« Women's Conference at Woodstock First Baptist Church | Main | An Open Invitation to James White: My Response by Peter Lumpkins »



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


Diana, just join Lydia and me in the "monstrous regiment of women" Perhaps someone has made comments about you being "emotional" See when Calvinists go around questioning the salvation of Christians and calling Christians heretics they're called "passionate" or excused as "frustrated" but don't you dare be a nonCal and post something in frustration. And if you're a woman! Oh my Calvinist men go nuts wondering why the men in your life haven't taken away your computer! So welcome to the club! maybe the "doktor" (not a real doctor he just plays one on the radio) will mention you some time! Then you'll know you've hit the big time!


Mary, Did you read the SBC Today thread where all this started? If you read it you will see that David Rogers is the one who floated Setzer as a good ecumenical/ambassadorial example for SBC Pres.

In fact, I was a bit shocked at David's original comment and thought it a bit pedantic for him. As if loyalty to the SBC means one automatically excludes what he describes as the Body of Christ. Well, there is a reason there are denominations and while I agree that part is sad-- chalk it up to problems in history and the need for them. For crying out loud, ours was started with the pall of slavery over it by Calvinists! Good thing we lost the war and changed. :o)

I was out of the SBC for quite a while and came back for specific reasons (one,the lie of "elder led" leading to the horrors of groupthink I saw in the mega industrial complex by a handful of guys. I think Miss Mildred who labors in the trenches deserves a vote) only to see it full of Presbyterians who call themselves Baptists! What happened? Al Mohler happened.

I thought David was poisoning the well so to speak and found it strange how intensely he pressed it. He rarely comments there.

If Ed was his first thought as an example of an ecumenical SBC Pres, that tells me a lot about how bad it has gotten out there with the pop culture Christianity. First of all, Ed is an EMPLOYEE of an entity. Sheesh! What is it with these guys? Secondly, Ed spends so much time chasing the celebrity circuit I often wonder what his job really entails.

Here is what I think MIGHT be the problem. SBCT is showing up with lots of hits. Who woulda thought it? A non Cal SBC blog with lots of hits? Not good.

Seriously, does anyone remember a bunch of Methodists involved in our CR? IFB? Presbyterians? Did we have entity presidents doing lots of conferences and speaking gigs with other denominations forging alliances with them WITHIN the SBC entities?

The endgame is obviously not ecumenicism as David dreams of as in the wider Body of Christ because there have been too many charges of heresy from the Reformed wing for that and the Reformed brand, itself, is exclusive. The endgame is power using what were the growing numbers for the Reformed brand and rallying the youngen's. I personally think now it is a maintain problem. I think the whole movement is imploding. More and more peeps don't like it when child molesters are coddled by pastors and their celebrity pastor leader friends not only ignore it but seek to make anyone who brings it up in sin for doing so.

That reeks of oligarchy.

You wanna hear something sort of funny? I heard two young YRR guys lamenting about Piper. Seems he let them down big time. They thought he would retire and then go off like Livingstone to some dark corner of the world. They were shocked he is going to be a jet setting 21st Century John Calvin global Apostle.

Anyway,I thought his comment on that thread was totally out of left field but look where we are now. So maybe it wasn't and I did not realize the real point? Now someone wrote that he tweeted it so I am assuming that is true. I have not seen the tweet. But I find that strange, too. A sort of promotion of his comment at SBCT. Then Dave Miller writing upset about it. Hmmm.

Look, if they want to be furious about something...how about Mahaney? But crickets.


Peter and Mary,

I agree with your assertion that Calvinist referring Christians as heretics is very insulting and need to be challenged.

Non-Calvinist isn't a Doctrine.

If you can give me a description who the Non-Calvinist are, let me know. But don't forget to include the Voo-Doo and Pegan Idol worshipers.


Lydia, I did read the thread at Today. What this whole kerfluffle demonstrates is that the Calvinists are not interested in talking about issues. They want to attack and look for ways to "margenalize" everybody who doesn't think like them. It's the Calvinist who are trying to force an identity on all SBCers.

The context from where Norm's quote was taken goes back to David Rogers hateful comment "Loyalty to the SBC = Disloyalty to the Body of Christ" (disloyalty by the way is a synomym for treason) So what we can conclude from the fact that no one is outraged by Roger's comment is that Stetzer, Dave Miller et all agree that to be loyal to the SBC means you are a traitor to the Body of Christ.

Now nowhere in the Rick whosit? original Op Ed at Today or in the comment stream has anyone suggested that everyone in the SBC has to look alike think alike. Nowhere at Today has anyone suggested that the SBC and her churches cannot be in friendly cooperation with other denominations when the opportunity provides itself. No one anywhere is talking about isolationism. But Calvinists being Calvinists and unable to deal with reality and facts, Calvinists being Calvinists and deciding that SBC Today must be destroyed because Calvinists can't control what's being said - why they won't even let Calvinists post their hate in the comments! Calvinists see an enemy they must destroy so they latch onto "ISOLATIONISM" thinking this new line of attack will help them destroy those who won't allow the Calvinists to dictate exactly what the SBC is going to be and do.

what this shows is the Calvinists are starting to worry and so they are doubling down on the attacks. They must stifle dissent before the people in the pews start paying attention.


Mary - I am an old foe of Jimmy's. It won't be the first time he will have mentioned me.

I take pride in being passionate about what I believe, and anyone who really knows me - know I can be quite blunt and to the point. Sometimes I do choose to show restraint - other times, not so much.

I dropped out of the calvinist arguments months and months ago. It was consuming, and I have since left the SBC because of the calvinist influence therein.

Good luck to everyone - really. I do not care if some sanctimonious pharisee declares me unregenerate - I know the Truth - as does my Savior; and sanctification is a process - even for us emotional women.

On the note (as an afterthought) of what my husband would say - When I conveyed to him that I apparently caused some kind of ruckus on a blog, he replied - "...and this is new?".

My husband knows me well - as do many of my friends. :)

Thank you for the welcome.

Les Prouty

First, I apologize for this being so long. I’m not a great writer so I’ll be copying portions of your comments and then commenting after.

On the smiley face at the end of my comment, ‘Let the firing squad begin. :), I would have thought that the meaning was obvious. It had zero to do with “making this issue into some kind of laughing, light and humorous matter.” It had everything to do with anticipated responses to my comments.

When you said “You have absolutely nothing to gain or lose in this issue because you belong to a Presbyterian fellowship which has no stake in an issue ripping the SBC apart” that is simply not true. As I have said before here and elsewhere, my org has SB partners in ministry. Some are more Reformed leaning and some are not. This issue is not simply a “fun "debating" issue” for me.

“You respond by suggesting it was Mohler who first did so. No, Mohler did not. He didn't mention Pelagius or pelagianism but only semi-pelagianism. So connecting Mohler and Pelagius is incorrect.” Well Peter, we just disagree. If the letters that spell “pelagius” were used by Mohler (and they were) then it is very fine hair splitting to say Mohler didn’t connect Pelagius, only semi-pelagianism (named after Pelagius). In either case, no one called anyone a heretic. Parse Mohler’s words carefully. He didn’t call anyone a heretic.

“Third, if White did not implicate Harwood being connected with Pelagius, then what do you suppose White meant when he twice mentioned Pelagius in association with Harwood?” Well I don’t know what else he may have meant. I do not think he meant to say that Harwood is a Pelagian.

“Fourth, you claim "For sure Mohler didn't call anyone a Pelagian or a semi-Pelagian." [That] seems to me to be absurd. Well so be it Peter. It is not absurd to me. Words mean thigs as many are quick to say. Mohler in fact didn’t call anyone a heretic anymore than Norm didn’t call anyone a “traitor.”

“If it does not necessarily imply the authors/supporters appear to hold to what Mohler theologically objects, then what does it necessarily imply, Les?  Give me your theory.” My theory is that Mohler had some problems with the document. He said that some parts of it appear to be SP. I personally think he believed that more care should have been taken in the document formulation and that those who signed on should have done more due diligence. That is my theory. Obviously many disagreed with Mohler. Now that is my theory (since you asked). I’ll read any responses but I’ll debate my theory no more.

“Fifth, you suggest White was "not out of line." So identifying another's theological position with a notorious heretic without offering indisputable proof is "not out of line"?” I disagree with the premise I read into this sentence that JW was identifying Harwood to Pelagius as stating or implying Harwood to be a Pelagian.

“Brother you've got a far far different understanding of what belongs in the bounds of brotherly dialog than do I. [Perhaps.]

“In fact, you have a far different understanding of what counts for brotherly dialog than you did a year or so ago. Here’s what you wrote about a statement Jerry Vines made:
“As to the substance of the article, Dr. Vines' statement: "should the SBC move toward five-point Calvinism it will be a move away from, not toward, the gospel" is unnecessarily inflammatory.”

“So, a statement Vines made which didn’t by any stretch necessarily imply heresy of any sort can be summarily judged by you as “unnecessarily inflammatory” while White can identify Harwood by name with a notoriously known and universally accepted heretic and you judge that as in no way “out of line”? Yeah, right, Les, right.”

Well, I stand by my comment that the Vines statement was “unnecessarily inflammatory.”
“But like I mentioned in the beginning, Les, that really is no sweat off your brow. You don’t have an ecclesial stake in this issue.” Already said above that I do have some stake in this matter.

At the end of the day let me say this. I am not JW fan in any way. I have never (to my knowledge) listened to him or read him. Maybe a snippet here or there as someone linked to it. Can’t remember. And, I would not have used the wording he used. From what I know and have read, Harwood is not a P or a SP. But for JW, I cannot say he was out of line and ZI do not think he was calling Harwood a P or even a SP.

I will read your forthcoming reply, but I see no need to continue on this. I doubt you and I will agree on it.


The comments to this entry are closed.