Al Mohler on Heresy: Let’s show humility…sometimes

Al Mohler's anticipated response to the latest theological square-off concerning technical points of Trinitarian doctrine among evangelical academics is finally here. One theologian promoted with pleasure Mohler's latest piece:

Mohler's statesmanship is specifically mentioned.

Yes, Mohler indicates more than once—not including his title—humility remains a key factor in these sorts of theological exchanges. While it's true there's a danger in ignoring real heresy on the one hand (Liberals do this), there exists a second danger like with the boy who cried wolf.

Some genuine doctrinal disagreements have nothing at all to do with the line between orthodoxy and heresy.

Consequently, according to Mohler, "Orthodoxy is, in part, an act of humility." What does being Orthodox and remaining faithful to historic Christianity mean to this generation and specifically toward this particular debate in Trinitarian understanding? For Mohler, it means "believing and teaching what faithful Christians have always affirmed as taught in Scripture."

Indeed for Mohler, the technical debate happening presently between evangelical theologians on exactly what implications may we rightly infer from relations between the Eternal Father, Eternal Son, and Eternal Holy Spirit calls for a humble spirit on all sides.

This is a time for cool heads, fraternal kindness, and clear thinking — and for all of us, a good dose of both historical theology and theological humility.

We fully agree.

As Mohler states, "All of our attempts to answer this question fall short of God's glorious reality, but we dare not say less than the Scripture clearly reveals. We ought also to be very cautious in trying to say more."

What is more, not only does Mohler fully acknowledge our lack of "adequate human categories" to understand how to "define these doctrines comprehensively," he also concedes "our finite minds cannot fully comprehend the infinite divine reality."

Thus, even more reason exists to under-gird our theological posture with humility as our primary building blocks.

By way of response, I offer two observations.

Humility for the "other side"

First, while Mohler rightly calls for humility concerning disputable doctrinal matters within Trinitarianism, he nonetheless appears to favor his own "side." If I am correct, how does Mohler fit the supposed posture of a theological statesman concerning this issue? It doesn't sound humble when Mohler says of those critics who charge their theological opponents with unorthodoxy that they're basically reckless in their charges and therefore should presumably stop their unworthy actions.

These charges [the critics make] are baseless, reckless, and unworthy of those who have made them.

Or again, when Mohler writes,

Recent charges of violating the Nicene Creed made against respected evangelical theologians like Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware are not just nonsense — they are precisely the kind of nonsense that undermines orthodoxy and obscures real heresy.

Does this sound humble and statesman-like to you?

Or, finally, as Mohler claims of those who question the teachings of Grudem, Ware and others:

They endanger the very orthodoxy they claim to champion by making reckless charges they cannot possibly sustain.

"Reckless" charges they "cannot possibly sustain"? Does this sound humble and statesman-like to you?

Not to me it doesn't.

Humble Statesman or Irritated Grump?

Second, given the statements recorded above, Mohler seems less like a humble statesman dealing with this theological disagreement and more like an irritated grump who doesn't like it when people imply his "side" is flirting with heresy. Frankly, I don't blame him. Neither do I.

Nevertheless, here's a question for Dr. Mohler.

Where was Mohler's call for cool heads, fraternal kindness, and clear thinking concerning a theological dust-up occasioned by a group of Southern Baptists only a few years ago? Where was his statesman-like humility?

Consider.

In 2012, a group of Southern Baptists published "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation," a theological document, they believed, raised legitimate issues in the Southern Baptist Convention. While the document apparently was the primary theological composition of one author, several Southern Baptists had differing levels of input into the document, Southern Baptists represented by pastors, directors of missions, seminary professors and presidents, state executive directors, college and university presidents and faculty; indeed, virtually every area of denominational life was represented in both composing the document and signing the document before publication.

Once the document went public, however, immediate accusations of "heresy" were vocalized from various sectors within and without the Southern Baptist Convention and continued for several days before Al Mohler wrote on the controversy the "Traditional Statement" aroused.

On June 12, 2012, Mohler published an article entitled "Southern Baptists and Salvation: It's Time to Talk."

In the piece, Dr. Mohler fails to show qualities one would expect from a statesman, qualities for which he pleads in the present controversy and indicated by Mohler's supporters in the tweet above. Hear him again concerning the current debate over implications of the Eternal Trinity:

This is a time for cool heads, fraternal kindness, and clear thinking — and for all of us, a good dose of both historical theology and theological humility.

Even so, rather than calling for cool heads and clear thinking in responding to his fellow brothers and the "Traditional Statement," Mohler piled on more indications that the group of Southern Baptists was flirting with heresy!

…I could not sign the document. Indeed, I have very serious reservations and concerns about some of its assertions and denials. I fully understand the intention of the drafters to oppose several Calvinist renderings of doctrine, but some of the language employed in the statement goes far beyond this intention. Some portions of the statement actually go beyond Arminianism and appear to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings of sin, human nature, and the human will — understandings that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied. Clearly, some Southern Baptists do not want to identify as either Calvinists, non-Calvinists, or Arminians. That is fine by me, but these theological issues have been debated by evangelicals for centuries now, and those labels stick for a reason.

While Dr. Mohler now wants theologians on both sides of the current discussion of the Trinity to embrace "cool heads" and "clear thinking" and definitively avoid implicating the other side in charges of heresy, he nonetheless was not hesitant at all in implicating his fellow Southern Baptists with flirting with heresy.

Furthermore, contrary to seeking humility in understanding theological differences, Mohler sniped to the signatories of the "Traditional Statement,"

I do not believe that those most problematic statements truly reflect the beliefs of many who signed this document.

What is implied in this claim but that the many to whom Mohler references are fundamentally ignorant of either what they were signing or what they actually believed or perhaps even both?

And, to demonstrate I'm hardly stretching a legitimate inference from Mohler's claim, a group of informed scholars from a major Georgia Baptist College (now a university) challenged Mohler on this very point. In addition, several individual scholars wrote in defense of their signing the "Traditional Statement."

To our knowledge, Dr. Mohler never retracted or corrected his understanding that the signatories of "Traditional Statement" expressed what, in his view, was theological language well beyond acceptable and bordered, if not actually crossed over into, heresy.

If I am correct, it seems to me Dr. Mohler's present call for cool heads, fraternal kindness, and clear thinking in theological differences depends as much or more upon who's getting defined the heretic as it does with who's displaying the humility.

In other words,

Let's show humility…sometimes.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Comments

[Mary]

Al Mohler was just talking about how the lowly peasantry should conduct themselves. He's Al Mohler you can't compare him to lowly peasants. And besides can you believe lowly peasants talking amongst themselves on the internet without Mohler's approval? People might start thinking they can read the Bible without a High Priest helping them to understand it or something.

[Max]

Strange, but even a call for humility comes across as arrogant.

[Mary]

But seriously the word "heretic" or "heresy" is losing all meaning. Sort of the way racist doesn't really mean anything anymore. I read a lot of Calvinist women bloggers and heresy just seems to me anyone who disagrees with them on anything.

[Scott Shaver]

If Al Mohler is not the most duplicitous guy on the planet, he's certainly the most predictable.

His one-pony circus in SBC-life has consistently been accompanied by cries of "Protestant liberalism" as he charges everybody who disagrees at any point of being guilty of Bultmannian demythologizing of Scripture. The skirmishes and personal attacks have not subsided throughout his tenure as an SBC..."leader"?

Mohler was a yellow journalist before his appointment at Southern. He remains a yellow journalist in that capacity.

The endless bickering and charges of "liberalism" are for purely sensational purposes. It's the stuff that sells.

Don't remember who penned this a few years back but they were absolutely correct. "Believers who want a serious study of their faith need to read broadly and they need to read beyond popular books marketed through sensationalism."

Those actually "doing" ministry don't normally become or desire to become "rock stars" or "mega-church celebrities".

[Johnathan Pritchett]

My (edited) response from Facebook

"I do think the ESS view is a Neo-Arian heresy and thus, Ware is a heretic... Ware is a competent enough person in this field to understand both his own position and the arguments and position of his opponents. He chooses to dig in anyway...

I think we throw around phrases like "we throw around the word heresy too easily these days" more than we use the word heresy. But even if it were true that we toss around the word too easily, it doesn't follow that it shouldn't be tossed around at all, especially if warranted. I think it is warranted here.

Just because Mohler wants to give his heretic friends a free pass doesn't mean anyone else should do so. Mohler is no authority on this. His credentials on historical theology can and should be challenged, as should his arbitrariness.

He wrongly accused Traditionalists of being Semi-Pelagians, and was resoundingly refuted by three Trad scholars. But, it does mean that Mohler apparently thinks views condemned at Orange should be considered heretical. But if this is so, why excuse Thomas Schriener since he is a heretic who affirms double predestination? This was also condemned at Orange.

So Mohler is confused on historical theology, arbitrary in his selection of which ancient heresies matter and which do not, and has a record of giving his friends a free pass when it comes to heresy.

As such, just because Mohler doesn't think it is heresy, doesn't mean everyone should agree with him.

Ware and Grudem and others who affirm ESS are heretics, like Schreiner, Sproul and Piper who affirm double predestination. It is what it is. Do I think it is damnable? No. Is it heresy? Yes. Technically speaking.

The moderate voices in this debate telling people to settle down are as big a problem as the heretics themselves. What is nonsense is ignoring and enabling heresy for the sake of charity, not calling it out.

This debate goes back to the late 1970's. Kevin Giles has tracked the history of this. This heresy originated as a means to underwrite hyper-complimentarianism. No matter how much they deny it, Giles set the record straight on this in 2002. The protests from the ESS crowd to the contrary are sorely mistaken. History is history.

In any case, as Giles has said, "Eternal functional subordination implies by necessity ontological subordination. Blustering denials cannot avoid this fact." If Jesus is the eternally subordinated Son, necessarily, there is no co-equality of the divine persons. It is what it is."

[Lydia]

Note: Mohler and co. basically ignored everyone who has pointed out the ESS heresy at SBTS for over 10 years.

However....when "Carl Trueman" FINALLY points it out, they have their briefs in a wad. For those who don't know Carl, he was recruited to sit on the team of ministers who exonerated Mahaney before he fled to Mohlers arms. Trueman is their tribe. He was one of them. The guy they got to say Mahaney was fit to lead.

Now they are upset.

[Lydia]

Great comment, Jonathan. Brave Kitty over at Voices should read your comment.

http://sbcvoices.com/an-interesting-observation-about-sound-doctrine/#comment-325280

[peter lumpkins]

Just can't go down that pike, Dr. Pritchett. It's very difficult for me to brand another a heretic, and especially so, when nuances seem more academic than real. They may very well not be but some of the things I've read come close to the mythical meandering of scholasticism's angels on a pinhead. I'd about forgotten, but I wrote on this when Wade Burleson raised the question back in 2008. I may be less polemic now, but still think much of what I recorded then may still be applicable now.

By the way, I do find it interesting that Burleson raised this issue a full 7 years ago. Perhaps he was more cutting edge than many--including me at the time--imagined!

[Johnathan Pritchett]

Again, I'm not consigning these people to the dustbin of despair for all eternity.

I am, however, pointing out that, technically, it is heresy, or so close it may as well be. As such, they are heretics.

I am not saying I like calling them that. I am not saying that it matters a great deal to me that they are heretics. Though, admittedly, I am pleased on a smarmy level that they are getting from sections within the evangelical community what that camp has given to others in recent decades.

In any case, Schreiner's view of double predestination is unquestionably heretical, technically speaking, and by Mohler's own criteria that heresy is, among other things, defined with what is and is not acceptable in the canons and pronouncement of Orange.

Mohler's arbitrariness and ineptitude with these matters is the primary thing that bugs me here, even more so than the more technical aspects in the debate over Trinitarian doctrine. Though I do agree with Giles and others that technically speaking, ESS is heretical or way to close for it to be a tolerable position within orthodoxy.

[Johnathan Pritchett]

Also, if you follow that thread on 316's Facebook page, I explain the issues more in depth and give citations as to this debate going all the way back to the late 1970's (Knight's book in 1977 kicked it off)

Like how the NPP goes back to that timeframe with Sanders (also in 1977), these things take a while to spill out in popular culture.

I was born in 1977, so in delusions of grandeur, "for such a time as this" comes to mind. ;)

[peter lumpkins]

One of the things that chafed me about this particular piece is the fact that Mohler was calling for "humble scholarship" at the precise time it was them being the bullseye! Nor do I think it's ESS per se that's a theological bur under these guys' saddle (Giles, et al) so much as it is ESS + Complementarianism + utilizing ESS as a theological analogy for teaching ESW (Eternal Submission of Women). The record seems clear enough to me from numerous theological advantage points that some form of ESS has not been absent from some of our most esteemed evangelical scholars as I rehearsed in the link above. The new nuance now, however, seems to focus on exploiting ESS to "prove" complementarianism. The older evangelicals I listed did not appear to be concerned with biblical gender issues in their understanding of ESS.

[Les Prouty]

Johnathan, you state that double predestination held by Schreiner, Sproul and Piper is heresy. I have only seen Sproul's definition of DP. Are you saying that the positive/negative view espoused by Sproul is heresy?

[Johnathan Pritchett]

When you appeal to an inapplicable, materially irrelevant, and inapplicable fallacy (equal ultimacy) to try and get yourself off the hook, you got problems.

DP is technically heresy according to Orange, not Johnathan Pritchett. I didn't formulate the pronouncement. I'm just point in it out.

In any case, regardless of whatever sophistry is put into defending the presuppositions and categories that underwrite them, DP is, historically and technically heresy. DP is the problem, especially since the Bible teaches no such nonsense.

Historical theology isn't my main thing though. I think they are in error, but I don't give much a hoot about what they do or say except to raise awareness of their inconsistencies and errors. Sproul especially is not the best the PCA has to offer for theological discourse. Those mentioned above have no relevance to my life, ministry, and thinking.

The point is that if someone like these guys who toss out labels are going to assert the validity of heresies condemned at Orange, they need to be consistent. Otherwise, they are not appealing to received canons from antiquity, but subjective and arbitrary criteria of personal opinion and preference deceitfully under the guise of historical theology and accepted dogma.

Its phony. So, if Sproul can utter phrases about Arminian brothers as being "barely Christian," I can point out that, technically speaking in terms do historical theology, he actually is a heretic, by his own affirmation of DP, regardless of the way he dolls it up.

Maybe folks like Sproul, Piper, Packer and others should be more careful in their speech because whether they know me or not, I am out here exposing them with the same level of heat they dish out against others.

Schreiner is a nice guy though, but he too affirms the heresy so it should be pointed out in the context of Mohler's inconsistent appeals to Orange heresies when talking about others.

[Les Prouty]

"So, if Sproul can utter phrases about Arminian brothers as being "barely Christian," I can point out that, technically speaking in terms do historical theology, he actually is a heretic, by his own affirmation of DP, regardless of the way he dolls it up."

Except he is not. He doesn't affirm what you say he affirms. He doesn't affirm what Orange condemned. You can call it "dolling it up" if you like, but that's just a way for you to keep up your criticism for a position he doesn't hold. DP of the positive/positive is indeed heresy. That is not what Sproul or I believe or what Reformed theology teaches. At least criticize what the men teach, not what you want them to teach so you can knock down a straw man at their expense.

"Maybe folks like Sproul, Piper, Packer and others should be more careful in their speech because whether they know me or not, I am out here exposing them with the same level of heat they dish out against others."

I think their speech stands just fine for many, many decades...as opposed to some who have been teaching, what a couple years? And when you reach about 1% public exposure compared to their exposure, you might be able to convince about a few hundred thousand people and just might be able to convince a couple people that they are heretics. You got a long way to go brother. And, I'm pretty sure they don't know it or really care.

[Johnathan Pritchett]

These arguments have been thoroughly vetted. Just because Sproul blusters denials against the consequences of his ideas (I think he knows that ideas has consequences) doesn't mean such denials are meaningful or constitute a valid response, rebuttal, or refutation of the charges any more than blustering denials thT ESS doesn't create ontological inequality among the Godhead are not valid responses, rebuttals, or refutations of the charges.

It isn't a straw man at all. The material irrelevance and inapplicability of his "equal ultimacy" counterargument has been adaquately demonstrated in the literature because of the error of compatiblism makes this materially meaningless (as are distinctions of positive/positive vs positive/negative) and inconsistent on his part (and yours). Refusing to accept it is irrelevant to truth itself.

You are right that they have a further reach. So what? What does that have to do with anything?They have their podiums and I have my puny platforms. I'll say what I wish regardless of how irrelevant I am to them or anyone else. Thing is though, I don't care what they believe or what they believe about their beliefs. I'm just gonna add my two cents about them for whoever wishes to read them. You seem interested, so there's that. ;)

Apparantly you are fine with their criticisms of others and the rhetoric with which they use to point them out, thinking they will stand fine for many years and all. Moreover, apparantly you are fine with thinking their criticisms of their opponents are not strawmen, but necessary consequences of the views thier opponents hold even of their opponents disagree and cry about strawmen.

Given that, unless you are a hypocrite, don't get all bothered with my exact same treatment of them and their views. ;)

[Lydia]

Just for grins, here is a sample of "fine speech" after decades of teaching from Piper. A recent Piper tweet:

"Is the exposure of God’s buttocks really a faithful exposition of Exodus 33? Or is the pope being mooned? "

https://twitter.com/desiringGod/status/746878900907610113

[Johnathan Pritchett]

Wow, that tweet is goofier than Sproul's defense dof his DP view...which itself is even goofier than his eisegetical rubbish about four Pentacosts in Acts. :D

[Les Prouty]

Thoroughly vetted. Righhht. First to your last. Bothered is not what I am. Hate to see you embarrass yourself like this. Oh I know, you aren't embarrassed. You don't feel it. That may be because many times we are the last to know we should be embarrassed.

Here's a news flash. You not recognizing the validity of Sproul's argument doesn't negate the validity of his argument. Irrelevance and inapplicability and you calling compatibilism an error doesn't make it so. Just means you yourself cannot see your own error.

And yes, your two cents... Caught my attention. See the first thing I said above as to why. I have you pegged are brighter than the rookie error you are making on DP.

My focus is on Sproul mostly BTW. He and I are ordained in the same denomination. Wait, is the PCA a heretical denomination? It would be a laugher if you affirm that it is. So for Lydia bringing up Piper, which I know you did first, you won't find me defending Piper. I read next to nothing he writes and zero of his tweets. And rubbish? I'm afraid bro you are way ahead of them on these comments.

Over and out tonight. On the road tomorrow, so try not to pile up too much more rubbish. 😀

[Lydia]

I see Les is being his typical "pastoral" self. I always imagine Dan Akroyd responding to Jane Curtain on the old SNL when I read his comments.

[Johnathan Pritchett]

You are saying there isn't a pile of scholarly literature rebutting and refuting compatiblism and Sproul's view of DP?

Go read a book Les.

The reason I don't recognize the alidity of Sproul's argument is because it has none.

Yes, the PCA, if it affirms DP, is heretical, technically speaking. There is no technicality to get around Orange. It isn't a big deal to me...the issue is if Orange and its denouncement of DP matters to you. I'm not saying the PCA is heretical, Orange does. Laugh at that council.

In any case. If God deterministicly decreed (hint, compatiblism is determinism) the sins that come to pass that made the reprobate damnworthy in the first place (they couldn't do otherwise and were decreed to not even want to do otherwise), then God ultimately made them damnworthy ordaining them to the evil they will inevitably commit. These ideas run counter to the plain reading of Orange. That you may think this isn't the consequence of the view is irrelevant. You have to offer a compelling reason why it isn't the consequence of the view. "God is not the author of sin and evil" is just an assertion, not an explanation or argument as to why He isn't on this view. Maybe you can help Sproul out. ;)

"We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema."

Does God foreordain, by his power, all things, including sins, that come to pass on Sproul's view? Yes. Can people do otherwise on his fallacious Edwardian view? No. Okay then.

[Johnathan Pritchett]

Though, for whatever it is worth, I appreciate Sproul Jr.'s willingness to bite the bullet and accept a consistent view of his beliefs and doesn't peddle the nonsensical doublespeak of his dad.

[Johnathan Pritchett]

Here is the rope the misguided positive/negative DP defenders hung themselves with and why no such view can actually exist.

1. The affirmation that God meticulously decreed that come to pass.

2. That people can only choose according to their greatest desires.

3. Can only choose what God decreed they "freely" choose.

4. No ability to do otherwise.

So, God has decreed from all eternity that Jimmy rape 8 year old boys. Now, the only reason why Jimmy will choose to rape an 8 year old boy is because it is his greatest desire to do so. Now, God has decreed Jimmy do so, and has passed over Jimmy for salvation. Jimmy's life is damnworthy for, among other things he has been decreed to do, raping 8 year old boys.

Now here is the key. The ONLY way Jimmy's raping of 8 year old boys obtains is if that is his greatest desire. If it isn't, God's decree will fail to obtain. So, God has to decree (foreordain) everything else necessary in order to ensure it is his greatest desire. If God doesn't, it could fail to happen as God has willed (in his secret will or whatever).

Saying God doesn't have to so because Jimmy's nature ensures it won't do because all humanity has a fallen nature and not all fallen humanity rapes 8 year old boys. How is it Jimmy does if not God's foreordination of all the means and ends that brings the raping about? The only agent that can ultimately insure the foreordained sins come about is God himself.

This violates Orange.

Problems:

Foreordaining all things whatsoever comes to pass is the power of God.

We also know, however, God doesn't decree or foreordain all things whatsoever comes to pass because Jeremiah tells us of at least three times God did not decree or command somethings.

We also know that "choosing according to one's greatest desire is fallacious because it is circular reasoning. Why did Jimmy choose to rape a boy? Because it was his greatest desire. How do we know it was his greatest desire? Because he chose it. Okay, so much for that irrational nonsense. But worse than that, Paul informs us in Romans 7 that the person there does what he hates. Saying what he hates is "really" his greatest desire is quite the abuse of language. Sproul's reasoning that Paul "isn't talking about philosophy" is besides the point and totally irrelevant. Paul is talking about doing things, which is what is what is being discussed in the idea of doing things according to greatest desires. If the Bible says people don't do what they desire, but what they hate, so much for Edwardian accounts of compatiblism.

So, not only are the ideas devoid of reason and biblical merit, we also know they don't get Sproul's DP account off the anathema hook from Orange either and is mostly superfluous jibber-jabber to distract people from thinking it through an exposing its obvious errors.

[Scott Shaver]

Hey Jonathan. Why don't you post the materials you reference from Connect 3:16 here on this site so some oz can read it. Seems like Rick Patrick has as big an issue with banning andcensorship as does his counterpart, Dave Miller at Pravda. Bless his little heart.

[Scott Shaver]

I'll have to go with Pete on this one. The "heresy" label is old and worn-out from misuse within the Southern Baptist debacle for the last 30 years.

I prefer the word Moron as opposed to heretic.

[Scott Shaver]

Saw Miller's treatment of "Kitty", Lydia.

Amazing, a lime green clown with the power to look into individual hearts and tell true Christians from heretics via simple search strings on Google.

Omniscience must be a wonderful thing to possess.

[Johnathan Pritchett]

Scott, I don't think I have referenced Connect 316 (maybe you mean SBC Today). I don't really go to those sites much these days.

I don't really care for calling people heretics either. Again, this is conversation about what heresy is in a historical theology context. It is not my opinions on the matter.

The key issue is that people who do affirm the canons of ancient councils need to be consistent. They can't appeal to a position declared to be heresy at a council on the one hand, and then embrace and espouse a position that was also declared to be heresy at the very same council. If one is heresy, so is the other.

While Les Prouty pouts that I am embarrassing myself, he hasn't bothered to demonstrate why or offer any meaningful responses to the issues raised here.

Time will tell, but if he wants to mix it up on those issues, I'm happy to engage. But simply responding with "nuh-uh" won't cut it though. ;)

[Scott Shaver]

What about cases where the decisions of councils (ancient or otherwise)might be in conflict with the weight of scripture under illumination of the Holy Spirit?

History and theology are tools for spiritual growth...In the wrong hands, they can be as deadly as firearms. I feel your pain Jonathan.

I'm not trying to split hairs or be argumentative, Jonathan, because I can empathize with your selection of terms regarding ESS, etc. However, coming from most of these syncretism theology proponents among the new "SBC", the word "heretic" is a badge of honor to us unwashed "evangelicals" as opposed to a term that lost it's punch with stake burnings of folks like me in the middle ages.

I wouldn't worry much about what Dan Akkroyd (a.k.a. Les) "pouts". "Embarrassment" is something to which he's oblivious anyway.

[Scott Shaver]

Better catch this one quick before Lime Green removes his post, Lydia.

Miller is not omniscient after all, he had to walk back his assessments of "Kitty's" identity. But he's gonna have to insist that "she not comment on ESS."

LOL

[Johnathan Pritchett]

I certainly don't delve deeply in Church history or historical theology, and certainly agree they are not authoritative, especially for Baptists. But I generally agree with Oden's account of Pre-Augustinian theology, with slight modifications here and there.

The ones who do delve deeply in ancient doctrinal formulations are probably right about ESS though. The leading scholars in the field resoundingly and convincingly refute the position and think ESS is heresy, or so close that it isn't tolerable.

They are, formally speaking, heretics...but it isn't the end all be all. There are no Catholics or Reformers around here that have power to execute people. So who cares? If folks like Mohler want Ware (ESS) and Schreiner (DP of the EU variety) to peddle formal ancient heresies at SBTS, I say go for it. I'll just be among those who point it out whenever it comes up. :)

Some are deeply bothered by being labeled formal heretics. I find this weird when they openly admit their view which has been declared heretical in the past. DP is, formally speaking, heresy according to the Council of Orange, and the underwriting for some ad hoc positive/negative version of it fails and ultimately collapses into the very heresy decried at Orange, as I pointed out above. So what? They can believe whatever they want. Much of Western Reformation theology is a novel, highly contextualized, curious set of ideas developed from the 16th Century. It is hardly anything that demands people should take as "Biblical Truth." It is but just another footnote in the history of theological ideas within Western Christianity.

I am just pointing out those things and the consequences of those things. No big deal. Les and Sproul will sleep fine.

As for Les personally, being a good Presbyterian and Sproul fan, he should understand concepts like "ideas have consequences" and what "good and necessary consequences" entails. If something is a good and necessary consequence of something else (as I argued above), denials aren't meaningful responses to the problems.

[Mary]

Poor Dave Miller is about to burst a vessel. First a woman got the better of him and now Rick Patrick had the audacity to post a different opinion then him. Unity = no questions, no dissent.

[Tom]

Mary:

You said:"Poor Dave Miller is about to burst a vessel. First a woman got the better of him and now Rick Patrick had the audacity to post a different opinion then him. Unity = no questions, no dissent."

He is the editor and will attack anyone who disagrees with him.

He seems really unstable.

[Mary]

Tom, calling a woman a lesbian because she disagreed with him is a new low for him. He has declared that Grudem is an "eminent scholar" therefore in Dave Miller's mind he is an "eminent scholar" and no one is allowed a different opinion. The SBC elites declared that the recent convention was full of "unity" therefore no one will be allowed to say differently. I think it really must be ticking some people off that Greer didn't win and they're going to spend the next couple of years attacking everyone who doesn't agree that he should be anointed in 2018.

[peter lumpkins]

Interesting. I spoke to someone close to the situation too. I got a backstory hardly substantiating the SBCVoice's editor. Indeed it more reflected Rick's version. Even so, voices pronounces Rick the, the... well, the same thing they always do to those who dissent.

 

[Mary]

He has to discredit Rick the way he had to attack that Kitty. I think too many people must be paying attention as evidenced by Gaines winning the Presidency. The Elites need to quash this rebellion.

I'm just stunned at the way he went after that woman. He looked so petty and small because he couldn't refute her arguments so he had to try to discredit her by name-calling and now the fanbois are going to start going after her.

That's called UNITY! Where's that UNITY! resolution guy? Oh yeah he's an atheist now.

[Tom]

Mary: I noticed no one at Voices called his hand for calling Kitty a lesbian. Who are these commentators there that have no problem with such an unchristian comment?

[Mary]

Tom, exactly. What would her being a lesbian have to do with her arguments. Miller really must have been surprised that she didn't just take his name-calling and run away. Miller has always had issues with women posting at Voices, especially the ones who disagree with him.

I've been keeping up with some of the Brexit hysteria. It's amazing how many articles are being written about "the bubble" that the Remain campaign was living in. Since they didn't know anybody who wanted to leave the EU it meant that there was no way the vote could go toward the Leave side. Miller and Company live in an SBC bubble. Since they don't know many people who are not pleased with the direction of the SBC it must mean that the few they do know must just be a hateful fringe and therefore they do not matter. All Miller can do is call names and be hateful while he declares the people are simply expressing diffent opinions from him are divisive and hateful. Projection.

[Tom]

Miller and Company truly live in a bubble. The SBC IMO is divided in many ways and these differences need to be allowed to be aired. But if I air my differences I am labeled divisive and hateful--according to Miller. I have spent many years of my life in the SBC--I do not want to see it fail.

[Mary]

Is it irony that Miller believes UNITY! is creating a post for the sole purpose of launching a personal attack against Rick Patrick because he dared voice a dissenting opinion?

[Tom]

Bless his heart William Thornton is the first to come to Miller's cause. This must be because Miller lets him post at voices and he can not be hateful or divisive or he will lose his publishing privileges at Voices.

[Mary]

It's always funny when people bring up McCarthy. McCarthy was going after Communist in the State Department. For those who don't know the significance of this, today it would be like having ISIS in the State Department. Edward R. Murrow a liberal journalist (redundant I know) decided to go after the conservative McCarthy. The Kennedy's agreed with McCarthy by the way. But it's funny that people bring up McCarthy because at the fall of the Soviet Union all kinds of papers and such became available and McCarthy was proven to have been right. There were Communists in the State Department. But since liberals get to write the history that get's lost. But isn't funny Miller is invoking McCarthy who turned out to be right to try to denounce what he sees as "conspiracy."

[Johnathan Pritchett]

Everyone has their bubbles though. Rick and Jonathan also on occasion shut down dissent on SBC Today as well though. I love them to bits, but all camps do this on their sites.

People who run sites have that prerogative to do it.

However, one of the things I don't particularly care for when it comes to Evangelical websites is the level of censorship and stifling of perspectives. It's how bubbles come to be in the first place in the age of social media.

I understand filtering out explicit content, but I don't understand censoring ideas and perspectives, however unwelcome they may be.

[Scott Shaver]

I've never seen Pete Lumpkins shut anybody off from discourse, they may not like his response to certain badgerings or off-topic rabbits, but he gives everybody space.

SBCToday has an agenda to run just like Pravda. You can't let something as trivial as open dialogue about dynamics, causes and effects, get in the way of religio-political agendas.

Especially if you're attempting to invent a new category of "baptists".

[Scott Shaver]

Wow. "Unstable" may be an understatement Tom.

Question a "scholars" logic and you're being "mean, ignorant, disprespectful"? What a CAD.

Scholar, carpenter, baker, candlestick maker.....why should a "scholar" be granted unconditional deference in any public discourse going today.

If you haven't noticed lately, our educational institutions along with their much bally-hooed "scholar" aren't exactly setting the world on fire when it comes to common sense.

If the lady thinks Grudem is a chump, she's certainly entitled to her opinion and she definitely raises good points on ESS.

What Miller lacks in intellect is more than compensated for by his arrogance. For someone who confesses to have "sat under the greats"....not much rubbed off.

[Scott Shaver]

Just sayin:

A guy who is willing to scale the wall of a gated community to get to deacon with differences would certainly seem capable of cutting a deal to seal up SBC presidential elections for the next half-dozen years or so.

Isn't that the reason those who do play this game, fire up their tweets, and go to these meetings?

[Les Prouty]

Johnathan,

"These arguments have been thoroughly vetted." And never successfully refuted. Even by "scholars."

Lydia: "pastoral self?" I'd rather not say what I imagine when I see your comments.

"Go read a book." I have. Many.

"Here is the rope..."

J, you are not the first to attempt to refute Reformed theology. Heck, RT has been around since, let me think, Genesis. You won't be the last. None has been successful yet. We are still around. If you had something new, as opposed to the same old tried/failed attempts to refute RT, then I would probably engage. But the fact is I've engaged many times over the last 30 years, since you were about 10. No biggie. I just have no inclination to repeat myself to you the extended arguments I've made many times before. I would need to care that you disagree with RT more than I do right now. My original question was one of clarification.

My suggestion is you re-read Orange to both a) better understand what it really did condemn regarding DP (hint: it's not what you think) and b) see where in that document your own views may be condemned.

Now you all can get back to your post subject, Mohler and the trinity.

[Johnathan Pritchett]

Well, people will always believe error, so yes, still around to be sure.

Been around since Genesis? Come on...that's a bogus claim. Specific theology, and specific theological streams have a history. Rise above lame, pedestrian claims. That's no better than "I'm just a Biblicist" kind of rubbish.

When Mohler tried to show Traditionalism was SP, he failed, and was refuted by Harwood, Yarnell, and Caner, exposing that textbook definitions that Mohler should know (but obviously didn't) don't match his claims.

I quoted the relevant portion above. Anyone who affirms compatiblism and meticulous decree collapses into it. Sorry. Reformers don't have to care about it. I fine.

But whenever you do care, any exegetical, theological, or philosophical debate on these issues you want to engage in, I'm game.

[Les Prouty]

Yes, people will indeed always believe in error, as evidenced by non Reformed people everywhere. Way the majority.

I didn't say the systemization of RT has been around since Genesis. Read more carefully. But if RT is true, and it is, then it is evidenced beginning in Genesis 1:1.

"Anyone who affirms compatiblism and meticulous decree collapses into it." Nice statement of your opinion. Still not proven, just as your predecessors were unable to prove their claims.

I'm sure you are game. When one is focused on refuting another theological view, one is always itching for a debate. Not interested. I've got the t shirt already.

[Johnathan Pritchett]

A big "if."

I am of that opinion, yes. Debate and discussion is required to demonstrate it. I am happy to do so. You are not.

So be it. I wouldn't want to debate me either. ;)

[Les Prouty]

"Debate and discussion is required to demonstrate it. I am happy to do so. You are not." Correct. Not now. I have no need to prove to you that RT is true. I'm not really concerned to see you converted to RT. You seem to be having a very fine ministry in your current position and with your views. I'm confident God is building His kingdom through your ministry. At the beginning of this discussion, I really just wondered if you were referring to DP from the positive/positive or positive/negative schema, and thus trying to refute or call heretical something Sproul doesn't espouse. You were. No biggie. Others have made the same mistake before. In fact it happens a lot from non Reformed folks.

And yes, that's it. I just really don't want to debate YOU. Fear has gripped me. :)

[Lydia]

Lydia: "pastoral self?" I'd rather not say what I imagine when I see your comments."

A higher standard for the Non ruling elders?