« Who is the greatest saint in the world? | Main | Saturday Sunrise at Destin, Florida November 26, 2011 »

2011.11.21

Comments

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

lmalone

"Should we have 50% reformed teachers and 50% non reformed?
"

IMHO, this will not work for the simple reason that the NC 50% sincerely believe the other non NC 50% are not theologically minded.

mary

Steve Evans, no I don't think 50/50 nonReformed/Reformed is a good idea - if the SBC is majority nonReformed why should it be equal representatiion?

The problem isn't do you have reformed v nonreformed professors, the problem is are the seminaries allowed to take one view and teach it as THE biblical view, THE correct view over the other? Al Mohler seems to believe that he can decide to take over a seminary and that HE will decide what is the TRUTH for the seminary over what the majority of the SBC believes. It's as Peter stated so well above - we're in the same mess we were in when the liberals were in attempting to take over. A few men coming in and deciding to take the entire SBC into a direction opposing the majority view of the SBC.

There is an agenda to reform the SBC. Anybody still denying that is denying reality. The question now becomes will all those Calvinists who claim to want unity and claim that oh no we don't want to get rid of the nonCalvinist in the SBC - where are they? Are they going to start denouncing what Al Mohler and Co are doing at Southern? Are they going to stand with those of us who want to see changes with how the seminaries are being run?

Regarding Mohler, Driscoll and Mahaney. I don't want some mealy mouth statement from Mohler that Driscoll sometimes goes too far, but he's a good guy mostly. Mark Driscoll has an obsession with sex and now his obsession with sex has led him to believe that God is giving him "visions" of sexual violence. Mark Driscoll is a hero to the YRR of the SBC and Al Mohler should be leading that group which he's helped indoctrinate through the years. CP monies were used to bring Driscoll to at least Southeastern against the wishes of Southern Baptist - the man is a misogynist, nobody who speaks about their wife in public the way Driscoll has in demeaning terms can claim to have any respect for women. No one in the SBC shold have anything to do with this man - certainly not our so-called "leaders"

Now "Apostle" Mahaney has been running a cult. Evidence has been posted all over the internet about the abuses going on in SGM through the years. Mohler along with Mark Dever are now trying to censor the evidence against Mahaney by attacking people trying to bring the evidence to light. Dever is said to have told his congregation not to read anything against Mahaney.

It's astounding that when a man is accused of embellishing his resume/past and happens to be a nonCalvinist that volumes are written all over the internet and yet a man like Mahaney who now is being accused of protecting sexual predators in his cult but because he's a Calvinist he's protected by silence. If Driscoll and Mahaney were nonCalvinist Al Mohler and Mark Dever would be looking for jobs because of their protection of these men.

The SBC should have nothing to do with anything to do with either of these two men. And yes that includes Acts 29 as long as Driscoll is in charge. Driscoll should not be in charge of anything anywhere.

mary

lmalone, you get the point exactly re Driscoll. The YRR is a monster - if you come out against one of their idols you would get wailing and gnashing (sp Eileen???) Mohler being a political animal doesn't want to tick off his base of support by going against their idol.

Steve Evans

Mary, I was only saying that it would be a good start to have a 50/50 split. I agree wholeheartedly that the overwhelming majority of the SBC is non-calvinist. I desire to be considered a baptist not a calvinist of arminian. So, no disagreement with you on aforementioned opinion.

Steve Evans

BTW, at our convention in South Carolina last week while voting on the GCR an Acts 29 pastor ran from one mic to one all the way across the hall to call the question and hence limit ANY debate on the GCR. I was livid because it was clearly a set up job by the convention to railroad through the vote without allowing ANY time for debate. I know, I know it's off the subject but it shows the acts 29 crowd's desire to push an agenda.

Jerry Corbaley


There may be useful facts in this comment stream, but it is very unpleasant to search for them. It is like coming upon a brawl in full bloom; it is hard to consider the curses of the combatants as possibly being objective enough to trust.

mary

Steve, I think too, and I don't know if this was your intention but it makes me think this - I used to think, well let's let Southern be the Calvinist Seminary and hold the line with the other Seminaries - we'll divvy up the seminaries in some formal custody agreement. The problem with that is it does divide us along Calvinist/nonCalvinist lines and then the CP gets messed up with people contributing to the seminaries they affiliate with. Plus the seminaries belong to the SBC not the Calvinists or the nonCalvinists - why has it ever been ok for everyone to refer to Southern as the Calvinist Seminary? It's the SBC's Seminary and should reflect and serve the SBC. It does not serve the SBC at this time.


The whole GCR thing is more of the same agenda from the elites - it's trying to cover up the activities of the elites with the idea that there are those of us who care about the Great Commission and then some of us don't if we question the elites. It's holding a shiney new object while they can continue doing what they've been doing. If we care about the GCR won't we want to cooperate with these Cavlinist organizations? The GCR and the name change is all a ruse in my opinion to bring in Acts 29 and possibley SGM so there would be more Calvinists to complete the take over.

Jerry Corbaley, what's going on in the SBC isn't pretty and it's not for the faint of heart. Facts have been presented and people can choose to deal with them or ignore them, but I think people are getting the idea about those who would try to discredit the messenger because they can't deal with the facts.

peter

My brother Jerry,

I do appreciate both your contribution here and patience in searching for reasonable ideas and or factual data to consider from others. Sometimes, as you well know by experience, emotive language runs rather thick on blog threads. Actually I think this one has been fairly well tame compared to some I have to wade through. Also, I think those tators that may possess too much black pepper are mostly driven by passion for the convention and not necessarily personal animosity toward any one person. At least my hope is that anyway. Even so, point accepted.

I mentioned above my yearning to throw out the question as to whether it's time for Southern Baptists to consider one confession across the board. It is only an undeveloped idea. So far as I know the only entities affected would be seminaries, for those agencies are the ones which employ others confessions other than the BFM2K. I haven't a clue what would be involved in accomplishing such. You having served as trustee on the IMB may have some insight. Also, Dr. Lemke would be a great sounding board on this question. However, it could be a fairly sensitive issue.

Grace, brother. I trust your ministry in the Islands is going well.

With that, I am...
Peter

Jerry Corbaley

Aloha Peter,

My concern here is for your cause, and your name, Peter.

Assuming your cause is both factual and communicable; you will raise awareness. When you raise awareness, you will have three kinds of people read your posts and your comment streams. Some will be like-minded. Some will be looking for information. Some will be opposed to you and looking at what you say through a predetermined negative bias.

You, Peter, will most certainly be consigned to the spiritual category that your comment stream tolerates. If it is radical, then you will become radical in the eyes of others. It won't matter how many disclaimers you lay before others. The flavor of the comment stream will stick to the skin of the host.

I think you deserve better.

I agree with you that passion turns up the heat of our rhetoric. It can happen to us all. The like-minded enjoy it. But those who are seeking to learn may conclude that if they happen to disagree with those who are passionate, then all the unfortunate judgmental language will be applied to them for daring to disagree.

I think you deserve better.

When those who come with a bias happen to read rough rhetoric, they are further polarized, and real understanding becomes even more difficult.

I am no better than anyone else, and what I have said here could be said on many blogs. I hope I have not offended anyone.

To those to whom I may sound offensive, let me end with this sentence. Peter's name will be affected by your choice of words; like it or not.

Your brother in Christ; hope to meet you someday.

Barry King

Mr Corbaley speaks the truth.

peter

Jerry,

I appreciate your candid words, brother. And also our brother Barry's. I shall ponder it deeply over the next few days.

With that, I am...
Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.