Dr. Al Mohler Starts a Blog on How to Build a Great Church...NOT!
Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr. has started a new blog. As the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one would think that Dr. Mohler's blog would be about, oh, building a great church, perhaps? Think again. Dr. Mohler instead has decided to blog on "current issues facing the SBC." Not a bad subject, mind you, but not what one would expect from someone who is getting paid by Southern Baptists to train preachers.Timmy Brister, one of the many Reformed Calvinist students at Southern who enjoys trashing men like Jack Graham on his blog, was so thrilled by the prospect of another Mohler blog that I thought Timmy might actually quit his UPS job and start a church!
No such luck.
Timmy reported, "Here's Dr. Mohler's outlets from his website and blogs:
* Conventional Thinking
* Mohler Commentary
* Mohler Blog
* Mohler Radio Show
* T4G Group Blog
* Crosswalk.com
It would be great if other SBTS profs would join the example set by Dr. Mohler and grab a blog!"
I'm not making this up. Timmy wants the professors to join Mohler in blogland.
On April 28, 2006, in the article "Is Al Mohler Responsible for the SBC's Drop in Baptisms," I said, "Following the lead of Dr. Mohler himself, these (Southern Seminary) 'preacher boys' are good at blogging but not so good at building Southern Baptist churches."
Timmy notes in another blog entry that "we do have what is called the SBTS metablog which currently has 80 blogs by students affiliated with Southern." He's not kidding. See for yourself.
http://sbtsblogs.net
Read them and weep for the Southern Baptist Convention.
Charles
posted by Charles @ 12:22 AM
59 Comments:
hmmmmm
a guy with a blog criticizing another guy with a blog because he isn't blogging about building a great church.
I guess you are getting ready to start blogging about how to build a great church, otherwise...
don't you see your hypocrisy
DR. MOHLER'S BLOG
Charles said:
Dr. Mohler instead has decided to blog on "current issues facing the SBC."
As you know, Charles, one of the "issues" facing Dr. Mohler which he has thus far failed to face is WHY A HARDHSELL WAS INVITED TO THE CAMPUS OF SOUTHERN SEMINARY?
As a matter of informing new readers, I herewith quote from my emaIl to Dr. Nettles and Dr. Mohler on April 23, which has never been answered by either man, although twice sent.
I somehow get the impression that neither Dr. Mohler nor Dr. Nettles wishes to face this matter of Hardshell Lasserre Bradley, Jr.'s being invited to SBTS:
>>
I have recently had a disturbing email from a very reliable Southern Baptist Pastor and leader who alleges that Dr. Nettles has been "fellowshipping" with Pastor Lasserre Bradley Jr., the leading Hardshell Baptist preacher in the United States for the past 40 plus years.
I have personally known Bradley since he was 19 or 20 years old, and when he went to the Hardshells in the late 1950s he reeked havoc in Eastern Kentucky aqmong some churches when I was living in Ashland. He led astray several of our personal preacher friends who traipsed off after him into Hardshellism on the matter of "regeneration."
. . .
This is simply an inquiry, and yet I must tell you that this could become a matter of public notice, so your reply will hopefully express in exact detail the nature of your association with Lassere Bradley Jr. and what, if any, doctrinal implications are involved, from your point of view.
. . .
Thank you for giving this matter your attention. I await your response. Sincerely, Bob L. Ross
>>
Bradley's Comments Regarding the Evangelization of the Elect
Concerning the evangelization of the elect, I understand the Scriptures to teach that all who hear the gospel and sincerely believe it give evidence of being God's elect. The elect of God are born again by the DIRECT WORK of God through the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit.
http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/
community/churches/primbap/
ReformedCalvinism.html
This is the same "direct operation" palabber taught by the pedo-regenerationist theologians W. G. T. Shedd, Louis Berkhof, and R. C. Sproul, and other preachers such as James White, Scott Morgan of the Founders, Gene Bridges, Tom Schreiner of the Southern Seminary, and any others who advocate "Reformed" theology according to the Berkhof theology book.
This view dispenses with the Word or Gospel as being the indispensable and necessary instrument in the regeneration of the sinner, and views "regeneration" as being the act of the Spirit in a "direct operation."
Since Bradley is in real estate, and reportedly is a rich man, it leads one to wonder if he may be interested in a piece of real estate located on Lexington Road in Louisville, Kentucky. We can only speculate as to why he is patronizing and courting the Seminary.
Do you suppose Bradley may envision moving his own Hardshell preachers' school to Louisville, similar to what Lexington Baptist College did a few years ago, which is now called by the name of "Boyce College"?
I look forward to hearing what Mohler and Nettles have to say about the anti-Gospel Bradley.
Thus far, they are mum. I can't imagine any rational reason why either Nettles or Mohler would want to fellowship with Bradley, unless it was in their sharing the same "born again before faith" ideaology.
lol.
Let's see, I'm laughing with the above comment and at your post. - dual laugh. good deal.
You brought this up before Bob - give it up!
ANOTHER ISSUE FOR MOHLER
Charles said:
Timmy notes in another blog entry that "we do have what is called the SBTS metablog which currently has 80 blogs by students affiliated with Southern."
I wonder, Charles, if there might be more SBTS student blogs than there are converts made under the preaching of those students?
Mohler might find it revealing to collaborate with statistics guru, Jim Eliff, and see if he can find out how many first-time baptisms per year have been administered by the SBC churches which are "Reformed" in theology, such as Founders affiliates.
Such churches may not want to talk about "numbers," since they are not having many (if any) professions to speak of. For example, didn't Tom Ascol say that he does not make any reports of this kind?
I have observed the "Reformed" type churches over the years (1950s-onward), and I can honestly say that I have never seen a one of them which majored on "Calvinism" that did not "grow" downward. In this area of Houston alone, I could site for you at least a half dozen or more of them which withered away in the course of five to ten years. They just don't make the converts.
As I have pointed out before, the pedos can hold to Hyrid Calvinism and still "grow," as long as they have families reproducing babies which they can add to the church roll as supposed "regenerates." But with the Baptists, when you take away the public invitation to the unsaved, personal soul winning emphasis, efforts directed toward the conversion of children, evangelistic outreach, etc., you are going to wind up simply trying to "hold your own." That can lead to the demise of a church.
Some of these preachers may like to talk about Spurgeon and his theology, but they generally find that unlike Spurgeon they don't preach the Gospel like Spurgeon and consequently don't get the converts.
founder, Hello!
Is that you, Tom?
Tom (or whoever), you said, "hmmmmm
a guy with a blog criticizing another guy with a blog because he isn't blogging about building a great church.
You must have not read my first paragraph. I said that Mohler's blog was "not what one would expect from someone who is getting paid by Southern Baptists to train preachers.
I looked at my checkbook, and unlike Brother Al Mohler, as of today I am not getting paid for being the president of a Southern Baptist seminary. If that changes, Tom (or whoever), you'll be the first to know.
Charles
Brother Bob, Hello!
You said, the pedos can hold to Hyrid Calvinism and still "grow," as long as they have families reproducing babies
Yes, and also as long as they can act as parasites and "convert" Southern Baptists to their views.
Much of the "growth" of their churches are due to the conversion of Christians to their theology.
Charles
WHO MAKES THE CONVERTS?
Charles said...
Yes, and also as long as they can act as parasites and "convert" Southern Baptists to their views.
Much of the "growth" of their churches are due to the conversion of Christians to their theology.
If the facts could be ascertained, Charles, it is conceivable that the largest percentage of convents to Christ are made by ministries which are not theoretically committed to the "Reformed" version of what the "Reformed" call "Calvinism."
Just look around and see if you can identify a church committed to the "Reformed" version of theoretical "Calvinism" which is preaching the Gospel and thereby winning lost souls to Christ.
Yes, they are militant in efforts to make proselytes, and then tend to prejudice those "converts" against the very ministries which were used by the Sovereign Lord to bring them to salvation -- while at the same time they have a "pat on the back" for the pedos who teach that the "elect" get "regenerated" when they are babies, or even before they become babies!
NOT A CHANCE
Anonymous said...
You brought this up before Bob - give it up!
You sound like the Campbellites who always want me to stop reminding them about their origin with Alexander Campbell. Also -- the King James Onlyites who want me to stop reminding them about who translated the KJV.
But you have not heard the last of this from me about Nettles, Mohler, and Hardshell Lasserre Bradley Jr. I will keep mentioning this until they come up with some kind of "explanation" for inviting Bradley to SBTS. They probably had a "good reason" -- they just haven't decided on it yet.
I am reformating this comment from Bobby after having to delete it because the long URL was causing some problems with the blog.
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:38:46 PM, Bobby said...
Charles,
Please read the following article:
"The Necessity of the Use of Means in the Spirit's Work of Monergistic Regeneration"
Bobby, Hello!
You said, Please read the following article
Thanks, Bobby. I read it. It appears to have been written by Jimi, er, John Hendryx of the infamous monergism.com.
Nothing new here. Same old stuff. Brother John said, "There are a few wise guys who are venting their theological frustrations in the ethersphere by misrepresenting the Reformed community on a rather broad scale. This is particularly true with regard to our teaching on the necessity of the use of means (preaching) in the Spirit's work of regeneration."
It seems that Brother John Hendryx has not considered the entire record on the matter. Bobby, could you recommend to him The Calvinist Flyswatter to further his education in the matter?
Reformed theologian John Frame was asked, "What doctrines must one believe to be saved?" He responded by saying, "None. I hold the Reformed view that children in infancy, even before birth, can be regenerated and saved, presumably before they have any conscious doctrinal beliefs."
Pray tell, what "means" are used in John Frame's theology?
Jimi, er, I mean, John Hendryx seems to have the same problem as "Dr." James White: Neither understand the law of noncontradiction!
John Hendryx: Color him as confused as a Jimi Hendrix guitar solo, and not nearly as fun!
Charles
Brother Bob, Hello!
You wrote, Yes, they (the hybrid Calvinists) are militant in efforts to make proselytes, and then tend to prejudice those "converts" against the very ministries which were used by the Sovereign Lord to bring them to salvation
Shameful, isn't it? They are certainly an ungrateful bunch. You would think they would be praising God for the "Arminians" who preached the gospel to them and under whose ministry they were saved. Instead they well-nigh curse them, and by extension, the God who uses them.
Do you happen to know how John Hendryx of monergism.com was saved?
Charles
"SAME OLD STUFF"
Charles said...
You said, Please read the following article
Thanks, Bobby. I read it. It appears to have been written by Jimi, er, John Hendryx of the infamous monergism.com.
Nothing new here. Same old stuff.
You are exactly right, Charles.
While all Hybrid Calvinists will say they believe in the Word or Gospel as a "means," when it comes down to the "bottom line," they have the elect sinner "born again before faith."
Even their "theologs of the theologs," such as Shedd and Berkhof, will profess to believe in "means," but they still hold to "born again before faith."
It HAS TO BE THAT WAY to justify the baptism of babies on the presumption that those babies are "regenerated" before they believe.
TRUE MONERGISM does not have one born again UNTIL FAITH IS BORN, then it may be said that one has been BORN OF GOD (1 John 5:4, 1, 12).
Regardless of all the smoke and mirrors about what the Holy Spirit must do, does do, etc. before faith, the fact is until the sinner is a believer in Jesus Christ, he has not been born again. THE ONLY PERSONS said to be "born of God" in the Bible are those who are BELIEVERS.
The so-called "Monergism" site apparently exists for the purpose of promoting Hybrid Calvinism which embellishes the pedos who believe babies get "born again" in infancy. Did you notice how many "prophets of pedo regeneration" are featured on this site?
JOHN HENDRYX?
Charles said. . .
Do you happen to know how John Hendryx of monergism.com was saved?
No, and I do not even know his church affiliation. Based on his website, it appears he may be a Bapbyterian. He apparently promotes the "unsual" Hybrid Calvinism of the modern "Reformed" Presbyterians and "Reformed" Baptists.
MONOCOMPLAINTISM
Bob to Charles:
I saw this comment on the link to John Hendryx:
There are a few wise guys who are venting their theological frustrations in the ethersphere by misrepresenting the Reformed community on a rather broad scale.
How astonishing! Wonder who the wise guys are who dare to misrepresent the "born again before faith" and "born again before being born" phantasmagoria of the "Reformed community"? And why would the wise guys bothere to misrepresent what is so obviously a ridiculous idea? Does it really need to be misrepresented to be exposed as theological tergiversation?
He did not name the "wise guys," Charles, but I have noticed that several of the Hybrids have done some whining about alleged "attacks" upon and "misrepresentations" of the "Reformed community" -- an expression which refers to those who fantasize that they were "born again before faith."
I wonder what these Hybrids expect when they have so many websites and blogs which feature repetitious attacks and misrepresentations of what they brand as "Arminianism" and "synergism"? They "fire the first shots" and then whine when they receive some return fire.
They brand Creedal Calvinism by the term "synergism," and whine when Creedal Calvinism is defended by the "wise guys."
They distort and abuse men such as Spurgeon and Gill, and then whine when these men are cleared of the false allegations.
They fire their guns in all directions and whine about anyone who replies as being guilty of "dividing the body" and being "trouble-makers."
As Shemp would say, "Cut the palabber!"
Since you have repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly made witty remarks on this site about who led who to Christ, appearantly your point is that you can NEVER be critical of a belief or of any beliefs shared with the person who led you to Christ.
So if the guy who led you to Christ was anything less than a 5 point calvinist, you better shut up and keep your opinions to yourself. Otherwise you are hypocritical or ungrateful.
BTW, if the guy that led me to Christ was a democrat, I guess I can't cricize democrats.
To you non-flyswatter brethren,
I hope all of you who are posting to the Flyswatter blog (save Charles and bob l. ross) know that you are completely wasting your time by blogging here (myself included) - which is precisely what Charles and Bob intend. You will not change their minds (and certainly not their hearts), as they have demonstrated great finesse in avoiding substantive discussion while attempting to bait anyone who has blogged or who they think might be lurking.
The glory of Christ's Kingdom, the edifying of the saints or the unity of the church are not objectives in the Flyswatter play book. They only mean to defame others in the household of God whom they have - by their own narrow sectarianism - judged to be heretics.
They readily and endlessly misrepresent the position of anyone who disagrees with their sectarian positions, and regularly resort to such silly and unfruitful antics as mockery and playground name-calling in an effort to garner band-width for their blog. Their use (and abuse) of Scripture is often selective, disconnected and employed, not as a tool of unity, understanding and maturity in the body (as Paul instructs in Ephesians 4:7-16 for instance), but as a tool to promote their own stunted theological vision.
Although it is the calling of all theologians to employ the Scriptures apologetically, the flyswatter men do so in a manner which places them squarely under the warning of Titus 3:10. I suggest the time has come to follow the remainder of Paul's instruction: "have nothing more to do with [them]." In short order, the flyswatter blog will then quickly devour itself, and that would be a benevolent mercy for vulnerable sheep who might haplessly wander into their pasture and begin to graze.
MORE MOPINGS FROM THE MOPER
mopheos said...
To you non-flyswatter brethren,
I hope all of you who are posting to the Flyswatter blog (save Charles and bob l. ross) know that you are completely wasting your time by blogging here (myself included) - which is precisely what Charles and Bob intend. You will not change their minds (and certainly not their hearts), as they have demonstrated great finesse in avoiding substantive discussion while attempting to bait anyone who has blogged or who they think might be lurking.
This is what happens to the "elect" who get "born again before faith" or maybe even "born again before being born."
They get such enlightenment in their infancy that they become spiritual prodigies who are able to "shepherd" the "vulnerable sheep who might haplessly wander into their pasture and begin to graze."
Charles, let's hope that not all of the "vulnerable sheep" will totally stop grazing here, for it is a lead-pipe cinch that if they don't graze a little here, they may develop a bad case of "morpheosmonia" so as to have no taste for "silly and unfruitful antics as mockery and playground name-calling."
THE POINT?
flounder said...
Since you have repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly made witty remarks on this site about who led who to Christ, appearantly your point is that you can NEVER be critical of a belief or of any beliefs shared with the person who led you to Christ.
Did Charles or I say that was "the point"?
I rather think the point was the lack of respect, gratitude, and thanksgiving for those who were used of the Lord to lead them to Christ -- and the seeming desire and purpose to bash them, discredit them, and virtually accuse them of blasphemy when they don't crack their skulls to the teachings of Hybrid Calvinists.
A dear elderly man here locally is perhaps the most constant, enthusiastic witness and soul winner in this city, and he does not even know the difference between "Calvinism" and "Arminianism." He would not know what you mean by "monergism" and "synergism." All he knows is "Christ and him crucified."
Every time he comes into my store, he tells me about some people to whom he has been blessed to witness the Gospel, and sometimes of those who accepted Christ.
I thank the Lord he was never spoiled by the Hybrid Calvinists who would most likely brand him "Arminian."
Bob, Hello!
Brother Bob, I really wanted to take Brother Mopheos' admonitions to heart. He sounded so sincere that I knew he must be spreading his bits of wisdom everywhere.
So I visited Brother Timmy Brister's blog. Timmy, as you know, thinks nothing of trashing men such as Jack Graham, etc. Also, Timmy recently did a funny "cut-and-paste" with Brother Pat Robertson's head and some bodybuilder's body. Brother Bob, I just knew in my heart that Brother Mopheos would not let Timmy get by with resorting to "such silly and unfruitful antics as mockery and playground name-calling in an effort to garner band-width for (his) blog."
But did I find Mopheos spreading these words on Timmy's blog?
What do you think?
Then, Brother Bob, I traveled the information superhighway over to The Calvinist Gadfly, run by none other than Brother Alan Kurschner, a man who has more egg on his face than a confused short order cook. Alan, as you know, regularly "pokes fun" at what he calls, "Arminians," which really is anyone who disagrees with his hyper Calvinist "born again before faith" nonsense.
The Gadfly has been around much longer than The Calvinist Flyswatter, and I just knew that Morphie had rebuked Brother Alan for "such silly and unfruitful antics as mockery and playground name-calling in an effort to garner band-width for (his) blog."
But did I find Mopheos spreading these words on Alan's blog?
What do you think?
I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.
Mopheos: Color him hypocritical and one-sided.
Charles
I'm thankful that only "hybrids" can behave in an ungrateful or disrespectful way and that people who hold to other teachings aren't disrespectful to those they disagree with.
I'm thankful that non-calvinists never speak about "hybrids" or their belief in a mocking way or charicature what they believe.
I'm thankful that non-hybrids don't label a whole group of people as ungrateful and disrepectful.
CONTRAST ON "REGENERATION"
Bob to Charles:
If you want to read a contrast, Charles, between Jesus on the new birth and the Founders, read Tom's article on his blog and compare it to Jesus in John 3:1-18.
This is the only place where Jesus taught on the new birth, and He gave Nicodemus the clear, simple Gospel on how one is born again in 3:14-18, by believing on the Son.
In contrast, Tom trys to explain the unseen, inner work of the Spirit, which Jesus compared to the wind, and said one can't tell "whence it cometh, and whither it goeth." Tom seems to know a little bit more than Jesus chose to reveal.
I really don't see how a sinner could read Tom's article and be informed on the Gospel as Nicodemus was informed in John 3:14-18. Tom must have been "preaching to the choir."
This demonstrates one of the reasons, I believe, so few converts (if any) are made by Hybrid Calvinists. They seem to always get off into explaining "theology" and put too much emphasis on theoreticalisms. The simple Gospel gets "lost" in all that palabber.
WHITE WHINE
Bob to Charles:
You may not have time enough to spare, Charles, but if you want to see a lot of "White Whine," James has it on his website today -- all about the proposed "Caner-White" debate.
You never heard so much belly-aching in all your life. It makes me wonder if White is deliberately trying to get the debate called off. There is nothing about the proposed debate with which he seems to be satisfied, other than himself (of course).
He's not happy about the proposition, about the format, about the time length, about the moderator, about preliminary matters, and on-and-on he goes.
And of course, none of it is James' fault. He has done everything right, in his own eyes.
Same Jawsome James. Seldom right, but NEVER WRONG.
Brother Bob, Hello!
You wrote, It makes me wonder if White is deliberately trying to get the debate called off
Either that or in the likelihood that he gets slammed, he will claim the "cards" were stacked against him."
James is such a whiner. I think some of his own disciples are starting to see him for what he is.
He knows enough of the Caners to be worried. These guys are former Muslims who openly debate Muslims. That's not a low risk ministry. I can't believe White's disciples once thought the Caners were scared of White! Now it's James who seems to be developing a mild case of Canerphobia to go along with his more serious case of Rossphobia!
As one of our readers said about James' disciples, "One suspects that his fan base consists of imbalanced 43 yr old single males who dwell in the cavernous climes of their parents' basements reading poorly constructed A.W. Pink tomes."
Charles
good freekin' grief
my wife just read the Latest Caner Correspondence
between white and ergun on the debate, without me prejudicing her opinion.
I can't tell you how many times she grunted and blurted out, "what?"
She is not reformed and she has no dog in that hunt, but she is very smart and graduated with high honors from her university. Hence a good person to ask her interpretation of the correspondence.
Her impression is that Caner is far from scholarly, far from articulate, far from gracious, and FAR FAR from really wanting to do the debate.
You guys cannot honestly say that you are not somewhat disappointed in the level of dialoge that Caner has exemplified. I guess you can if you haven't read the whole correspondence or IF you have a hatred for white which blinds you from impartiality.
I personally liked Caner before this whole thing, he is actually preaching in my former church later this year and I hope to attend. I actually enjoy hearing him preach. But I am at a loss as to how he became a dean of a theology school. His emails, are an embarasment.
The level of precision and the cross examination expertise demonstrated by James, just in the emails alone, confirms that ERGUN is way way way over his head. That is the only explanation for his being so obstinent.
If Ergun acts like enough of a jerk to cause James to quit, he is not out anything, not a plane ticket, not hotel stay, nothing. In fact, if he can get James to quit, he will (as he has already alluded to) claim victory.
THE THESIS
the UN-agreed upon thesis: That God is an Omnibenevolent God to all of humanity through salvation and
opportunity.
I hope you don't believe that this thesis can't be tweaked at least a little bit so that these guys don't have to spend most of their time trying to define what it means.
If you read the correspondence, it's clear that James has been very gracious in his willingness to trudge along toward this debate, despite the fact that it is to take place at Ergun's church, with Ergun's moderator, with Ergun's thesis (which he will not even discuss a compromise)with Ergun's format (which he will not discuss a compromise of), with Ergun's time frame (which is ridiculous for a 4 man debate).
Any reasonable person would be objecting (not whining) if they were expected to dedicate money, time and energy for an event in which there were no compromise as to the important details... and were told, MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT I WILL ACCUSE YOU OF WHINING AND CLAIM VICTORY!!
Isn't Ergun really the baby for insisting that everything be the way he wants it with no negotiations, no compromise, and no response to reasonable questions.
I personally think James and Tom should back out, cause it will be a waste of time. They will waste all their time trying to explain what their interpretation of the thesis is (since Caner refused to explain it for the sake of clarity). Ergun will spend most of his time firing one charicature of calvinism after another at them, to which they will then have to spend whatever time they have left, explaining why their assumptions are not correct and don't actually represent their position.
I think they should let Caner claim victory and save themselves the money and the aggrivation. He will claim victory no matter what.
James has debated much more scholarly gentlemen in print and in person and no reasonable person could say that Ergun was such a heavyweight on the subject of calvinism (he hasn't written a book on it) that James was afraid of him. The email correspondance would certainly be evidence that James is not afraid of him.
gotta run.
Latest Caner Correspondence
Yes, White is to be blaimed in all of this since he was that one that refused to respond for about a month or so.
Good Grief!
scott, flounder, and anonymous, Hello!
You guys prove my point. Thanks!
Charles
WHY DEBATE?
Charles said...
scott, flounder, and anonymous, Hello!
You guys prove my point. Thanks!
Since both Caner and White reject Creedal Calvinism on the new birth, Charles, I wonder what they will be debating?
Maybe they could debate, "Did Paul Get Knocked Off of His Horse?"
good retort, guess you don't have a real answer, so that will suffice to save face.
WHITE TO BLAME?
Anonymous said...
Yes, White is to be blaimed in all of this since he was that one that refused to respond for about a month or so.
Good Grief!
White is only to "blame" for White's Whine, and his cup runneth over.
If Caner is such a "rotten egg," why didn't White "smell" this before he challenged for debate?
He did the same thing when he tried to get Ruckman into a debate a few years ago, and he didn't even know what Ruckman believed. Ruckman made him look like a dumb jackass.
A WISE WOMAN?
Flounder said...
She is not reformed and she has no dog in that hunt, but she is very smart and graduated with high honors from her university. Hence a good person to ask her interpretation of the correspondence.,
You mean you are in an "unequal yoke" with an "Arminian" wife?
Don't worry about it -- "Reformed" doctrine says only one parent has to be "believer" for the children to inherit regeneration in their babyhood.
But since she married you, is it not really a "stretch" for one to believe she is as wise and you allege?
FROM SKUDZU COUNTRY
Scott said...
Bob and Charles,
This is how we can believe how Bob can actually read the email exchange and not see how " Childish and how Caner is trying to twist" things around.
If the Caners were Creedal Calvinists, Hybrid James would really have something about which to whine!
Charles said, "You guys prove my point. Thanks!"
I guess that's about the only thing you can say, when you don't have a real response.
Question:
What is it about Caner that makes you think White would be scared to debate him? What specifically do you believe is more intimidating about Caner than any of the dozens of folks that White has debated against in the past?
Why would White (whose debated calvinism adnausium and written extensively on it) fear debating a guy whose never debated the subject OVER lets say Shabir Ally who is a muslim or Gerry Matatics over the Papacy or D.A. Waite on the KJV? Let's hear why?
I can only surmize that you don't personally believe what you're shoveling.
Have you actually read the email correspondence between white and ergun.
flounder, Hello!
You asked, What specifically do you believe is more intimidating about Caner than any of the dozens of folks that White has debated against in the past?
You'll have to ask "Dr." James White (unless you are James. Is that you, James?). After reading the correspondence, it's obvious to me that James is shaking in his boots! I've never seen such childish tantrums from a grown man. James reminds me of the babies you see in the stores who will scream and cry at the top of their lungs until Mommy gets them the toy they want. If James doesn't get the debate lined up exactly like he wants he screams on his blog to his followers, who then take up his crying on their blogs. It's like a cyber day care for hyper Calvinists!
Debating is an art form. Someone can be knowledgeable in a subject and still "lose" a debate if he is unskilled in the format. James has already said he is unfamiliar with the format of the debate. The Caners do not appear to be worried about the format. You figure out the rest.
James' fear doesn't stop with the Caners. He is terrified of Brother Bob Ross. Brother Bob has extensive debate experience, and James knows he would never best Brother Bob in a debate on regeneration and creedal Calvinism.
Given that James runs from Brother Bob like a scalded dog, I find it hilarious that James' disciples thought the Caners were afraid of James. The Caners afraid of James? How funny!
Speaking of James' phobias, did you notice that he doesn't allow comments on his blog? What is he afraid of?
Charles
WHINE, WHINE, WHINE
Charles said...
I've never seen such childish tantrums from a grown man. James reminds me of the babies you see in the stores who will scream and cry at the top of their lungs until Mommy gets them the toy they want. If James doesn't get the debate lined up exactly like he wants he screams on his blog to his followers, who then take up his crying on their blogs. It's like a cyber day care for hyper Calvinists!
James apparently has a bad case of what might be called "hyper-verbalism."
The problem with this disorder, Charles, is that its victim invariably finds cause to erupt into frequent, meaningless, and extended "word spasms" which are ever so "serious" and "passionate" to the victim, but like other "hyper activity," the spasms only serve to exasperate and deepen the disorder.
Unfortunately, the disorder has not been confined to politicians (filibuster, for example), radio and TV palabberers (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Stern, etc.), entertainers (Williams, Murphy, Dice, Rivers, etc.), sports figures (Ali, Cuban, Cosell, etc.), but it has victimized "religion" as well (Robertson, Jackson, Crouch, iMonk, Ruckman, White, etc. -- too many to name here).
I prefer to use the words
"palabber" and "phantasmagoria" in application to this disorder.
As for debating "format," that has always been the least of my concern. Of course, I have not had as many debates as James the Exegeet, but it has been my practice to defer to my adversary to make the arrangements he prefers, the order and number of speeches, time limits, questions, etc. After all, I have never been the "challenger" in any of my debates, so I did not think those responsibilities were mine.
I have always found that Truth has nothing to fear in any format.
Campbellites, for example, have always wanted to have the "last speech," as if it was the most important. In most of my debates, by the time their last speech arrived, their doctrine had been so thoroughly refuted that the last speech appeared to be a burden rather than an advantage.
Charles must really be Ergun, cause you make no sense and can't answer basic questions and need to change the subject.
The caner's aren't worried cause they are banking on the fact that the debate will not happen, hoping that their obstinant jerkiness will cause them to quit.
chuck said, "James reminds me of the babies you see in the stores who will scream and cry at the top of their lungs until Mommy gets them the toy they want."
what exactly has james gotten his way on in this correspondence? You would have a valid point if he got the time he wanted, the format, thesis, location, and then demanded that he get something else. But he hasn't gotten anything, that's the point. Despite the time, energy, and money that will be involved in this event, there has been no cooperation to make the even worth while to the people who will prepare for it and be spectator's to it.
I don't know how you can miss the obvious.... it is Ergun that seems to be saying, MY HOUSE MY FORMAT MY MODERATOR MY THESIS AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, QUIT AND LET ME CLAIM VICTORY.
I use all caps in honor of ergun.
for more context check out Earlier Caner Correspondence
flounder, you never answered the question, "Speaking of James' phobias, did you notice that he doesn't allow comments on his blog? What is he afraid of?
Charles
FLOUNDER'S FLOUNDERING
flounder said...
what exactly has james gotten his way on in this correspondence? You would have a valid point if he got the time he wanted, the format, thesis, location, and then demanded that he get something else. But he hasn't gotten anything, that's the point.
If James has the Truth on his side -- as he alleges -- then he ought to demonstrate more poise, confidence, and "class" than he has done. He has mired himself in whining complaints, as if he is somehow being victimized and mistreated. Poor James!
He ought to feel lucky that the Caners and Falwell are still willing to stage this debate with James in it -- after all the whining trash-talk James has uttered. He apparently thinks he will somehow get an "edge" by his pre-date antics.
He has already violated just about every rule of honorable controversy, and has not even made his first speech!
flounder said, it is Ergun that seems to be saying, MY HOUSE ....
Where else would they go? James' church building? Tom Ascol's? They might hold 600 people if you add both of them together!
A "skilled" debater would jump at the chance to debate in a church as large as Thomas Road.
Charles
As to comments on AOMIN James can speak for himself.
Why no comments?
Another reason why no comments
Your right I guess James should be thanking his lucky stars for the opportunity to fly across the country at his own expense, to speak to a hostile audience, to speak for AT MOST 40 minutes in a 4 man debate where he will have to spend most of his time correcting ergun's charicatures of calvinism, to deal with a referee that works for the host and won't return emails, to chase the caner's all over the Bible cause they wouldn't narrow the topic to something exegetical and focused for a short debate, to use a format that isn't apparently used often for theological debate, and to spend precious time defining a thesis statement that hasn't been clearly explained by the one who wrote it.
Geee, I can't imagine why James would be so whiney, when its such a good situation.
Can either of you muster a sentence of critique for Caner's lack of willingness to even dialogue over a thesis, time, format, moderator? I would feel better about dedicating time to this discussion if you would be reasonable and kind enough to do that.
It seems that you think James is a dog, and a stupid nobody that should be thankful for the opportunity to be on the same stage as Ergun Caner, who has nothing better to do... apparently that's what the Caner's think, otherise they would give him and Tom the courtesy of some imput.
I will concede that James should just pick up the phone and work out the details, I will concede that James could major on the really essential things to make the debate worth while and not aggrivate them by insisting that they be so precise and comprehensive in their email interaction. I will concede that his emails should be more concise. I will concede that everyone could stand to be more humble, including James and certainly Ergun whose site describes him as a man who doesn't flinch, fear, or fail. Amazing.
Do you have ANY critique of Caner as to his unwillingness to compromise or even have a conversation over important details, so taht this will be a top notch event and not a "free for all"? Do think he is being even in the least bit unreasonable in DEMANDING that everything be the way they want it. Which is ironicly what you accuse James of doing.
It would add to your credibility immensely if you would atleast tip your hat to impartiality and share your perception of flaws on both sides. From the get go I said that I liked Caner before all this and his preaching and I actually plan to go hear him in a few months.
FLOUNDERING JAMES
Flounder said...
Your right I guess James should be thanking his lucky stars for the opportunity to fly across the country at his own expense,
After all the claptrap James has written, he seems to be more than lucky . . . he may have made friends with a Genie from those Muslims he has debated. Caner must have an awfully thick skin, or perhaps he just enjoys irritating James by ignoring him.
James should just shut up, show up on time, speak up when his turn comes, and clam up when his time expires. Aferwards, he does not have to write 20,000 words to palabber about the debate, tell how wonderful he was, and how bad the Caners were -- as if no one has sense enough to do that analysis for themselves.
But chances of this type of behavior out of James are probably "slim and none."
that's one
To paraphrase Bob's take:
I can't think of anything that Caner has done wrong. It is perfectly normal to demand that all the details be the way Caner wants it, because after all he is the second coming of Billy Graham, the one who "doesn't fear, flinch, or fail". James is not worthy to clean the dirt of the bottom of Ergun's shoes, so he should travel across country at his own expenses and use his 40 minutes debating a thesis that has not been clarified.
flounder, you're getting to be as big a whiner as James. Must be that White Lightnin' James is passing around.
If memory serves, it was James who challenged the Caners to a public debate. As the challenger, why shouldn't James be accomodating? Especially if he is as knowledgeable and skilled as he claims to be. What's he afraid of? If he's as big and bad as his kool-aid disciples make him out to be, he should be able to roll with a few punches, especially since he's the one who wanted to debate. Instead he whines and whines nonstop.
Ascol has already admitted that he's not a debater. Now James admits publicly that he's not familar with the format they are going to use. But why worry? Why whine about it?
Take Bob Ross, for example. He's ready to rock and roll with James, and I bet he's not nearly concerned about format as long as it's live on stage.
James whined so much with Peter Ruckman that he couldn't even get a debate with the man. Bob Ross went to Ruckman's own church and stood toe-to-toe with him. All you have to do is give a little. But not James. He just wants to suck on his pacifier and scream because the milk is too cold. He needs the Caners to warm it up to the right temp before he'll quit whining.
First ROSSPHOBIA, now Canerphobia. If James doesn't get help he'll be afraid of his own shadow before long.
flounder, you need to quit drinking that White Lightnin'. It's turning your brain to mush. The Caners must accomodate the challenger? That's strange thinking, brother.
As Caner said, it's just one day on the calendar for him. He's the dean at an accredited college. Not James. This debate has become his whole world. Notice how worried he is about distribution rights. Why do you think James is worried about distribution rights? Can you spell, "KA-CHING"!
Speaking of "accredited", ask "Dr." James White where he got his doctorate. The man is desperate for some kind of validation, isn't he? It's a good thing he's got that "Dividing Line" show so his kool-aid followers can call in and give it to him.
Charles
so thats two:
Nothing that Caner should have done differently.
Your hatred of white is unbalanced and unhealthy... and sad.
Have a nice life guys.
You two are about the most pitiful men I have ever seen.
I have watched from the sidelines and outside some thoughtful comments from your reformed guest you to seem to talk to each other in circles. The circles seem to get more and more unstable - You both need a life and a job note not in ministry for your site seems to disqualify you from that -maybe Walmart or yet janitorial services.
I will not pass this way again and I wish I never stopped by for the few times I have checked you out.
By the way you wonder why the people you slander have nothing to say to you - well it is very obvious to the saints.
"WHITE WHINE" DISEASE?
Charles said...
flounder, you're getting to be as big a whiner as James. Must be that White Lightnin' James is passing around.
Excellent analysis, Charles.
"White Lightnin'" has distorted the truth on the new birth, and now "White Whine" is corrupting his disciples' mental capacities.
It has infected "flounder" almost as badly as the case which afflicts James.
You have heard of "pity parties," Charles; I think James should invite all his disciples to go on one of his ocean escursions and have a big "White Whine Wingding."
No, flounder, we have no hatred for James -- we just hate to see such ingratitutde and lack of humility on his part, especially since he professes to be an advocate of "grace." He had a chance to demonstrate grace to the Caners, but all he has given them is a veritable "mooning" by means of his "lectures" about debating, how terrbile they are, and how wonderful he is, etc.
When Paul was hustled up to the Areopagus to speak (Acts 19), do you suppose he had the type of complaints which James has put forth? It appears Paul calmly accommodated himself to the circumstances and made the most of it, even winning some to the Lord (16:34).
Are the Caners a worse case than the Athenians? Why can't James follow Paul's example, and stop the whining?
HYBRID "EVANGELISM"
Scott said...
I just heard some wonderful news at FBC Woodstock. A friend of mine at FBC Woodstock called me this morning and told me that two couples will be leaving the church because they have come to embrace the doctrines of grace
Which -- being interpreted -- means that some who most likely were converted under a non-Hyrid Calvinist ministry, are now "biting the hand" that brought them to the Lord.
This, Charles, is the typical "evangelism" of Hybrid Calvinists. It is known as "proselyting."
The couples will now "go to seed" on the "doctrines of grace," and wind up in a "withering" church pastored by a Hybrid like Scott Morgan.
I was recently reading Arthur Pink's remark about some Hybrid churches in Australia: "Numbers of them that once had a healthy existence are now no more; and some others are already dead; but they are not buried; and I believe one of the main reasons for this -- they failed at the vital point of evangelism. If a church does not evangelize it will fossilize." (Studies in the Scriptures, 1927, page 163).
Of course, the Hybrids think that this "makes an idol out of evangelism," as some of the Founders has alleged.
NOW WE KNOW WHERE THE 'MISSING' MEMBERS ARE!
Charles to Bob:
Brother Bob, Scott Morgan wrote, A friend of mine at FBC Woodstock called me this morning and told me that two couples will be leaving the church because they have come to embrace the doctrines of grace
Brother Bob, you'll remember that Tom Ascol and the Flounders are very concerned about "missing" members at the big, soul-winning churches. "WHERE ARE THEY," Tom asks?
Now we know where they are! The hybrid/hyper/extreme/neo Calvinists are proselyting from Brother Johnny Hunt and other evangelistic churches.
Scott Morgan has answered the question which has been plaguing Tom Ascol for years. Way to go, Scott!
To Scott: Make sure you write Brother Hunt a nice thank you note since you "Flounders" can't seem to populate a church without acting like a blood sucking leech on other churches.
Charles
Scott Morgan, Hello!
You wrote, LET ME QUOTE A SBC MEGA CHURCH PASTOR
I don't believe you, Scott. Prove it.
Charles
ANOTHER LOAD OF SKUDZU
Scott said...
Bob is so afraid to admit the truth about his theology.
You lost any credibility, Scott, when you boasted about wanting to debate me, and after I accepted the challenge, what have you done to arrange such a debate?
I even told you that you could get all the help you wanted -- James White, Tom Ascol, Tom Nettles, Gene Bridges, or even your pedo and Hardshell brethren -- and I would be glad to accommodate you.
I would be happy to show up and present what I understand to be Baptist theology in contrast to the theology of any one or all of the Hybrid Calvinists who allege that they were "born again" before, apart from, and without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.
You can set the date, name the place, and choose the format.
And what have you done thus far to fulfill your challenge?
Squawk, squawk, squawk, and more squawk.
When will you cut the squawking, Scott, and get down to the business of arranging the debate? Surely, some of the Hybrids are willing to have their theology put to the test of public debate, aren't they? Or, are they all just "keyboard kombatants"?
CHANGE CHANNELS
Anonymous said...
You two are about the most pitiful men I have ever seen.
You can always "change channels." I don't think you had to pay a subscription to this channel, did you? Are there not enough pedo and Hybrid blogs to keep you entertained?
It's still a few country. "Pitiful" is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty.
If you believe you were "born again before faith," or got "regenerated" before birth or in your infancy, then it is expected that Charles and I would be pitiful in your eyes.
Scott said, Also, don't think it's been just one!
First it was one, now it's more than one! Scott, this "tale" of yours gets taller by the minute!
Brother, you need to examine your heart about the bitterness you have toward Johnny Hunt. I know it must be difficult not having the good salary that Johnny paid you and now having to struggle to make it. But that's not Johnny's fault, is it?
Your bitterness toward Johnny is eating you up, Brother. Ask your wife if you don't believe me.
Charles
flounder said,
Your hatred of white is unbalanced and unhealthy
I don't hate "Dr." James White. He has done some good work, especially with the Mormons. I wish he would get back to it. His "Letters to a Mormon Elder" was rather good.
Somewhere James lost his way. I suspect he got one too many "attaboys" which puffed him up to the point that he actually believed the "hero worship" bestowed on him by his followers.
Like many extreme/hyper/hybrid/neo Calvinists, in my opinion James' "Calvinism" has become his obsession to the point that he seems to believe that God will not bring glory to Himself without help from James. It's sad.
Charles
THAT'S HOW IT IS WITH KUDZU
Charles said...
Scott said, Also, don't think it's been just one!
First it was one, now it's more than one! Scott, this "tale" of yours gets taller by the minute!
If you have ever been to Georgia, Charles, you know that is how it is with "Kudzu." It starts small, then just keeps on growing, taking over the woods and countryside.
Like Hybrid Calvinism, Kudzu was imported from a "foreign" source.
WHERE HE LOST IT
Charles said...
Somewhere James lost his way.
He lost it, Charles, when he adopted Hybrid Calvinism on "regeneration," that one is "born again before faith" (The Potter's Freedom, pages 84, 287; Debating Calvinism, page 198, 217, 305).
He departed from Creedal Calvinism when he fell for Hybrid Calvinism and made an artificial separation between "regeneration" and "salvation." Berkhof did the same thing on "effectual calling" and "regeneration."
This theory lead James to make a faulty "exegesis" on 1 John 5:1, which was never designed to teach the so-called "ordo salutis" of the pedos.
That won him "attaboys" from the pedos and other Hybrids whom he solicited to write blurbs for his books. This stroked his pride, to have "scholars" endorsing him.
Once the hook was in his mouth, he was "strung up" by Hybrid Calvinism.
DEBATE ABOUT THE DEBATE
Bob to Charles:
I was on the Foundders blog, Charles, and it seems a "debate about the debate" is breaking out. Some want James and Tom to pull out, while others want them to push ahead.
Also, James' griping and whining has now spilled over onto the Founders' blog, and Tom is posting and linking to all of the trashtalk and whine. James' manners have finally corrupted Tom's professed effort to show good manners.
If the Caners can so "corrupt" both James' website and Tom's, that says a whole lot more about James and Tom. It seems that James and Tom can really work up a heavy sweat about any little "discretion" on the part of the conniving Caners -- as if it has a lot of significance.
James insatiable appetite for debating has apparently created a veritiable "mud fight."
Bradley lifts up and exalts the sovereign God of the Universe in ways that most of the preacher boys at SBTS are incapable of doing. Perhaps the exaltation of Christ and the recognition of the sovereignty of God is salvation and indeed in all things is why he was invited.
Bob. Stop acting like an Arminian. You're confirming the stereotypes.
Post a Comment
<< Home