More verbal abuse and implications of "heresy" by Baptist Calvinists

UPDATE: one of James White's supporters, Micah Burke, put up a post in response to my piece below. Entitled "Peter Lumpkins doesn't know who he's responding to," Burke suggests my critical commentary below is misdirected toward James White. Instead he claims my criticism presumably should have been directed toward Al Mohler since "Nearly 99% of the quote [the quote below I transcribed from White's broadband broadcast] is actually Al Mohler's own words" (italics and link original). What a rip-roaring revelation! I'd never thought of that! Of course, Burke (he apparently is a volunteer employee for White's ministry) completely ignored the two references to Pelagius that White employed in the context of speaking about Harwood which contains much of the substance driving my concern below, two references White could not have quoted from Mohler because Mohler didn't mention either Pelagius or Pelagianism in his piece. Hence, White went well beyond Mohler in theologically implicating Harwood by identifying him not with semi-Pelagianism but identifying Harwood with Pelagius himself. These are the kinds of vacuous defenses offered by James White advocates...

======================       

I've already mentioned the verbal assaults some aggressive Southern Baptist Calvinists levelled toward the presenters and participants of the 2013 John 3:16 Conference (here and here). One may now add to their literary hubris the voice of Reformed Baptist, James White. On his latest "Radio Free Geneva" internet broadcast White especially deals with presenters Adam Harwood, Eric Hankins, Emir Caner, and Steve Gaines.¹ 

Furthermore, he deals with my little book on Calvinism predictably suggesting I haven't the faintest clue what Calvinism is. I'll respond to some of White's specific criticisms later next week. For now, suffice it to say, to believe James White, it matters not whether one is an accomplished academic theologian-scholar like David Allen, Malcolm Yarnell, Adam Harwood, Emir Caner, or Paige Patterson on one hand or a pastoral theologian like Steve Gaines, Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, and, to a much lessor extinct, a bi-vocational pastor like me on the other; we all get sliced with the same dull blade by James White. For him, none of us understand Calvinism; none of us can get Calvinism right; we all have to make "straw" arguments because we are all incapable of refuting Calvinism. Hence, from my initial listening, White's critical commentary on my brief little book remains nothing more or less than substantially White's commentary on any man's work listed above. For that, I'm grateful to be placed in the same category with the men he criticizes.

Moving on presently to the J316C, I'd like to quote some words from White's broadcast, words I think offers an accurate summation of how we might expect White to view the rest of the John 3:16 Conference platform. After reading from Baptist Press's summation of Adam Harwood's presentation, White rightly acknowledged Harwood's claim that some Southern Baptists (particularly Dr. Mohler and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS)) disagreed with his interpretation of Scripture that though sinful human depravity includes the universal inheritance of Adamic sinful nature, it does not include the universal imputation of Adamic sinful guilt.

White then says,

"Well, I would hope so [that is, Mohler and SBTS would disagree with Harwood]. Umm, since Pelagious is supposed to have been dead and gone umm, and uh, so it, uh, would have been good, uh, if, uh that were the case that, uh, Southern disagreed with that. Harwood referenced a article Mohler wrote on his blog in 2012 titled "Southern Baptists and Salvation: It's Time to Talk" along with Mohler's claim that a 2012 document signed online by many non-Calvinist Southern Baptists, called "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation" which we have addressed before and, uh, demonstrated it was rather embarassing honestly for those who signed it...appeared to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings of sin, human nature and the human will –– understandings that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied endquote. As described in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, semi-Pelagianism quote affirmed that the unaided human will performed the initial act of faith endquote and quote the priority of the human will over the grace of God in the initial act of salvation endquote. 

"Harwood said unity within the SBC may depend, in part, on Mohler retracting his claim. So, so uh, if you're going to have...uh..if you're going to have unity within the, uh, Southern Baptist Convention, then we need to redefine history, yes, we know...we need to forget about what Pelagius said, we need to forget about what semi-pelagianism is, and synergism is, up, no no, if we're going to have unity, then we need to come up with new terms and, uh, with new ways of looking at things"²  (within approximately 10:00—14:30 min.).

It's not to hard to deduce where many aggressive Calvinists gain their abusive vocabulary toward non-Calvinist Southern Baptists. Not only did James White twice slanderously implicate Adam Harwood in defending a Pelagian understanding of fallen human nature, White grossly attributed to Harwood the mindless notion that for unity to take place in the Southern Baptist Convention, Harwood requires on the one hand we forget about Pelagius, pelagianism, and semi-pelagianism among other things and "redefine history," while inventing new terms and new ways of doing things on the other. Who would even think such absurd conclusions could be rationally deduced from either Harwood's actual words in his presentation or Baptist Press's summary of it? I challenge anyone--including White himself--to defend his jejune, mindless characterization of Harwood's words on this site.  

The truth is, James White has offered the very same type of hack on Adam Harwood as he offered on Ronnie Rogers' book, a book review which I criticized at length. Nor does White possess the kind of track record which, shall we say, lends itself to fair and balanced treatment in his criticism toward others (here, and especially note here). 

Even so, while James White is not a Southern Baptist, he continues to have influence among many Southern Baptists.³ White remains cozy with Founders Ministries, the largest network of Calvinists in the SBC and also is scheduled to speak at Reformation Montana, an organization apparently headed by aggressive Baptist Calvinist, J.D. Hall. I wonder if Hall and Ken Fryer's abusive rhetoric may be inspired by their relationship with James White. It seems probable though not entirely certain.

What seems certain, however, is the perception James White has created for himself that he appears incapable of offering fair, sober commentary toward those Southern Baptists who remain convictionally unpersuaded by his strong Calvinist views (indeed some scholars are convinced White holds Hyper-Calvinistic views).

White's approach epitomizes the very kind of aggression, unfairness, and emotionally-driven rhetoric from some sectors of Southern Baptist Calvinism against which I've stood the last seven years. And, for the record, I hope God gives me yet another seven years to stand against the raw, hateful, and theologically slanderous seeds ("You're a heretic!") men like White continually sow amongst our Southern Baptist Convention.  

 

James White's "Radio Free Geneva" and critical remarks on The 2013 John 3:16 Conference, Greg Boyd, and What is Calvinism? by Peter Lumpkins (link courtesy of Alpha and Omega Ministries)

 

¹between criticizing J316 and my booklet, White strangely criticizes Greg Boyd, a person whose views are mostly theologically repugnant to the majority of Southern Baptists

²White went on with more commentary on Adam Harwood's presentation (as summarized in BP) but nothing else was said pertaining to my present purposes

³Only recently did White remove from his website wording in his bio which made it sound as if he still taught adjunctly at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (GGBTS), wording which I questioned in private correspondence and he subsequently removed. We're assured by the present adminstration James White is not scheduled to teach and will not be scheduled to teach at GGBTS.

Comments

[drpenn]

Oh for the love of chicken. Is James White ever going to die? I can't believe ANYONE takes what he says seriously. He's still the driveling, sniveling, conniving #@#$5& he always was. Give me a break.

[Craig Daliessio]

Peter...
When will people simply ignore James White forever? It's simply impossible to carry on a respectable debate with someone as self-smitten as the good "doctor". The standard response should be "Oh...Jim...I'm sorry, I forgot you were there. You may leave."

[peter lumpkins]

Hey, D. Oh yes. He's still there. Have you ever seen the movie "What about Bob?" JW--I mean, Bob!--is always there! :^)

[Matt Privett]

drpenn,

I've listened to James White many times over the past few years and he has never spoken or written about anyone with the hateful vitriol you just displayed. If you are in the faith you should repent of your unwholesome words.

[peter lumpkins]

Craig, I wish I could agree, brother. I don't want to get into this with him. Just listening to him as he criticizes a work, giggling along almost with every other breath it seems, poking fun at an author or presenter, dropping off words at the end of a sentence so you have to rewind to listen to what he said, mumbling unidentifiable words under his breath, not to mention his perpetual use of the phrase, "don't understand" (and I could go on) taxes me emotionally so much, I need a triple espresso just to gain my composure again. I wish I could just not mention him at all. However, he still commands an audience among Southern Baptist Calvinists. And, I'm convinced if Southern Baptist become aware of him, and perhaps listen to him a time or two, that's all it will take to turn them off. I personally know some SBC Calvinists who despise his demeanor and approach as much as anyone else. I also am aware of a large Calvinist church who theologically agrees with most everything White writes but refuses to have him at their church because of his provocative, demeaning approach.

The truth is, we have the distinct advantage that, given White's chosen approach to demean, castigate, ridicule, theologically slander and accuse with such bombastic vigor, he proverbially becomes his own worst enemy. The masses of reasonable people will undoubtedly be turned off. Hence, if we'll just make people of aware of him, quoting his own words, or better still, give them sound bites for which to personally listen to his ridiculing demeanor, James White should sink himself among grassroots Southern Baptists.

Grace brother...

[peter lumpkins]

Hey D.

Sorry. I actually didn't see the noun you employed when I first scanned the comment. I agree in part with the commenter's criticism. The noun carries far too many vulgar connotations to stay. We can criticize strongly and decisively apart from such inappropriate logs.

I appreciate you sister, and love you in the Lord. I also feel your frustration. But I trust you understand my view.

In addition, I hope you will ponder it, and, after reflection, see the need to offer a genuine apology.

Lord bless you...

[Matt Privett]

Peter,

If the "noun" now covered up with " #@#$5&" is the only thing you object to in that comment, that speaks volumes.

[peter lumpkins]

Matt,

Whatever "volumes" you think I spoke I don't know. What I do know is, drpenn's assessment was not entirely out of line. For heaven's sake, man, White just got through castigating a brother in Christ, identifying him with pelagianism! And, you have the effrontery to suggest "he has never spoken or written about anyone with the hateful vitriol you just displayed"? That's pure unadulterated nonsense.

And, what is more significant, I not only expressed my decisive disapproval of drpenn's word usage, but actually called on her, after reflection, to publicly apologize, you completely ignore it and chastise me for not requiring more. Should we call for a public tribunal and stone her? Should we find out her address and make her life miserable with letters and phone calls till she's taught her lesson? What do you propose, Matt? What? I'd like to know. What should I do beyond decisively speaking my disapproval and calling her to reflect on what she wrote, and, after reflecting, if she thought it proper, to make public amends? What Matt, what?

[Prchrbill]

Peter,
I am confused that you would let someone long for Dr White's death pass through your moderation. Not only should drpenn repent and apologize, but you should also.
The next time you write against Calvinism, why exegete scripture in its context as an argument instead of arguing philosophically. Is that too much to ask?
Preacherbill

[Prchrbill]

Apologies for grammar.

Should be "why not exegete". Also messed up first sentence.

On my iPhone
Sorry
Preacherbill

[Prchrbill]

Peter,
Your hyperbole in your last comment about stoning is just silly.

Do you really think that you can justify bad behavior by accusing Dr White of bad behavior?
Is this grade school?
Act like a pastor, sir.

[Mary]

You have to remember Jimmie's education is inferior to all the men he chooses to hurl his vitriol against. Jimmie has an inferiority complex not being a real doctor but just a pretend doktor.

[peter lumpkins]

Preacherbill,

Look. Your point is entirely presumptuous. You assume drpenn meant White's literal death which, in my view, she meant no such thing. Get a life. She was entirely wrong, in my view, to use the vulgar noun she did. I've addressed that. So drop attempting to make it more than it is.

And, so far as your comment about "exeget[ing] scripture in its context as an argument instead of arguing philosophically" I don't have a inkling what you're talking about.

[peter lumpkins]

Prchrbill

Well, no it's not silly. It's a serious question in light of Matt's insistence I apparently didn't do enough.

[Matt Privett]

Peter,

Oh, let's see. She wished that he DIE, and also said he was "driveling, sniveling, conniving." That is sub-Christian and I would hope, as a bi-vocational pastor, you would know that. But hey, you agree "in part with the commenter's sentiment," so you've revealed your heart on the matter.

Beyond that I'm not getting into a back and forth with you here when we've already seen was passes as the lowest common denominator of blogging and commenting, Southern Baptist or otherwise.

[Mary]

And what's really bad Peter is Doktor Jimmie reads the definition of semiPelegianism and it's nothing that anybody has been advocating but being a Calvinist he's unable to think outside his box where you are either a Calvinist, Arminian or heretic. Doesn't matter that he's not dealing at all with the substance of what's being said because he has to have a label or in his small little box his mind just cannot compute. He should have looked into educational opportunites outside the store front but instead he'll just forever be stuck playing with straw ranting and raving and demanding everybody call him DOKTOR!

[peter lumpkins]

Matt,

A) To suggest she wished White would literally die is completely presumptuous on your part, Matt. Attempting to make her comment more severe than it actually is does exactly squat toward making your already well-taken point stronger. Drop the nonsense, Matt. You haven't a clue nor does her context demand she meant it to be a literal deathwish

B)Yes she did mention White was "driveling, sniveling, conniving." Those who've listened to White's giggling, sarcastic criticisms poking fun and ridiculing those he criticizes may actually identify with drpenn at that point. Even so, whatever the case, none of the adjectives there came close to vulgarity, and certainly doesn't come close to White's twice mentioned implication Adam Harwood embraces Pelagianism.

C) Well, yes, I've "revealed my heart" on the matter. I definitively spoke to the issue precisely my heart on the matter. That you might not like what I said or that I didn't go far enough is your problem not mine.

D) "Beyond that I'm not getting into a back and forth with you" Well, Matt, you've already done it. So what can I say? I can see how you'd like to drop out since I asked you a pointed question about what you'd like me to do that I didn't do. I a) agreed with you drpenn's wording was dead wrong; b) I expressed to drpenn her wording was dead wrong; c) I expunged the wrong wording; e) I exhorted her to think about it; d) I encouraged her to make public amends. But that was not enough for you, Matt. You seemed to want more. So, what more shall I do Matt? I'm all ears...

[Mark]

Matt,

You may find it hard to believe but there are Stealth Baptist Calvinist going into churches, that will aggressively stay within the perimeters of all 5 Points of TULIP, without disclosing what they are doing to their Congregation. (It happened in my church)

If you embrace an Adrian Rogers style preaching and you actually pay attention to your Pastor's message, it isn't hard to recognize a difference in Theology or differing biblical interpretations between a Calvinist and a Non-Calvinist.

When a Non-Calvinist fails to embrace a Stealth Calvinist Doctrine, some Calvinist will retaliate against you in order to conceal his Doctrine.

I'll let you decide whether you think that is sinful or not.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

Thanks for sticking to the substance of the post which kinda got sidetracked. Yes, White assumed his definition of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism was the "official" definition upon which we all agree--or at least all who are biblical and correct agree. The humorous thing is, White goes further than Mohler in ascribing Harwood to the heresy heap of Pelagianism not semi-Pelagianism. That's how extreme and radical White is toward Harwood when reading from a summary--not the actual text of Harwood's presentation but BP's summary of Harwood's text.

Now, one would think a scholarly-minded, seminary-trained guy would want to be very careful in making sure what he understood Harwood to be saying was actually what Harwood embraced. Hence, he would remain cautious and reserved until he read for himself Harwood's position rather than depend upon a news summary of a position. This would especially be the case if he suspected a person was teaching something unorthodox and heretical. What does James White do? He reads a few lines from BP's summary about what Harwood said and boldly implicates to the world, "Harwood embraces Heresy! I tell you, Harwood embraces Heresy! Pelagianism! Semi-Pelagianism! Harwood wants to redefine history! He wants to forget Pelagius!"

One has to wonder how the scholarly world actually reacts to emotionally-driven, premature, unsure, and certainly unstudied proclamations like that which purported scholars make.

[Lydia]

"Do you really think that you can justify bad behavior by accusing Dr White of bad behavior?"

"Dr" White?

Well, anyway, James White makes a living being a Christian. I should think his behavior is an issue but it is not as easy to call out a leader for their vitriol when you enjoy it. I think drpenn's comment was inappropriate. But I do get a chuckle at the outrage from folks who do not seem to be outraged by much worse things like Mohler protecting Mahaney whose shepherding cult protected child molesters. That does not seem to be a big deal at all for the Reformed wing of the SBC.

And I do keep in mind, when it comes to "death", that the Reformed heros burned and tortured folks who dared disagree with them on doctrine. I am awfully glad that it is against the law to burn Pelagians or semi Pelagians since that is the new insult for those who disagree with the current authoritarian Reformers.

Still trying to figure out why such men are big hero's today. Scary stuff.

[Eric Lockhart]

So just to clarify, it's wrong to say speak of theologically raping (on which we agree and for which an apology was given), but it's ok to wish someone would die - as long as the person you are speaking of is a Calvinist. I think I got it, now.

[Lydia]

"So just to clarify, it's wrong to say speak of theologically raping (on which we agree and for which an apology was given), but it's ok to wish someone would die - as long as the person you are speaking of is a Calvinist. I think I got it, now"

Peter, It does not matter how many times you "clarify" something in detail, does it? You are the whipping boy because you dare to speak out about the viral vitriolic brand of Calvinism infesting the SBC.

In their world, drpenn would be deleted and most likely researched to make sure his/her pastor knew and he/she were excommunicated. I hope he/she has not signed any church covenants because at that point it is a legal situation! But never mind all that child molestation (suffering children don't matter?) at SGM and the protection of Mahaney by Mohler. That is acceptable.

That is their version of "Free Church" tradition.

[Eric Lockhart]

Lydia,

Have you ever asked my opinion of the SGM situation? Nope. If I believe that Jesus died to actually save me not just make it available, I must be lumped into one group. No need for intellectual honesty - that hurts arguments. But I've wasted enough time on this site. Have a great night.

[peter lumpkins]

Eric,

I think you know Lydia's point has teeth. Truth be told many in White's community may already be actively about doing precisely what Lydia mentions.

Now please hear this: your comment demonstrates exactly the problem in communication we experience. I immediately dealt with a portion of a comment virtually all accept as inappropriate. I think I did it decisively but lovingly and not harshly for drpenn is a sister in Christ. I do not wish her any ill, and the truth is, she only wrote what all of us have felt at one time or another toward this individual or that. That's a fallen human fact. We've used those same inappropriate monikers to describe persons. The difference is, she actually wrote it so people could see it, and we didn't. Hence, there's no justification at all to grab onto a self-righteous posture.

Also, your interpretating an ambiguous statement which doesn't have to be anything more than innocent figure of speech and making it nonetheless a literal death-wish only illustrates your bias for seeing things the way you WANT to see them, seeing things in a way not necessarily demanded by either the wording or the context but seeing them in a way which makes the one criticized to be viewed in the most negative light . Sorry, Eric. Your point is hopeless, because it rests on an unnecessary inference you choose to make from an ambiguous statement.

[Mark]

Eric,

Sites like these are necessary because Stealth Calvinist Preachers in the SBC are increasingly "Force Feeding" their Doctrine on Non-Calvinist.

We had a less aggressive SBC Stealth 4 Point Calvinist interim Pastor knowingly interview and recommend a Stealth 5 Point Preacher (who turned out being a Hyper-Calvinist)into our church.
He ended up splitting our church and destroyed the relationship of a family.

[Mary]

Let's see, commenting about a faceless woman on the internet making an inappropriate comment against a hateful vitriolic rager like the fake Doktor is more important for Calvinists than taking a stand against child sex abuse but when this glaring hypocrisy is pointed out the defense is "nobody asked me my opinion!" Nobody asked anybody's opinion about a faceless woman's comment either but here the Calvinists are defending their idol the fake doktor as if he's somehow been victimized!

And no the comment of a faceless woman on the internet is not the same as a leader from Reformation Montana attacking the very humble irenic Adam Harwood. The man goes out of his way to be kind and did/does not deserves the attacks he's receiving from "christians" No comparisions between men who have a history of abusive vitriol rhetoric to Adam Harwood.

[Eric Lockhart]

No sir, you immediately joked with her about it. Then, when pointed out, you quickly acted.
Context of the rest of the post does not make the interpretation ambiguous.

[peter lumpkins]

Correct, Eric. You interpreted my sentiments exactly. I had in my mind not a single dark thought that she literally was constructing a death-wish like some of you guys who appear to be bent on putting every syllable she wrote in the worst light possible. Hence, I mentioned the ubiquitous "Bob" character. All light-hearted. And, if I thought she was constructing a literal death-wish, I would have dealt with it precisely as I dealt with the obvious inappropriate moniker. So, thank you very much, Eric. You nicely prove my point.

And, until you can show from the words she used that they necessarily imply a literal death-wish, and must not bear the light-hearted connotation I actually embraced and you easily grasped, drop the grandstanding on a failed literary insinuation and move on. Clear enough?

[Mary]

And the point Eric seems to be missing - just like nobody asked him about SGM - NOBODY ASKED HIM HIS OPINION ON what Peter did or didn't do or his opinion on some faceless woman on the internet and yet which of the two does he feel it necessary to go on record condemning? Child Sex abuse, standing up for innocent victims of abusive clergy abuse? Or does Eric think a raging lunatic like the fake Doktor needs defending? Glad to see the Calvinists have their priorties in order.

[Mary]

Peter, you're real mistake here isn't that it's simply not enough that you've asked drpenn to apologize it's that you've dared to speak against a Calvinist idol. The store front Dokotor can go about calling Christians heretics - that's ok, but how dare someone get a little fed up with this man's hate and vitriol and vent.

[Mark]

Eric and Mary

To me it is Ideology taking presidence above abuse.

Eric,

Could you please disclose your Doctrine. Do you lean more as a Calvinist, Reformed or embrace parts of TULIP or do you completely refute Calvinism or TULIP?

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

I think you've got a point. Eric, Matt, et al have hardly mentioned White's extreme verbal abuse of Harwood. No, they only show up when White's critics abuse him. Then they get in the fire. In addition, if the critics here were seriously wanting to engage the issue, surely they would have commended dealing with the most objectionable part of the comment. But what do they do? Ignore that and continue to harp about my not doing enough. Note when I asked Matt above specifically what I could do more than I actually did, he rides off into the sunset never to be seen again. It certainly seems to indicate, at least to me, it wasn't really about what I hadn't done properly; instead, it was about the rug getting pulled right out from under them in their criticism.

[Mary]

Peter, Doktor Jimmie using his very public platform to call Christians heretics? No biggie! Horrific allegations coming out against SGM? Nobody bothered to ask Eric's opinion on that one so why bring it up even while he's ranting about a comment that nobody bothered to ask his opinion about! A faceless woman on the internet makes an inappropriate comment! Gather the wood boys!

Mark, you seem rather new to this whole conversation. Calvinists will always - always defend the Calvinist.

[Eric Lockhart]

Don't show up because I have learned from past experience you cannot have a constructive conversation on here if you are not in full agreement with Peter, Mary and Lydia. Mary and Lydia especially just lump you into a group of people and will leave any subject to make sure you are lumped in as approving of child molesting or are fascinated with Driscoll.

Mark, I am completely Reformed. I believe all five points of the Doctrine of Grace. But, I am not a hyper-Calvinist.

Peter, I just get the suspicion that if I had asked: Is Jerry Vines not dead yet and then made negative comments about him, I would have been heavily scolded. Especially, if I asked a question like: Has Adam Hardwood every heard of Pelagius? Perhaps, I am wrong.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Good grief Peter, is it any worse than the comments above? I hardly doubt it. You are complaining about the very thing you guys do and have done for a very long time. No sympathies here. Just stop the fighting. That would solve it. But then again, I said that six years ago and here we are again.

[Mary]

Of course Eric who has made not one comment about the original OpEd pulls the "Women are mean!" card. Eric's only comments have been against another commentor but he tries to distract from his inability to grasp simple logic by distracting and attacking when he's shown himself to be guilty of that which he's attacking! What a West Georgia Hoot!

[Mary]

Hey Debbie, you hurled accusations against me and Peter the other day that either we didn't believe the Bible should be our final authority or that we thought everyone needed a High Priest to interpret the Bible. I asked for proof of those hateful statements you made which you have yet to provide. Are you going to retract those hateful statements and repent or are you just back to lord it over everyone as the oh so superior "christian" woman that you have deemed yourself to be. PROOF of your accusations Debbie or get off your high horse that you know exactly the solution which is Debbie gets to say whatever it is that Debbie wants without backing up any of her claims and everybody else needs to shut up when when Debbie decides they should shut up.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Mary: Your imagination knows no bounds. This is why no discussion happens. Too much hurdling. I never insulted you in such a way. That is simply not true. Again, ridiculous.

This is hate and sinful pure and simple. Christ should be glorified in even this but he isn't. And I'm going to be blunt, it's not because of anything I have said to you.

[Les Prouty]

Brothers and sisters,

I've been out of town for a while and am just now catching up on reading sites which I regularly read. I don't even have a high horse to get on if I wanted to. And though we just had about a foot of snow here in the St. Louis area about 10 days ago, and it was pure and wind drtiven, I am not.

But I have to say that this looks like a backyard brawl...from some on both sides of the obvious divide. Both sides. Maybe scripture would help?

"I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

"Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. 26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil. 28 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. 29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you."

Folks on both sides, there has to be a better way to conduct interaction among brothers and sisters in Christ...even if you are certain YOU are the one wronged. And it is you who has been wronged or slandered. It always is. And it's me (or properly I) who is always wronged.

May we all find ourselves clothed in "the fruit of the Spirit [which] is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."

Blessings upon you all.

Les

[Mary]

So Debbie what you're saying is that as usual you just hurled baseless accusations against Peter and me and you have no way to prove those baseless accusations and calling on you to retract those baseless hateful accusations is hateful and sinful cuz you can just say whatever you want all the while you lord it over everyone as the Superior "christian" you consider yourself to be. Just like the baseless accusation that you've hurled in this thread that "you guys" go around calling people heretics all the time for six years. You have no proof of yet another one of your baseless accusations but to ask you for proof is hateful and sinful because you're Debbie and you can say whatever you want! Being Super christian and all!

[Les Prouty]

BTW, shameless plug for all glory to God. If you want to see this Presbyterian doing credo immersions in Haiti, look here https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=142815115891552

I'm on the left end. The church baptized 28 last Saturday morning and we four US pastors had the wonderful privilege of assisting the Haitian pastor.

Les

[Mary]

Les, you need a shave. Are you having trouble with the internet with all the wind today?

[Les Prouty]

Mary, that's what my wife keeps telling me. No trouble yet. Have Charter and it's working great. But man it is windy in Ballwin, MO!

[Mary]

Charter was never very good here in the south side. The infrastructure badly needs updating so we went to satellite. Hubby's looking forward to Cards/Giants later but Direct TV's a little spotty so he's hoping the wind dies down. My old farm house windows are rattling something fierce but they always hold.

[Louis]

It is amazing how in the study of theology people can be so uncharitable. The biggest problem appears to be mischaracterizing the arguments of one's opponent. Once that is done, then the name calling starts.

At any rate, I know plenty of folks in SBC Reformed circles, but I have never heard of James White. Who is he? Is he a pastor? Where does he live?

[peter lumpkins]

Eric,

Perhaps you didn't read my last comment to you. Here's a portion of it again. Please note:

"until you can show from the words she used that they necessarily imply a literal death-wish, and must not bear the light-hearted connotation I actually embraced and you easily grasped, drop the grandstanding on a failed literary insinuation and move on. Clear enough?

That is my final word concerning the exchange with you on the phrase from the comment above. You have not nor even tried--nor do I think you can--to show how drpenn's phrase necessarily implies the dark interpretation upon which you insist yet you still go right and ahead and affirm it just the same. Now, I'm through exchanging about this with you. Don't bring it up again here.

On the other hand, if you'd like to discuss whether or not James White's point was well-taken in scurrilously slandering Dr. Harwood by identifying him with Pelagius and/or the other non sequitur conclusions he wrongly drew, I'd be open to that. But nothing else on your failed point about "death-wish". Got it?

[Mark]

Louis,

I tend to agree with your analogy referring to the uncharitable spirit of people consumed with their Methodology.

I have discovered that most of the mischaracterizing is being practiced by those who force feed their questionable Doctrine on those who fail to accept their Ideology.

I'm also seeing those who are consumed with Ideology, quick to the rescue of those who practice spiritual abuse, who happen to embrace the same Ideology.

[Mary]

Louis he is a man who pretends to hold a doctorate and so goes around demanding peole call him Doktor while his sycophants spin that a "dokotorate" from an unaccreditated store front "school" is actually superior to the doctorates held by all the heretics in the SBC. He was so good at pretending to be a doktor that he taught a few classes for Golden Gate Seminary, but alas that came to an end because the hateful heretics in cahoots with the Mormons exposed his store front degree. Now he rants and raves on the radio and shows his misogyny here and there by attacking Mormon women. When he's not ranting and raving he's uhh and uhhing and giggling because that shows how superior is to the heretics in the SBC. Oh and he's a realy cool bike rider - he likes to talk about his bike rides and post pictures of him riding his bike and talk about ridng his bike and pictures and talk and talk some more. Cuz he's cool!

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

Granted. And, a good way to proceed is to go back to the OP and consider whether White's scurrilously slandering Dr. Harwood by identifying him with Pelagius and/or the other non sequitur conclusions he wrongly drew are appropriate, helpful ways to criticize another's theology. No Calvinist about which I am aware has yet logged on and talked about White's review of Harwood. Instead they only showed up to talk about the infamous comment opening this thread.

[Mary]

Peter, you know the solution to all of this and James White could actually join with us on this one. If what Adam Harwood is saying is heresy then Al Mohler needs to be the statesmen he is alledged to be and declare it heresy unambigously. If there is indeed heresy in the SBC then who better than Al Mohler to make the declaration? If it's not heresy then Al Mohler needs to unambigously declare it as not heresy - ie neither semiPelegian or Pelegian. But if Al Mohler truely beleives there is heresy in the SBC he needs to stand boldly for the truth. And if what Harwood is teaching is not heresy then Al Mohler needs to stand in defense against these serious charges of heresy against a Christian brother. To do anything less is cowardly. Is Al Mohler a coward or is he willing to stand up for Biblical truth? Or is he just a political animal who will avoid doing something that is not going to aid him personally?