Saturday, March 17, 2007

Al Mohler: Homosexuality May Be Genetic

Dr. Al Mohler is at it again. Instead of concentrating his efforts on training pastors, something he is paid to do as the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, he has apparently decided again that he wants Richard Land's job.

Mohler's latest offering is to declare to the world that a homosexual's sinful behavior might stem from a genetic defect. This comes right on the heels of his inviting an open homosexual on his radio show for a friendly chat and expressing great appreciation for the man’s writings. A few weeks later, he rebuked pundit Ann Coulter for using a slang word describing homosexuals. Anyone see a pattern here?

Even the hybrid/hyper/neo/extreme Reformed Calvinists, Mohler's main base of support, are frustrated with him. Carla Rolfe, in an article on "Mohler and Queers," said it best: "Color me confused."
http://carla_rolfe.blogspot.com/2007/03/color-me-confused.html

I have a question for my fellow Southern Baptists: Are we getting our money's worth from Dr. Al Mohler? We pay him to train pastors even though he's never been a full-time pastor. He seems to want to do everything except what he is paid to do. So why do we keep paying him?

Charles

posted by Charles @ 3:02 PM

1 Comments:

At Saturday, March 17, 2007 5:50:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MOHLER AT SPROUL'S CONFERENCE

Bob to Charles:

I noticed, Charles, on Challies' blog a summary of the messages delivered by Al Mohler at R. C. Sproul's current Ligonier conference.

Mohler's participation in Sproul's conference is further evidence of Mohler's willingly allowing his prestigious office as SBTS president to be used by the "baby regenerationists" as "wallpaper" for their "nursery" of "born again covenant babies."

It was a golden opportunity for Mohler to refute the "born again before faith" Hardshell/Reformed heresy of Sproul and his Hybrid Calvinist disciples.

Evidently, Mohler took a by-pass route, unless Challies failed to mention it.

While Mohler has pontificated recently about unborn babies' sexual orientation, he squandered an excellent opportunity to present the truth in contrast to Sproul's "regeneration" heresy which permeates the Reformed "baby regeneration" hatcheries. He took the "politically correct" approach and said nothing.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home