Unanswered email to Nettles and Mohler
UNANSWERED INQUIRY TO SBTSLEADERS IN REGARD TO REPORTED VISIT
BY "HARDSHELL" LASSERRE BRADLEY JR.
Bob's Note: I sent the following email on April 23, 2006 and have not as yet received a reply, even after sending it again later. Both Dr. Tom Nettles and Dr. R. Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary had previously corresponded with me via email, but since I sent this email, neither has had any contact with me.
The announcement that Dr. Mohler is going to be one of the candidates for the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention has once again revived my interest in why neither Dr. Nettles nor Dr. Mohler has ever responded to this inquiry.
The words in brackets have been added to the original email for the sake of clarity to current readers.
To: Dr. Tom Nettles and copy to Dr. R. Albert Mohler
Dear Brother Nettles:
As you know, I have expressed a great deal of public concern over the rise of certain views on the New Birth for quite sometime. 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 Lasserre Bradley Jr. since he was 19 or 20 years old [when I first met and talked with him in Ashland, Kentucky at the residence of Pastor Henry Mahan of 13th Street Baptist Church], and when he went into the Hardshells [Primitive Baptist Church] in the late 1950s he reeked havoc in Eastern Kentucky among some churches when I was living in Ashland. He [Bradley] led astray several of our personal preacher friends who traipsed off after him into Hardshellism on the matter of "regeneration" [the new birth].
It grieves me to bring this matter to you, but since you hold such an influential position in Baptist ranks, I would not have an easy conscience unless I heard directly from you about the nature of your association with Bradley, if this allegation is indeed true. 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 Lasserre Bradley Jr. and what, if any, doctrinal implications are involved, from your point of view.
I have not concealed my deep disappointment with the Southern Baptist Seminary's decline in the direction of what I believe to be detrimental theology on the new birth, and I will continue to scrutinize the developments that arise in days ahead and make public commentary concerning them.
Thank you for giving this matter your attention. I await your response.
Sincerely,Bob L. Ross, 3 John 2
[End of email to Nettles and Mohler]
NOTE to Flyswatter readers:
Subsequent to the above email, the following report of the visit was made by Lasserre Bradley, Jr. himself to the Pastor who passed it along to me. This Pastor said:
"He [Bradley] mentioned that he had been in chapel at Southern, not long before the time I met him. He had gone to Southern to visit Tom Nettles at Nettles' invitation. In all fairness, he was merely having a dialogue with Nettles as he and I were talking."
If Tom Nettles invited Lasserre Bradley Jr. to Southern Seminary, it raises some very serious questions. Bradley is the most noted Hardshell heretic of the past half century, and one who for years has been an enemy of the confessional Baptist doctrine taught in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. He is a champion of the "regeneration precedes faith," "born again before faith" heresy.
Unless Nettles invited Bradley to the Seminary as a means of confronting him for his heresies, I see no other legitimate and reasonable purpose for such an invitation. It makes no sense whatsoever to have a Hardshell preacher in the chapel at SBTS nor to "dialogue" with him other than to refute his heresies.
I am very interested in what Tom Nettles and Al Mohler might have to say about Bradley's visit. It has been nearly two years, and I have had no reply from either Nettles nor Mohler about this matter. Perhaps someone at the next SB Convention meeting can get some reply from Mohler about Bradley's appearance at the Seminary.
Of course, Lasserre Bradley Jr. is not really such a very "special" case inasmuch as Mohler has also had Presbyterians such as John Frame and R. C. Sproul at the Seminary, and they stand for the Pedobaptist heresy that infants which are born to believers get "regenerated" in infancy, or even before they are born (according to Frame).
posted by Bob L. Ross @ 1:06 PM
4 Comments:
I'm mean this as no offense to either of the blog contributors here but in order to draw a response from someone like Al Mohler (or a great many people) you might want to consider re-vamping your blog site. It is confusing when the two of you bounce off of one another. Moreover, I would suggest a less harsh tone in your blog. It is one thing to draw interest to this site, it is another to keep it.
Thanks.
Steve
Bob to Steve
It would be interesting, Steve, to know where you are "coming from."
I don't speak for Charles, but I really don't expect any applause for either our content or style from those who identify with the views and entities with whom we differ.
BTW, Al Mohler at one time did correspond with me. We gave him a good "deal" on a set of Spurgeon's sermons, and I was even once (1995) on the same "Spurgeon's Pastors Conference" with Mohler, Timothy George, and Mark Coppenger held at William Jewell College. This was before Brother Al took the "fork in the road" which headed down toward "Presbyterianville."
I think there are many visitors to your site who empathise with your view on Calvinists (possibly more than you know). However, the site appears convoluted to the first time visitor with the way the two of you are constantly patting each other on the back and with the way it's formated. Also, although it is intriguing the way you bounce around people like Ascol and Mohler (in my view they deserve it) I think you would do well to note your sources when you procur something that you state as fact (ie Mohler making underlings sign papers outlining their belief in inerrancy etc). The more the two of you can keep things on a high plane while doing your thrashing the more effective you'll be. And, I'm wondering if you'll do a thread on Mohler running for presidency of the SBC and if you think he will creat more division than unification if he wins the nomination.
Thanks.
Steve
Bob to Steve:
Steve said --
However, the site appears convoluted to the first time visitor with the way the two of you are constantly patting each other on the back and with the way it's formated.
From my standpoint, Steve, I want to stay on "the good side of Charles." I will pat hiim on the back every chance I get!
After all, Charles is the one who virtually made me a blogger by first bravely using my materials on his blog, and then promoting me to be a Contributor with direct access to posting.
However, I do agree that Charles could be less profusive and embellishing with his compliments of my articles. I don't really need it or expect it; the fact that he uses my writings is enough within itself to please me. After all, I have had 55 years behind me during which I have had a good share of polemical encounters, and my greatest satisfaction has come, not so much from "the choir" (friends) as from those who have turned from the error of their way. I've had a number of people tell me -- including many preachers -- that my writings have helped them escape the snare of some aberrant doctrine, practice, or sect. I've even had some preachers tell me they have resumed giving "invitations" after reading my refutations of Hybrid Calvinists.
Steve: Also, although it is intriguing the way you bounce around people like Ascol and Mohler (in my view they deserve it) I think you would do well to note your sources when you procur something that you state as fact . . .
If there is something lacking in this regard, please cite it and I'm sure we will be able to refer you to the sources.
Steve: The more the two of you can keep things on a high plane while doing your thrashing the more effective you'll be.
If we are not keeping things on a high plane, you may cite the instances you have in mind. We'll be glad to consider your input.
Steve: And, I'm wondering if you'll do a thread on Mohler running for presidency of the SBC and if you think he will creat more division than unification if he wins the nomination.
Dr. Mohler has said he will not run for the presidency due to his health problem. No comment on that seems to be in order.
As for future "division," as long as the Founders' version of "Calvinism" is promoted to proselyte Southern Baptists to aberrant doctrine and practice, I think division will occur, regardless of who is president of the SBC.
I had an email this week which told of a split in a church in Norcross, Georgia where "Flounderism" became an obsession with the pastor and some of the members. After failing to proselyte the church to Flounderism, the pastor and his followers left and started another church.
I noticed on the new Flounders-affiliated church's website that they have a list of
"recommended reading" which is loaded with Pedobaptist Hybrid Calvinist writers who teach "born again before faith," including Louis Berkhof and Iain Murray. It is obvious what caused the split -- Hybrid Calvinism. Such teaching as that would most likely split any Baptist church worthy of the name Baptist.
Post a Comment
<< Home