be in the SBC. Or with good Leadership Phelps or Hall would go through a probational reprimand.
If their Ideology or Methodology is unbiblical and don't represent SBC doctrine then why isn't anything being done about it?

As for churches not reading, caring or giving much thought to confessional statements is the reason we have rogue Hyper Theologians leading some SBC affiliated churches aimlessly through the desert.

I admit, I didn't give much thought to Doctrinal Statements until a JD Hall or Phelps type covertly showed up in our church.
But then the SBC at the State level didn't have anything in place to prevent that from happening and because we don't have the fiscal ability to vote that made our church even more vulnerably naive.

The way I use to think is the SBC had things together because Adrian Rogers was leading, that was before I even heard ARminian or Calvinist.

There is a huge difference of style and methodology between Adrain Rogers and the ever expanding numbers of rogue Hyper Theologians beginning to plague the SBC.

Scott shaver

Mark:
I agree with your insights. Strangely enough, a denomination that allegedly purged itself of "low views" of Scripture is more theologically confused than ever with all sorts of bizarre religious behavior being promoted in some of it's participating churches and by a good number of its leaders.

The SBC that history will look most favorably upon if remembered has been gone since 1998-2000.

The current model is collapsing on itself.

Scott Shaver

Eric:

Your concerns with my posts (and the spirit thereof) are your concerns.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in following either your rationale or your concerns.

You've formed your opinion of me...and I you, so any further analysis of the situation is pointless.

If you would, however, like to discuss the glaring similarities between Phelps, JD Hall....and I might even throw in J. Frank Norris ... I'm happy to oblige.

Scott Shaver

I likewise share your confusion Lydia.

All these calls by preachers and reform wannbes for a man to publicly, and by their dicates/instruments of measurement, repent is not only a narcissistic joke...it's a dismantling of scripture.

Additionally, I agree that it is wrong to identify ordained minister J. D. Hall as a cult leader.

I don't think he's strong enough to build a following IMHO.

Scott Shaver

Ahem:

And not meaning to stir up trouble ... wasn't it in fact Adrian Rogers who said in reference to denominational statements, "If we say pickles have souls then baptize them?"

peter lumpkins

Dr. Ach,

I see your point about White. But not so sure White cannot be said to question our salvation. In this audio, he surely implies it. He had been blistering Rogers & me for over a half-hour concerning all our “repeated lies,” then listen to his conclusion. He may not “say” our names but his implication seems fairly clear.

Here’s another post you might find informative—“You sir are an Unregenerate.” It’s written by one of Alpha&Omega contributors and James White supporter, “TurretinFan.” Closer to White than Hall and Butler, the anon is an actual contributor to White’s website and ministry. This post may also assist.

Truth is Dr Ach, I’ve been dealing with White a long, long time. I think he’s made it plain enough what he thinks of my relationship with the Lord. The above should demonstrate that implying from White’s words my unregenerate state is not at all unreasonable.

Lord bless.

With that, I am…

Peter

Mark

Peter,

I don't want to be disrespectful, but for some reason I find the terms "Regenerate and Unregenerate" to be used primarily with Hyper-Calvinism.

It was never part of the Baptist vocabulary in the 29 years I've attended our church until a Hyper Theologian attempted to endoctrinate or "Reform" the body.

Are these 2 words commonly used in Baptist Churches or is it for the benefit for Calvinist to identify each other.

Words that are more explicit to me are Born-Again, Saved or Repent.

Max

Pastors like Phelps and Hall are making religion a byword and reproach. Southern Baptists can be concerned about Phelps, but can't touch him since he is non-SBC. On the other hand, SBC leadership should call Hall into account.

"Let the priests, the LORD'S ministers, Weep between the porch and the altar, And let them say, "Spare Your people, O LORD, And do not make Your inheritance a reproach, A byword among the nations. Why should they among the peoples say, 'Where is their God?'" (Joel 2:17)

DrJamesAch

Peter,

Those audios come close, but it's not enough to really pin him down on it. White, with all his faux pas is a little more 'street smart' than JD Hall. It's one thing to say that Geisler is involved in a conspiracy, as if that isn't bad enough, but it's quite a stretch to claim that Geisler is unregenerate. Given the respect that Geisler has even among Calvinists, I don't think White, nor Hall, nor Turrets have the audacity to make that claim, especially since Geisler has an endorsement on the cover of White's 'King James Only Controversy' book. He may loosely allude to it, but remain ambiguous to maintain plausible deniability.

When I confronted White about his inconsistency in addressing the C.J. Maheney issues surrounding the SGM sex cover ups, and Al Mohler's silence on it, White said that it wasn't an important issue in apologetics (as if thousands of people joining atheist groups as a result of perverted pastors raping their children isn't worthy of an apologetic response. Sexual abuse in the church isn't an apologetics issue to White, but homosexuality is?) and he'd only read about it in passing from an article somewhere. Yet he tweets to Mohler on a regular basis and even praised Mohler for saying "theology matters" during a speech at Brigham Young University (Ironically, White and co criticized Michael Brown for doing an interview with Benny Hinn, but when a fellow Calvinist speaks at a MORMON COLLEGE, its all bubblies and skittles).

I listened to part of Hall's radio show, and I had to turn it off when he used Revelation 21:8 as an excuse for labeling someone unregenerate. Hey JD, ask Calvin or Luther what they thought about Revelation. Oh wait, they never touched it with a 10 foot pole because Calvinists can't exegete Revelation anymore than a tulip can make home-made ice cream (Not even the Pre Mil Calvies. See MacArthur's take on those taking the number of the beast still being savable). Revelation 21:8, just as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, is a list of sinners who were never saved which is why Paul says in verse 11 of 1 Cor 6 "and such WERE some of you". Furthermore, Revelation 21:8 is in distinction to those who overcame in verse 7, and they overcame by the blood of the l
Lamb and the word of their testimony (Rev 12:10-12). But, considering that consistent Calvinism always leads to conditional security when it comes to perseverance, it is no surprise that Hall demonstrates a clear ignorance of repentance.

Since repentance by definition is a volitional decision, no Calvinist that holds to compatiblism can ever properly identify its Biblical elements. Thus, Calvinists will always be caught using misleading rhetoric: one definition of repentance and the love of God in front of their congregation, and a different one in the class rooms of their cemeteries, I mean seminaries. Greisbach called this the "Accommodation Theory"-if you don't think your listeners can grasp the full reality of what you say, it's OK to lie to them to accommodate them on a level you think they can comprehend. Calvinist utilize the Accommodation Theory with impunity.

Hall said on his radio show that this is all about theology. But what he won't admit is that his antics, and the constant inconsistencies and equivocations from White and co have only shown that "theology" is the driving motivation behind their vilification of anyone that does not support their Gnostic caricature of God.

DrJamesAch

It also seems the Caner controversy is quite profitable for White:

http://www.zazzle.com/hadith_2425_t_shirt-235019869189624920

Twenty-six dollars for a t-shirt??????? ($31.50 when you pull it up on a separate tab).

Andrew Barker

Mark, I believe you may be correct regarding the use of the terms regenerate and unregenerate, but only partly. Reformed advocates like R.C. Sproul would not like to be called hyper-calvinists but they are quite clear that "regeneration proceeds faith". I've grabbed a typical ordo salutis from a site called the contemporary calvinist.

*****************************
Election
Predestination
Gospel Call (Outward Call)
Inward or Effectual Call
Regeneration
Conversion (Faith and Repentance)
Justification
Adoption
The Gift of The Holy Spirit
Sanctification and Perseverance
Glorification

BIG difference, especially when you consider that the unregenerate are "dead in trespasses and sin" (Ephesians 2:1), and that natural man "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Check out the podcast here. And invite your Amrminian friends to listen; they just might learn something.
*****************************

I would say this is pretty standard calvinist theology and I don't think many would disagree and call it hyper-calvinist?

As a non-calvinist I see massive holes in their argument. Nowhere does scripture say regeneration proceeds faith. It is purely a philosophical construction made to fit the Reformed model. Reformed teaching simply does not understand Eph 2:1-3 at all correctly. But it is forced into doing this because it has already made other errors regarding election and predestination! If God has already chosen, then it's imperative that man does not have the ability to disrupt the process. Better to have a passive corpse to work on, than a living being who might do or say the wrong thing!

Please don't misunderstand, I fully agree we are dead in our sins, it's just that Eph 2 has these 'dead' people walking and doing things in a spirit (pneuma) of disobedience. There appears to be an awful lot of life in these 'dead' people, albeit not as we would wish. It's a fundamental flaw in Reformed thinking.

You will note the two comments at the end of the piece I copied from the website. They are again typical I'm afraid of the attitude which is prevalent in much of today's calvinism. The argument goes thus; the natural man cannot understand the things of God, so if you can't understand what I'm saying to you, it must be because you don't have the Spirit of God in you! It's just one step away from saying you are unregenerate!

The other classic is a variation on the "you just don't get it" response. It's tantamount to saying "brother you are thick" but of course most calvinists are far too polite to say that! :-)

It is my observation that there an unhealthy preoccupation within Reformed circles as to just who is and who isn't 'saved'. It's not a concept I was brought up with. I don't believe it is particularly scriptural either and referring to other Christians as unregenerate probably says more about those doing the name calling than the recipients of the abuse!


peter lumpkins

Dr. Ach

I agree pertaining to Norm Geisler. None of them, so far as I know, have ever alluded to him as an unregenerate. But White, it seems to me, has done so, or at least done so without ever actually saying the words "he is unregenerate" toward both me and Tim Rogers. I've personally been the brunt of his scorched earth rhetoric since 2010, and it's hard not to take his words this way. And, you are correct. White is much more 'street smart' than Hall...

Scott Shaver

Nice passage from Joel, Max. Very appropriate. Not a proof-text..an old testament reflection of an often degenerate and substandard priesthood under the law.

That's exactly the way some of these "reformers" operate whether they admit it or not ... whether they're even aware or not that WORKS, not unmerited GRACE, is the spiritual dynamic they crave.

They will call you "brother", argue for room in the tent, and then ridicule, malign and ultimately cast you from the tent as an unregenerate heretic for not bowing the knee to their favorite theological constructs...all of them woefully inadequate for embracing the full orb of reality, experience and power which comes from being "in Christ".

That is what I mean by serving a "different kind of god".

Eric suggested earlier in the thread that I should not be "judgmental" of other brothers.

ARE THEY REALLY BROTHERS? I do not question their salvation any more than I would that of 10 year old who exercises and professes faith in Christ.

But are they really "brothers" in the sense of being able to trust the Spirit of God for the ultimate formation and sanctification of others in the redeemed camp.

I doubt it.

If not, I have no time for and have no need for fellowship, dialogue, or academic discussion based on any need for further "reform" among Baptists by those who feel otherwise.

If history has taught us anything that scripture confirms as eternal truth it's this: Mankind cannot "reform" anything apart from a pure interjection of divine grace. Why? Because we're all completely blind and without understanding against the backdrop of God's holiness.

Consequently, perhaps there are "brothers" and "sisters" in the camp of the redeemed with whom I will never see eye-to-eye with, agree with, or even get along with until the day God removes the scales from all our eyes.

I'm good with that.

DrJamesAch

I'd almost forgotten that I had written a short piece on Westboro Baptist Calvinists. http://wp.me/p2K6Yn-lk
I may modify that article to fit JD Hall into it :)

Svy

Peter, this is deceptive. JD Hall never said Caner was going to hell-he said he was unrepentant-this does that presuppose that Canner cannot repent and be saved while Phelps was just plain condemning someone to hell. Listen to what the people are actually saying and stop making stupid videos trying to compare two people to try to discredit one. It's pathetic.

peter lumpkins

Deceptive? Deceptive? What a Double Georgia Hoot!

peter lumpkins

J.D. Hall:

"I think I'm the only one with enough guts to say that. Of course he's not saved. Of course he's not saved. If you're going to argue that [Ergun] Caner is saved...that he knows Christ, you need to take the doctrine of repentance and rip it out of the Bible..."

Deceptive? Deceptive?

Svy, you are the one who needs to listen carefully before you publicly post the most vacuous defense of any point ever made on this blog in my almost seven years now of blogging.

You receive hands down the official DOUBLE GEORGIA HOOT GRAMMY.

Max

"They will call you "brother", argue for room in the tent, and then ridicule, malign and ultimately cast you from the tent as an unregenerate heretic for not bowing the knee to their favorite theological constructs ..."

Scott - this make room under the big tent, unity in diversity, agree to disagree, get along to go along, protect the Cooperative Program at all cost under the banner of BFM2000 mumbo-jumbo is starting to feel very creepy.

cb scott

Svy,

If a person is not saved, where will he spend eternity? In France? On a cruise ship with Benny Hinn? No to both options. Those who are unsaved go to hell.

Mr. Hall stated that Dr. Caner is not saved. Mr. Phelps stated that Dr. Graham is going to hell. Is the conclusion of the two declarations not the same?

One observation must be made here however. We might make an assumptive statement that Mr. Phelps is infected with a narcissistic personality. However, when one listens to Mr. Hall's stating, "I think I'm the only one with enough guts to say that," it removes all doubts that he is suffering feverishly with a narcissistic personality.

Combine his narcissistic nature with his bent for antagonism toward other people and you have what some call a Narcissistic Antagonistic personality.

If, in fact, such is the case, a great multitude of questions can be answered about his obsession with Dr. Caner and a multitude of other people which will reveal the actual core of the problem.

Svy

Sorry for my misspelling. Again, saying someone is not saved is not the same as saying they they aren't saved and will never get saved. I can't understand why you can't understand something so simple. JD Hall said that Ergun is not saved-but he didn't say that Ergun is not saved + will never get saved. On the other hand, Phelps said Billy will be going to hell no matter what. Do you understand or can I be clearer? There is a big difference in that.

peter lumpkins

'Svy'

Look. Just because Phelps said 'irreversibly' is irrelevant as to whether *both* men explicitly proclaimed men unsaved.

Now I want two things from you: a) concede JD *did* say Caner is unsaved since you accused me of misreading his words when it was obviously you b) post your name. If you've got the unmitigated gall to defend JD's unbiblical judgmental rhetoric, then the public has an interest in knowing who you are.

Lydia

" I can't understand why you can't understand something so simple. JD Hall said that Ergun is not saved-but he didn't say that Ergun is not saved + will never get saved."

svy, Are you taking parsing lessons from Bill Clinton?

JD Hall communicated EXACTLY what he wanted communicated (And does so often). He is proud of it.

You have NO idea how often I thank God that burning/banishing/torturing what some Reformed think is heresy.....is illegal now.

Your movement has the protection of child molesters yet to deal with. Why not start there. Children are valuable and deserve protection and justice. The Nate Morales trial is coming up just in time for T4G in Louisville?

Lydia

"Since repentance by definition is a volitional decision, no Calvinist that holds to compatiblism can ever properly identify its Biblical elements. Thus, Calvinists will always be caught using misleading rhetoric: one definition of repentance and the love of God in front of their congregation, and a different one in the class rooms of their cemeteries, I mean seminaries."

DrJames, I know some teens who are dealing with this in a YRR led youth group. Some have been taught that God grants them repentance as taught by their SBTS youth pastor. The indoctrinated young youth pastor is teaching what he has been taught at seminary. What concerns me is how hard it is to reverse this thinking once it is indoctrinated.

The moral and spiritual chaos this is creating in teens who are only recently abstract thinkers is devastating. They are not mature enough to eventually connect the dots that what the Youth pastor teaches--- he does not practice. Because it is impractical.

And it is just another reason why I am meeting more and more former YRR pew sitters in the 20 year old range who are now atheists. God never "granted" them repentance. They have no "volition" to do so. Somehow they are to think this lack of volition is a way of honoring God's Sovereignty. It "glorifies" Him. I think not. It is quite the opposite when analyzed.

It takes a while for parents to catch on to what is going on. I advise parents to attend youth group to see what is being taught and share other resources to beware as it can be subtle. If they don't know the players being quoted it can take even longer. It can be a black hole of confusion and chaos.

But what is even worse are teens whose parents are not involved at all. They are fresh meat and quite alone looking for a place to belong. Some of them have horrible family situations including abuse. So when they come and learn about a monster determinist god who controls every molecule--- they come to believe that god "determined" their family situation...even abuse. That turns into a god who really disdains them but likes the teen next to them with a great family. It is a recipe for grooming future haters of Yahweh.

It is actually a very hopeless doctrine for so many because THEY have no input therefore no possibility of "relationship" with their Savior.

dustin germain

Taking Caner out of the equation momentarily, if there was someone who all of us could agree was someone claiming to be a brother, but was in fact lying and living in unrepentent sin, would we have cause to call that person an unbeliever?

dustin germain

I think its quite clear that Jordan believes that Ergun Caner isn't saved

Max

As I look across the changing SBC landscape, I don't know which alarms me more ... "pastors" like J.D. Hall or those who defend him. I'm not sure Montana is big enough to accommodate Mr. Hall's ego or the SBC prepared to handle the "spirituality" of his followers. Speaking of spirituality, this thing has entered a spiritual dimension which SBC leadership appears unwilling or incapable to address.

Scott Shaver

Nathan confronted David privately about his sin whereupon David repented confessing to God "Against you and you alone have I sinned."

No blogosphere, no ecclesiastical panels, no public speeches, no investigative reporters and spin doctors analyzing motives ex post facto.

All it took for Peter to repent of his lies was a look into the face of the Christ he emphatically denied.

Who are the detractors of Ergun Caner that they should be taken seriously?

Andrew Barker

Dustin Germain: "Taking Caner out of the equation momentarily, if there was someone who all of us could agree was someone claiming to be a brother, but was in fact lying and living in unrepentent sin, would we have cause to call that person an unbeliever?

Absolutely ... NOT! There is one person and one person only to whom we have to give account and that is God. It really is as cut and dried as that, in my opinion.

The duty of church leaders is to appoint people to positions of trust based on whether or not their lives match up to certain Biblical standards. But that is a far cry from defining whether a person is or is not 'saved'.

dustin germain

Scott, according to your last comment, are you suggesting that the fact that Ergun has not behaved like Peter or David demonstrates that he has nothing to be repentant over, and that he never once lied about his back story?

Svy

// concede JD *did* say Caner is unsaved since you accused me of misreading his words when it was obviously you//

I never denied this. But Caner could get saved which is something that Phelps is not allowing for Billy. It's a simple point.

Second, that is my name. A shortened version of my name but it is my name. I know you Americans can only handle names such as Peter or John but don't believe me. I don't care in the slightest. Just check out my email, it has my name there. I don't know why it matters anyways. I'm a nobody.

Charles Fuller

Thank you for sharing the video, Peter. Mr. Hall's statements, like Mr. Phelps', reflect a similar strain of doctrine. While Fred is unashamed to be called a Primitive Baptist, I doubt JD would care for that label. The roots are the same, and thus, the fruit is equally bitter. Both hold fast to the doctrine that Christ died only for the elect and that everyone else is hell-bound. Fred exults in this, and JD seems pleased, too. This makes them both seem - to me, anyway - deficient where Christian love is concerned. I take exception to both man's judgments. Though I don't agree with Mr. Phelps, I don't know Billy Graham as I do Ergun Caner.

I was a student in Ergun's first class at Liberty. I heard his life story from his mouth and read it in his books. I have also seen videos of his sermons. I did not see any of the reported discrepancies that he had been accused of. What I saw was someone I could relate to. I did not come to faith until I was thirty, so his conversion testimony inspired me to attempt great things for God. Later, Ergun became the dean and president of my seminary. I regularly saw him preach that Jesus died for the forgiveness of our sins and that He rose again. I frequently saw and heard him proclaim that Jesus is Lord. I have no reason to doubt his salvation, and I was saddened by his departure. Clearly, I still hold him in high regard.

That being said, if I put aside what I know of him and accept that he lied, regularly, about his background, and that he did so for the most vile of reasons, it would still be a matter for he and God to resolve, not one fit for public display. If he sinned, it was against God, not against me. Repentance is a private matter, not a public spectacle.

As for the SBC and its future, I pray that when we disagree, that we can be less disagreeable. I do not know what is in the hearts of men like James White, JD Hall, or Fred Phelps, but I pray that they will come to know - if they do not already - the grace love of Christ.

Scott Shaver

Dustin:

To make this simple enough that a fourth grader might understand, my last comment suggests only that I DON'T CARE WHAT THE DETRACTORS OF ERGUN CANER HAVE BEEFS WITH. I DON'T CARE WHETHER HE LIED OR NOT....which of his detractors have never lied? They WILL NOT answer that question because they continue to lie as I type these words.

Who are they (or you) to hold Caner accountable before God on no less or greater offenses than you yourselves have committed ... and continue to engage in with this incessant character assassination and deluge of half-truths.

I see nothing here but the roots of bitter envy and clinical narcissism. Caner's detractors claim to be big fans of biblical instruction but they won't touch biblical injunction on this one with a ten foot pole.

Dustin, just exactly what do they/you consider genuine repentance to be?

What's your end game here?

Kyle B. Gulledge

"JD Hall and Fred Phelps both judge men to hell..."
...and they both wear cowboy hats...badly.
I guess they are members of the "Gospel Posse" and are out to string up what they call "heretical and unrepentant preachers".
To paraphrase George Strait: For these two guys; "This is where the cowboy rides away."

Tom Rich

I don't know, Peter, but that audio sure sounds edited to me. How can we judge the words of these men when we don't know the accuracy of the audio? We don't know where it came from, or how you may have edited it to make it look like these men say what your audio says they say. I just don't buy it.


Tom Rich

peterlumpkins

Hi Tom.

Know your smart aleck remark only shows precisely how Caner-critics such as yourself so often skew the tiniest nuance in order to make a point. You obviously want to allude to your and other critics' claim that Dr. Caner allegedly asserted somebody doctored his sermon videos with voice-overs, etc to make him say things he didn't say which is predictably a nothing-but-crock claim from Caner-haters. Caner never suggested any such editorial work on his actual words. What he did assert is the videos were created by others and uploaded by others with the implication his words were not couched in their original context--a mere few words of an entire sermon. That's what Dr. Caner complained about.

However, cyber-stalkers like yourself twist it abit saying Caner claims we made voice-overs, etc.

Interestingly enough, Dr. Caner's complaint comes very close to the claim James White made against me when I posted a video on his comments on a Jerry Vines sermon. One of his complaints was, it was "dishonest" for Lumpkins to take 90 secs or so from approx. 20 minutes of video explaining what I meant. So, I'm "dishonest" but you guys are not.

What a double-Georgia hoot!

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. As for the research on content above, while I encourage any person to check it out for themselves, know I stand very confident of the sources I cite. So research away, Tom. Research away. Demonstrate my sources faulty if you think you can.

Scott Shaver

Unbelievable:

These guys defy even clinical explanation.

Fredericka

Charles Fuller wrote, "If he sinned, it was against God, not against me."
If someone robs a bank, do you say, 'That is a private matter between the bank robber and God'?

DrJamesAch

I'm curious about what church JD Hall pastored when he was 18 years old. I was a little curious why a website such as Pulpit and Pen did not have any staff testimonies on it, so I did some digging on the Way Back Machine.

Hall's Testimony is MISSING from the current Pulpit and Pen website, and has been replaced with a short comment about Ergun Caner dated Jan 9, 2014 http://web.archive.org/web/20140109052031/http://pulpitandpen.org/about/">http://pulpitandpen.org/about/">http://web.archive.org/web/20140109052031/http://pulpitandpen.org/about/

Here is the original with Hall's testimony on it dated October 7, 2013

http://web.archive.org/web/20131007191509/http://pulpitandpen.org/about/">http://pulpitandpen.org/about/">http://web.archive.org/web/20131007191509/http://pulpitandpen.org/about/

Why from October of 2013 to January of 2014 did JD Hall remove his testimony from his website? Well, I think there's a few explanations:

*Hall claims to have been the pastor of not one, but several churches at the age of 18. Not only does he claim to have been a pastor, but also a "church planter". So at 18 he was not only pastoring a church, but planting others-at 18.

*Hall says he came to Montana at age 26, but spent 10 years in Northeast Arkansas first. This at least means he was in Arkansas from age 16 to 26.

*Jordon left the ministry at to become a successful record setting and award winning marketer/business man, but yet claims that he did not find financial success. Pretty odd for someone that started numerous award winning businesses in "various locations in the Mid-South".

*Jordon went to Williams Baptist College in Arkansas earning a BA in education, and then a MA in History from Arkansas State University. Now if Jordon went to Montana at age 26, and figuring in at least 5-6 years for a Masters degree, how did Jordon become a successful award winning business man starting several other business locations at age 22, while attending college courses toward a BA and MA at the same time before moving to Montana at age 26????

Me thinks JD Hall has some splainin' to do, but I see why he removed his testimony from the Pulpit & Pen website. No wonder Hall is screaming so loud about "Canerizing", looks like he did the same thing to his own testimony right before announcing the "Caner Project". Curious timing for the removal of his testimony indeed!

Scott Shaver

Proverbial Pot Calling Kettle Black

Lydia

Dr James, All I can say is Wow and thanks for doing the research.

The other "pastor" who has really gone after Caner is none other than Jason Smathers:

"According to the criminal complaint, Jason Smathers of Harpers Ferry, W. Va., used his inside knowledge of AOL's computer system to steal a list of 92 million AOL customer account "screen names," and then sold them to Sean Dunaway, who is not an AOL employee”—from CNN Money

•“A former America Online employee was sentenced Wednesday to 15 months in prison for his role in one of the USA's most audacious cybercrimes: stealing 92 million AOL e-mail addresses and selling them to spammers”—USAToday Money

•“Authorities yesterday arrested 24-year-old AOL software engineer Jason Smathers, who is accused of lifting 92 million AOL subscribers' e-mail addresses and selling them to 21-year-old Internet gambling entrepreneur Sean Dunaway for $100,000…. Both men were charged with conspiracy and, if convicted, could spend up to five years in prison and be forced to pay a $250,000 fine. That punishment, however, might not even come close to making up for the potential damage to customer confidence in AOL's internal security” –Washington Post

SVMuschany

Dr James Ach,

I don't mean to speak for Bro Hall, nor do I know why he took down his testimony. However you make several statements and assumptions in your post that deserves attention.

First, as it relates to being pastor at age 18. I do not know what programs Williams Baptist College has in its ministry department, but I do have knowledge at what my school, Hannibal-LaGrange University has for students called into ministry. We had an organization called CMVF (Christian Ministry Vocations Fellowship). Students called into the ministry were helped and guided by faculty/staff into being plugged into different ministries in the area. For students called into pastoral ministry, this group helped provide pulpit supply opportunities, and some of those students were able to serve as pastor of some churches while they still were students. You see HLG was in the great "metropolis" of Hannibal Missouri. Surrounded by rural communities, many of which had country churches that could not afford a bi-vocational minister, let alone a full time minister. These churches loved giving young men the chance to grow and develop as ministers as they earned their college degree. These men were indeed 18+ when they began to serve. Again, I do not know if WBC has anything similar, but at least in Northeast Missouri, there defiantly are/were 18 year olds who have/are serving as pastors of churches.

Also, please note, that according to your own link, Hall states that he has been pastor SINCE 18. It says nothing about him being pastor of multiple churches AT 18. As I have demonstrated, that is entirely possible and I have personally seen others like that serving in rural communities.

Second, I question where you get that a Masters degree takes 5-6 years. I have earned a M.Div from a SBC seminary (MBTS), and am currently working on a Master of Arts (History) from a state school (Missouri State University). The M.Div was geared towards being finished in 3-4 years depending on full or part time. I finished mine in 3.5 years. The MA is geared towards being finished in 2-3 years. Due to the previous graduate advisor in my department neglecting his duties, myself and several others have been delayed. I am due to graduate next December after 3.5 years. So where you got 5-6 years for a Masters, I do not know or comprehend.

Third, your time line has issues. Let me use myself as an example. I graduated High School at 17, I was the youngest male in my class. I did not turn 18 until a month after my graduation. Due to having issues with the first school I attend, I ended up transferring, and it took me 5 years to graduate college. That means I graduated at 22, one month before my 23rd birthday. I then took a year and a half to discover where God was leading me. Thus with taking 3.5 years to graduate from seminary, I graduated at 27, 1 month before my 28th birthday. If I had my "stuff" together you take away my extra year in college, the year and a half between degrees, and have me finishing my M.Div in just 3 years, i would have graduated with my masters at 24, one month before my 25th birthday. Now consider that my M.Div program is longer than my MA. If I had went and earned my MA first, I could have earned that at 23, one month before my 24th birthday. Thus, it is entirely possible for Bro Hall to have earned a BA and MA by the time he reached 26 years old. As it relates to his "age", consider that at college i knew several home schooled students that started college at 15-17 years old. I do not know if this is the case of Bro Hall, but it is entirely possible to start college at 16. Thus if you figure of 4 years for college and 2 years for the MA, that is 6 years, leaving 4 years left in that "10".

Finally, as for his "businesses", I honestly don't know anything about that. With out knowing WHAT his business(es) were, I have no room for commenting based on my observations or experiences and thus to do so would be speculation on my part.

Lydia,

I am not excusing a persons past. However, I do want to know if you think that a persons past prohibits him from serving God in the future? Paul himself was a murderer of Christians before he was saved, convicted, and repented. I could name you several ministries of men who have "colored" pasts, have repented, and gone onto future ministries. Are you saying that because of Smathers' past actions, he is forever prohibited from serving in the ministry in the future? That is a standard that is NOT in scripture. I should also mention that your observation of his past is the very definition of an ad hominem attack. Attacking a person (or a persons past) as a means of deflecting attention away from a person's argument.

Finally, since we are concerned with full disclosure of names on this board, I will go further than I normally do. With my signature.

Stephen Veth Muschany

peterlumpkins

Stephen Veth Muschany

Congrats! are in order. One of the most vocal, vicious critics of Ergun Caner, suggesting he made his past up is now having to defend his own "timeline" testimony. What is more, you're here defending it after hanging with guys who've done nothing but stalk and harass EC for the last several years.

What double Georgia hoot!

SVMuschany

Bro Peter,

Please define "hang out". At best, over the past year, I may have made two dozen comments/tweets/posts/ect that could be construed as "defending" people such as Hall, White, Smathers, ect. It certainly is not my primary focus. Indeed, if you would like to check my blog, you would see where most of my daily attention goes. I wager that of the posts I have made, you and I would agree on 90%+ of them. Dare I say 100% of the posts on politics/racism/gun rights/ect. I have never met Hall, or White, or anyone in person, and don't know them from Adam.

Further, I hope you can see my post responding to Dr. Ach was less about "defending" Hall and more about correcting misconceptions that he makes. Or Bro Peter, do you believe it takes 5-6 years to earn a Master of Arts? One can correct someone with also defending another. That said, yes, to a degree I am defending Bro Hall from an ad hominem attack used to discredit a person rather than deal with issues they are making note of. However had I held a strong desire to "defend" Bro Hall, I would have done so on this article earlier. However I did not feel the need or desire. Again, what drew me out was Dr. Ach's 5-6 years for a Master of Arts comment. The rest of the observations on his post were made to, as best as I could, respond to his points. I thought it best to be thorough rather than just focus on one issue.

As it relates to my response to Lydia, regarding Smathers, I honestly did not know that about him. However, I hope you can agree that my observations regarding his situations are correct. A person's past, if they have repented, should not disqualify someone from the ministry. In particular I think of a man like the late Charles Colson. A man who had a "bad" past, turned his life around and was powerfully effective in the ministry. I do not mean to equate Smathers with men like Paul or Colson. But, if we say Smathers cannot be a minister because of his past, then do we not have to apply the same standard to everyone else?

Stephen Veth Muschany

Lydia

"I am not excusing a persons past. However, I do want to know if you think that a persons past prohibits him from serving God in the future? Paul himself was a murderer of Christians before he was saved, convicted, and repented. "

Way to frame the question. I always get a kick out of such: "you have to answer correctly or you are a heretic". Do they teach this at seminary?

I think what astonished me the most when I found out about Smather's crime and conviction is that he has been so gung ho on going after someone else for a much lesser accusation. I would think he would have been embarrassed to be so resolute in ruining Caner as he was a fairly new pastor with prison in the not so distant past. But then I am old school where such decorum was standard. A bit of quiet humility as a pastor might have served him best.

I don't recall say, Chuck Colson, using his position to "go after people" when he was born again and released from prison. But then, Colson was old school, too.

mary

I haven't been following this very closely, but wasn't there a Doktor who was passing himself off as a Doctor and had a gig at Golden Gate Seminary which led to some embarrassment because the Doktor was really just a Doktor after all and not actually qualified for everything he actually declares himself qualified.

DrJamesAch

Stephen, I will respond to your comments later as I am dissecting Hall's response on his website about his testimony as I have already found numerous holes and contradictions in it from his short testimony that was taken off of the website.

But one thing to consider here in demonstrating how blatantly dishonest Hall is, if you read his response, you note that he won't give my name on it, and labeled the writer as a "Caner defender". Now Hall and even Peter here know good and well that I am NOT a Caner supporter. I've made this clear to Peter, Rogers and I have argued about it and I've sent my own sentiments to Caner personally. However, I do not need to stoop to the vile levels that White and Hall have to make my point. The fact that Hall would label me as a Caner defender knowing full well that this is not true is a blatant lie that shows that he is probably unregenerate according to his own definition of sin and repentance.

It is also ironic that Hall chose to respond to this, but has refused since early January to respond to me calling him out on his deliberate lies about Rogers, and the fact that he admitted to James White on his radio program, that he said Brewton Parker College hated Muslims in anger, but he never apologized to any of them, nor retracted the statement, nor said it was wrong. Unrepentant. I documented this in great detail here, http://wp.me/p2K6Yn-mt and sent Hall the link to it several times with a countdown of how many days it's been since he refused to repent of it. He replied that he was waiting for me to run out of fingers.

But, now you are seeing the same kind of spin practiced by Hall that he accuses others of. And, I'm just getting started :)

DrJamesAch

JD Hall has responded to this which presents even MORE problems now. http://pulpitandpen.org/2014/02/06/how-to-answer-questions-about-your-testimony/

First of all, Jordan makes it appear as if Peter wrote this, knowing full well that I wrote it. I am so "unworthy and irrelevant" that he won't mention my name, but yet what I wrote was important enough for him to devote an entire article on it.

Second, he ended the article claiming that what I wrote was for the purpose of deflecting attention away from Caner. Hall knows full well that I do not support Caner and have written matters AGAINST Caner. But, he can't admit this to his readers because he loses the force of his vendetta against Lumpkins by doing that, which is why he refused to name me in his article.

Now let's look at his explanation.

* Hall writes, "After I had completed my Masters Degree, I was forced in a position to earn more income so that my wife, WHO WAS FINISHING OUR DEGREE and had our first child, wouldn't have to work".

So Hall's WIFE did his homework for his degree??

Furthermore, Mr. Hall, with that shady explanation of such a fast-tracked MA, I don't EVER want to hear you critique someone elses education credentials LOL.

*In Hall's original testimony, he stated that after pastoring at 18, he left the ministry to pursue his business career. But in his new response, he says that he entered college from 17-22. Which is it? Did he go to college first, or did he start his business first? Now mind you, that it wasn't just A business, but a SUCCESSFUL "millions of dollars passed through my hands" business of "SEVERAL LOCATIONS" (that he doesn't give the names of).

*Hall admits that "millions of dollars" passed through his hands, but yet in his original testimony he claims to have failed, which any marketing expert knows is typical in the first few years of business. You don't see much yield until after a loss first. So which is it? Did he find "financial success ELUSIVE (original)" or did he make "millions of dollars"??

*Hall provides ZERO context for his history before becoming a pastor. I would think that an 18 year old pastor would have some background, salvation testimony, some kind of qualifications that allowed someone to entrust him with a church at age 18 (or is it 17?). There is a necessary context that is just absent here.

*Hall claims to have been A PASTOR of several churches, but yet his new response says that he was merely the interem pastor of Hickory Ridge Baptist Church, and then an associate in other churches.

*Hall claims to have been a church planter, but his new response says that he worked with other "groups" but never names one single church that he was responsible for planting. Hall says he was the associate pastor "of A church plant" but doesn't say HE STARTED it.

*Hall was the "co-founder" of Reformation Montana which he describes as a handful of Reformed Baptist Churches, with an "inter-denominational network". Inter-denominational? Kind of odd for a conservative Baptist Calvinist group don't you think?

*Hall says it took him a year and a half to get "spiritually healed" from his "sin". A year and a half to heal from being a successful salesman? And it was then he read Romans 9 and "saw the doctrines of grace". Now Hall has not mentioned any additional Bible college since rediscovering himself in the doctrines of Calvinism. So any college training he had is not said to have emphasized any of the Reformed positions he now holds.

And Romans 9? Really? You mean that a hypothetical question asked by a critic of Paul about corporate Israel showed him this grace that pushed him into a Reformed ministry? Give me a break!! And if he was so broken over it, then why did he "manage ANOTHER business" right before he had his epiphany on Romans 9?????? So it took him "a year and a half" to "spiritually heal" over his sin of being involved in business instead of ministry, and then right before he reads Romans 9 on the Road to Damascus, he GOES BACK TO MANAGING A BUSINESS???

*Hall states that after reading Romans 9, for the FIRST TIME he had "a desire to serve in ministry". You mean he DIDN'T have a desire to serve at 17 (or is it 18?). And if he didn't have the desire to serve at 18-22, THEN WHAT WAS HE GRIEVED OVER BEFORE HE READ ROMANS 9 AND NEEDED SPIRITUAL HEALING FOR?????

*Hall claims is degree was in "Christian Education", but Fellowship Baptist Church says "Religious Education". I'm sure I don't need to explain the difference between "religious" and "Christian" here. A little like James White's testimony where his college gave him the option of choosing what he wanted his degree to say, biology or theology. I didn't know colleges let you pick and choose what you major in AFTER you've already earned the degree! (Stated on recent Dividing Line discussing Ham/Nye debate, which White said Nye won. Ironically, Hall took the same position which Fred Butler disagreed with).

And if you look at his profile pic on the FBC website, I'm betting that's not Kool-Aid in that Margarita glass with a straw in it. http://app.razorplanet.com/acct/41802-0070/images/untitled.JPG I am a little curious as to why they changed the name from Fellowship BAPTIST to Fellowship Church.

Folks, there are more semi-wide holes in Hall's explanation than I care to continue elaborating on. Needless to say, Hall has dug himself a hole.

I do believe that JD Hall was a good salesmen, because he sure has done a good job at selling a pile of garbage to some very naive professing Christians as well as twisting and distorting something that *I* wrote, as if Peter or Timothy Rogers wrote it. Hall is obviously piggy-backing on the groundwork laid by White against Caner and taking the torch to improve his notoriety.

Yet, Hall still refuses to respond to me as to why it is that after ADMITTING he said-in anger-that BP College "hates Muslims" that he has never apologized to them, never actually said it was wrong (admitting you said something in anger, and admitting it was wrong are 2 different beasts. Jordon's been giving lectures on repentance for several months now, he should know better), and has never publicly repented over it. So is Hall "unregenerate"?

Ironically, one of his defenders debated me on this last night, and when cornered about Hall's lack of context and background, said "A pastor is responsible to his church, AND NO ONE ELSE" (emphasis mine). https://twitter.com/SVMuschany/status/431702623969091585
That one comment summed up the entire debate: Hall and Co are not responsible to being accountable to anyone else but "the elect" of their own kind, BUT YOU ARE.

Tim Rogers

Peter,

Of course JD has made it his mission to prove his resume now. So let's look at his proof. Well, he says he was "interim" pastor of a small church when he was 18. Should someone explain that being an "interim" pastor who mainly is there to preach on Sunday mornings is not the same as being a Pastor? But, let's give benefit of the doubt as he does produce someone in his comment stream that gives a glowing report for JD's sermons. So, at 18 while attending college he was "interim pastor" of a small congregation that was about to close its doors and is still on the brink of closure.

Second, he classifies himself as a "Church Planter" because he completed a NAMB church planting basic training. He became part of a team that planted a church. But, after a year left the church plant to go and serve on staff of another church. Of course that "church failed after I[Hall] left it to serve on staff" at an established church. Really committed to church planting here. But that is not all. After that he "had success in a rural church re-start" or as he describes it "flipping" a church. Oh, I could go on for days with that one.

He goes out of his way to make his testimony appear he was on his own after High School. I have had tough times and know what it is like to fend for oneself in the world so I want to be really careful here. One does not go to college and make payments and serve churches that cannot afford pastors without financial help from family. Not once does he mention any of this. As a matter of fact he speaks of having millions of $$$'s pass through his hands. Could be true, but where does one get the start-up capital to have millions of $$$'s pass through one's hands?

The west Georgia hoot in all of this is the Masters Degree statement. He says: "I got my Master’s Degree very quickly and acted against the wishes of my faculty adviser who said the coursework would be too much. It takes 30 hours (approximately) to get an MA in history. I did it in two semesters. Although 15 hours per semester is common in undergraduate work, it’s usually not advised in graduate work." Certainly do not want to take anything away from such an accomplishment. He is to be commended for taking 15 hours per semester if he was working full-time. But, mind you, working as an interim pastor is not working full-time and taking 15 hours per semester is not that big a deal for a 30 hour Masters degree. Now if he were taking a 90-96 hour M-Div and working in an industry full-time and taking 15 hours per semester then we need to strike up the band. But, let me address his "not advised" by the faculty adviser. Here is a link from http://catalog.sebts.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=4&poid=342#MDivCoreCurriculum>SEBTS catalog, and http://catalog.swbts.edu/catalog/assets/File/2012%20MDIV%20Recommended%20Sequence%281%29.pdf>SWBTS catalog notice the number of hours they advise to take the pastoral track. SWBTS advises to begin taking 10-12 and by the third semester the student is taking 16 hours. My point is that while it is difficult to take 15 hours of graduate courses in one semester people do it all the time in the shorter degree programs. It is the 88-96 semester hour programs that it is exceptional.

Having said this let me point something out. We have an apologists in Phoenix that is calling himself a "Doctor" based on his degree from an unaccredited school where he made his own course and had a review by only one adviser, and now we have a young pastor in Montana who paints himself to be something that really is an embellishment of what he is saying that Dr. Caner is guilty of embellishing his testimony to make himself look better. Does anyone guess why either one is focused in on the embellishment charge?

It does seem that Luke 6:41-42 does come into play here.

DrJamesAch

And the hits just keep on coming. Folks, this is WHY it is important to know something about your pastors background.

Today, JD Hall wrote a new article, some charismatic, Joel Osteen type emotional rhetoric to stir his readers, that stated in part,

"Why did God send Jesus to die on a cross? Not to save us from our sins, but rather to save us from a life of mediocrity." http://pulpitandpen.org/2014/02/07/i-dont-want-to-have-an-impossible-dream-or-birth-a-vision-for-my-life/

Really, JD????

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:21

"For the son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost" Luke 19:10

"Who gave himself A RANSOM for all to be testified in due time" 1 Tim 2:6

"But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" Hebrews 2:9

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but quickened by the Spirit" 1 Peter 3:18

...and many MANY more.

Now the bottom of the article says contributed by Dustin Germain, but it still had to pass through Hall before being posted, and Hall's signature is on the top of the article. SO whether Hall co-wrote it, edited it, he still endorsed this HERESY and posted it on his website.

Scott Shaver

Chickens have a way of coming home to roost.

Catch 22 about JD et al turning these kinds of tigers out of their cages is they don't care WHO they eat.

DrJamesAch

By the way, it was Hall himself that gave the 5 year explanation. He said 4 years for his BA, and then another year for the MA. This was cleared up at 10 a.m. my time, with Stephen, so I am very surprised that he is bringing this up again, unless his comment was merely in queue and was posted before our Twitter conversation.

Lydia

"Ironically, one of his defenders debated me on this last night, and when cornered about Hall's lack of context and background, said "A pastor is responsible to his church, AND NO ONE ELSE" (emphasis mine). https://twitter.com/SVMuschany/status/431702623969091585
That one comment summed up the entire debate: Hall and Co are not responsible to being accountable to anyone else but "the elect" of their own kind, BUT YOU ARE. "

Like you, DrJames, I have not been a defender of Caner.

But we can see the glaring hypocrisy in these guys and what you wrote above is a BIG one. It was not enough for Caner to be accountable to Liberty or his church. Nope. He had to be accountable to JD Hall and James White and a large part of the YRR movement in the SBC.

And SVM's tweet brings us all sorts of problems. What happens when the pastor of a church decides to publicly promote his books, podcasts, etc? What happens when he travels all over speaking at conferences teaching his doctrine and becoming a minor celeb in Christendom? Still only accountable to his church where he is the bossman? So you think this means he is untouchable in the public square he covets as he builds his "brand"?

What a great gig. Most churches are thrilled to have a celeb pastor. That is part of the problem and "groupthink" takes over.

Sorry SVM. Pastors who seek to teach outside their church in the public arena are fair game for PUBLIC analysis and even criticism. They are not "above" it. They need to put on their big boy britches.

Fredericka

Dr. Ach wrote, "Hall claims to have been a church planter, but his new response says that he worked with other "groups" but never names one single church that he was responsible for planting."
Dr. Ach, it's a small world, isn't it. You know who else is described as a 'church planter'? Monica Inez Hunt, Ergun Caner's 69-year-old mom. Ergun describes her that way in several of his recorded sermons. Do you think Ergun is exaggerating or misstating the facts when he describes his mom as a 'church planter'? In point of fact it seems the Southern Baptists have an entire network devoted to this very purpose. It may be that you're defining the term more narrowly than they do.

DrJamesAch

A few things.

First to Fredericka. Apparently, you have don't know where I stand on Caner. I frankly don't care how anyone in the SBC define "church planting". Why is it that when Hall's hypocrisy and conflicting statements are shown, instead of explaining them in a manner that deals directly with the specific accusations, I get spin in return?

Secondly, my comment posted a few posts up about the new article by Hall was clarified by Dustin Germain, and that was not what he intended to convey in the article.

Thirdly, more hypocrisy from Hall. Hall discusses on his radio show today that Dave Miller calling numerous fake accounts "social media terrorists" is wrong. But yet it is perfectly acceptable for Hall and White to label Caner and his defenders as JIHADISTS against Christianity? This blatant hypocrisy appears to me as virtually conspiratorial.

DrJamesAch

And no, I didn't use spell checker on my last comment!

Dale Pugh

Dr. Ach--I'm no Hall supporter and find his vitriol to be outrageous, malicious, and extremely immature, but you need to re-read the article you link to and call "heresy." When I read your statement, I went and read the article. The author of that article does NOT claim that Jesus died to save us from mediocrity. The article is written in opposition to such teaching from prosperity preachers. He is confronting such teaching, not promoting such teaching.
I offer this correction in the spirit of asking that we not get caught up in false accusation for the sake of buttressing our positions. Let's be fair and truthful.
I know nothing about Caner, but if CB Scott is willing to work for him and with him, that's good enough for me.

Patrick

I could give two rips about JD Hall...I don't know who he is, and personally don't care. If he has fabricated his background, then by all means, he should be taken to task for it, just as he has taken others to task for similar things.

That being said, when Dr Ach quoted an article on Hall's website about Christ dying to save us from a life of mediocrity, I decided to check it out, since I detest the theology of Osteen and his ilk. I was prepared to take Hall to task on his website for posting such an article. However, when I read the article, I was completely stunned. Did the article contain the quote that Dr Ach referenced? Of course. However, even with just a cursory reading, it was easy to see that the author disagreed with that statement. He was stating that was commonplace in American churches (which it is), and then went on to explain why he disagreed.

"But here’s the thing; I don’t have any big, audacious, impossible dreams that leave me unfulfilled. I think all this talk of how we’re so empty and unfulfilled and that our current life isn’t good enough is, simply frankly, nefarious. Its evil and we ought to reject it and excoriate that sort of thinking. It doesn’t just appeal to ones desire for the American Dream, but it appeals to the disappointment we feel at not having achieved it. I find myself surrounded by a Christian culture that tells me that the life I desire is not good enough, and that if I’m not dreaming big, impossible dreams that I’m somehow lacking and missing out on what God intends for me. That there is an innate deficiency associated with it. I don’t see where in the scriptures I’m told that I need to do this, and that this has to happen to me, and yet I’m being told this is the case nonetheless."

"I don’t want to have an impossible dream for my life, nor do I want to birth vision, nor so I want to be told that I need something more in my life. Christ died for my sins so I could be forgiven and saved from the wrath of God, not so that I could overcome my prideful desire for significance and personal self-fulfillment. Now that I rest in God’s grace, I simply want to serve him and my neighbor in my vocation, whatever that is, which is a holy thing."

To suggest that the author of the article (I'm unaware if it was Hall or someone else) supported what Dr Ach quoted couldn't be farther from the truth. It requires only a minimal amount of reading comprehension to see that!

The comments to this entry are closed.