« Lessons on leadership from a guy with no shirt | Main | »



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


Wow! Peter this is absolutely shocking! Who do these men think they are?! I believe they are usurping Christ's role of judging the heart!

peter lumpkins


Precisely. Southern Baptists need to know who they're dealing with when radical, unscrupulous Calvinists pop off in the public arena.


holey camoley... listening to this gave me the creeps. pity both these men for their indictments against Christian men of God. beyond sad. selahV

Scott Shaver

This is the kind of religion that gives Christianity a bad name.

Real lame.

Scott Shaver

Makes me glad I've got more Seiks and Muslims for neighbors than hyper-Calvinist protestants.

Sean B

Of course, the fact that Ergun Caner has explicitly stated that he is unrepentant is clear evidence of the fact that he is saved.... right?

peter lumpkins


Get real. Dr. Caner has done no such thing and for you to suggest such is just more disparaging and personally insulting rhetoric. You're equating his refusal to kowtow to Hall, White, and Mohammed Khan's harassing allegations that he fabricated his life with genuine repentance before God, an egregious but common verbal crime people like you make. Well, you, et al won't get by with it here like you do on Twitter. Ergun Caner owes to you and your smear campaign no explanation of anything he's ever done much less a bowed knee like you require.

Hence, don't come back here with your morally ignorant claims unless you've actually got the goods to back it up.


I MIGHT be able to understand this if JD Hall was preaching against those who enabled and protected child molesters for years and remain stubbornly unrepentant about it but.....seriously? Even then we judge right/wrong. Not Salvation.

Children have value and molestation stays with them their whole lives.


Why don't you do that Scott, Go visit Afghanistan, sit on the corner and proclaim Christ....See how your new neighbors like it?

Come on guys, This has absolutely nothing to do with "Calvinist". Do you want to go down the list of what Adrian Rodgers, Jerry Falwell and others have said about your Calvinist brothers in the past. (just Google it)

Don't know who this JD Hall is and suspect he is not a representative of reformed Baptist (Calvinist) is he....

Sean B

Here in Caner's own words: Ergun Mehmet Caner @erguncaner 56m

And I am ABSOLUTELY UNREPENTANT of your made-up and already disproven charges from 5yrs ago. I won’t confess to whites lies or white trash.

He may not owe anyone any explanation, but he could easily make it all go away by simply producing misstatement free sermons. Is this possible?

Can you define 'Moral ignorance' for me? You've bandied that phrase about a number of times as of late, what do you mean by it?

peter lumpkins


Nor have I implied all Calvinists are loony, Eric. But Calvinists like Hall, White, et al are every bit as vicious as Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church. Now, do you condemn the rhetoric on this video or not, Eric? Please be clear.

Scott Shaver

They seem to be far more tolerant, Eric, than know it alls like yourself and J.D. Hall.

My neighbors and I get along far better than I do with Calvinists.

Cody Watson

Was my comment deleted?


Claiming that ordained SBC pastor JD Hall is at all similar to cult leader Fred Phelps is ridiculous. As many have said if Ergun Caner wanted this to go away all he (and you as the VP of communication at BPC) would have to do is produce video/audio of him saying he was born in Sweden and emigrated to Ohio as a toddler post 2001 and pre 2010. Or if he made no misstatements but lied all he would have to do is repent publicly. Whether he is regenerate or not no one knows, but his behavior warrants church discipline at the minimum.

peter lumpkins

And your point is what, "Sean B"? You just offered the perfect example demonstrating my point. Caner will never confess to the made-up, disproven charges you and others have unjustly lobbed against him. Namely, that he fabricated his life and experience as a Muslim in order to profiteer from unsuspecting people.

And, as for defining “moral ignorance” why would I need to do that? You just offered the perfect illustration of it. Moral Ignorance: confusing a) Caner’s refusal to “repent” of bogus charges concocted by Mohammed Khan, James White, JD Hall, and you of fabricating his life story for profiteering on one hand; and b) Caner’s openness to daily confession and repentance toward His God and Savior, Jesus Christ on the other. For my part, I don’t think moral ignorance is an unapt descriptor for such a grievous moral error.

Now, stop your disparaging remarks, Sean. This isn’t about Ergun Caner making anything “go away.” It’s about guys like you who needlessly and harass and stalk people on the internet whom you judge are sinners.     


peter lumpkins


No one's comment was deleted.

Scott Shaver

Moral Ignorance = the idea that repentance is something one sinner can demand from another.

Scott Shaver

Lunacy = calling another to repentance for alleged transgressions that did not occur.

Cody Watson

I just commented that I do not believe that this is consistent logic. JD calling Ergun lost because of unrepentant sin is not wrong and to compare that to the heresy and hate that come from Fred Phelps is slander. Please sir repent.

peter lumpkins


First, either sign on with your real name next time or don't bother at all. This isn't FBCJaxWatchDog site. If you don't have the courage to log your name, take it elsewhere. If you have sober reasons why you cannot log your name, email me and I may allow you exception.

Second, you assert to claim JD Hall is "at all similar to cult leader Fred Phelps" is "ridiculous." Really? Well, from listening to the snippets above, I'm unsure how one listening comes to that conclusion. Both men judge other men's souls to hell. How that's dissimilar and therefore "ridiculous" needs explanation.

Third, I don't have to produce any video of Ergun Caner saying he was born Sweden. It's clearly in his books, a source you and the Calvinist Inquisition led by James White and J.D. Hall never once consider. You pick and choose what you'd like to cite.

Fourth, you claim whether Ergun Caner is regenerate or not "no one knows." Well, JD Hall says he knows. Is JD Hall lying? Will you call JD Hall to "repent"? Does JD Hall's behavior "warrant church discipline at the minimum"? Please let us know.

With that, I am...

peter lumpkins


Not consistent logic? A) Phelps judges Graham lost for unrepentant sin; B) Hall judges Caner lost for unrepentant sin. Not consistent logic? Please.

The more I listen to you guys the more I observe an undeniable tendency toward a works-oriented salvation. Someone is lost and hellbound because of unrepentant sin? This is a disturbing gospel interpretation.

peter lumpkins


Got to step away for awhile. Snow finally melted and we can get some groceries!

Dan S

Some Lutherans are actually saying the same thing (See his interactions with Daniel Emery Price and Jordan Cooper) that JD Hall is going too far in some of his rhetoric. Ironically, Ed Stetzer just interviewed some LCMS church planters this week on his website.

Also, in light of this, you might enjoy this video - The Westboro Baptist Chipmunks with does "highlight" another connection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEIqEYP_ZvM

Yes, I agree this has nothing to with Caner (though I disagree with your defense of Caner as a whole).


Of course I reject what Hall said in that sound bite.

Even Assuming Caner is guilty of that sin he is accused of....that doesn't mean he is not saved.

Hall better hope that God doesn't judge him that way or he is lost without hope.

God's word is clear...we are to help restore a brother not condemn him.

Though God's word is equally clear that there is a time to put a man out of fellowship when unrepentant. Even with that, the end goal is to restore him to right relationship with Christ.

Scott: You are a judgmental one. It doesn't have to be this way...Christ can free you from that sin......(you say I'm a "know it alls" ?)

chris Gilliam

Psalm 32 & 51, David never specifically acknowledges any sin with Bathsheba. Perhaps he is in hell too? Do these guys read the bible s a whole?

It is morally repugnant to continually try to destroy another man. Even the great apostle Paul understands the providence and sovereignty when he penned the divine words that plainly states he rejoices when people share Jesus regardless of internal motives.

peter lumpkins


Hope you are well, brother. Yes. And, my point when I put up the few pieces on Canlvin's treatment of Servetus was that we have no evidence to suggest Calvin ever "publicly repented" of his disgusting treatment of him and much evidence to suggest he was hardened into believing he was right in God's sight to have done so right up until his death. However, given Hall and Watson's claim (see above) that since Caner allegedly has not "publicly repented" it follows he's "lost because of unrepentant sin."

In light of Cody's appeal to "consistent logic" above, does it not follow therefore that if Calvin didn't "publicly repent" of murdering Servetus--and no evidence exists he did--that Calvin died in a state of lostness? Of course, neither Cody nor JD Hall would entertain such "consistent logic."

peter lumpkins


Thanks. I appreciate your contribution.

Dan S.

Thanks also. And know I fully appreciate one not accepting, on principle, arguments I might make based and not outright dismissal based upon a priori conclusions I hold none myself. The impossibility of dealing with social media abusers like Hall, et al on principle is thoroughly documented. The you-sir-are-a-liar methodology appears to always win out. In addition, when a man or woman's name and reputation is on the line, publicly, morally, and definitively condemning him or her based upon controvertible evidence is neither wise nor godly in my view.

One caveat I would mention--a caveat please note based upon what you may have implied not what you necessarily implied--concerns "put[ing] a man out of fellowship when unrepentant." Yes, the NT seems clear some sort of disciplinary measures may become necessary and/or prudent under certain circumstances. But a) it's not clear what sin--single or perpetual; degree of sinfulness, etc--becomes the moral threshold to begin excommunicational procedures; b) and, even if it were clear, no official body but the local church is authorized to do so; c) and no ecclesial body exists which may sanction any NT church which does or does not formally proceed with excommunicational injunctions against an alleged erring member since every NT church is one autonomous body under Christ.



What Hall and Phelps are doing isn't isolated other than practicing their version of "Judge Theology" and taking it viral. (it happened in our church by a hyper-theologian)

I'm offended by their words that seem to celebrate and even gloat an arrogant confidence of something they don't know to be true. (only God knows) They acted unconcerned about the destiny of Caner or Graham, which isn't love.

By the way they conducted themselves, I wonder if Hall or Phelps, (like all of us) should be more concerned about their own salvation rather than Dr. Caner or Reverend Graham's place in heaven. But that is between them and God.

There are several passages that warn us from recklessly judging one another. Matt 7:1 comes to mind. So I make my point with caution.

peter lumpkins

So true, Mark. The absolute only reason I post this garbage is to alert others to the unbecoming behaviors and beliefs of guys in the SBC who're going around the internet making life miserable for people they morally despise.

Granting JD's conclusion that person A is a lost sinner in need of Christ, what does his behavior say toward reaching unregenerate people? Again the moral duplicity staggers the mind.

Nor may JD argue that person A, as lost, threatens another's belief or ruins people's souls or 'chances' of coming to faith in Christ. Recall JD doesn't believe *anything* could or can hinder God's elect from being saved since no one can come to Christ anyway before they are born again. This is the ugly dilemma Strict Calvinism places one who blurs biblical teaching on God's sovereignty.

Andrew Barker

Peter: " we have no evidence to suggest Calvin ever "publicly repented" of his disgusting treatment of him and much evidence to suggest he was hardened into believing he was right in God's sight to have done so right up until his death.

Something which has crossed my mind more than once recently, since our 'Pastor' upped sticks and went within a few weeks, is that Reformed thinking can have profound effect on the way a person views and treats others. Essentially it starts with the belief that God 'loves' everyone but for some reason best known to him, God only 'chooses' his elect to salvation. Since we are meant to strive to become more godly it therefore follows that we should become more like God in this respect also. Thus in the background there must lurk the feeling that some 'others' are not regenerate and since God treats them differently, so should we! It's not long before some so called Pastors and leaders who find themselves with an awkward bunch of church members are going to be tempted to start thinking that they are obviously not regenerate!

I picked up on a twitter comment the other day by Jeff Isaiah @SoGoSwell who was bemoaning the fact that Pastors were wasting time pandering to the goats instead of feeding the sheep! When I asked him to say who the goats were, he couldn't! He was quite happy to quote Jesus Matt 7 by their fruit you shall know them, until I pointed out that this was directed at false teachers and not the sheep. I was then blocked on twitter! Ha, a first for me ;-)

The point is, we don't know who is and who isn't regenerate and sometimes we have doubts about ourselves, don't we? So quite how we are meant to dictate to others is beyond me. What's more, we are not called to sort out the sheep from the goats. It's a common enough term, but when I searched for it the other day the only place I could find it was at the end of the age and then Jesus is doing the sorting. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus refer to sheep and goats. I think Paul talks about wolves in his epistles but I suspect the term sheep and goats has crept in to our terminology and maybe should be redefined. Perhaps someone can put me straight if they have chapter and verse. I have no problem with that.

There is a certain hardness which can come with the knowledge that 'I am right' about something which is why we are told to speak the truth in love. Sometimes, we find out that we weren't so right about things after all, which is when a bit of humility is called for. Calvin never managed to find repentance and went to his grave justifying himself. Whether he believed his own propaganda ... only God knows!

Dan S

I don't know if that caveat was added from my comment. I'm assuming you were addressing Peter.

It is for situations like this I becoming more fond of a Presbyterian polity.

One clarification I am curious to here your distinction. What is the difference between the "you-sir-you-are-a-liar" defense and actually attempting to show someone to be a liar? I ask because often time the "slippery slope" argument (used against like gay marriage for instance) is confused with the reductio ad absurdum approach to argumentation. The difference of approach of what one actually believes and what one believes will happen if you believe something. I just curious to hear what you mean by the "you-sir-you-are-a-liar" approach in argumentation?

chris Gilliam

Peter, one note related to your response to Dan. The discipline issue is couched in the context of un-forgiveness. (I happen to believe that un-forgiveness is perhaps the greatest sin of a believer because it maligns the nature of God and his dealings with man.) Could it be we discipline un-forgivers? Hebrews 12 also speaks of the root of bitterness and its corrupting influence. I suggest this might be the case and if so, then the real light is being shined bright on this entire affair. Those condemning and constantly casting stones are in danger of the "RACA" Jesus spoke of.

peter lumpkins


An excellent observation. We have a situation with EC where a) an exhaustive background investigation was launched to explore allegations of deceit concerning his past, including allegations of deceit from some of his past sermons; b) a verdict made known by those hiring the independent team of investigators; c) the verdict of which fully exonerated Dr. Caner's past and present of any hint of intentional deceit; d) finding, however, there were instances where discrepancy occurred pertaining to dates, names, places; e) Dr. Caner privately making amends to those under whose authority he remained; f) Dr. Caner publicly apologizing for the harm caused by his verbal errors, lapses of memory, misstatements, etc; g) Dr. Caner forfeiting a presidency because discrepancies had occurred pertaining to dates, names, places; h) but because the investigation found errors were deemed unintentional never meant to deceive, Dr. Caner still had full support of the institution as a teaching professor, with every confidence maintained that he would ascend back to being president after a certain length of time; i) Dr. Caner voluntarily choosing to pursue his academic calling elsewhere; j) but only to face ceaseless hounding and harassment by a group of self-righteous Christians led by James White and Mohammed Khan, obsessed with destroying him altogether because he didn't "publicly repent" for what they judge as fraud, deceit, and fabricating his life to fulfill his depraved thirst for money even when a professional group of investigators were not convinced deceit was ever a motive.

Unforgiveness? Perhaps you're on to something, Chris. Perhaps church discipline is not wrong-headed for those morally twisted enough to continue hounding and harassing a Christian minister and educator after he's been fully investigated, morally exonerated, humbly confessional, and professionally disciplined (and disciplined perhaps too harshly some believe since he lost the presidency when nothing but factual discrepancies were uncovered--that is, Caner was morally vindicated and was found unintentionally "guilty" of no more actually than James White is "guilty" of historically botching Calvin's treatment of Servetus!).

Make no mistake: James White, et al are demanding a real public stoning of Ergun Caner to professional, ministerial death for shamelessly committing the sins White himself alleges against him. White doesn't give two shakes of a gnat's behind how many others have judged Caner innocent or guilty.

For White, he is the final word. Like John Calvin in Geneva, he determines who is a heretic; who is banished; and who is burned at the stake. And, no man can or will resist White's Law because James White will destroy them in debate and cross-examination. So, it's said Calvin destroyed Servetus when he cross-examined him on the witness stand.

Evangelicals generally and Southern Baptists particularly have a monumental problem on their hands. If men like James White ever...ever...get on the real inside of convention life in the SBC, well...just look at what he's doing to Ergun Caner. We will all face Calvin's wrath.

Lord bless, brother.

With that, I am...

peter lumpkins

Dan S

"What is the difference between the 'you-sir-you-are-a-liar' defense and actually attempting to show someone to be a liar?" Both are undeniably a priori in nature. To show a person a deceiver presumes a non-negotiable judgment the person already is a deceiver. However, the former is more a like a "poison the well" debate trick. No one--and I mean no one--works this tactic like James White. Get in a scuffle with him and a) you'll immediately be dismissed as an uneducated buffoon without the least capacity of understanding the issue under discussion; b) the next thing out of White's mouth is how dishonest you are without the least regard for the truth. That's what I mean by the you-sir-are-a-liar tactic.

Finally, I find it morally skewed at best to have a goal in life of making sure everyone knows a person is a deceiver. We have no commission to do such from the NT. Jesus never told us to go into all the world and expose deceivers. Jesus never told us to go into all the world and debate the gospel. Christ said to go into all the world and deliver the gospel. James White, et al wrong-headedly focuses on the first two while Jesus obviously thought the latter was sufficient.

Lord bless.

With that, I am...

peter lumpkins


Again, another excellent insight--a consistent Calvinistic template eventually colors the way we perceive others. In addition to what you've mentioned, also to be noted is the supposed template seems to feed our sinfully depraved selves not our sanctified life so to speak. I mean who could think it's a moral and godly act to actually stalk people wherever they go to "expose" their deceit? We have laws--secular laws--to protect people from the social, psychological, and sometimes bodily harm from this chaotic act committed by perps.

I once worked with a music guy, the best guy hands down I've ever served with in my 35 years of ministry. But he got caught in the very act (i.e. John 8:1ff). Immediately he was both terminated and loved.

I assisted him getting into a "fallen minister" process which was designed to eventually restore him to a role where her could excel in his God-given gifts. He lasted about six weeks or so. He dumped the program and accepted a church in another state though I didn't even know it until much later. After I found out, I sighed, prayed and went on with my ministry. What was I to do? Go there and disrupt the church over whom I had no influence whatsoever? Should I write all the deacons and "expose" the guy there? Should I picket his church on Sunday? Should I hack his membership list and write them about all the moral gunk he'd caused at our church? Perhaps if he were a child molester, should I have? No, because presumably the police/legal authorities would have already done a thorough investigation, and if they saw fit not to charge, then what would I tell them? We scream let the police handle it. Well, they did, and he's clean we must presume.

Even so, I felt no moral compulsion to approach a church about B___. After all, it remains at least possible appropriate restoration could take place outside of the notions about what I think must happen. And, I certainly I had no moral right to harass either B___ or the church about it. There comes a time to give them up to what God can do without me, the strange denial of which, strict Calvinists like White and Hall must surely feel tension. All their theological hoopla about God's absolute sovereignty over the affairs of men and women sinks into an unintelligible sea.

Thanks my brother Andrew

With that, I am...


Now Peter knows as do several others where I stand on the Caner issue so I won't belabor that point here. I have a very curious observation I've noticed among the likes of James White, JD Hall, Fred Butler, et al.

Now perhaps I'm wrong on this observation, and anyone please feel free to correct me. But I have not once, heard James White or Fred Butler claim that Ergun Caner, Peter Lumpkins or Timothy Rogers are not saved. I'm quite sure that James White and Fred Butler hold to a form of eternal security (although I disagree that "P" is the same as eternal security). Thus James White's appeal to Caner to repent seems the normal admonition from one believer to another. JD Hall's appeal to repentance, however, seems to be unto salvation, where he has now claimed that three professing believers in pastoral positions are not saved.

Now of course, Hall doesn't clarify whether he believes these three men were ever saved at all, but in light of his hyper-Calvinist view of election, it is rather humorous how much radio time he dedicates to appealing to someone's will to repent. I can't really tell whether Hall is a Calvinist or Arminian that believes in conditional security.

My question is: Why are the likes of White and Butler, et al, remaining silent on JD Hall's accusations that these three men are not saved? That's a hefty accusation to make against another professing believer without concrete evidence that they are unregenerate. Why is White not rebuking Hall over his accusations? I would really love to hear the excuse or explanation from these folks as to why they are remaining silent about this. Does James White agree that Timothy Rogers is "of his father the devil" as Hall claimed? Why are Butler and White being cowards about this and letting their fellow Calvinist rant about something they themselves have not publicly supported or endorsed?

Now perhaps White and Butler have agreed with Hall on this, I have not seen it, and I stand corrected if they have. But if not, I'm very puzzled by their silence on Hall's repeated accusations that Caner, Lumpkins and Rogers are not saved.

Now, if Hall has any guts, he would stop using misleading rhetoric and just be honest and say that all Non Calvinists are not saved. But, I don't know of too many Calvinists who are yet willing to risk their credibility by being honest about their theology by admitting that God doesn't love everybody, that all non elect are predestined to hell, and that if you don't believe that you are not saved and following pseudo-Christian cults. I think we're seeing a perfect demonstration of fear of credibility tainting by White and co in their silence on this issue. If White and Butler and co don't have the guts to say that these three are not saved, then they should be demanding Hall's repentance for making false accusations.


Should've added this on my last post, but I'm still waiting for Hall to respond to my question as to whether or not Norman Geisler and John Ankerberg are saved. I've asked that question a few times and never got a response to it, asked it again a few minutes ago.

Come on now, JD, if Caner and those defending him are not saved, put all your cards on the table and throw Norman Geisler and John Ankenberg in there too. Or are you afraid that you will get too much negative attention by claiming that Geisler is unregenerate. White has already said Geisler is involved in a massive conspiracy, so doesn't that make Geisler unregenerate?

Show me your big boy pants, Mr. Hall. Now don't be ambiguous about it, is Norman Geisler and John Ankenberg saved or not?



I think a more important question to ask. "Why isn't the SBC doing something about it?"

In my opinion, the SBC (with the Spirit's guidance) needs to come up with a "real" doctrinal statement and make it stick.

Hall and Phelps methodology does not represent my views but to others that practice Election Theology in the SBC, it may.

Debating Spiritual Ideologies (and Methodology) clearly isn't working and continues to generate more strife and Spiritual Abuse among Pastors and within Congregations.

I don't see how it is possible for the SBC to walk the fence when it comes to "practicing" Election Theology. The SBC needs to decide what they are going to do, either embrace it or abolish it.

Hyper-Election movement may actually realize they would have a greater following in the Lutheran or Methodist Church.

Scott Shaver

"Scott...you are a judgmental one...Christ can free you?"

Eric...the very statement implies an act of judgement on your part. And yes, I do exercise judgement and cognitive capacities as God grants the ability to do so.

Don't want to be freed from that Eric.

I fear we serve different Gods.

Scott Shaver


I'm afraid that the main problem with the SBC has been its obsession in recent years with "doctrinal statements."

The more "doctrinally sound" these folks write themselves into becoming the more wheels they have flying off their denominational apparatus.

Besides....how many people who form the constituency of "SBC" churches know, care about, read or give a thought to the denomination's confessional statements?

How do you plan to enforce conformity (make it stick)?


You have a very interesting way of reasoning.

Think thru this with me.

You are posting on a topic where Mr. Hall is accusing Mr. Caner of not being saved. You oppose Hall's position of misjudging Mr. Caner.

In the same breath, you fear that I am not serving the same God as yourself. which in effect is suggesting that I may not be saved. After all, a true Christian would not follow after a false God...would he?

As we don't know each other, I don't know who you serve. My guess is the one true God.

As such, we are not enemies and should love one another in Christ.

Look thru your many past post in reply to mine and you will see a pattern of the judging I mentioned.

Press on to the high calling in Christ

Dan S

Thank you for your response and clarification.

Since I'm expected to act like a Troll when i disagree with you on Caner/Soterology/History/Alcohol/etc., I now must insult you in some way. [Insert Insult here] Georgia Hoot.

(please take the last paragraph a joke)


"How do you plan to enforce conformity (make it stick)?"

Membership covenants and church discipline?

DrAch wrote:

"Thus James White's appeal to Caner to repent seems the normal admonition from one believer to another. JD Hall's appeal to repentance, however, seems to be unto salvation, where he has now claimed that three professing believers in pastoral positions are not saved."

Well color me confused because I thought their doctrinal construct teaches that only God can make one repent. So why is he bothering talking about this at all? All that has taken place with Caner was a done deal, foreordained before the foundation of the world. Right?

JD is not "practicing" his Calvinism. :o) (shhh...If you watch closely, they rarely do. But they will always say I just don't understand it. Seems convenient enough)



You've some valid points that can be considered a challenge or an opportunity for the SBC. Not sure if I have a solution other than an SBC overhaul and I don't have the foggiest idea where to start other then prayer.

If the SBC is unable (or won't) confront rogue Hyper Theologians within the SBC, then why have an SBC?

We have state conventions that has access to local SBC affiliated churches. How hard would it be to delegate proxy voting so that each SBC affiliated church has a single vote who they want to Lead the SBC. (certainly a good way to get churches engaged to what is going on in the SBC and also understand confessional statements)

Some churches that are Pastored by Phelps or JD Hall may discover they shouldn't even be in the SBC. Or with good Leadership Phelps or Hall would go through a probational reprimand.
If their Ideology or Methodology is unbiblical and don't represent SBC doctrine then why isn't anything being done about it?

As for churches not reading, caring or giving much thought to confessional statements is the reason we have rogue Hyper Theologians leading some SBC affiliated churches aimlessly through the desert.

I admit, I didn't give much thought to Doctrinal Statements until a JD Hall or Phelps type covertly showed up in our church.
But then the SBC at the State level didn't have anything in place to prevent that from happening and because we don't have the fiscal ability to vote that made our church even more vulnerably naive.

The way I use to think is the SBC had things together because Adrian Rogers was leading, that was before I even heard ARminian or Calvinist.

There is a huge difference of style and methodology between Adrain Rogers and the ever expanding numbers of rogue Hyper Theologians beginning to plague the SBC.

Scott shaver

I agree with your insights. Strangely enough, a denomination that allegedly purged itself of "low views" of Scripture is more theologically confused than ever with all sorts of bizarre religious behavior being promoted in some of it's participating churches and by a good number of its leaders.

The SBC that history will look most favorably upon if remembered has been gone since 1998-2000.

The current model is collapsing on itself.

Scott Shaver


Your concerns with my posts (and the spirit thereof) are your concerns.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in following either your rationale or your concerns.

You've formed your opinion of me...and I you, so any further analysis of the situation is pointless.

If you would, however, like to discuss the glaring similarities between Phelps, JD Hall....and I might even throw in J. Frank Norris ... I'm happy to oblige.

Scott Shaver

I likewise share your confusion Lydia.

All these calls by preachers and reform wannbes for a man to publicly, and by their dicates/instruments of measurement, repent is not only a narcissistic joke...it's a dismantling of scripture.

Additionally, I agree that it is wrong to identify ordained minister J. D. Hall as a cult leader.

I don't think he's strong enough to build a following IMHO.

Scott Shaver


And not meaning to stir up trouble ... wasn't it in fact Adrian Rogers who said in reference to denominational statements, "If we say pickles have souls then baptize them?"

peter lumpkins

Dr. Ach,

I see your point about White. But not so sure White cannot be said to question our salvation. In this audio, he surely implies it. He had been blistering Rogers & me for over a half-hour concerning all our “repeated lies,” then listen to his conclusion. He may not “say” our names but his implication seems fairly clear.

Here’s another post you might find informative—“You sir are an Unregenerate.” It’s written by one of Alpha&Omega contributors and James White supporter, “TurretinFan.” Closer to White than Hall and Butler, the anon is an actual contributor to White’s website and ministry. This post may also assist.

Truth is Dr Ach, I’ve been dealing with White a long, long time. I think he’s made it plain enough what he thinks of my relationship with the Lord. The above should demonstrate that implying from White’s words my unregenerate state is not at all unreasonable.

Lord bless.

With that, I am…




I don't want to be disrespectful, but for some reason I find the terms "Regenerate and Unregenerate" to be used primarily with Hyper-Calvinism.

It was never part of the Baptist vocabulary in the 29 years I've attended our church until a Hyper Theologian attempted to endoctrinate or "Reform" the body.

Are these 2 words commonly used in Baptist Churches or is it for the benefit for Calvinist to identify each other.

Words that are more explicit to me are Born-Again, Saved or Repent.

The comments to this entry are closed.