Dr. Al Mohler and The Homosexual
What do Southern Baptists expect from their seminary presidents? Someone who can teach men of God how to start and grow a church? If so, they are not getting it from Dr. Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Maybe because he’s never done it.If Dr. Mohler is not teaching young men how to build a church then what is he doing with the money of Southern Baptists? Well, recently, he invited an open homosexual on his radio show for a friendly chat. Indeed, Dr. Mohler has expressed great appreciation for this man’s writings. You can read the transcript here.
Southern Baptists - what are you looking for in a seminary president? Are you pleased with Al Mohler or is it time for a change?
Charles
posted by Charles @ 10:13 PM
13 Comments:
MOHLER, WHITE, AND PERVERTS
Charles said . . .
First it was "Reformed" James White soliciting homosexual- defender Bishop Spong and paying him to debate.
Now it is "Reformed" Al Mohler inviting a homosexual for a friendly chat.
Is this where Hybrid Calvinism leads -- giving public platforms to the advocates of perversion to propagate their perverted concepts and lifestyles?
Brother Bob, Hello!
You wrote, Is this where Hybrid Calvinism leads
Since hybrid/hyper/neo/extreme Calvinism is a pseudo-intellectual movement and not a biblical one, it only makes sense that its advocates would seek engagement and approval of other "intellectuals."
Look at Mohler's statements about Sullivan:
we both intend to be serious men of ideas
I want to congratulate you on having written a book, because it is a step of significant, I would say, responsibility to make an argument. I want to take the argument as seriously as you have made it in your book.
Mohler says Sullivan is one of the most interesting people now commenting in the news and I always look for his columns, including when he wrote the TRB column. I never missed one of his essays.
When Sullivan calls Mohler "an intelligent fundamentalist," Mohler gushes with appreciation and says, Well, that's nice. I'm glad at least you don't think that's an oxymoron.
Mohler adds, I consider it a privilege to be in conversation today with Andrew Sullivan
Brother Bob, have you ever in your life witnessed such pandering? Amazing.
Charles
"SISSIES"?
Charles said...
When Sullivan calls Mohler "an intelligent fundamentalist," Mohler gushes with appreciation and says, Well, that's nice. I'm glad at least you don't think that's an oxymoron.
Mohler adds, I consider it a privilege to be in conversation today with Andrew Sullivan
Brother Bob, have you ever in your life witnessed such pandering? Amazing.
When I was in school in the 1950s, Charles, "gay" was not a popular term for homosexuals. The "q" word was the more common term, or something more "colorful." It was not "politically correct" in those days to loggygag with sodomists as if their views on anything were worth being considered on interview programs conducted by Baptist seminary presidents.
As for some others who manifested certain traits and attributes which seemed to imply effeminacy, the common word was for these was "sissy." In those days, if they had "gushed" and considered it a "privilege" to converse with a "conservative" who practices sodomy, they at least would have been regarded as "sissies," if not worse.
I have met a number of Hybrid Calvinists who apparently are of the same "sissy" variety, several of them being of the
"intelligentsia" category.
It is rather depressing that the actions of a current president of a Southern Baptist seminary would most likely qualify him for "sissyhood" if measured by the standard of former times.
my question is.....why was mohler put into the office of president of southern to begin with? i mean, the leaders of the sbc should have known that he was a five pointer. so, why was he put there in the first place? what were these men thinking?
from the hills of tn,
volfan007
On Al Mohler: Don't get this interview at all. While I do believe in engaging homosexuals in dialog...for a Seminary President to go so far as to compliment and pander to his ideas, makes me question what his purpose in doing so. Ultimately, what did it accomplish? Nope, just don't get this one. And no, I don't feel Mohler should be President of Southern. selahV
ABOUT MOHLER
volfan007 said...
my question is.....why was mohler put into the office of president of southern to begin with? i mean, the leaders of the sbc should have known that he was a five pointer. so, why was he put there in the first place? what were these men thinking?
At the time Mohler took office as President of SBTS, he had not, to my knowledge, manifested a penchant for Hybrid Calvinism. He seemed to be more "Spurgeonic." His penchant to promote Hybrid Calvinism became noticeable when he openly began to embellish the "Reformed" baby regenerationists.
Mohler gained favor with at least some of the SBTS trustees while serving at the Seminary from 1983 as "Coordinator of Foundation Support" and as "Director of Capital Funding." Also, he served as assistant to then-President Roy Honeycutt. From hearsay via a Baptist pastor who knows Mohler very well, I understand that one very influential trustee in particular "stumped" for Mohler to become President.
"Calvinism" is not really the basic problem with Mohler; rather, it is his involvement with and promotion of Hybrid Calvinism with its "pre-faith regeneration" or "born again before faith" heresy, as advocated today by the "Reformed" baby regenerationist camp, such as Sproul, Duncan, Frame, etc. -- which is the same view held by the "Hardshell" Baptists who oppose evangelism, missions, public invitations to the lost, and aggressive soul-winning efforts. Hybrid Calvinism fosters the proselytism of Christians to certain theological views in contrast to soul-winning.
Mohler was not promoting that heterodoxy when the leaders of the "conservative resurgence," such as Paige Patterson, welcomed his becoming President at SBTS.
Since then, however, Mohler has "run interference" for the carriers of the Hybrid Calvinist "virus," hiring Tom Nettles and other Hybrids as Faculty at SBTS, and lending his personal support to embellish the "Reformed" baby regenerationists by his associations with them. Even John Frame, who teaches that fetuses are "born again" in the womb, has been a guest speaker at the Seminary. Also, Hardshell heretic, Lasserre Bradley Jr., the leading Hardshell preacher in the USA for the past 40 years, has even been an invited guest at the Seminary. These associations by Mohler certainly should cause some degree of consternation to Southern Baptists who believe that "Effectual Calling" is by both the Word and Spirit of God, and not by the "Spirit alone."
Mohler, apparently, would be "more at home" with the Hybrid Calvinist Presbyterians than with Southern Baptists.
NO HYBRIDS IN HEAVEN?
Timotheos said...
By Flyswatter reckoning, SelahV, the New Jerusalem will be posted with some such warning sign: "Hybrids and their kind - keep out! This means YOU, Tom." ;-)
I wonder, Timo, if you ever read in the Works of Augustus Toplady about the passing of an Arminian, John Goodwin?
When told of the death, Thomas Goodwin, his uncle and a Calvinist, remarked, "Then there is another good man gone to Heaven."
"Gone to heaven, Sir?" asked another; "why, your nephew was an Arminian."
Thomas Goodwin replied, "True: he was an Arminian on earth, but he is not an Arminian now."
Likewise, the Hybrids will lose their Hybridism -- if not in this life -- they will lose it when they pass on to glory.
bob,
i loved your response to timotheos. that was classic....great story too.
btw, you may be more calvinistic than i am, but when i say five pointers i am referring to the dr. nettles type. what you call hybrid, neo calvinists. and, to all those five pointers who feel the need to convert everyone...who are evangelists for calvinism rather than for Jesus.
from the hills of tn,
volfan007
MOHLER'S IMAGE
charles said . . .
What do Southern Baptists expect from their seminary presidents?
Bob to Charles:
It appears to me, Charles, that Al Mohler is creating the image of himself as a "pragmatist." He seems to be "all things to all men" to promote Al Mohler -- a veritable politician.
For example, he nivites Hybrid Calvinist "baby regenerationists" as speakers and he often is a guest speaker for them to advance their cause -- yet, on the other hand he also panders to SBC President Frank Page, an anti-Calvinist, and has Page to speak at the Seminary.
He frequently critiques same-sex marriage and homosexuality, yet has a homosexual on his program and alleges he has a great interest in this pervert's thinking and writing.
He is wadding in all waters, and using the media outlets to embellish himself as an analyst, commentator, theologian, philosopher and on some issues a pseudo-politician of sorts.
He associates with the Hybrid Calvinist critics of "decisional regeneration" (as they call it) and public invitations to accept Christ ("altar calls"), yet he has the "Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism and Church Growth" at Southern Seminary, named after the evangelist who has seen more "decisions" than any other preacher in this age.
He professes to be a "Five Point Calvinist," yet he serves on the board of Five Point Arminian James Dobson's "Focus on the Family." Dobson recently said that he was converted at age 3 under Arminian preaching in an Arminian Nazarene church during an "invitation" or "altar call," when he asked the Lord to save him. All of these things are "Arminian," according to Hybrid Calvinists.
Mohler claims to believe the 1689 Baptist Confession, yet one of the greatest enemies of that Confession, Hardshell Baptist Lasserre Bradley Jr., has been a guest at SBTS. Furthermore, Hybrid Calvinsts on the Faculty teach contrary to the Confession on "Effectual Calling."
Mohler has had Paige Patterson to speak at SBTS, yet he promotes the Founders Ministries (Tom Ascol and company) which comprises some who would apparently like to see Patterson's head on a platter.
Mohler apparently is the ultimate "politician" and will accommodate to embellish himself.
To my knowledge, he has never pastored, never engaged in evangelism, and certainly never started a church.
Granted, on the surface he portrays himself as being highly "intellectual," and is keen to keep abreast of sources which represent a wide variety of social, political, religious, and other developments, but -- as you ask, Charles -- is that what Southern Baptists expect of their seminary presidents?
MOHLER HAS MACARTHUR
Bob to Charles:
I noticed on a blogsite -- of what appears to be one of Dr. Mohler's students at Southern Seminary -- a reference to John MacAthur's recently speaking there. The bloq quotes MacArthur as follows:
>>
I don't have any problem with calling Him the eternal Son therefore. But I do understand that there is a uniqueness to His incarnation in that the Scripture says, "This day have I begotten Thee." And that's related to His incarnation.
>>
[http://alindsey4.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, November 7, 2006.]
I'm not sure what J-Mac implies by the words "uniqueness" and "related," but his language seems to indicate that he may still be struggling a bit with some passages on "Sonship" which were wrongly used in the past when he taught "incarnational sonship" -- at least on this particular Scripture (Psalm 2:7).
The blogger himself expresses disagreeament with J-Mac, and thinks Psalm 2:7 relates to the resurrection.
In my book on "The Trinity and Eternal Sonship of Christ," it is demonstrated that creedal Christianity holds that neither the incarnation nor the resurrection constitutes the Sonship of Christ, but are simply manifestations of His Eternal Sonship.
A. H. Strong more appropriately expresses the essence of Psalms 2:7, which is the view most frequently found in orthodox theologians and commentators. Strong's work on systematic theology has an impressive presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity (Vol. I, part iv, chapter 2). On pages 340-343, he expounds the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ. In this section, Strong says --
>>
That the Sonship of Christ is eternal, is intimated in Psalm 2:7. "This day have I begotten thee" is most naturally interpreted as the declaration of an eternal fact in the divine nature. Neither the incarnation, the baptism, the transfiguration, nor the resurrection marks the beginning of Christ's Sonship, or constitutes him Son of God. These are but recognitions or manifestations of a pre-existing Sonship, inseparable from his Godhood.
>>
Therefore, Psalms 2:7 can be said to be "related" to both the incarnation and the resurrection only in the sense of their being "declarations," "recognitions," or "manifestations" of the "pre-existing Sonship."
According to Dr. John Gill, Matthew Henry, and others (on Psalm 2:7), the "day" refers to eternity, an everlasting now or day:
>>
The date of it, "today", designs eternity, as in Isa 43:13, which is one continued day, an everlasting now. And this may be applied to any time and case in which Christ is declared to be the Son of God; as at his incarnation, his baptism, and transfiguration upon the mount, and his resurrection from the dead, as it is in Ac 13:33; because then he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Ro 1:4; and to his ascension into heaven, where he was made Lord and Christ, and his divine sonship more manifestly appeared; which seems to be the time and case more especially referred to here, if it be compared with Heb 1:3.
>> [John Gill, Commentary].
It was not indicated on the blog whether Al Mohler expressed any disagreement or alternative to MacArthur's remarks. I just hope that the students at SBTS get a better understanding of the Sonship of Christ than the blogger has gotten at the Seminary.
First it was "Reformed" James White soliciting homosexual- defender Bishop Spong and paying him to debate.
How much did he pay him? Or did somebody else pay him? Was he even paid? Details please.
Now it is "Reformed" Al Mohler inviting a homosexual for a friendly chat.
So, what're you're saying is that Christians should not actually interact with non-Christians in a public forum like a radio show so that others can understand their views and learn how to interact with them?
my question is.....why was mohler put into the office of president of southern to begin with? i mean, the leaders of the sbc should have known that he was a five pointer. so, why was he put there in the first place? what were these men thinking?
According to this logic, James Boyce and John Broadus were unqualifed to teach there too.
Even John Frame, who teaches that fetuses are "born again" in the womb, has been a guest speaker at the Seminary.
Actually, those would be babies, not fetuses, or are we to assume you agree that pre-born children are not truly human beings? In addition, Dr. Frame has stated that this is the exception and an abstract possibility, not the rule.
Also, Hardshell heretic, Lasserre Bradley Jr., the leading Hardshell preacher in the USA for the past 40 years, has even been an invited guest at the Seminary. Bradley belongs to the Progressive Primitive Baptists, not the Old Hardshell Baptists. If you were interested in truth, you'd tell your readers that the Old Hardshells have criticized Bradley for opposing such things as preaching to the elect and anti-missionism. At most, he affirms the Hardshell doctrine of regeneration, which is demonstrably not the doctrine of the Princeton tradition of Dr. John Frame or of any Reformed Baptist.
For example, he nivites Hybrid Calvinist "baby regenerationists" as speakers and he often is a guest speaker for them to advance their cause
Really? What cause are they advancing when the speak, what is the content of the messages they have delivered in chapel? I see one by J. Ligon Duncan on prayer and another on godliness. R.C. Sproul spoke on the topic: holiness and justice (From Leviticus 10) not infant regeneration. I can only conclude that you believe that the agenda of the seminary should not involve preaching on God' s character, prayer, and godliness to the students. Either that, or you have no concern for the truth.
He professes to be a "Five Point Calvinist," yet he serves on the board of Five Point Arminian James Dobson's "Focus on the Family." Dobson recently said that he was converted at age 3 under Arminian preaching in an Arminian Nazarene church during an "invitation" or "altar call," when he asked the Lord to save him. All of these things are "Arminian," according to Hybrid Calvinists.
All this shows is that he isn't a neo-Gnostic hyper-Calvinist that believes that anybody who is not a Calvinist is not a heretic. Yet here Bob has classified anybody that disagrees with his beliefs a "heretic." You and Bob are the mirror-images of those very hyper-Calvinists.
[John Gill, Commentary].
According your views, Gill would be heretic, so why do you feel so comfortable quoting from him while calling him a heretic. You say it is illicit for "hybrid Calvinists" to appeal to Presbyterians for their theology or allow them to speak at SBTS, yet you appeal to a man who is viewed as a high Calvinist or a hyper-Calvinist when it suits you.
NOT OUR WORDS!
SBCTeacher said...
So, what're you're saying is that Christians should not actually interact with non-Christians in a public forum like a radio show so that others can understand their views and learn how to interact with them?
Those are not our words, but do you really think anyone actually needs to listen to homosexuals -- or "porn stars," atheists, terrorists, same-sex marriage advocates, etc. -- to "under their views and learn to interact with them"?
According to this logic, James Boyce and John Broadus were unqualifed to teach there too.
There is really no logic to your assertion.
Actually, those would be babies, not fetuses, or are we to assume you agree that pre-born children are not truly human beings?
Again, you "jump to confusion." Do you support the idea that the "elect" are born again before they are actually born?
Bradley belongs to the Progressive Primitive Baptists, not the Old Hardshell Baptists.
Oh? When did he affiliate with the Progressives?
If you were interested in truth, you'd tell your readers that the Old Hardshells have criticized Bradley for opposing such things as preaching to the elect and anti-missionism.
If you had read my Hardshell series on this site, you would realize that I have taken note of some criticisms of Bradley by other Hardshells. But that has been going on for years, even from his earliest affiliation with them.
At most, he affirms the Hardshell doctrine of regeneration, which is demonstrably not the doctrine of the Princeton tradition of Dr. John Frame or of any Reformed Baptist.
Sorry -- but "born again before and without faith" is the same doctrine as taught by these "Reformed" sources. We have demonstrated this several times with quotations on this site.
What cause are they advancing when the speak, what is the content of the messages they have delivered in chapel?
Embellishing these men by having them to speak in the Chapel is an "advancement" of their cause, so far as I am concerned.
Bob has classified anybody that disagrees with his beliefs a "heretic."
I understand Scripture to identify one as a "heretic" when he teaches heresy. Don't you?
According your views, Gill would be heretic, so why do you feel so comfortable quoting from him while calling him a heretic.
I am not aware of anything I have written which alleges that John Gill taught heresy? I had an entire chapter on Gill in my Hardshell series, demonstrating that he was not a Hardshell Hybrid type. We gave numerous quotations from Gill to demonstrate he did not teach the Hybrid heresy of "born again before faith."
BRADLEY AND HARDSHELLS
SBCTeacher said...
Bradley belongs to the Progressive Primitive Baptists, not the Old Hardshell Baptists.
I checked Bradley's website and there is no evidence there which indicates he has changed his Hardshell affiliation and now "belongs to the Progressive Primitive Baptist" sect, which also teaches "born again before faith" heresy.
Also, I note that Bradley is still peddling the books and writings by "Old Line" authors as he has done for years.
Post a Comment
<< Home