« Criticism of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Role of Discernment Blogs: Part II | Main | Sexual Abuse, Darrell Gilyard and the Southern Baptist Convention: Interlude »

2020.01.28

Comments

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

David Pitman

Great summary and excellent observations.

Ronnie W Rogers

Excellent! This needed to be set forth by someone with your attention to detail and historical precision. I actually remember much of what you have recorded.

It is worth noting that the time in which these things transpired, Dr. Patterson was busier than most could begin to comprehend much less emulate. He was attacked viciously and relentlessly because of his leadership in the Resurgence. And yet, he gave the necessary time to mentor Darrell when he seemed legitimate and to tackle the difficult task of dealing strongly with him when his sins were confirmed by evidence.

We are your debtors.

Hariette Petersen

Perhaps no one knew the rest of the story about Dr. Patterson.
Or, maybe people like associating Dr.Patterson with something sordid than noble.
Perhaps you’ll enlighten us.

SelahV

Lydia

As you know, I am no fan of Patterson. But I see a pattern that formed probably 15-20 years ago heaping all the sins of the SBC onto him to deflect from other big cheeses who are being protected like Al Mohker, Russ Moore and others. . And I am sad to say many have jumped on this bandwagon from survivor star, Rachael Denhollander (who had a conflict of interest!) to Ashley Easter to Dee Parsons and Julie Ann. I suspect several of them follow the lead of Wade Burleson and of course, Ben Cole who know his market niche for his book. Who else would buy it? So, I view the perpetual vitriol as providing cover for Mahler, Moore, etc. Evidently, Ashley Easter has no problem with Mohler as the head of a seminary because she doesn’t tweet about it constantly as she does for Patterson preaching somewhere. Maybe she doesn’t want Denhollender to unfriend her or something.

But I suspect the embrace of the SJW doctrines gives the pedophile protectors more of a pass now with these SJW types. The world of calling out abuse often becomes groupthink as bad as any fundy church. They are even promoting the concept of hierarchies and authoritarianism as good to go after the concept of autonomy! They simply don’t get it. They see emancipated women as oppressed victims and then beg male pastors for “agency”. It’s embarrassing to this old fashioned first wave feminist.

peter lumpkins

All

Thanks for the encouraging feedback.

Lydia,

Reasonable and informed dissent which you bring to the table is always welcome. Sound minds can confidently disagree with one another, sacrificing neither personal integrity nor committment to truth, a pearl of relational maturity I see more and more trampled under so many pigs' feet today.

BTW, with you I miss Mary and especially her sheer common sense and amazingly quick wit. She used to drive the YRR guys literally insane! 😁

Lydia

Peter, I always appreciate that you are one of the few left in these circles not to immediately respond, as so many do, with rabid vapors and pearl clutching. Not to mention their doctrinal cultural fads placing the church downstream from culture. It’s why I had to get out. I am not interested in an SJW church or a hierarchical one. I cling to the teaching of my youth from those precious women in Training Union: Priesthood of Believer, Soul competency and no king but Jesus.

It occurred to me that using the phrase “first wave feminist” might not be understood here the way I used it. First wave feminism were women (and men) who were often from Abolitionist circles and lobbied for the female vote and were mostly Temperance League members many of whom were Christians. I am very grateful to men, like my grandfather, who supported that franchise and ratified the Constitution.

What passes for feminism today are entitled and “educated” women who want power handed to them on a silver platter while they claim to be helpless oppressed victims of the Patriarchy. The mind boggles. These same third wave feminists in Christian circles are also apologists for the extremely patriarchal Islam. I have actually read some of them defend the hijab! All while Christians are being horribly persecuted around the world. It’s an insane world I can no longer navigate as common sense does not apply.

History has much to teach us if we seek it. And few want to think or debate anymore. It’s all slash and burn throwing out the concepts of due process, presumption of innocence or Free speech—because free speech might trigger someone. Dr. Peterson has some interesting insight into the triggering phenomena for victims. His view is that this means victims are kept from healing —over time. Could that be a feature and not a bug of the survivor blog world? Hmmm. It’s not a binary issue. But it’s treated as one. You either sign on to their tactics or you support pedophiles and perverts. Groupthink at its worst.

Fredericka Lohr

If he's still in the ministry, I hope he's behaving himself now.

Mary

Peter and Lydia! Thank you for the kind words! It's wonderful to see the two of you again and be given an opportunity to actually think a bit deeper. Good conversation is getting harder to find these days.

As to the Pattersons - I've never delved very deeply into all the accounts/histories/stories so I cannot comment one way or another. Never met them but their public persona has always rubbed me the wrong way. I know they inspire loyalty among many but I've always had the feeling that our personalities would clash.

But here we are today and I wonder if I were the woke, stand with the victims! believe women! protect women! rah! rah! rah! Is it more of a threat to the SBC that Paige Patterson got invited to speak at some church no one's ever heard of or is maybe, sorta, should we think Al Mohler who defended CJ Mahaney even to the point of making a joke about it publicly is running for President of the SBC an actual threat? Why Paige Patterson and not Al Mohler?

Also all the house cleaning in relation to racism. It's several years ago now that Kyle J Howard wrote an article that was published by SBC Prav ... Voices I mean, but the article was very heart wrenching as Kyle - who calls Beth Moore "Auntie" - told of the racism and isolation he and his family had to deal with at Southwestern under Paige Patterson - oh wait! Scratch that it wasn't Southwestern under Paige Patterson's management it was at SOUTHERN SEMINARY with AL MOHLER at the helm! and yet the response to this man blowing the whistle about the racist culture at Southern Seminary - crickets! If you read Kyle's twitter feed he talks about all the trauma of that time and YET! YET! Nobody has ever expressed any interest in what is actually going on at Southern Seminary = nobody has demanded any investigation into Southern Seminary and their hounding out Kyle J. Howard and his family. On the contrary AL MOHLER is running for President of the SBC!

So from an older and wise eough Mary who knows that the more I know the more I know I don't know anything! It seems like nothing has actually changed in the SBC. It's just now that the Calvinist have pretty much succeeded in taking over the whole ship (and oh how glorious that the monster Ascol and Co created has turned on them) they've now turned their focus on purging out people who aren't "woke"

People will be used until they're not useful anymore and then thrown aside and the elite will search out more victims in need of purifying. Nothing really of Christ. It's very sad, like Lydia, I remember Training Union and the dear older people who loved missions and loved being SBC because of our missionary focus. It's gone now - being replaced by worldly cares and focus.

peter lumpkins

Thanks Mary.

Seeing you and Lydia on the same thread again reminds me of the hilarious claim JD Hall made in a thread here. Do you remember what it was?

JD insisted that you and Lydia were my alter-egos, that you didn't even exist. He thought I was logging on and making comments as "Mary" then logging off and back on again as "Lydia." Ha!!

Oh the fun we had!

David

Dr. Lumkins, Thank you for the time and effort you have spent writing this blog. I do agree that many conclusions concerning Dr. Patterson are based on the particular bias of the reader. My conclusions concerning Dr. Patterson on the Darrell Gilyard story are from first hand observation.
I moved to Dallas in January of 1990 to attend Criswell College because of Dr. Patterson. He had spoken at my home church multiple times, and I had attended the SBC from 1985-1989 as a teenage messenger from my church. I admired, and still do, his skillful exposition of scripture, in addition to his captivating personality.
Nine months after landing in Dallas, I began to attend the Victory Baptist Church in Richardson where Darrell Gilyard was the pastor. I was blown away at every worship gathering. The church was growing rapidly and Darrell was at the height of his popularity across the country. My history with the church continued until January of 1997. I was in the meeting, presided over by Dr. Patterson, in July of 1991 when Darrell stepped down. Scores of people left in the subsequent days, and we called a new pastor in February of 1992. I joined the staff of Victory in August of 1992 and served there as an associate until moving back to Kentucky in 1997 to Pastor a church and attend Southern Seminary. Giving my background is only to let you know I was there and am not sharing hearsay.
Dr. Patterson was made aware of Darrell's indiscretions at three different churches before Victory: Concord Missionary, Hilltop in Oklahoma City, and Shiloh in the Dallas area. In addition, there were several anecdotal tales about Darrell that were not so hard to believe after the events at Victory. Yet, he along with others, continued to promote Darrell on the national scene as the rumblings came from three different places at three different times. Why wouldn't he? This was a prize Criswell alumnus that would bring notoriety to the school. It was not Dr. Patterson that finally said enough is enough with Darrell, it was a group of members that presented him the case that could no longer be ignored. With or without Dr. Patterson, the news about Darrell was coming out in the open. Patterson’s actions were not noble, they were unavoidable and overdue. He could no longer pretend Darrell did not have a serious problem. Two weeks after his resignation, the Dallas morning news ran a multi-page article debunking Darrell’s bridge story that was a follow up to a much earlier story highlighting his rise from homelessness. Many believed that this story was in the work before the resignation based on the depth of the investigation I read Dr. Patterson’s account in which he credited himself with expelling Darrell immediately. Darrell had long since been a student at Criswell, even though I believe he had yet to finish his course work. Expelling him from the college was ceremonial at best. To those who can access such things, I would be interested to know the last semester Darrell enrolled in classes at Criswell before he was "expelled” in 1991.
I could most certainly go on, but my disagreement with you is that I believe you are mistaken to credit Paige Patterson at all for removing Gilyard from SBC life. He held out as long as he could, right up until the point his endorsement would have been self destructive.
At the end I am perplexed; although I have seen a pattern of inaction from Dr. Patterson, and I have also heard him offer a full refund of tuition if you want to be an adulterer. I acknowledge his missteps in the reported issues at the seminaries, yet I am not sure the total exile from SBC life promoted by some is appropriate.

Mary

Yes Peter, I do remember those days! LOL! These days I can't keep my score card straight who who is "in" and who is "out" with JD? JD used to be on the same team as "Doktor" White and Founders and Al Mohler but now they've all seem to have had falling outs??? But they are all against the push for the SJW emphasis that Moore is pushing? My mind doesn't work that fast anymore!

Mary

I will throw a comment out here for consideration and I am in no way now how defending anyone's actions or inactions or do I want to be seen as minimizing the abuse that some have suffered.

Back in the day - say before 1990 - the way "situations" were handled is not the way we would handle them today. So it's hard for us to put ourselves back into the 1980's and know exactly how or what we would have done.

I grew up at what was a pretty well-known church (Prez of HMB came from my church) and there were always rumors here and there about the youth minister who HAD to marry one of the 17 year old girls - the associate Pastor was known to have had affairs before he left abruptly. The truth is that where you have people you have sin. When you have men and women - you have sin and worse you have abuse. So we've evolved today in how we deal with these issues.

But again I am not justifying anything or dismissing anything - just explaining for maybe any younger folk - sometimes it's not the people are evil or dismissive but that they did the best they knew how to do at the time and as you age you learn to do better.

peter lumpkins

David,

Thanks for your feedback. Know I appreciate your contribution here.

"Yet, he [Patterson] along with others, continued to promote Darrell on the national scene as the rumblings came from three different places at three different times. Why wouldn't he? This was a prize Criswell alumnus that would bring notoriety to the school."

As I mentioned in the OP, it's easy for us to judge why others do not see what we see. In the case of many today, it's looking back almost three decades. Of course, for yourself, it's different since you claim to be there. Even so, whether 30 years later or on the scene then, it's stretching our latent abilities to read into someone's else's mind and heart the reason they're acting as they do.

Thus, from my perspective, David, it's beyond our spiritual pay-grade to indict Paige Patterson for holding off dealing with Gilyard because he wanted to promote the school. Just how might you know that?

Not that he was incapable of it. We all are fallen and are capable of it, and I'll be first in line to say so pertaining to myself.

Rather for us to morally poke another in the eye with such an unholy motive, especially when we cannot prove such a devious plot, fares really no better, in my view, than if we just uttered the words "cover-up" as many do today without the least incriminating evidence. And this applies to those of us who were not there (e.g. me) as well as to those of us were (i.e. you).

But even more troubling, you poke Patterson's eye a second time suggesting it wasn't ultimately Criswell college Patterson was worried about. Instead it was selfishly Patterson himself: "He held out as long as he could, right up until the point his endorsement would have been self destructive."

So, for you, Patterson's actions were all about saving his own butt. Covering his own rear-end, so to speak. A textbook example of cowardly, selfish action, I'd say.

Again, not that either he, me, or even you are not fully capable of cowardly action. I know I am.

On the other hand, whether one likes Patterson, loves Patterson, dislikes him, or deeply hates him, one thing you'll rarely hear about Patterson from friend and foe alike--Paige Patterson is a moral coward.

Congratulations.

By presumptuously claiming, apart from any proof other than your personal opinion, Patterson held out as long as he could, right up until the point his endorsement would have been self-destructive, you've offered a veritable unknown personal characteristic about Patterson that few would ever assume.

In conclusion, to claim Patterson held on to Gilyard as as long as he could to promote the school, but turn around and dismiss Gilyard only "ceremonially"--not to mention ultimately holding off dealing with a serious moral crisis in the church in order to cover his own butt--I think you've managed to put Patterson in a place where there is a no win situation for him; that is, no action he could have taken with Gilyard would ever satisfy some people from making him out to be a devious, wicked, selfish, sinful guy, and as condemned in God's eyes as was Gilyard himself.

So, yes, you are correct. I very well could be "mistaken to credit Paige Patterson at all for removing Gilyard from SBC life." Granted.

But after considering your view as filled as it is with personal opinion and presumptuous indictments, I don't think I'll be conceding much in the view I've written in the OP unless better argument and evidences are forthcoming.

Thanks again, David for your contribution.

Peter

Lydia

"Why Paige Patterson and not Al Mohler?"

It boggles my mind. But then I am not woke cancel culture like they are. I made the mistake of reading one Twitter feed the other day with their demands of a cancel culture. All the while totally ignoring Mohler. he has been approved now by Rachael denhollander. I guess when your husband is getting a PhD at Southern it sort of shifts the outrage.

I was not familiar with the story about Kyle Howard at Southern. How on Earth did Mohler get a pass on that one? And since they love diving into the past, how come he continues to get a pass?

Speaking of cancel culture in the SBC, I forced myself to go over to Pravda and read the thread on the story about Peter. Mike Leake was very upset. Peter is verboten there. Thornton reminded him he did not link to Peter (heaven forbid!)in his article but that was not good enough! The virtue signaling and faux moral superiority just boggles the mind while they promote the pedophile protector and racist, Al Mohler. Some animals are more equal than others.

I will stick by my theory that by heaping all the sins of the SBC leadership on Patterson, they deflect from their own horrible deeds. But they have to use moral equivalency arguments to do it. And that is most certainly a very Calvinist thing to do. Lol.

Lydia

"JD insisted that you and Lydia were my alter-egos, that you didn't even exist. He thought I was logging on and making comments as "Mary" then logging off and back on again as "Lydia." Ha!!"

It was meant to be an insult but it was a big compliment to me! Lol.

Lydia

"Back in the day - say before 1990 - the way "situations" were handled is not the way we would handle them today. So it's hard for us to put ourselves back into the 1980's and know exactly how or what we would have done."

I have a sneaky suspicion the deacons handled it. They weren't exactly soyboys. You know, those guys smoking their pipes and cigs outside before the service started. Lol. Different world.

peter lumpkins

Lydia

Such a great point. Before the internet, local church issues were decided at the local level--or at most, usually the assocciation level. Now Baptist in Britain tell Baptists in Boone, NC how to handle it. And what's more, if they don't handle it exactly as demanded, Boone Baptists are compromosing the gospel. It's just a notch below insanity.

David

Dr. Lumkins, Thank you for your response.

After reading, I agree that the phrase,…” his endorsement would have been self destructive” lacked the clarity of the thought I was attempting to convey. The accusation of moral cowardice was never my intent to describe Dr. Patterson’s actions. I do maintain that whatever his motivation to ultimately deal with the issue was influenced by the impending nature of all the actions becoming public.

We are simply going to disagree on the lack of expediency. The accusations came from four different churches in less than five years. This is not my opinion, it is factual. As the details surrounding Darrell’s resignation began to surface in the days that followed, this seemingly indifferent pattern and continued promotion troubled me the most. You did address this in the OP claiming that it was acceptable to disagree about the timing…but four different locations in five years? In my opinion, the pattern was established at church #2.

I look forward to reading part 2, and interacting with you concerning an event that shaped me in multiple ways as a young minister.

Blessings,

David

Let me add for clarity, before the tenure at Victory, the accusations came from 3 churches in a little over 3 years.

Lydia

David, Give us a call when the same efforts are spent to go after Mohler.

David

Lydia,

Assume much? I do not have personal knowledge of the Mohler situation like I do the details around the Gilyard case. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Mohler publicly apologize for his inactivity? In my opinion, Mohler was wrong from the beginning of Mahaney issue. He turned a blind eye to a friend, and admitted as much.

For the record, I am not "going after" Patterson. Did you not read my original post? I simply offered a rebuttal to some of the details of the OP. Here is how I ended, "I am not sure the total exile from SBC life promoted by some is appropriate."

Mary

Oh well if Mohler apologized that makes everything totes okie dokie! Easy peasy! And I mean of course his apology after YEARS of people calling him out was legit sincere - we wouldn't want to read into his possible motives as to why resisting any accountability for years he suddenly had a change of heart and offered a miserly - oops, my bad sorry, now elect me SBC Prez!

Lydia, you're right that back in the day the Deacons did handle cases of misbehaving Staff but I don't think the way it was handled is the way the Woke would approve. I mean they didn't even start viral #'s!

Oh and Lydia do you still read over at TWW? Interesting thread today that made me wonder "where did L's get off to?"

peter lumpkins

David,

Thanks for your clarification.

You go on to express that you "do maintain that whatever his motivation to ultimately deal with the issue was influenced by the impending nature of all the actions becoming public." Well, you can "maintain" that all you wish, but unless you have some kind of evidence to demonstrate your assertion, it remains reasonable to conclude it's merely personal opinion your're assuming. If you're going to argue here, it's going to be necessary to offer more than assumptions.

To your credit you then offer what you believe to be factual information to substantiate your claim:

"We are simply going to disagree on the lack of expediency. The accusations came from four different churches in less than five years. This is not my opinion, it is factual."

In response, no one has disputed claims from different churches. In fact, I as much as said such in my OP:

"Rumors began to surface surrounding Gilyard and some of his female parishioners...[...]...Rumors continued. But the same type of situation remained in Patterson's view. Claims were abundant while evidences were absent."

Thus, there's no reason to dispute the factuality of the claims and/or accusations. But we must realize that, from Patterson's standpoint, the accusations, at least the ones he investigated, remained just that--accusation.

Finally, you write,

"You did address this in the OP claiming that it was acceptable to disagree about the timing…but four different locations in five years? In my opinion, the pattern was established at church #2."

In response, thank you for acknowledging I did address the timeline. Your input: "In my opinion, the pattern was established at church #2."

So, your opinion is a pattern was established at church #2. OK. So what? Does it follow that patterns are necessarily set at #2? How could you prove that? What if the nature of the claim was identical? What makes your opinion right?

See, that's the problem we get into when we demand others abide by our rules, our timelines, our assumptions or else they're dead wrong.

I can't help but smile in reading your last comment you offered to Lydia: "Assume much?" The striking irony is, you're questioning Lydia's assumptions about you which you try to clarify for her when you're doing the exact same thing to Patterson! Indeed were Patterson on the thread, he could say to you, "David, Assume much?"

As I've thought through your comments, two things are striking. One is, from the very start, you've presumed Patterson's guilt. I addressed this in my comment above (I address it in another post shortly).

Second, you claim to offer rebuttal to some of the details of my original post. Unfortunately, I've not read any rebuttal of any detail in my OP. You've offered opinion and made verbal presumptions, it's true. But neither counts as rebuttal. What exactly have you rebutted?

I plan to post a Part 2 soon but will probably post a brief 'interlude' until then.

Thanks again, David.

Mary

Will the "interlude" be Trunk Monkey! We all need Trunk Monkey! I vote Trunk Monkey Interlude!

Mary

Lydia, I meant to drop this link if you missed back when it was published.

https://sbcvoices.com/my-reflections-on-sbc17-kyle-james-howard/

Kyle's twitter feed is full of tales of trauma he and his family experienced while they were at Southern.

David Brainerd

Someone who denies free will denies the concept of consent, because consent is based on free will.

Ergo Calvinism leads to sexual abuse because no Calvinist recognizes free will and therefore cannot believe in nor respect consent.

peter lumpkins

David Brainerd,

While you may or may not have a good point, I think you missed the train. Calvinism is not on this coach.

Lydia

"Lydia, you're right that back in the day the Deacons did handle cases of misbehaving Staff but I don't think the way it was handled is the way the Woke would approve. I mean they didn't even start viral #'s!"

This is something the woke, sjw folk don't understand because all they see are deacons and elders who are soy boy yes men to the great leader. It was not nothing like that when I was a kid. We were in a lot of Baptist Churches due to my mom being an itinerant music sub. Sometimes we were there for 6 months and sometimes a year. I grew up viewing Deacons as people who ensured the congregation voted on things. It was a totally different world that was not stuck on faux hierarchies.


"Oh and Lydia do you still read over at TWW? Interesting thread today that made me wonder "where did L's get off to?"

Every now and then I swing by to read the headlines. After L's (Christiane) spent years influencing the culture there to the left with syrupy fake compassion about the evils of conservatives, she finally offended Dee and was blocked. Wade, their blog pastor, welcome to her to continue her "missions" over there.

She was quite successful in making the unwritten rules at TWW. You see, politics are not allowed. But a pattern formed over the years. Any woke leftist commentators could make a disparaging remark about the other side. But do not dare respond in dissent. Dee only calls it out when dissenters respond to it. I watched her pattern for years. And we all know what happens. The socialistic virtue signaling takes over as the morally Superior take pot shots with no push back with reality or facts. Never mind about all that mean stuff like due process, presumption of innocence or free speech (which in that world is always mean speech).

We are to the point now in our country that too many Americans being perpetually offended while demanding evil people apologize (sigh) have not noticed that our fourth amendment rights have been ground into dust.

I think TWW passed the Rubicon of truly being helpful as they got involved in every cultural fad that includes emancipated, educated and professional women taking advantage of insurance settlements due to #metoo.

A big one for me were their arrogant attacks on Jack the Baker in CO. I read the supreme Court decision. It was easy to see the media had lied to us for years. But they carried on persecuting him. They relate more to this woman.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/01/25/so-brave-womans-act-of-resistance-is-to-take-up-the-best-parking-spaces-at-masterpiece-cakeshop/amp/

A popular commenter over there, who everyone seems to Revere as an non practicing attorney, literally had a pro Antifa intro on her Facebook last year.

There is plenty more but you get the picture. There comes a time when you realize there are places you just don't belong. I don't believe in perpetual victimhood for emancipated women. I think it's a life damaging. I also do not believe that the people they go after in church leadership who perpetuated all of this evil are going to change because they shame them publicly. I don't view that expectation as good for victims.

peter lumpkins

Mary,

I still love trunk monkey too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxFzXJ2k25Q&feature=youtu.be

Lydia

One more thing, Mary. I did read a Twitter feed the other day from TWW. She retweets everything from her survivor industry comrades. She retweeted something Julianne sent her that I happen to know about. It involves a private Christian school here where I know both parents and teachers. Dee retweeted it without doing any diligence on the situation. It was a picture of a teen sitting in front of a rainbow birthday cake claiming that her school wants to kick her out because she is a lesbian.

Dee tweeted saying, "my girls loved rainbow cakes". as if the school had a problem because she had a rainbow cake. This is the stuff that I can no longer be apart of. She literally fell for the propaganda that Julian sent her.

It never occurs to Dee that there are people out there who purposely target such places. This is exactly the same sort of thing that was done to Jack the baker who served homosexuals in his bakery for years. he just refused to design art for a homosexual wedding cake. Oh the horror. In Dee's world a real Christian would have designed it. Therefore Jack the baker was wrong --because she would do it. I do not want to live in the Soviet Union.

This kid and her parents knew exactly what the rules were at that school. Now they have a publicity cause against those mean old Christians who do not want to teach homosexuality as God's intention at their PRIVATE CHRISTIAN' school. How dare them! I don't think the people at tww will be happy until the government is micromanaging every part of our lives.

I do not understand people like Dee. I am not interested in that brand of cookie cutter Christianity. They are as bad as the fundies they have railed against for years. The new Puritans.

Lydia

David,

I missed your comment as I was skimming over. Apologies. You are right. I did assume. And that was wrong.

L

david brainerd

"While you may or may not have a good point, I think you missed the train. Calvinism is not on this coach."

Well Peter, the thing is that in a denomination eaten up by Calvinism, anyone who is not vigorously opposing Calvinism is functionally a Calvinist. So unless you can show me that Darrell has been vigorously opposing Calvinism and specifically calling it heresy then he is in fact a Calvinist. If he hasn't been explicitly preaching Calvinism its just because he's yet another of the wolf in sheep clothing Baptist pastors who hide their Calvinism from the flock they're fleecing.

peter lumpkins

"Well Peter, the thing is that in a denomination eaten up by Calvinism, anyone who is not vigorously opposing Calvinism is functionally a Calvinist. So unless you can show me that Darrell has been vigorously opposing Calvinism and specifically calling it heresy then he is in fact a Calvinist."

Two responses, David, which is all the time I'll offer.

1. What you just wrote is patently absurd.

2. Patently absurd well describes what you just wrote.

Have a pleasant weekend.

Peter

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)