« An Open Invitation to James White: My Response by Peter Lumpkins | Main | George Beverly Shea--Evangelistic Crusade Icon: 1909-2013 »



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


Oh Les, get off it. The difference between those "we all agree are much less graceful" is that those who are much less graceful haven't been declaring themselves as trying to be more graceful and then leaving here to go gossip and be less than graceful when amongst your less than graceful friends at those other web sites. You've been pulling this attitude here since you've shown up and there is not movement toward being more graceful. You just seemed to be oblivious to the fact that everyone who reads this blog is probably reading some other blogs and so could see first hand that you are what we used to call in the school yard "two faced" You're the one on your high horse now posting scripture and admonshing everyone to behave suddenly - funny thing is that you never ever find anything wrong with those who are screaming heresy the loudest. You never ever take it upon yourself to tell those who are the ones constantly name-calling - "isolationist," "fundalmentalist," "anti-Calvinists" - you never ever tell those people to stop calling names. When someone posts a list of 10 things landmarkist have in common and those ten things happen to be the fact that you disagree with Calvinists - where are you? when Calvinists are declaring Trads need to get out of the SBC - crickets! No Les, you and people like Dave Miller are the biggest hypocrites in the blogosphere because you go around declaring that you think the rhetoric needs to be toned down but you ignore the rhetoric coming from your side. You're just another Calvinist Les who thinks you are superior and everyone else needs to straighten up by shutting up.


Mark, seriously dude, I'm on your side, but you're starting to get on my nerves. You've wandered into a conversation we've been having for over six years now and I don't think you know the players or the accepted terms so dictating that nonCalvinist is something that it's not needs to stop. I'd much rather be called nonCalvinist than be called a heretic. NonCalvinist has been an acceptable term to describe those of us in the SBC who are not Calvnist. It's better than the current in vogue term of semiPelegian heretic. We've got enough battles to fight that we don't need to make up new ones. NonCalvinist is mostly non perjorative depending on who it is using it. Believe me there will be plenty of places where the Calvinists are offensive we don't need to get nit picky.

peter lumpkins

What I absolutely love about Mary England: you never have to wonder where she's at :>)

Les Prouty

Hi Mary. You've made my point better than I ever could.


Peter, I'm "passionate" and sometimes "frustrated" so it's all good!

My tone for those who don't get it is the tone I take with my 17 year old who thought it would be a good idea to experiement with matches, bleach and an old baby doll in the alley. It's the "child ya momma didn't raise no fool what were thinking!" tone. He's leaving me the end of this year for the Navy and some days I admit that I take delight in knowing that he'll soon be trying his attitude with someone who ain't gonna take it like his dear ol' momma

Casey O'Malley

Childish?? Peter Lumpkins displays the most childish behavior of anyone I have ever observed closely on the internet. "He started it." My three year old has more wisdom.



Calvinist are referring to Christians in the SBC as heretics, I find this insulting and just another form of verbal abuse.

If my position in this matter gets on your nerves, I will simply stop contributing because this would be a form of antagonism I don't want you to have to endure from me.

If you want to refer yourself as a Non-Calvinist, I take no issue with that. I refer myself as a Born-Again Christian, that's it. If you are losing your nerve over that, I'm sorry about that.

If you have been arguing with the Calvinist for 6 years on this thread and they still refer you as a Heretic, I can see why you are losing your nerve, but please don't put that burden on me.

Within the same 6 year time frame my former Stealth Pastor split 2 churches with his "nit-Picky" abusive Pharisee style interpretation of Scriptures.
(and he may be working on his 3rd church split, he's already 2 for 2)

I think you are a little too comfortable being titled a Non-Calvinist, when my hutch tells me you are very much a Born-Again Christian.

I found this thread (among other threads) simply by typing "Calvinist Abuse" on google, about 14 months ago. So yes, I admit I don't know the rules of this thread.

peter lumpkins

Hi Casey


Andrew Barker


I have to take issue with your phrase 'born-again Christian'. This is ME being nit-picking I know BUT the phrase is one of the worse (as I see it :-)) tautologies which has crept into the church's vocabulary. Firstly the phrase is never used in scripture, (there are plenty of phrases we use which are correct and never occur in scripture, granted) but more importantly, can you find me a Christian who is NOT born again? By using this phrase over many years, the church has divided unnecessarily and given the world a stick to beat us all with. Here in the UK 'born-again' is uses by everyday folk to indicate somebody who is a bit 'odd' and equates to Bible-basher or similar.

What is different about the term non-Calvinist is this. It is accurate if not a little unspecific! Yes, the rest of the world is non-Calvinist but in terms of this blog, non-Calvinist is understood by just about everybody, I think?


Mark, again you display your absolute ignorance about anything going on in the SBC Blogosphere by declaring that "I've lost my nerve" Nobody who knows anything about me would describe me as someone who has lost their nerve. Just look at friend Les upstream where he's whining yet again that Calvinists never do anything wrong and Peter won't control the women on his blog. I do not have the reputation as a woman without nerve. So your little dig at me looks quite ridiculous.

Now Mark you can decide to leave or you can decide to sit back and learn and contribute to the discussion or the third choice is you can act like some wacko uncle who interrupts conversations and everybody rolls their eyes at. You don't do yourself any favors by refusing to learn just the basic terms of the discussion that has been going here.

You are not the only person who knows about stealth Calvinists - we've experienced the same things you describe. It's pretty much what led us all here. This fight is bigger than just you Mark and you do not help by getting petulant and demanding that nonCalvinist means something that nobody nowhere has suggested. And Mark you insult the good Calvinists and yes there are acutally some good ones when you insist on phrases like "Born Again Christian" Calvinists ARE Born Again Christians.

But again Mark, everybody but you knows what nonCalvinist means so you can continue insisting that it means something that it does not or you can look like a crazy fool and people will just ignore you. Your choice.


Andrew, Since my closest friend in the world is British, I am getting a chuckle out of your comment because there is can be much confusion within the same general language.

Here, a "Bible basher" would be someone trashing the bible...insulting it as a source.

We have "Bible thumpers" here. :o)

I do tend to understand where Mark is coming from. A "non Calvinist" could include a Hindu or Muslim. (Although Islam is closer to Calvinism with a determinist god)

People are getting creamed from many who have left the institutions here for using "bible language" such as "Born Again", etc. I am not saying that is where you are coming from but the insular Christianese language is becoming a problem whether one agrees or not. And I totally understand that. Nothing worse than meeting a group who have their own language and wonder what it all means.

However, one would think we could use it on an SBC blog! :o)



Sorry about including the phrase "Born Again" I originally typed in Christian. But I included "Born Again" for some of my "nit picky" low point Calvinist friends.

I completely understand why certain people in this thread call themselves "non-Calvinist. I take issue with the Calvinist referring to them as being heretics. It is too simple for the Calvinist to refer to Non-Calvinist as heretics, a little more difficult for them to refer Christians as heretics. (In my opinion)

Andrew nobody is stopping you from embracing being labeled a Non-Calvinist. Like I suggested in a previous post I prefer to be a Christian in any thread. I'm not attacking Calvinist for being Calvinist, rather I want them to be more accountable for their abusive behavior.

Heretic language is abusive and I take exception.

I'm not going to argue this point and if certain contributors in thread after 6 years want to compromise themselves as being labeled Non-Calvinist, I'm not going to take issue with that. I'll avoid contributing when I see the term "Non-Calvinist" enduring abusive Calvinistic rhetoric out of the respect for Non-Calvinist contributors in this blog as I don't want to be antagonistic.

I have made my point, Calvinist are referring Christians as heretics.



Ignorance rhetoric is the same garbage that has gotten you no-where in your discussions with the Stealth and Covert Calvinist for the last 6 years. In the mean time chruches are splitting.

You need to chill out and focus on the verbal Abuse that Calvinist have been practicing on SBC Christians.

You have made your point, (I get it) and I have made my point.

You have made it clear that you want to be referred as a Non-Calvinist and I prefer to be considered a Christian, again I understand why you want to be referred as a Non-Calvinist, I just don't agree with you and I'm not considering you as "Ignorant".

This ignorant rhetoric hasn't been working with the Calvinist and it certainly won't with me me.

Calvinist and people who like to refer themselves Non-Calvinist on this site have been force feeding their beliefs in an Un-Christ-Like manner for 6 years and if Calvinist are still splitting Churches, who is winning the argument?

So please stop force feeding me and I'll so the same for you and we'll focus on abuse.


Mark, you are a piece of work. And again you are showing your ignorance if you think you are going to bully me into backing down. NonCalvinist does not mean what you declare it means and you only look like a fool among Calvinist, nonCalvinists and Trads.

And you are doing nothing to further anything when you don't admit that you are pretty much clueless in your ramblings. So keep up the insults and make yourself look the fool because no one is going to be able to take anything you say seriously.

The person acting in an un-Christlike manner is you rudely wandering into the middle of a conversation and then telling everyone that a perfectly acceptable term is now the equivilant of heresy. It is YOU Mark who are demanding that you can change the definition of a term that no one has taken issue with. That's what the Calvinists do. So continue acting like the Calvinists bullies you claim to be fighting against. But you've just demonstrated that you are nothing but the crazy uncle who doesn't really know what he's talking about.


And Mark let me just make this point very clear to you. When Mr. Unity Chris Roberts continues to label Traditionalist as semiPelgian heretics it's wrong. You do the same thing when you declare that the label nonCalvinist is the same thing as being called a heretic. Don't call me a heretic Mark. Whether I choose to label myself as nonCalvinist or Traditionalist I am not a heretic. And I am not compromising anything. Call yourself whatever you wish. But don't call those of us who were fine with the term nonCalvinist heretics. NonCalvinists are not heretics and used in this context it has been a perfectly acceptable term for a whole lot of years before you decide to wander in and act like a Calvinist and start calling people heretics.



I not asking you to back down and please keep in mind I never have referred you as "ignorant".

I have accepted your position but you seem to find it more difficult in accepting my position and then referring me as "ignorant".

You seem to use the term "bully" rather loosely and out of context. I don't know why Peter permits you to make an accusation like this, on someone with a slight countering view.

If contributing my view 6 years into a conversation is interferring, then I know I'm in the wrong place.

As for you feeling victimized from me, I apologize for that and I'm going to have search inside myself, to find a gentler heart.

In the mean time you will be victorious when you use the term "bully", everytime you disagree or get frustrated with someone if you can't get them to see it your way, with maybe the exception of the Calvinist, who considers Christians who don't embrace Calvinism, as Heretics.

As for bullying, my wife (who is a Godly woman with her own Bible College background) and I, was infact either "Bullied" and "Shunned" by both my former Stealth Pastor a couple people he befriended which included his wife and a couple of ladies, who were unaware they were Stealth Calvinist.

My wife and I were bullied simply because we both actually paid attention to our former Pastor's words and were one of few to have the courage to ask questions about his Doctrine for which we endured real retaliation and real bullying.

I think we are bringing out the worse of our personalities by this dialogue. I accept my own responsibity for causing this to happen.



I know where you stand in this matter and what you think of me.


Mark words have meaning, for example:

Ignorance: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

You have displayed your lack of knowledge or awareness when you demand that nonCalvinist is a perjorative used only by Calvinists. You have displayed your lack of knowledge or awareness when you decided that I was "losing my nerve" You should probably google the phrases "losing nerve" and "getting on nerves" to see the difference. Not the same thing at all, but I digress. If I were to walk into a conversation my husband is having about football and started dictating this or that fact about something I know very little about I would be displaying my ignorance. Now I could go on pretending that I know what I'm talking about or I could allow those who know what they're talking about to correct me and in the process I could learn something.

You threw out the insult that people who don't accept your view that nonCalvinist is the same as heretic are "comprimising" and now you want to somehow play the victim! If I accepted the label semiPelegian than I would definately be comprising. But in all my years of hanging out in the SBC blogosphere no one has ever declared that nonCalvinist means anything other than those in the SBC who are not Calvinist. Until you Mark. Somehow in all the years and hours upon hours of conversation we were using a word to describe ourselves and we were - dare I say it? too IGNORANT to know that we were referring to ourselves as heretics!

Don't go calling people heretics Mark and things will go easier on the blogs for you. And yes Mark we all have our stories of abuse at the hands of Calvinists. But pulling that out to justify your own behavior isn't going to win you brownie points.



I would appreciate if you could read my 1:46 p.m. post again.

I not sure where you want to take this. I haven't referred you as a heretic, I don't consider you ignorant just because we have slightly different views. I haven't insulted your intelligence or questioned your education background. Nor have I questioned your mental capacities or what medications you may be prescribed.

You are someone that I would be afraid to have any differing views with. Again I am sorry that you feel victimized by me. I have been humbled.

The comments to this entry are closed.