« Dr. Tom Ascol: Is Courage Anonymous? | Main | Dr. Boyd Luter: Anonymity: Some Biblical and Cultural Reflections: A Brief Response by Peter Lumpkins »

2007.09.15

Comments

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

volfan007

debbie,

since you believe so strongly in God's sovereignty, maybe you ought to view what happened to dr. klouda and dwight mckissic, and yes, even to wade, as being God's sovereign will? that is, if you really believe in God's sovereignty as much as you say you do.

it seems like this kind of arguement is brought up often by a certain crowd after things like this anonymous prof. made such statements, and people call them on it. you know, "well, do you think what happened to wade and klouda and mckissic was right?" seems to be the response.

well, does what you think was done was wrong make it alright for outpost do what's wrong in some sort of tit for tat, or retaliation? iow, if i jumped off the bridge, would you jump off the bridge? or, if i stole some candy from the store, does it make it right for you to steal some candy from the store?

david

Debbie Kaufman

David: I do. First of all, nothing happens to God's children that does not go past Him first. Examples Joseph, Job. Even this post. I stand by all I have written with no apologies.

peter

David,

The difficulty ever will be, that some Calvinists will never understand that NonCalvinists such as you and me do not nor have we ever questioned whether God *permits* bad things to happen to us. Rather, it's rejection that God predestines bad things to happen to us.

Interesting how that simply distinction cannot seem to sink in.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

Debbie Kaufman

I do understand Peter. More than you realize. I was a non-Calvinist in an Independent Fundamental church for more than 30 years. I can tell you what you believe and why as I was immersed deeply in it from childhood to adulthood, even knowing personally high-profile ministers, most of whom are now gone to be with the Lord.

Big Daddy Weave

This moderate thinks the anonymous letter was just a little bit shady (to be nice)....

Luter stated that the Outpost guys screwed up this time. I thought Luter was an Outpost guy? He sure does post regularly. Who exactly runs the place?

Nevertheless, it was Luter who screwed up. At least Outpost allowed comments! Luter's no-comment way would surely have angered the masses even more!

R. Grannemann

The root of the division is theological. The recent stuff on baptism on the Barbor blog points that out as well as a lot of the "unique Baptist heritage" stuff that shows up on Wes Kenney's and Malcomb Yarnell's posts. For those of us who once drank deeply from Landmarkism, this kind of writing now seems just a tad idolatrous, somehow just missing the point of what Christianity is all about. The SBC Outpost is a response - to Patterson's and Mohler's decisive influence over trustee appointment, to their willingness to promote their agenda through trustees (e.g.. IMB trustee Hersheal York's introduction of new missionary requirements) - but the Outpost is careening aimlessly. Where in the world are they trying to go?

Patterson learned 30 years ago the power in the SBC was all in winning the SBC president slot and controlling trustee appointments. He focuses his attention on that. What else does one need to worry about?

I think Luter wants to show a high degree of faculty discontent (I think it's likely there). But what if he does? What if half the faculty would vote to get rid of their president? His "side" doesn't control the trustees. Nothing changes. I'm not saying what he is doing doesn't have "political" value. Secular politics discovered long ago negative campaigning influences voters. But this kind of personal attack politics just gets so nasty, e.g. all the recent politics influencing personnel changes at Baylor.

The Outpost should focus on a specific reform and transparency agenda for SBC institutions, and use that to elect the next SBC president. Regardless, the prospects of beating the Patterson political coalition is really rather bleak.

Byroniac

Peter, I have a couple of questions for you. You stated that God permits bad things to happen to us. If you believe in foreknowledge (at least of whatever event is in reference), and God permits the bad event to happen anyway, would this not be the same as predestination (though of a passive stripe, I admit)? Also, if you believe God predestines only good things for us, how does He bring that about without violating freewill?

I realize that you are trying to be Scripturally consistent over maintaining logical consistency, if necessary, but I believe that the Scriptures are logical and to be consistent, one must relinquish the cherished notion of freewill.

Tim G

Peter,
You have once again hit the nail! Keep it up. You are spot on in more ways thab some can even catch. These last two posts and comments have been wonderfully revealing and even more telling.

Debbie Kaufman

the prospects of beating the Patterson political coalition is really rather bleak.

The reason in my opinion, is as one wise person pointed out to me. Those who wish reform are the ones who do not go to the Convention. Those wishing change is most likely the predominant view, but they hate the politics for the very reason you gave. It's dirty, which is another reason I wish deeply reform. If it's dirty we have gotten away from Christ as the center. Until that occurs, people will continue to leave, refusing to get dirty. It's shown what happens when someone dares speak out, if anything I hope people learn this from the comments in the last two threads. I admit I feel as Kevin Bussey described one time, like I need a shower, after some of these conversations or even reading, such as yesterday. That is something I hope people learn, yet I believe that those that cry out sinner at every turn, saying it's Biblical but it is not, need to be confronted. Good Godly people have left and are leaving. People that have spoken out because it is a fight of sorts. You have to listen to dirty politics at play. The SBC is shrinking in size, those in power now may be in charge of themselves, which is already 10 million shy and shrinking. The last few years have been low in attendance compared to the 60's and 70's. Churches want to do the Great Commission as God leads, not with a list of what they can't do or can't believe. If they can't unite with the SBC, they will do it without the SBC and most have done it quite well as Christ is their center.

Debbie Kaufman

And it is possible that I have become the very thing I hate after two years immersed in this stuff. It is something that frankly I am taking a honest, prayerful look at. I like Paul may unknowingly be doing something or thinking something I don't want to do or think.

Tim G

Debbie,
You keep using this "shrinking" thing lately - why? The SBC is not respoonsible for this - individual churches are. Are you forgeting the SBC exists to do Missions? Yes we are to support each other etc. but the SBC has never had much effect on growing individual churches - neither do other denominations or associations or conventions. Why do you keep putting this out like a battle cry? That is not the role of the SBC. Each church should be answering that question.

Debbie Kaufman

Tim: I believe the SBC has more to do with this than you are willing to admit. It has been said by many churches that have either left or been forced out. Let's at least be honest as Christians.

Tim G

Of all the things you have said and argued, respectfully, this one is the most "out there" of them all. Any Pastor or member who blaims the SBC for loss of members etc. is absurb. Most people even in the pews of SBC churches, have no idea what the SBC is doing. I do think you have even used that one. Lets see, the Associations do little, the State Conventions do little, the SBC does Missions.

I am being honest! This argument is absurd. I have been argueing for the SBC to become more proactive in the use of TV ads etc. for years so that something could be done to help the local churches. To say any leader of an entity of the SBC or that entity hurts the local church is as far fetched as Tennessee beating Florida today.

Debbie Kaufman

Tim: You misunderstand me. Maybe that is my fault. I am not talking loss of members, I am however speaking of churches that have left the SBC, also churches who have not left, still give, but does not participate in the voting nor other politics of the Convention.

Debbie Kaufman

I am also speaking of churches who were said to "leave of their own accord" but in reality were pushed out.

Debbie Kaufman

Most people even in the pews of SBC churches, have no idea what the SBC is doing.

Which is one of the reasons that the SBC has gotten out of hand, there was no one to tell them they couldn't.

Tim G

Either way - Debbie, the SBC has little to no effect unless a Pastor allows it. For a Pastor to do such is extrememly immature. There are many things that I do not agree with and many more that I think ought to be changed - but to let that get in the way of the ministry and mission of the church I lead would be crazy!

Tim G

The church is to be occupied with reaching people for the cause of Christ with the Gospel of Jesus. To let other things that mean nothing interfere with that is beyond my thinking. I have many churches from other groups who would love to become SBC and are making there way in that direction. I am tired of hearing the few being elavated to more by a few and yet I see daily the many who admire us and want to become part of us. Look at Dr. David Jeremiah and others. They flocked to us!

Tim G

P.S. The people in the pews have seldom cared much about the National issues unless it dealt with the Bible and that was seen in 1979. To make the people in the pew the issue is to take a "nothing and try to make it a something". People have never cared - they do not even like local church business meetings. They want to learn to love God and live for Him! Being involved in the SBC is way down the line. Why should it be anywhere else?

Debbie Kaufman

Tim: And I have to ask why? David Jeremiah's church was formerly led by Tim LaHaye. Some of who flock to us, and I am not putting David Jeremiah in this list, I shudder that they do. John Hagee is rubbing shoulders with us too, preaching in Southern Baptist churches. He is also one that I am not sure I would want to flock to us.

Debbie Kaufman

The people in the pew are the SBC Tim. You and others seem to forget that, or count on the fact that some do not care or know. I haven't decided which.

Tim G

The SBC is the greatest group of churches in America and the greatest Mission sending group in the world. That is why.

I can assure you that John Hagee is not considering joining.

Dr. David Jeremiah is one of the greatest bible teachers of our day. I am glad to have him regardless of the churches past. Prestonwood in Dallas is an example of that among many others. Why bring up the past when we are to forgive and celebrate the present work of God?

Heading to bed to be ready for tomorrow - have a great Sunday!

Debbie Kaufman

Tim: Being in denial that there are serious problems just isn't going to solve anything. But you continue in your denial. Good night.

Debbie Kaufman

I also question the integrity of one that continually twists my words to mean something other than they actually mean. It sincerely makes me question whether we can talk to one another.

Steve

Tim, you are in for a wonderful day today
Whom Debbie hates the Lord seems to bless.. we had 3 conversion decisions from men over 20 years old today. Hallelujah!
Steve

peter

Byroniac,

Thanks for the questions and they surely constitute good ones. First, allow me to say that the first question is one that philosophers of religion argue over endlessly. It is one that Scripture, as far as I can tell, remains quite unconcerned. Rather, the inspired authors are content to allow God to be sovereign and humans to be free. The authors never seem to be puzzled by a dilemma as are we.

Second, as I build castles in my own little sandbox, the best answers to this question seem to involve some sort of distinction between those things that are necessary and those things that are certain--those things which *must be* and those things which *will be*. Necessity on the one hand (must be) and certainty on the other (will be).

God surely predestines some things that require us to speak of their necessity--*must be*. The question NonCalvinists raise contra Calvinists (or Indeterminists contra Determinists) is, are *all* things *must bes* or does there exist some things as *will bes*? The difference, when thinking about how God providentially works out His sovereign rule is this: God directly causes some things in such a way as they *must* take place. His raw power sees to it. God also *allows* some things to take place without *causing* them yet it is dead certain those very things will take place. God did not *cause* them to happen even though it was certain they would happen. For NonCalvinists, this seems the only way forward to make an intelligent theodicy without indicting the Sovereign Lord for *causing* evil to take place.

As for giving up free will, Byroniac, I tell you what. Let's do an experiment, shall we? Let's commit that we will attempt to live one solid week based upon the assumption that free will absolutely does not exist. Let's throw it out. You go first. :^)

Francis Schaeffer said somewhere that two criteria exists to examine a worldview to see if it true. First, he suggested, ask "Is it consistent?" Does it possess basic coherence? If not, it's not true, he concludes. Second, he says, ask "Is the worldview livable?" he said, someone may be consistent but it must be asked if someone can actually live in line with the consistency of the view.

If Schaeffer was correct, Determinism--the view that free will is to be abandonded, as you might suggest--may be logically air tight but the question is, can it be lived as such? I answer that it cannot.

Every time you open your eyes in the morning, you are required to *decide* whether or not to get up out of bed. You live *as if* you possess free will. Indeed you insist others live *as if* free will exists. Every time you *blame* a person for taking your ink pen, you demonstrate free will intrinsically is a part of the human make-up. Why? They *chose* to take your pen instead of *choosing* to honor your property.

For my part, my Brother Byroniac, I simply am stuck believing free will, while being denied by many, cannot be discarded by any.

I trust your Lord's Day is grace filled my brother. With that, I am...

Peter

peter

Debbie,

As I read Tim's words, I fail to see where he twisted your words. But perhaps you were referring to me. If so, I too plead innocent to the charge. Unless, of course you possess some hard data.

With that, I am...

Peter

peter

Tim,

Thanks, Tim, for stopping by and I trust your Lord's Day well tomorrow.

I also appreciate your encouragement. With that, I am...

Peter

selahV

STEVE!!! Praise the Lord! May tomorrow be as fruitful and may the three saved today reach 100 times more. selahV

Byroniac

Peter:

Those are good responses. Thank you for those. As for the other, I live every day without free will (that is, I'm not particularly bothered by the appearance of something that doesn't actually exist). However, I do hold to a type of soft determinism, where man's actions are compatible with God's Sovereignty. It has been my experience on not a few occasions of Scripture reading that I see God make an absolute decree, completely fade out of the picture (as far as subject matter is concerned) while humans go about making their free decisions, and watch as the result comes out exactly as God predicted, down to the last detail. You are right, in that is very very difficult (probably not even answerable) from my position to explain the presence of evil and suffering. Basically, I accept that sin (and therefore all evil) exists because God wanted it to. God somehow planned for its existence before even Satan rebelled, because otherwise with perfect foreknowledge and enough power, He could have prevented this first sin from occurring, or Adam's fall, or Cain's murder, or et cetera. How to explain the presence of evil without making God morally culpable is beyond my ability, though I do assert God's impeccability by Scripture as does everyone here, I'm sure. The opposing viewpoint cannot explain the responsibility and sovereignty attributed to God in the Scriptures, which do not have the qualifiers for free will that are often assigned to them. So, though we disagree as theologians, we agree as Christian brothers that Christ is Lord and that is sufficient for fellowship and mutual respect.

Grace and Peace.

Debbie Kaufman

Steve: I said that I may be becoming that which I hate, not whom I hate. I hate no one.

Ron P.

Peter,

AMEN! You (and others here) have correctly identified that this is nothing but sinful gossip, as defined biblically!

Let me add, if I may, what I see as another integrity issue: the attack of professors who agree with Drs. Patterson and Mohler. Dr. Boyd Luter on his blog has attacked the scholarly integrity of Drs. Yarnell and York. I have posted the following on his, blog, but it is still awaiting moderation. Other comments since mine have been approved, so I do not know if it will be allowed to be posted there. So if you do not object, I will post it here:


# Ron P. said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 15th, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Dr. Luter,

The top of your blog has the following:

Agree to Disagree Agreeably
Playing Nice While Blogging about Frustrating Issues

Yet you state in the parent of this article that Dr. Malcolm Yarnell is Paige Patterson’s blog mouthpiece and that Hershael York is Dr. Al Mohler’s mouthpiece. That is not very “agreeable” of you and especially not very nice!

I find your characterization of these men to be insulting and demeaning of two scholars who have spent years studying and researching and have made up their own minds. Neither deserve to be attacked by you just because they agree theologically with Dr. Patterson and Dr. Mohler respectively.

Would you like your academic credentials questioned in such a manner? Would you like it said of you that you are nothing more than a blogging mouthpiece for the anti CR bloggers and thereby imply that you have no scholarly (or other) opinions that are your own? Because that is what you have insinuated.

But then again, this appears to be more evidence that all the attacks are really about attacking Dr. Patterson and anyone who agrees with him.

Ron P.

Tim G

Debbie,
I like Peter am not sure where I twisted your words. Please show me. I try hard not ever do that.

As for denial, I am in no denial. I am fully aware of more than you may know and I stand behind my position in full awareness of the circumstances. Please remember when you try that line of emotionalism that I have been in the SBC for over 38 years, my family has been in the SBC for over 100 years (actively serving and doing more than attending in on the national level), and I have a family of Pastors and Pastors wives who are in the SBC (one even serves currently in a BGCT church and my sister went to and graduated from Baylor though I went and graduated from Liberty). Your shoe does not fit me. I have seen this thing from many sides for a long time.

Steve

AHhhh riiight Debbie...

Debbie Kaufman

I think emotionalism is just what is needed. It's why I got involved in the first place. The emotionalism that missionaries were denied appointment. Tim, I'm sure you have seen a lot but from a different view than I have seen it. I'm grateful for your family history. However, this seems to be more a continuation of past glories than seeing what this is doing to people. The professor just being one of many people that going too far as affected over the years. I am seeing people hurting. I don't like what I see. As for the words twisted, you are correct in that I was speaking to you. I feel the whole conversation concerning the church was misconstrued. I am not speaking of individual church membership, but of whole churches who have either left or been forced out under the guise of leaving on their own accord. Many right now believe strongly in unity, they just can't pay the price of fighting in order to get to that unity. It is a high price to pay. One I wonder if it is worthy paying. Thank you for conversing with me.

Byroniac

Debbie:

Emotionalism is not what is needed. It is exactly when emotions "run high" that good Christian people can give in to temptation and act foolishly, with much later to regret. Key in a lot of these interpersonal issues is the root of pride, often expressed in forms of self-will. We're all capable of it, and all of us must remain focused on Christ and pray for spiritual guidance and help in this regard. Prayer is a powerful thing, and God can and will sort people out on His own and in His own time. Pray for those you disagree with, and hopefully they will pray for you. And trust Christ for the outcome.

peter

Debbie,

To the contrary, emotionalism is definitively *not* what we need nor should aspire after. One of the problems interjected into the conversation here, Debbie, is indictments made, then subtly withdrawn and wrapped in new terminology. Allow me to show you what I mean.

You wrote this to Tim: "I also *question the integrity* of one that *continually twists my words* to *mean something other* than they actually mean." (emphasis mine)

Here's the emotionalism for which you long, my sister, on display in all its unglory.

First, you question" Tim's integrity: "I also question the integrity of one..." Why, Debbie, do you frame the conversation in terms like this? Why not question the conclusions Tim possessed with your words? Why not suggest Tim may have missed your point? Why not simply say "Tim, I see what you're saying, but my words do not imply such."? Instead, you go after him--"I question the integrity.." Here is one dictionary definition that may offer some idea of "integrity" we so often fling around like some limp rag: "adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty." Integrity is about character, not ideas.

Second, Debbie, you accuse Tim of being one who "continually twists [your] words." However, not one instance did you show such flagrant twisting. Rather it's only accusation. Indeed, from my experience on the net, the all-too-common response from those who have no real response is to charge the other with either a) taking my words out of context b) twisting my intent.

Just how did Tim twist your words?

In addition, you inserted "continually" into the equation. Thus, I challenge you, since Tim evidently twisted repeatedly: demonstrate the repeated twisting of your words.

Third, you charge that Tim twisted your words to mean "something other than" their "actual meaning." This Debbie implies Tim *purposely* did such. So, now Tim is purposely twisting your words, evidently in full knowledge of the fact.

But the clincher, Debbie, is the way you subtly backed away from such strong language that Tim purposely and repeatedly twisted your words to mean something they actually did not mean, proving his integrity was on the line: "I feel the whole conversation concerning the church was misconstrued."

O.K. That's it? Tim goes from lacking integrity because he repeatedly and purposely twisted your words to your "feeling" that the conversation was "misconstrued"?

Again, a basic definition is in order. Misconstrue: "to misunderstand the meaning of; take in a wrong sense; misinterpret."

Perfect. How does misunderstanding and/or taking something is a wrong sense necessitate charging someone with purposely, repeatedly twisting one's words from their actual meaning thus proving that integrity may not be evident?

There's raw emotionalism at work for you, my sister. Personally, for what it worth, I think we've got just about all of that
sand our box can hold.

Rather, what we need are Disciples who believe scripture and who attempt, through the Spirit's power, to live out that scripture in godly, wise action everyday. One thing that means, at least the way I see it, is that we do not, out of raw emotion, charge our brother with baseless ungodliness without delivering the goods to demonstrate it. Indeed, sorta like the anonymous professor did with Drs Mohler and Patterson, as well as you appear to have done with Tim.

With that, I am...

Peter

Steve

I'll stand as a second witness to your statements Peter.
Steve Grose

peter

Grosey,

Thanks my brother, for the second. Though note Byronaic's words. He may charge me with plagiarism :^)

Trust you preached with power on this Lord's Day. With that, I am...

Peter

Debbie Kaufman

Peter: As for your argument of Tim, I have no idea what you just said, I don't see how I could have done all of that in the short conversation that Tim and I had, but it must have sounded good to you. :) I however do agree that I could have worded it as you have suggested. It could be that the subject matter was looked at differently by Tim than it was by me. You are right on and I am wrong.

As for emotionalism, I never want to lose that. It's Biblical as we are to use both the mind and the heart, which is who we are. a gift from God.I am a Christian as you are and have the HS just as you do. I have not felt the need to change. Check the scriptures and see how many times our emotions are referred to. The heart and the mind are both who I am. I am not ashamed of it nor will I change it because of the discomfort of others such as possibly yourself. I'll make you a deal Peter. You let me be who I am and I'll let you be who you are. You will get no expectations from me and I will get none from you. That's freedom and unity. I'm willing to make the first move toward that.

Debbie Kaufman

Now there is nothing more for me to say so I will not be answering any more posts. Just know that any charges leveled against me are more than likely not true. That should cover anything more that you comment on or any one else. I'm simply tired of excluding, I'm tired of those who dodge the issue and I'm tired of those who promote stepford Christianity or one size must fit all or your out.

Debbie Kaufman

And that dear Peter and friends is raw emotion. Thank you for the conversation.

peter

Debbie,

I stated Friday that there was a time to be nice and a time to be gentle. Now is the time for neither. I repeat that here.

You come back here, defend slander, make accusations that other's integrity is suspect and waltz away suggesting "that any charges leveled against me are more than likely not true" is just plain bull. No more free passes, Debbie.

Nor will pass without mention the crass confusion implied between embracing emotional aspects of our being made in God's image, which no one here rejects and your call for emotionalism, which most rational, biblical people shun. Emotionalism is the tactic employed by many on the net and here it will stop.

Finally, if you did not know what I wrote, the better approach would have been to not respond period. After all, how can you respond to that which you do not understand? Interestingly, Grosey understood perfectly what I wrote.

I also add that "yes, what you stated did indeed imply such." Most of the time when we are in condemning moods and/or are allowing emotion to run our dialog rather than genuine attempt at understanding, our words imply far more than we at first note. Perhaps such will help you in the future.

If you do decide to come back, Debbie, you will be welcome. What will not be welcome is either defense of slander, gossip or ungodly behavior and/or perpetual emotional venting. NO FREE PASSES.

Grace and Mercy for all. With that, I am...

Peter

Tim G

Peter,
So sorry that my comment led to such a foray.

Debbie,
One might consider the words of Jer 17: 9 "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

Tim G

Steve,
Thank you for the input. I am still trying to see how I "twisted" what Debbie said? I am re-reading and still do not see it.

I can and will say this: "Emotionalism is scary!" God help us!

The comments to this entry are closed.