Founders Calvinist Tom Nettles and the takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention (part I) by Peter Lumpkins

Kentucky pastor and SBC Voices contributor, Jared Moore posed a series of questions to "Traditionalists" about the address Dr. Tom Nettles, Professor of Historical Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, recently gave at the Founders Breakfast held during the Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans. >>>

To be specific, Moore wondered "how traditionalists answer Nettles's [sic] assumptions here. Do you view the entities of the SBC as only your property, or as only the property of those who affirm a "majority" soteriological viewpoint beyond the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, instead of being the property of all Southern Baptists who affirm the BF&M 2000?" Indeed Moore asked several questions after the initial ones concerning "Nettles' assumptions." However, in this piece I hold deeper concern with "Nettles' assumptions" than attempting to please Moore with answers he might find acceptable.

Nonetheless, we must extend gratitude to Moore for taking the time to put in written form some of the comments Dr. Nettles made at the Founders Breakfast. We reproduce them separately below with full and courteous attribution to him. Presently, I'd like to offer a few initial observations concerning the selection from Nettles Moore chose to transcribe for us. Part II will continue my observations.

First, we must be clear on who Dr. Nettles is. Nettles presently serves Southern Baptists as a Baptist historian and historical theologian at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. A longtime Southern Baptist, Nettles' Baptists and the Bible (first edition 1980, co-authored with the late L. Russ Bush) became a manual for inerrancy advocates during the Conservative Resurgence (CR). The authors gave CR supporters both intellectual credibility (Bush, the philosopher) and historical believability (Nettles the historian) to make the message of inerrancy stick. For this, Southern Baptists cannot thank Dr. Nettles (and Bush) enough. We owe much to them.

Riding the wave of popularity and accolades he received from CR leaders for his book on Southern Baptists' historic understanding of biblical inspiration, Dr. Nettles penned a sequel¹ six years later to Baptists and the Bible entitled By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life (1986), a sequel published during the heightened frenzy of the CR. Even so, Nettles' sequel to his and Bush's blockbuster on inerrancy hardly made the hit they expected. Perhaps he discovered showing Southern Baptists how they consistently viewed biblical inspiration throughout their history was one thing, while attempting to push Southern Baptists toward a crusty, hardened theological paradigm found in High Calvinism--a Calvinism from which they consciously, deliberately distanced themselves--was quite another.

The book hardly bore the popularity among Southern Baptists that Baptists and the Bible did. In fact, as we shall now consider, Nettles' book on the doctrines of grace could very well have been the outcome of the failed conversations Founders leaders had with CR leaders in attempting to impose Founders-type Calvinism upon the Southern Baptist Convention.

Ernest Reisinger, Tom Ascol and apparently Dr. Nettles (all original members of Founders Ministries) began immediately after the release of Baptists and the Bible to pressure CR leaders toward the "doctrines of grace." In a letter dated September 10, 1981 to Ernest Reisinger, Dr. Paige Patterson reportedly acknowledged,

"It would be inappropriate and dishonest for me to deny that Dr. [Tom] Nettles and Ernest Reisinger are more Calvinistically turned than I am. You would be correct in your assumption that I would reject the concept of a limited atonement as it is most frequently defined in Calvinistic theology, and would even want to be sure I heard the definitions on three others of the traditional points of Calvinism..."²

Several months later (February 17, 1982), Patterson apparently had to be more forceful in his wording:

It is apparent that we differ some in regard to soteriological matters – at least regarding the order of events in soteriology. What does concern me even more greatly, however, is that we are going to eventually forfeit the Southern Baptist Convention as a forum for the discussion of differences among people who have no questions about the total truthfulness of the Bible unless we stay together. I see the possibility of a rift developing between Bible-believing conservatives over the question of the extent of the commitments to Calvinistic theology"³

The long exchange between Patterson and Reisinger apparently began when Reisinger wrote this on May 5^th, 1981:

"Paige, as you know, I am with you 100% on the battle of inerrancy. However, my concern goes one step farther, that is, What does this infallible Bible say? What does this infallible Bible mean, that is, what does it teach? - and, How does it apply to those to whom I preach?"⁴ 

Reisinger's "one step farther," of course was to embrace the "doctrines of grace" (i.e. five point Calvinism). Hence, Founders Calvinists apparently were attempting to ride the skirt tail of the CR right into the mainstream of Southern Baptist life as far back as the early 1980s.

Nor is Reisinger's take-over ideology dead in the water no matter how many times new Calvinists today deny a "take-over" strategy, and even more, how much the present director of Founders Ministries, Tom Ascol, assures us he wants to "cooperate" with all Southern Baptists. Listen closely to these words by Tom Ascol and note the very same ideology in them as in Ernest Reisinger thirty years ago:

The conservatives have been in charge now for a couple of decades, and our convention is no better off on basic issues than when the liberals were running things...That's because inerrancy isn't enough. We have to actually understand and apply what the Bible says. The conservatives thump the Bible, but are unwilling to just obey the Bible in the most basic ways."⁵

A little later in Hansen's book, the author says of Calvinists and the global mission, "Calvinists, for their part, can make the critics look silly by beating them at their own game" and then Tom Ascol is quoted as saying,

"We're going to see a lot more emphasis on church planting...God is using the climate in the Convention and hostility against Calvinism to send a lot of our choice young men overseas. The International Mission Board is flooded with Calvinists. It's great."⁶

Hence, Tom Nettles, along with Tom Ascol and Al Mohler have been at the forefront of attempting to impose High Calvinism upon Southern Baptists. Yet we have Dr. Nettles saying only two weeks ago "There is an attempt to marginalize those that are seeking to regain the historic, traditional, confessional, soteriological position of Baptists." Marginalize? Begging pardon, the only one I know of in this conflict who has explicitly called on marginalizing anyone is Dr. Nettles' president, Dr. Al Mohler: "This conversation will marginalize those whose influence should be marginalized — those who have a party spirit, who play into tribalism, or who want to divide Southern Baptists from each other."

Would Dr. Nettles aim the same condemnatory rhetoric toward Mohler as he did toward the "Traditionalists"? If he would not, then I suspect some would feel obliged to charge him with the same "double-standard" he'd like to fling toward "Traditionalists."

In addition, in the very first line Moore transcribes, Nettles' concedes the exact complaint "Traditionalists" continue to make against new Calvinists like Nettles, Mohler, and the younger Moore; namely, new Calvinists seek to impose their Calvinism upon the Southern Baptist Convention. Note carefully what Nettles said in the opening transcribed line: those that are seeking to regain the...soteriological position of Baptists. It's obvious where Nettles stands. No view of soteriology qualifies for the Baptist position but the position which those like him are seeking to regain.

Truth is, had he wished, Nettles could have easily contended that all they want is a viable voice in Baptist life...that Baptist Calvinism is an historic position alongside "Traditionalists" understanding of soteriology. It would only make sense, therefore, for Southern Baptists to accept Baptist Calvinism as one of Southern Baptists' historic positions on soteriology. Instead Nettles explicitly suggests Calvinists like him are seeking to regain the soteriological position of Baptists.

In short, Moore seems unaware Nettles gives the store away in the very first line he transcribes. From all indications we observe, Calvinists like Nettles, Ascol, and Mohler do not seems to want cooperation. They want conquest.

Part II

¹though the book is not promoted as a "sequel" per se

²A Quiet Revolution: A Chronicle Of Beginnings Of Reformation in The Southern Baptist Convention, Ernest C. Reisinger & D. Matthew Allen, Founders Ministries Library

³ibid

⁴ibid

⁵Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists, Colin Hansen, p.77

⁶ibid

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Tom Nettles at the Founders Breakfast during the 2012 Southern Baptist Convention, New Orleans Louisiana

(from the audio presumably transcribed by Jared Moore):

(44:45) There is an attempt to marginalize those that are seeking to regain the historic, traditional, confessional, soteriological position of Baptists. The preamble to the document speaks to the "longstanding arrangement" of the relation of Calvinists to traditional Southern Baptists. Well, what arrangement is this? I don't recall an arrangement by which a Calvinist could be tolerated as long as he did not seek to propagate his views. This is the fundamental practical assumption that has given rise to this challenge. The fundamental theological assumption is the rejection of compatibilism, but this is the fundamental practical assumption.

This present phenomenon not only gives criticism to Calvinist thought, but seems non-plus that a Calvinist would want his church to have an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation. Indeed, that a Calvinist would want all churches to have that same understanding seems to this emergent traditionalism to be shocking, and a violation of some social arrangement that has normally governed the place of Calvinists in Southern Baptist life. Before, Calvinists were so rare and seemingly so odd that they provided comic relief to the more thoroughbred Southern Baptists. It was good to have them around, for some oddities in life provide amusement and a target for good-natured humor. The traditionalist was just fine with the occasional presence of an inconsequential Calvinist, but these Calvinists have now become uppity, and they dare to take their own views of truth with the seriousness with which convictions about truth should be taken. They think their view of the gospel should impact evangelism, missions, church discipline, preaching, theological education; how dare they violate the arrangement! See how nasty and aggressive these Calvinists are; see how vile they act as they seek to drink from the same water fountain as the Traditionalists when they claim an equal right to argue their case, propagate their views, and are unembarrassed to accept all the common rights of what it means to be Southern Baptists. The former Calvinists deserve credit, the approval of the majority, for he did not demand the adoption of his views as a standard. Oh no, that was the position and prerogative of the Traditionalists, but now serious-minded, competent, earnest, self-sacrificing neo-Calvinists are pushing for a radical alteration of this longstanding arrangement. We cannot allow the help to be so brazen. We must put a stop to it.

Well, one way to oppose it is to represent it as something of a new spirit, a new aggressiveness, a new cocksureness. One observer [Jerry Vines] has stated that there is a new kind of Calvinism among us. Some, not all, new Calvinists are hostile, militant, and aggressive. Oh, that's probably what I'm being right now; I'm sorry. This kind of Calvinism is troubling our churches, hindering evangelism and missions, and disrupting the fellowship of our convention. I would hope that men of good will, whether Calvinists or not Calvinists, would repudiate that kind of Calvinism.

So, according to this objection, it is not Calvinism that is the problem, but it's this kind of Calvinism. If this characterization is true, a trouble-making, divisive, anti-mission kind of confrontation, then we do have much repenting to do. But if it is merely a rhetorical way of stigmatizing earnest bible-preaching men who love their churches and love Christ, and are not content to privatize their views of truth so that it has no effect on their practice of ministry or the content of their conversation. If this kind of transparent commitment is interpreted as trying to force their views on others, then the repenting must come from the objectors. Now, of course one way to stop this is to inform all the churches through the directors of missions that Calvinism is dangerous, and will destroy your church. So, give hints to the deacons as to how they can detect a Calvinist and generate as much prejudice as possible against it. If he resists the charges that are given, seeks to explain them, a group within the church comes to his side, then he has become the typical Calvinist-church-splitter. See how divisive they are. Apply majoritarian pressure that indicates that it is not appropriate for Calvinists to hold positions in which their salaries come from the Southern Baptist Convention, the property of the Traditionalists. No matter their competence, their orthodoxy in historic Christianity, their views of biblical authority, their thorough commitment to Baptist ecclesiology, their involvement in church planting, missions from the local church and evangelism, their faithfulness to conscientious and contractual obligations to support ex animo a chartered confessional statement, the newly minted tradition says, "We do not want such a person in a position of influence." And so it goes . . . this is the practical implication; this is what the documents are moving toward (49:37). Audio available here from Founders Ministries

Comments

[Mary]

What a mean, nasty man. Using the language of racism to portray himself as somehow a victim. How long has he been employeed by the SBC at THE CALVINIST Seminary, yet somehow we're to believe he's being discriminated against in the same way as blacks in the 50's. Cowards have to resort to such desparate language. The people who are actually discrimanting are the Calvinists wherever they are given power, but somehow we're to ignore all those facts of real discrimination. We need to get some real Trustees who are willing to hold employees of he SBC accountable for such hateful rhetoric. What these comments show is that the jig is up for Founders and they're getting afraid that their agenda to completely Calvinize the SBC might be in trouble.

[Wade Burleson]

Mary,

Those of us who know Tom Nettles know that he is not a mean, nasty man.

On the contrary, he is soft-spoken, warm, and genuinely affectionate person with believers of all stripes.

Theological differences sometimes produce pendantic or punctilious writings (or speeches)- but that doesn't mean the person writing or speaking is "mean and nasty."

The same thing I have said about Tom Nettles could be said by you of Peter Lumpkins toward those who feel Peter's writings are pendantic or punctilious. It doesn't mean Peter is a "mean, nasty man" and those who know him would challenge anybody who says such a thing as I am challenging you.

[Mary]

Oh lookee, it's Wade, Hey remember a few years ago when you had a conniption and falsely claimed that Paige Patterson was kicking out the Calvinists at Southwestern? Good times those. So now that the Calvinist openly admit that they believe they deserve control of Seminaries and Institutions are you going to write some blog post about that? You know goose - gander.

And Wade as far as Tom Nettles, who is on the board of Directors of Founders - the group who delcares themselves to be the "true" Southern Baptist who are about the business of recovering the Gospel those who disagreed with him have somehow lost - to be declaring that he is somehow being marginalized while he has gotten a paycheck from his employement at The CALVINIST Seminary for years - is somewhat comical.

And anyone who thinks it appropriate to use such hateful rhetoric comparing those who disagree with them to racists is just a plain mean nasty person. I don't care what "those who know him" say. If he's really as you say than we'll be seeing an apology and repentance for a such a disgusting attack against Trads. But being as the real double standards are on the side of Calvinists I doubt there will be any apology form Nettles for his hateful words or a blog post from you now pointing out how bad it is that Calvinists are clearly about the business of kicking out Trads where they've taken over.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

Thank you. I too noticed the very question you raise. Hence, so far as the disgust you log concerning the unfortunate racial images Nettles wrongly exploits to explain in part his allegation about the supposed undue discriminatory practices against Calvinists by Traditionalists through the years, I agree wholeheartedly. I intend to tease this out more thoroughly in Part II.

Had I been Moore, I would thought deeply before employing the selection from Nettles that connected his theory of discrimination against Calvinists with the horrible, despicable, cultural blotch against members of the African-American race--a pre-civil rights socio-cultural sin in which we all find ourselves guilty. Indeed the pro-gay community has duped a fairly large portion of the American population into believing their cause is ethnically analogous to Black slavery and pre-1960s discrimination. Now comes Nettles suggesting the Southern Baptist Calvinist's plight is also analogous to some type of racial prejudice with his remarks on Calvinists not "drinking from the same water fountain."

When will we stop exploiting the plight of people of color suggesting any injustice we perceive--whether it's about a moral issue like homosexuality or a theological issue like soteriology--is equitable to the gross injustice minorities received prior to the 1960s?

Frankly, the analogy Nettles raised ought to infuriate African-American Southern Baptists and, if Richard Land's notorious remarks about race remains our model to follow, perhaps Dr. Nettles should also receive some type of reprimand from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary trustees just as Land received from ERLC trustees for his inappropriate racial remarks.

Grace, sister.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Lydia]

"The conservatives have been in charge now for a couple of decades, and our convention is no better off on basic issues than when the liberals were running things...That's because inerrancy isn't enough. We have to actually understand and apply what the Bible says. The conservatives thump the Bible, but are unwilling to just obey the Bible in the most basic ways."5"

Funny how I have heard this same thing from quite a few YRR over the last few years. Wonder how they plan to "enforce" people obeying the bible as they teach it?

[peter lumpkins]

Hey Wade,

Good to see you at the SBC even if only a hallway pass, a cordial how-do-you-do and a brotherly handshake.

I think you could have a point with Nettles. While I've never met him personally, I'm told he is a gentlemen's gentleman. In fact, after one of my 5Point Calvinist friends read my post today, he gave me a buzz saying this very thing about Nettles and wondered about my writing this piece. Even so, he admitted on the phone what I wrote in the piece was technically correct. We didn't explore what that meant. I was just happy to get that! ;>)

Yes, most of us sooner or later write things which makes us sound "meaner" than we are. The Apostle Paul was even accused of such by his critics (for the record, no remote intent to put me or my writings into the same apostolic category). I've done my best through the years to be honest with what I say and say it in a cordial way--though upfront I concede my best has been nowhere near perfect. All that said, Dr. Nettles may be a gentlemen's gentleman. Granted. But he nor I nor you nor others should attempt to cast our prejudicial complaints about injustice over mundane matters into the same category as racial discrimination in America.

Thanks and God bless.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Peter, I'm infuriated, that a man thinks people saying mean things about Calvinism in the SBC is somehow the equivilant of the horrors that minorities have suffered.

And the irony of a man who has made his living for (how many years) at the CALVINIST Seminary claiming that somehow he's discriminated against? How exactly has he been discriminated against? He has his own Calvinist church and a job at the Calvinist Seminary?

Oh - now for some reason it's a problem that Trads are organizing the way the Founders did 30 years ago to somehow try to educate churches. Founders are allowed to have Calvinist only churches and yet somehow when Trads have Trad only churches that's discrimination. Founders has pushed caricutures and misrepresentations of what Trads believe for years, but that's ok. Calvinists are taking over the institutions discriminating against Trads but when the Trads say "hold on a minute, these are SBC institutions and shouldn't be Calvinists or Trad" that's a problem. The hypocrisy just goes on and on.

One good thing about this TS is that now we see who has the real agenda and who truly wants to take over. On one side you see this idea that the institutions are supposed to serve the entire SBC and on the other you see Calvinist declaring that they deserve to take over and Calvinize institutions because they are the Founders and the nonFounders need to get out.

But I have to admit that I am suprised that someone like Tom Nettles thought it approprate to sink to such a disgusting level in rhetoric. I'm not holding my breath as far as anyone holding him accountable. He's a Calvinist after all. I'm sure someone will be along soon to give the proper interpretations to those who can't understand such a great Calvinist Idol such as Nettles.

[Lydia]

"The traditionalist was just fine with the occasional presence of an inconsequential Calvinist,"

Let me get this straight. Al Mohler is an occasional, inconsequential Calvinist?

But, Does irony get any better when a "Founders Calvinist" uses a racist argument concerning a perceived disenfranchisement?

I am hoping people are aware that SBTS "Calvinist" founder Boyce was pro slavery...as in our "roots".

I am constantly amazed that such educated men use such pedantic arguments that really do insult a group of people who were REALLY enslaved and disenfranchised.

Kind of reminds me of someone who said I was "torturing" Calvinists today to bring up the torture, imprisonment and drowning of beleivers during the Geneva Reformation years. Now I am seeing where such thinking comes from. The top. Sounds like the arguments liberals use in politics.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I will be away for the rest of the afternoon. Lord bless...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Lydia, let's see other occasional, inconsequential Calvinists - 4 Pointers Akin at Southeastern; Ezell, NAMB;

and rumor has it that the new SBC President is a Calvinist. Seems like I'm missing a few. But yeah occasional, inconsequential indeed.

[Lydia]

BTW: Jared Moore is the one who said I was really a Calvinist and did not know it..... so when Mohler said the things he said on the GC vid about New Calvinism being the only place to go if we want to see the nations rejoice for Christ....according to Jared, Mohler was speaking of me, too. Oh, and that is because of the BFM, I think.

Amazing what folks will believe.

Double Standard? The New Calvinists are masters of double speak. Orwellian.

[Mary]

It would be funny if it weren't so outreagous and disgraceful. A priveleged lily white, white man invoking the symbols of Jim Crow south portraying himself as a victim in the same manner, all the while he's proclaiming this imagined discimination against him he boldly collects a paycheck from those who he's compared to racists while on staff at ground zero for the Calvinization of the SBC. But oh wait - the prolem isn't such flaming ridiculous rhetoric from a Calvinist idol - it's all the "anti" Calvinist. I think we can safely place Tom Nettles in the AntiTradtionalists column along with Mohler, Ascol et al.

[selahV]

Peter, This Nettles' transcription made me ill. I'll skip the next beating, thank you very much. It does help me understand why the Anti-Traditionalists talk to us the way they do, though. If this is the mindset and attitude being pressed upon followers of doctrines of grace, it makes perfect sense. Blessings to all, and may God's mercy abound. selahV

[Lydia]

Good point. A lot of Trads are paying Nettles salary that gives him a voice and a platform. I don't see that as discrimination at all.

[Mary]

Hariette, there's so much wrong with how Nettles is trying to portray Calvinists as victims here that it would take multiple posts to refute all the fallacies he's promoting. He is doing with his flaming rhetoric that which he accuses the Trads of doing. And then add the "questions" from Moore for some more ridiculous rhetoric and what we see is that Calvinists are not interested in a serious conversation at all. They want to attack, attack, attack and hope that the words of a Calvinist Idol will somehow delegitimize and silence all dissent.

[Jared Moore]

Peter Lumpkins, "The result, I think, over the years, has been a steady diluting of the Baptist gene pool and an influx of other influences than our historical Baptist distinctives. We are now so broadly "evangelical" that being Baptist is pushed to the back of the bus, so to speak."

http://fromthehillsandhollers.blogspot.com/2007/06/divided-or-fragmenting.html

Are ya'll going to rebuke Peter as well for using segregation language?

Peter, are you going to apologize for using the segregation language of "back of the bus" in the above comment? If not, how is what you said any different from what Nettles said?

There are also numerous quotes available online of some of your heroes using the same language. Are you going to call them to apologize or be disciplined by their churches or trustees as well?

[Lydia]

Jared, You are good at being a YRR. WOW...you must have spent all evening looking for that quote from 2007!!!! Sooooo....Do you still think that Peter is the anti Christ as so many you called him over at Voices?

I would rebuke him but I am a girl and not allowed.

But Jared, Don't you find it ironic that a "Founders" person who wants to go back to our "roots" of pro slavery Calvinism, uses that language? Don't you find it ironic that a man who is paid with TRAD money accuses them of discriminating against his kind? I mean, I could understand it if he could not get a job at all in the SBC because he is a Calvinist but how long has he worked in an SBC entity?

I mean, is common sense no longer allowed in the New Calvinist movement?

[Lydia]

http://sgmrefuge.com/2012/06/28/board-update-defining-sovereign-grace-leadership-positioning-c-j-mahaney-as-president/#comment-73508

Forgive me for being off topic but a friend sent me this. In all this NC/SBC discussion Mark Dever is rarely mentioned.

The link is to a very long comment on the SGMRefuge site detailing the history of Capitol Hill Baptist, 9 Marks and the relationship with the SBC/SBTS/ Calvinism. This former member shows how the "congregational" polity at CHBC really works. I had heard this same thing from other CHBC refugees I have interviewed over the past few years. It is all pretty much a ruse. But the history is very interesting and we start seeing dots connecting.

[Jared Moore]

Lydia,

First, I did a search at Voices, and a couple people called Lumpkins "anti-Christ" in jest. You, of course, have never made any negative statements about anyone, :).

Second, what does you being a girl have to do with rebuking brothers and/or sisters in Christ?

Third, slavery and Calvinism don't always go together. Did non-Calvinist Baptists own slaves? Did non-Calvinist Southern Baptists affirm segregation? Yes to both of these. I suppose I can argue that non-Calvinism leads to slavery and segregation, huh?

Fourth, if you really believe that Nettles is paid with "Traditionalist's money," then you prove the points he made in his lecture. At this point, over 825 Southern Baptists have signed the statement. There's roughly 6 million Southern Baptists that gather for worship in our churches on any given Sunday. So, of those active Southern Baptists, less than .01% have signed the document and can rightly be labeled "Traditionalists." It's speculation. You can't accurately say that Nettles's salary is paid by Traditionalists. Truth be told, Nettles salary is paid by Southern Baptists, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists.

Finally, I would love to have a conversation with you where you didn't insult me. I think we could have much fellowship together, more than you realize.

[Ronald C. Ray]

In none of the comments have I seen the name Jesus, forgiveness, or love. My heart hurts for all of you. I feel almost sad to be linked to SBC christians during these times. I however am and hold to the BFM 2000, proudly. How about you all be disgusted with yourselves, hush, and proclaim Christ and Him crucified. Because Jesus loves you!!!

[Lydia]

"First, I did a search at Voices, and a couple people called Lumpkins "anti-Christ" in jest."

Yeah, that is hysterical. It would be more believable if you guys did not have such thin skins.

" You, of course, have never made any negative statements about anyone, :)."

Only negative truths, my friend.

"Second, what does you being a girl have to do with rebuking brothers and/or sisters in Christ?"

Roles. As a Piper fan you should know that. Ever met Noel?

"Third, slavery and Calvinism don't always go together. Did non-Calvinist Baptists own slaves? Did non-Calvinist Southern Baptists affirm segregation? Yes to both of these. I suppose I can argue that non-Calvinism leads to slavery and segregation, huh?"

Good try, Jared. The issue your icons have made is "going back to our roots" and our founders were Calvinist and pro slavery. If you don't want history discussed, perhaps, it woudl be wise not to name themselves "Founders" and make a 10 year big deal about our founding roots. It only makes us go and read a lot and that cannot be good for your issue.

"Fourth, if you really believe that Nettles is paid with "Traditionalist's money," then you prove the points he made in his lecture."

Huh? Here we go with your prove it, prove it. Jared, grow up. Are you seriously suggesting that no Trad or non Calvinist money goes to pay his salary?

" At this point, over 825 Southern Baptists have signed the statement. There's roughly 6 million Southern Baptists that gather for worship in our churches on any given Sunday. So, of those active Southern Baptists, less than .01% have signed the document and can rightly be labeled "Traditionalists." It's speculation. You can't accurately say that Nettles's salary is paid by Traditionalists. Truth be told, Nettles salary is paid by Southern Baptists, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists."

Uh, don't look now but you just made my point. He is insulting SOME who pay his salary. Not nice. Mohler does it all the time, too. In fact, he has worked for an SBC entity for a long time as a Calvinist so how can he claim disenfranchisement? You had better hope this does not trickle down to the pews where those not hooked up on social media are.

"Finally, I would love to have a conversation with you where you didn't insult me. I think we could have much fellowship together, more than you realize.
"

Jared, You are a YRR who has been trained by the best bullies in the business. You don't even see that you throw down gauntlets and then act as if any disagreement is an insult. You have been trained, nay, indoctrinated. I don't expect you to see it. Maybe at 40. I hope.

How many comments did it take for you to try to convince me that MOhler thinks people like me are Calvinist to excuse his comments on the GC video. You will believe anything these guys say.

[Lydia]

"Because Jesus loves you!!!"

Ronald, That is not Calvinist approved terminology anymore. Although I totally agree with it.

[Lydia]

Jared, You might enjoy this:

http://matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-needs-new-pr/exorcism-at-mars-hill-one-womans-story/#comment-19913

Just more of the avalanche of stuff coming out of Mars Hill and Driscoll. We have Mars Hill Refuge, stories in Huffpo, Slate, etc. Why should we believe it? Well, just too many people finally speaking out and we do have his own words over the last 10 years, his book and his porno visions.

And now we have Driscoll clones the SBC has paid for in Acts 29.

What have we done to people? Are we funding cults? We are going to have a lot to answer for this Reformed "reformation" we have sold our souls to.

[Jared Moore]

Lydia, you're stereotyping me based on your perception of others. You think pastors are bullies. I'm many things, but a bully isn't one of them. If anything, I err on the other side of leadership. I'm not authoritarian, but congregational, even though I believe pastors should lovingly lead. Truthfully, you don't know me. Once again, if you took the time to get to know me, I think you'd be surprised at the fellowship we could have. We'll worship together one day, why not now?

Concerning Mohler's comments, Mohler has said publicly that all Southern Baptists are Calvinists. You don't have to like it, but it's a fact. Ask an Arminian if you're a Calvinist.

Even Paige Patterson has said there's room in the SBC for those who are 1-5 point Calvinists, since eternal security is a Calvinist doctrine, and is included in the BF&M 2K. Once again, you may not like it, but from an Arminian perspective, you're on the Calvinist side if you affirm eternal security.

Finally, I want to encourage you to extend more grace toward the various pastors you dislike. You seem quick to believe anything negative about pastors.

BTW: Why'd you ask me if I ever met Noel? Have you met Noel? Do you know something secret about her and Piper's relationship?

[peterlumpkins]

Jared,

There was no analogy being made in those comments about our plight as Baptists and the plight of people of color in this country--Period...None. There was, however, a distinct, undeniable parallel between racial discrimination and Calvinist discrimination in Nettles' image.

Even so, the answer to your query is,

Yes--Absolutely...Positively. I both regret and repent and offer public apology for any semblance of racial contours my personal comments or posts in the past may have implied and commit openly to be as careful with images that may in the least illegitimately point back to the tragic years of American discrimination as humanly possible. May our Lord forgive and be pleased.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peterlumpkins]

Jared,

Drop the point on doing searches at Voices. I've kept most of the comments where you and a host of others made me personally into the punching bag on entire posts, you particularly more than once flat out calling me a liar. I don't appreciate that at all. So just drop it. Now. I don't want to go back there. If you want to discuss this post, be my guest. If you want to defend Nettles' point of view, go to it. But keep focused here. I hope I'm clear...

With that, I am...
Peter

[peterlumpkins]

SelahV

Yes, it is provocative to be sure. He piles one image on another in pure sarcastic fashion but men like Jared overlook it and assume his words majestic. When non-Calvinists employ sarcasm or vivid imagery they're mean-spirited, divisive, and non-cooperative.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jared Moore]

Peter, come on man! When referring to me on this blog one time, you said that you were sorry Liberty and SBTS (Schools I attended) were putting out men so ill-equipped to handle the gospel. I do think you've been deceptive in the past, but I'd never say you were ill-equipped to handle the gospel.

Similar to Lydia, I think if you and I sat down face to face, we would find more fellowship than disagreement.

We should have sat down in New Orleans. Maybe we can sit down in Houston or sooner?

[Mary]

Jared, your history in the SBC blogsphere is as one of the nastiest bullies out there. Let's see in this thread alone you declared to Lydia that Mohler states she's a Calvinist and it doesn't matter whether she likes it or not she is a Calvinist and that's a fact. Doesn't matter whether you like it or not you are a bully who will defend Calvinists at any cost and that's a fact. You call everybody liars who ever dare say something against you're beloved Calvinism or any of your idols.

And no Jared you're not anyone who could "fellowship" with anyone you are the kind of Calvinist that has caused all the trouble in the SBC. You ignore facts and worse you ignore victims because you don't care about people, you only care about your Calvinism because it makes you feel superior.

Oh and let's see one quote about the bus on a blog equals an SBC employee on some rant against Trads and now it's perfectly ok for Calvinists to declare not only that they are victims like blacks in Jim Crow South but that those doing the alleged victimizing are the same thing as the racists perpetrators. But yeath these are the guys who want unity. And great insulting graphics with the toliet. Way to promote unity.

And nice with the party line of "only 800 people" - how many people do you think those 800 people have influence. Hint Jared - there wouldn't be such a meltdown among the Calvinist elites if it were only 800 people - there wouldn't be a need for a "blue ribbon" task force. But you keep quoting the party line, good little yes man you are.

And while you're here Jared, you made some statements about decisional regereration and getting people unsaved before you can get them saved. PROVE IT JARED! Isn't that what you do all the time - Give names, give churches, give contact information PROVE IT or quit going around - what do you and your little YRR friends claim? Oh yeah quit going around bearing false witness with your LIES. Isn't that how you treat the victims of Calvinism? PROVE IT OR SHUT UP!

[Mary]

No Jared, you don't think we mishandle the Gospel you just believe like Founders were all guilty of having lost the Gospel and like Al Mohler we're all too dumb to understand we're just Calvinist whether we choose to ignore the "Fact" or not.

[Mary]

Peter, I think it's really interesting how the TS has forced Calvinists to once and for all come clean with a few facts they can't deny.

First we see Founders Ascol and Nettles admitting that they want their Calvinism to be adopted by all churches and institutions.

And you see people like Jared boldly proclaiming that of course the Calvinists have taken over institutions because that's their right, that's their due. This isn't about cooperating together it's a death match as to who takes over which institutions.

Now of course it's not suprising that someone like Jared has ignored what people like you and me Peter actually think should happen and it's that the institutions should be supporting the entire SBC - not just one side or the other, because if the whole baby gets split than people start designating their funds to only those they like. What the Calvinists are doing with their institutional take overs will destroy the SBC. The institutions either have to be neutral or the SBC will be destroyed.

But the antiTrads are so hung up in this win at all costs mentality they don't see the ramifications of what they have done in taking over two seminaries, NAMB and Lifeway. And the simple fact is, that the Calvinist will not allow Trads to boldly proclaim Southwestern and NO as the Trad seminaries where only Trads will be on staff - that would be divisive and unfair.

Now as far as the whining about the TS "misrepresenting" Calvinism - a day hasn't gone by that Founders or Al Mohler isn't saying something offensive but since Calvinists tell us that these Calvinists are not offensive than I think the Trads can play by the same rules - that TS preamble is not offensive, you just don't understand - so get over it already. Timmy Brister just posted a highly offensive quote from Packer the other day but hey - that's ok because only Calvinist are in possession of truth and they are the arbiters of what is and isn't offensive.

And I think Dave Miller has proven very nicely that the kind of unity he wants is the blatent antiTRAD attacks he posted today at Pravda. Dave Miller is not a "unity" candidate - he is an AntiTraditionalist. Anybody who truly wanted unity would not be promoting the kind of flaming rhetoric of Jared Moore and Tom Nettles.

[Jared Moore]

Mary, thank you for all your compliments friend. I look forward to worshiping the Lord Jesus with you one day in eternity.

[Mary]

Jared, "friend" thank you for continually showing yourself to be exactly the Calvinists the TS document describes in the preamble. Also thank you for demonstrating that you have no intention of having any conversation as you only know how to attack with potty pictures.

[peterlumpkins]

Jared,

Inevitably in the exchanges we've had, Jared, the longer our exchange becomes, the more evidence is logged that some of the YRR like yourself have no real business engaging the debate for the future of Southern Baptist Convention. Not that you can't. Obviously, you can keep on talking. But your response back to be demonstrates my point nicely.

Consider: you fail to make a very basic distinction between suggesting someone may be ill-equipped for a particular business or task--in this case, assuming my words were precisely as you suggest, I implicated you as being ill-equipped in at least some capacity in gospel-ministry--and explicitly condemning someone as a liar. You treat the two as if there is not even a razor's edge distinction between them. Yet, the distinction is so glaring, a college freshman English 101 student should immediately perceive the distinction.

All one has to do is scrape away the surface slush to see the two are obviously not the same, for one concerns lack of data and the other lack of character. One is about the absence of skill and the other is about the absence of integrity. Indeed one may lack equipment to be effective at a certain task but no matter how effective or knowledgeable or skillful or equipped a person might be in ministry, if the person lacks integrity or is a liar or is deceitful, the person cannot be called in any way successful in ministry. To state it another way, a person could be as dumb as a rock but if he or she is a person of integrity, he or she may rightly be considered as walking worthy of the calling with which he or she is called.

Again, a Christian person can be a godly person and lack sufficient equipment for ministry--as many, in fact are in the body of Christ and pastors are called of God to assist in equipping saints for the work of ministry (Eph 4)--but no matter how equipped or credentialed he or she is, the person cannot be considered godly if that person is a liar or deceiver.

That's why, Jared, many of us "Traditionalists" have reservations about some of the YRR like yourself engaging the debate for the future of the SBC. You simply display little to no maturity in your thinking, your moral reasoning, your biblical and theological development to earn the right to direct the convention's future. You condemn men as deceivers who were faithfully preaching the gospel to our lost culture when you were in diapers and sucking a bottle. All of a sudden, you expect to be heard without ever having earned the right to be heard or having had the experience or developed skills indicative of a need to be heard. Instead you boldly stand and with a loud voice, demand to be heard.

Hence, you prove, at least to me, you still remain ill-equipped for the task at hand. I encourage you to learn how to make basic distinctions which would go a long, log way in developing your skill-set.

Finally, Jared, while I didn't purposely avoid you at the convention, I did not purposely seek you out either. If I may speak plainly, few times will I ever seek out men or women with whom to fellowship who have publicly called me a liar, and that without the least remorse for doing so. What would we talk about? Whether or not he or she is right about me being a deceiver? No thanks. I don't need nor do I seek fellowship based on proving my character to anyone. I am who I am.

Now, if someone wanted to clear up some misunderstanding about what I may have written, that's an entirely different matter. Ignorance can be educated. And, misunderstanding can be peacefully settled. But being publicly condemned as a deceiver hardly falls into the same category.

So, had I even saw you in NOLA, and had I even been invited to sit, I'd be dishonest if I didn't also say here and now, I'm not sure I would have responded positively to your invitation. I have no desire whatsoever in sitting down and pretending to have brotherly fellowship with another who very well may think what I'm saying at that very moment is just more lies.

Thanks. But no thanks. Maybe sometime later. But not now, brother. Not now.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Lydia]

"Lydia, you're stereotyping me based on your perception of others.

Jared, This is just blind. You have a ton of comments and many articles over at Voices. We have had quite a few interactions over at Voices. That is what I base my "perception" on.

" You think pastors are bullies."

Some are. Like Driscoll, Mahaney and a few others. Now we are seeing CHBC survivors. This is what happens when a group thinks they are smarter and can control others. Eventually the horror stories come out.

" I'm many things, but a bully isn't one of them. If anything, I err on the other side of leadership. I'm not authoritarian, but congregational, even though I believe pastors should lovingly lead. Truthfully, you don't know me. Once again, if you took the time to get to know me, I think you'd be surprised at the fellowship we could have. We'll worship together one day, why not now?"

Jared, Which part of this do you not understand. All I can go on are your words online whether arguing with someone or your blog posts selling Harry Potter for Christ (Very Piper) and they do not paint the above picture. However, when you are not on home turf you will throw down gauntlets and when that does not work, you resort to: But I am really nice.

"Concerning Mohler's comments, Mohler has said publicly that all Southern Baptists are Calvinists. You don't have to like it, but it's a fact. Ask an Arminian if you're a Calvinist."

Jared, why would you affirm, repeat and promote stupid things? Can you not think for yourself. Is this really your defense of Mohler? You think this sort of declaration is ok for an SBC entity president?

"Even Paige Patterson has said there's room in the SBC for those who are 1-5 point Calvinists, since eternal security is a Calvinist doctrine, and is included in the BF&M 2K. Once again, you may not like it, but from an Arminian perspective, you're on the Calvinist side if you affirm eternal security."

Jared this is just silly. We have plenty of Calvinists in leadership positions and in influential positions. But many of the YRR act as if this is not true. You have Ezell who is a fellow travellor funding Calvin only Acts 29 church plants. So to act as if you are being discriminated against is childish whether it is Nettles or you.

"Finally, I want to encourage you to extend more grace toward the various pastors you dislike. You seem quick to believe anything negative about pastors."

No Jared, I do my homework and I warn about bullies and extend grace and real help to victims. I think Bullies need Jesus not pulpits. (Why do you think your hero's acted so quickly to distance themselves from Driscoll? Truths that I have been aware of for 6 years are coming out publicly. You see Jared, spiritually abused people are not strong enough to speak out right away and take on the bully)

[Mary]

"All of a sudden, you expect to be heard without ever having earned the right to be heard or having had the experience or developed skills indicative of a need to be heard. Instead you boldly stand and with a loud voice, demand to be heard."

Bingo, imagine if at Ascol's church that Brister disagrees with Ascol and Brister starts pulling this Ascol get out of the way old man attitude. Of course Brister doesn't do this because Ascol has the "correct" doctrine and so is therefore worthy of Brister's respect.

But the YRR in the SBC are being taught that they deserve to be heard because those they want to marginalize have the wrong doctrine.

There is nothing Biblical with the YRR demanding that they should be given leadership positions because they have the correct doctrine and need to push out those with bad doctrine.

It's something that is cultural - it used to be you'd grow up go through school, start your job at the bottom and work your way to the top. The generation of the YRR don't think they should have to pay dues and spend time learning anything since they already know everything. They want the big salary and the corner office immediately. This generation doesn't want a starter home - they think they should have the McMansion as the first home.

This attitude has been encouraged in the SBC by the elites who want to push forward those with the correct doctrine so as to push out all of us with bad doctrine. But there ain't nothing Biblical about the young demanding anything. And please don't pull Timothy out of context unless of coures you see yourself as Timothy who was dealing with nonChristians and baby Christians. Which is of course the point of the YRR - they are better because they are Calvinists.

[Mary]

OK, I think it was here that I made the point that Calvinists like Jared are declaring that it is their right and due to take over institutions like Southern, but that if if came down to it they would not approve of institutions being taken over by Trads? Well one of the young jerks is over at SBC Today spreading a rumor that he's heard a school in LA is going to use the Trad document for hiring purposes and he doesn't like it!

So what we see time and time again is that everything in Nettles rant is exactly what the Calvinists themselves (the Founders specifically) are doing. It's called Projection I think.

[Lydia]

Mary, It is called projection. They fear others will do what they are doing. But it is ok for them because they are right and others wrong. It is a sort of group narcissism. Think about it. How many young men were taught by Nettles and heard this sort of thing in the classroom at SBTS? Mulitiply that by all the other Calvinist profs at SBTS telling them that only they are right.

If you notice they cannot get past exegesis. They can only take a verse and discuss it. They have the overlay of Augustine/Calvin to work within and read back into everything. That is why they have to constantly project their definition of Sovereignty. Without it they are doomed in their interpretations.

For example, their take on Romans blows my mind. What a dark despairing book with their Calvinist overlay. They are interpreting Romans 3 which quotes Psalms, literally. Isnt this the Wiley Drake position and why he is so into imprecatory prayers? This is what bothers me so much. Think about it. If Psalms quoted are to always be taken literally then we should we pray imprecatory prayers? But doesn't Jesus teach just the opposite? Bless those who persecute you?

NOt to mention that there are some in scripture called "righteous" like Job. So we know it is poetry and a bit of hyperbole which is used a lot in Psalms and by Paul. That is just one example.

My take on it is more historical (naturally) as in AD 49 Claudius expelled the Jews. Around the time Romans was written Nero came to power and a lot of Jews started coming back. If we read Romans in that context can you imagine the situations that would arise with Jewish Christians coming back into Rome and contrasting that with all the churches we read about in chp 16? Why did Paul write Romans? We can read it as Paul teaching God's Covenant with Abraham and the Israelites and the added Gentile nations instead of individuals, and makes a lot more sense.

This is why the hermeneutic is so important and why discussing texts is a waste of time with Calvinists. They have the Determinist God overlay and read that back into every single verse. That is why the "doublespeak" is so needed.

I think this debate is long overdue. It hinges on the very attributes and Character of God.

You know, there was a part of me that did not want to mention anything about my take on Romans and I only did a brief on it because I know how they operate. And because they operate in such hateful ways no one hears them anymore. And that is why they need a way to enforce and why they want "discipline" so much. And another reason they want church plants. We have tons of churches here even SBC ones but we really "needed" Sojourn Acts 29 churches, too?

All we have to do is read SGM surivors and all the stories coming out of Mars Hill and we get a glimpse of our future that is already starting.

It is like giving teenage boys whiskey and car keys. What did we expect.

[Mary]

"It is like giving teenage boys whiskey and car keys. What did we expect."

And the SBC is expected to invest millions of dollars on this untried boys who have no experience in anything whatsoever, simply because they have the "right" doctine and are needing jobs now that the jig is up on the reformation movement.

It's amazing though when you read Nettles words and realize everything he condemns Trads for is exactly what Founders has done.

Maybe you remember, I'm sure Peter probably does - several years ago Ascol had a project where he sent out videos and a letter explaining what Calvinism "really was" and the whole purpose of Founders is to network and educate churches. So if they are educating churches against Traditionalist that's ok, but Traditionalists networking and educating churches is bad? The double standards are mind boggling.

But so much is just coming into the open now like the blatent admission that sure Southern and Southeastern are Calvinist, so what? but don't you dare think of using that Trad document.

[Christopher Bullard]

Until people on both sides LEARN to talk Scripture we will never get anywhere. Mary, your passion is great but you don't talk/write like a lady....please think about this. Jared, try and build a relationship with Peter and other " Traditional " guys and get to know these men as brothers in Christ first and learn to love these men but share Scripture with them when you meet with them. Only Scripture alone will change their views but you may actually like them but disagree Totally with them on doctrine. I'm a five point Calvinist and I know Peter, Tim R, Brad Whitt, and they love Jesus and the SBC...I have told them that they are wrong Scripturally sooooo many times and they feel the same about me But we both have learned lots about each other by meeting in person and while we have strong disagreements with each other ...none of us think we are Liars, Devils, and etc... .
I truly believe the blogs are hurting both sides !! We sound and look like children and men and women who don't seem to love the brethren. Peter, please make the effort to meet with Jared personally....Jared, please make the effort to meet with Peter. You both might actually like each other. Both of you need to bring the Bible and share a meal together. Hope this happens !!!

[peter lumpkins]

Christopher,

Thanks. I hear you. But there comes a time in strained relationships when it cannot so easily be fixed as sitting down and getting to know one another. I wish I could say differently but realistically I cannot. Not that God intervening cannot fix things. He most certainly can.

Like I said to Jared, I have no interest in "getting to know" those who proclaim me a deceiver, C, and that with not even a splattering of remorse. When Jared showed back up, what did he do? Reaffirm his belief that he thought me to have been deceptive in the past.

No thanks, brother. I am just uninterested in "getting to know" those who continue to slander me publicly. They can continue to do so to their heart's desire. I am not complaining and rarely, if ever, bring up the subject, until someone like Moore wants to "get to know" me. Well, he should have thought about that before he labeled me to be of my father, the devil.

Nor does this have to do with Calvinism per se. I've had run-ins with non-Calvinists who've also been relentless suggesting I am deceptive in my writings. They too burn the proverbial bridge for any easy gateway for meaningful relationships. Nor is this just on the internet,C. This principle works itself out in human-to-human relationships as well.

A person can all day long call what I write meaningless, pathetic, stupid, wrong, unintelligent, etc. etc. etc. In fact, truth be told, they could say the same thing about me personally. And, still hope is very much alive we could make a relationship work. On the other hand, call me a liar, a deceiver, a person who intentionally twists people's words for his own personal gain, and we've got a huge problem. Perhaps a person might get by with a single breach without severing the easy possibility for future relationship. But repeated offenses seals the door shut for future meaningful interaction, especially if that person makes no initiative to confess his or her grievous offense in slandering the offended party.

Contrary to your suggesting a childish approach, I think this to be a biblical approach to interpersonal relationships for it is only recognizing the moral distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation. Marin Luther King, Jr. said it best (paraphrase): I can forgive a man for taking my pencil. But I don't have to reconcile till he gives it back.

Lord bless.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Christopher, we'll just ignore the sexist "you don't write like a lady" comment, but as to Jared.

Jared is one of the most vitriolic and hateful Calvinists out there. I can't speak for Peter, but Jared is not anybody I could ever want to meet. He's arrogant, self-rightous and never wrong. Now that doesn't make him somebody I would not want to meet. What does is the way he just attacks everyboy as liars who have ever dared to share personal stories of abuse by Calvinist. Jared who is supposed to be a minister of the Gospel sees/hears those stories and he will immediately attack because he cares more about being right than he cares about people who are hurting. He cares more about defending that which he's made into an idol than he cares about people who are hurting. The man is so clueless that he is rah rahing a lily white white man invoking the langauge of Jim Crow South to describe how Calvinists are being treated in the SBC. Now the idiotic Calvinists are going around these threads acting like they now understand what it was like to be black in Jim Crow south. It's heinous the level these Calvinists are sinking to somehow portray themselves as "victims" And let's note again that the man who is supposedly a leader in SBC Calvinism chose to use Jim Crow imagery has been on staff at the Calvinist Seminary for over 30 years. He has not been discriminated against because of his sotieriology. The only actual discrimination being done in the SBC on a soteiriological basis is against Trads and the Calvinists freely admit this.

Sorry Christopher, but I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing, because after years of doing this the conversation is moving from complete denial that Calvinist have taken over institutions to Calvinists now boldly admitting that the Calvinists have taken over the institutions and its absolutely the right thing because "the Founders" What these conversations are doing is showing perfectly which side is doing the taking over and kicking out. Which side is the one calling people heretics and liars. Which side thinks they are the real Southern Baptists and have the right to control everything. No I don't think it's time to stop yet.

[Mary]

Lydia, I want to make sure you don't miss this keeper from Pravda (and if anyone reads this comment from the 2ndVP Blog and still doesn't get why it's called Pravda with this type of nonsense going on than there is no help for you. No help)

I gotta go quit find a quiet place to quit laughing so hard.

"Servetus deserved it. As he walked to his death that day, these fateful words fell from his lips, “Jesus, thou son of the eternal God, deliver me!” And but for the transposition of a single adjective in that sentence, his life would have been spared! How careful and exacting were the theologians of old! Nobody cared if he was an Arminian, Traditionalist, neo-Calvinist or Southern baptist. He was a heretic. At least the theologians of old knew where they stood on their theology."

Reply

[Lydia]

"Until people on both sides LEARN to talk Scripture we will never get anywhere. Mary, your passion is great but you don't talk/write like a lady....please think about this."

Chris, I do appreciate your attempt but you are ignoring the elephant in the room. I have seen way too many YRR guys rebuke little old ladies and even tell teens that their dad the pastor does not preach the real gospel. I have seen LOVE and TOLERANCE for them by many churches being used as a steamroller for power. They are bullies. And bullies only understand bully language. Until our leadership (the churches are the real leadership...we have inverted it) realizes we are dealing with young men who have been trained to be bullies and draw a line in the sand, it will continue by any means. Read history about such movements. It is not pretty. It is a heart problem and allowing them to ride roughshod over people is not the way. And the problem is they are given power they cannot handle. Not even MOhler can handle his power. The fact he felt comfortable insulting his brothers in public as an EMPLOYEE of an SBC entity says a lot if we are wise enough to see it. He was given too much power too young.

As to your crack about Mary, I do wonder if you can give any examples from scipture on the specific differences in how men and women should speak of such things. When men say similar things it is ok? But not women?

Do you think Jael was ladylike? (wink)

Mary, Don't allow Chris' crack to cause you go out and buy a long prairie denim dress and a pair of keds. Can you imagine how boring our convention would be with such wives of Patriarchy?

Peter, great quote by MLK. I wish more people understood the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation.

I think reconciling with Jared is simple. Just agree with him no matter what. :o)

[Les]

Lydia,

"They are bullies. And bullies only understand bully language."

Right, as Jesus taught us. Sorry, couldn't help it. :)

[Lydia]

Oh Mary, I have heard similar to excuse the doings in
Reforming Europe. It just breaks my heart at how cold it all is.

Was this a quote from history or that person's view?

The whole story of Servetus is very interesting and we have Calvin's own letters to give us insight. Servetus was Calvin's intellectual equal and as arrogant as Calvin. He seems to be one of those guys who is so smart but had no people skills. He was one of the first people to theorize on a blood circulatory system. He was not only medical but fancied himself somewhat of a theologian...a very bad one, though.No arguement Servetus was wrong but he certainly did not deserve death.

His deadly mistake was to get a hold of Calvin's writings and critique them in the margins and then sending it to him. We do know this wore Calvin out because of letters in archives. How dare him critique the great Calvin. We do know that Calvin was gunning for Servetus after that because he wrote in a letter if Servetus made it to Geneva he would not leave alive. Servetus was a bit off with people skills but he never dreamed he would be arrested when he went to hear Calvin preach. He had no reason to think the Reformers in Geneva would want to put him to death. There are a lot of complicated reasons for this thinking. He was running from the Catholics.

One of the reasons Calvin pleaded for a beheading is because a beheading was for crimes against the state and that was how he wanted Servetus crime documented. Calvin lost that battle because he insisted Servetus be tried for heresy. (All this through his person emissary) A burning was for heretics. Calvin was so bent on punishing Servetus he ordered "green wood" so he would burn slower.

The fact that someone would dare use Servetus' refusal to recant his position as a mandate to murder him by burning only shows how hard is the Calvinist oriented heart and that is my main problem with Calvinism: It's Determinist God and it's namesake make for a very hard hearted movement of people we really should fear because they excuse such things or act like they have nothing to do with Calvinist theology. But they do. And that is why it usually ends up dying out or going liberal in free societies.

We can see this hard heartedness played out in history with the Puritians and even in England. And we are much seeing a much softer form of it today with the insistence they are right and everyone else wrong and with the stealth tactics used. This is a softer gentler form of tyranny or "force" that is needed for Calvinism to gain traction. They are using such things as keys to the kingdom, church discipline, hierarchical church government...things you have to use in a free society. It is funny how people will believe someone passionate and bold simply because they are passionate and bold. People can be very gullible. Reading so many Mars Hill stories brings to mind how important it is to get those without any foundational knowledge very young. It works for a long while.

People are blind to what a petty tin pot dictator Calvin was after he consolidated power in Geneva.

One more thing, my heart breaks in two when people dismiss so easily the persecutions of that era. I guess I have read too much but I feel as if we need to honor these people by at least showing some concern and trying to understand and loudly repudiating that era as not Christian at all. Some of the history is simply documented like this: In such and such place in 1547 wife of blacksmith drowned for Ana Baptist sympathies. She is a martyr with no name. Just a peasant who loved Jesus?

So many listed in Martyrs mirror have no names! We will know them one day. They are the people in Revelation crying out for Justice while we promote those who carried out such vile crimes against our Savior when the believers were persecuted.

[mike]

Lydia, your right the YRRs who act as you state ARE WRONG. No ifs and or buts about it. Those who act like this are acting "their age" as in, in their "Christian maturity". As I have stated before, many of those who hold dear to the Doctrines of Grace, don't fully get it. The thing they hold dear (grace) is something they do not yet understand and thus display it dimly.
I must say that you, however, and I say this with love and grace, I say it because you are a child of the King, the one we are all to love and submit to, thus loving and serving one another, holding the other above ourselves, are not doing any better at it.
Your comments, as well as those from others on this blog, specifically are highly offensive and saddening to read, not just to Calvinists but to other "camps" as well.
Please know that I would much rather send this letter to you personally but because I have no means of contacting, you since you do not have a blog of your own, I have no other choice.
Please know that this has been written with great care, and love for your soul. I pray that you are blessed greatly today on this day that we celebrate the freedom's we have; freedoms such as expressing our joy in who God is on blogs such as this. I pray that we always remember above the freedoms we have as US citizens, that the greatest freedom we are able to celebrate is the moment Jesus breathed out, "It is finished" and be able to marvel at who He is... as one.
Humbly,
mike

[Mary]

Lydia, this was a person's view, not a quote. He was still rambling on last on saw. CB and one other was trying to call him to task. But you see how many ignore the Calvinist crazy uncles to go after the Trads.

Look at that guys arrogant quote about all the "meat" he learned and it wasn't his reposiblity to educate pulpit committees. I don't think anyone called that attitude to task and yet that just gives proof to what we know is going on with these young arrogant Calvinist and how they think it ok to deceive churches.

Even Ascol encourages a deception when he suggests that candidates go before a committee and present the confession the candidate is most comfortable with. It's basically ok to claim "I showed you the confession" even if those people don't have the depth to understand what those confessions mean.

And Ascol says that Candidates should under no circumstances bring up the C word. We watched a candidate explain Calvinism as simply believing in the Sovereignty of God and we all believe that don't we? So he could defend himself by telling you I told you I was a Calvinist and what that meant. Except he really didn't explain what that meant.

These people actively hide what they believe and what their intentions for churches are and they do it with the encouragement and direction of people like Ascol, Nettls, Mohler et al.

[Lydia]

" Your comments, as well as those from others on this blog, specifically are highly offensive and saddening to read, not just to Calvinists but to other "camps" as well. "

Mike, I know this. What a conumdrum we have been given. We are to show love and grace to actually little boys (emotional maturity level) who come into our churches as "experts" from our great seminary and rebuke little old ladies and tell teens their dad, the pastor, does not know the Gospel. Those are just two off my head but the horror stories are legion.

When we go on for a long while being loving and showing grace to such behavior, we enable it. They do not actually see it as "wrong" behavior because they think being right is more important than how they act. Therefore, to them, their actions and words are not sinful. If you read over at SBCToday you will see the same things. Hope you are following me, here, because this is hard to discuss when people do not recognize the patterns.

With this bullying comes a conumdrum. Can a Christian be a bully? And how should Christians respond to a Christian bully? Can we appeal to having grace and mercy for others? That has not worked in so many venues because "doctrine" is more important than people. YUou may not realize this but if you read enough Mahaney/Driscoll and what is coming out of their cults, you will recognize what we are seeing now much better. It is not nearly as bad yet... but the beginnings of it are there. One needs more power to be on their level and the SBC has too many free thinkers in it to date.

The problem lies in that they cannot see they are bullies. They really cannot see it. And I believe Mohler is the master bully but uses wiser tactics and one reason we do not recognize it is that his "interactions" with peasants in public are rare. They are usually very controlled as they are with most Christian celebs. Although many of his comments have not been so wise of late. It is becoming more and more obvious to more people.

On the playground, how does one, even a Christian, deal with a bully to protect others? Our churches are full of very sweet loving people who show a lot of grace and tolerance and this is used against them. We are not allowed to say, your behavior is sinful even if you believe your doctine is right? They don't believe it. It usually has to get very divisive before something is actually done about it. And a lot of scar tissue is formed from it.

I do a lot of spiriutal abuse exit stuff. And let me tell you, the abuse would not be possible without bullying and very bad interpretations of how we are to live in the New Covenant. I am constantly amazed at what is taught as truth that gives others power over people.

We advise people to spend at least 3 years reading nothing but the Gospels. Know Jesus. And it is easier to spot a bully.

Most of the guys we see are striving for ministry positions or have one. They have an influential "position" and for better or worse, people still buy into that because they do not understand the New Covenant. I am a nobody with no power or position over others. I would not want it because it is a lot to answer for. When I had a large staff reporting to me, my thinking was that I have a trust and responsibility to help them become the best they can be and move past me. My measurement of success was that they were more successful than me. I was a facilitator not their master. I was to provide resources and help for them to move past me. We must treat adults like adults and not children.

Can you imagine any YRR pastor wanting people in the Body with him to move past him in maturity and faith? But would you not agree that Paul was like that...wanting people to mature in faith right past him? That means no power over people and people are allowed to disagree amicably.

And MIke, the only thing worse than divisiveness is fake unity. We are not to be pretend Christians.

So, how does one deal with a "Christian" bully? Ones who even call Peter the anti Christ and later claim it was a joke. And our 2nd VP of Unity said not a word about it at the time as if it was normal conversation.

That is our conumdrum. Our options are limited when their leaders and icons are/were bullies, too. And some will always say that negative truths are sin or gossip. That is a big one in Reformed circles and even fundy despot circles.

[Mary]

Lydia, are you getting as tired as I am with all the "I love you, but you are such a meanie! REPENT!" people. The same people who just ignore Calvinists behaving badly at Pravda and SBC Today? I have NEVER seen one of these people who come here to correct the ladies ever go over to Pravda and do a little correcting even though they claim that it's wrong for Calvinists to behave badly. With the exception of those who try to correct Peter I've don't think I ever seen any correct the Calvinist behaving badly here.

Notice how when one of their idols gets pointed out for being a mean nasty man as Tom Nettles has shown himself to be with his heinous use of Jim Crow imagery the Calvinists have to flock in and distract and attack? Isn't it interesting how the Calvinists don't want to talk about the vitriolic words of Tom Nettles? Gotta do something to distract when an idol messed up so blatently.