« Tom Ascol on Gerald Harris by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Phil Roberts resigns Midwestern by Peter Lumpkins »



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

peter lumpkins


I may have to be scarce today. I'll try and look in every chance I get...

With that, I am...



It's an amazing editorial which has put The Flounders on the ropes. The underhanded Calvinist takeover has run into another brick wall.

Ascol's plan "A", the direct takeover of our churches, has been severely hindered by search committees who have wised up.

Ascol's plan "B", the takeover of churches via LifeWay literature and NAMB "Flounder-friendly" church plants, is now in serious jeopardy.

We now know the kind of churches that NAMB is planting with our money. I'm looking into who at NAMB under Ezell is actually handing out our money. Who are Ezell's key staffers?

Peter, you are doing the Lord's work.



My brother Charles,

Thank you. One gets the impression--and this is only an impression--that Founders may come out into the open and argue their case. As for me and my house, we would welcome it!

Grace, brother.
With that, I am...

Bill Pfister


Is name calling really called for here? Aren't we all brothers serving the same Lord in the same denomination?



No Bill Pfister, according to Founder's some of us have "lost" the gospel and are "anti Calvinist" I'll be looking for your admonition at Founder's blog about name calling.


Thank you, Bill. My thoughts exactly.


"Aren't we all brothers serving the same Lord in the same denomination?"

Don't forget the sisters, Bill. But no, Mohler does not think we want to see the nations rejoice for Christ. He said so. He said other things that lead me to believe he does not think we are really saved. one could argue the nuances of what he said and they have ad nauseum. But he was very insulting to his non Reformed, non Calvinists brothers and sisters many of whom, incidently, pay his salary and allow him the freedom to do many non SBC things for the advancement of his career and celebrity. I would say that is quite the nerve.

But it is easier to come to this blog and rebuke. You probably would have trouble getting a private audience with Mohler and he does not take comments on his blog.

Robert Vaughn

"...Southern Seminary has become a seedbed for a brand of Calvinism that is quite different from the Reformed theology of its founder, James Petigru Boyce..."

I wonder in what ways the brand of Calvinism of Al Mohler and Southern Seminary differs from the Reformed theology of J. P. Boyce?



"I wonder in what ways the brand of Calvinism of Al Mohler and Southern Seminary differs from the Reformed theology of J. P. Boyce?"

Defending slavery?

Howell Scott

For the record, I am intrigued by The Gospel Project and may even end up using it for our children, students, and even some adult classes. As I've stated before, I am an "inconsistent Calvinist" in theology, but am a cooperating Southern Baptist in faith and practice (oh, a Christian first for those who maybe snarky about the order of things), which is why I can partner together with folks like Peter who I may disagree with on some aspects of theology, but can ultimately cooperate with as Southern Baptists. Some folks still don't understand that.

Several questions continue to come to mind in light of BP's reporting, particularly Lifeway's Marty King's response and the earlier Voices interview with Trevin Wax (which BP referenced). First, King repeats what I have already heard, which is that Lifeway developed The Gospel Project as a "response to churches asking for a more in-depth Bible study curriculum." What churches were asking? How many churches were asking? How many churches does it take to ask for new curriculum that Lifeway would respond with the resources (financial and otherwise) to develop it?

Second, Trevin Wax (and presumably others associated with The Gospel Project) said they never asked whether any of the advisory board members or contributors were Calvinists. Why would one have to ask a question that he already knew the answer to? Were the theological leanings of the advisors/contributors such a secret that they would have to be questioned about it? I don't doubt Trevin when he says that he (nor anyone at Lifeway) asked about Calvinism, but, I simply don't understand why the question would even need to be asked in the first place.

Maybe I'm dense when it comes to these issues, but it seems to me that the responses of both Mr. King and Mr. Wax elicit even more questions than they answered. But, then again, maybe that's just me. Thanks and God bless,



The BP article of course doesn't address any of the points Harris made. It's just more of the "let's all cooperate" which really means "stop asking questions" of your betters. Of course everyone is patting on the back the naive people who seem to be blissfully ignorant or willfully ignorant of what the issues really are in the SBC. The elites would like very much to keep people ignorant and thus must smack down Gerald Harris et al by name calling - and even attacking his style of writing, thus distracting from the actual points he made in his article.

Robert Vaughn

lmalone, I figure that is a different, but am having trouble thinking that is what Gerald Harris meant in the context. The folks at Southern appear to feel they are walking in Boyce's footsteps, so it would be interesting to know how Harris thinks they are not.

The comments to this entry are closed.