Flounders discover the commission?
AT LONG LAST, HAVE THE FLOUNDERSDISCOVERED THE COMMISSION?On his
October 28, 2008 blog, Timmy Brister, Assistant to Flounders' chief, Tom Ascol, wrote:
"On July 13,Tom Ascol shared with the church the evidence from Scripture (in particular the book of Acts) that a church cannot fulfill the Great Commission apart from being a church planting church." If this statement is valid, it raises a disturbing question about Flounders' Friendly churches -- including the base church in Cape Coral, Florida -- and that is, since the beginning of the Flounders' movement,
how many of their churches actually qualify as "fulfilling the Great Commission"?
To my knowledge, the Flounders' base church in Cape Coral has never planted another church. In fact, planting churches was not even mentioned in the original
"purpose" of the Flounders movement which got its start under the leadership of
Ernest Reisinger. The movement majored on conferences, promotion of the "doctrines of grace," propaganda about "recovering the Gospel," and "reforming" existing churches to "Reformed" Pedobaptist theology and ecclesiology.
Since we have been emphasizing the fact that neither the Flounders nor other "Reformed" Baptist churches have a
significant track record of evangelism and the establishing of churches, -- and that churches cannot merely depend upon proselyting "Arminians" to "Calvinism" to survive and flourish -- there has seemingly been a very considerable change of emphasis in some Flounders' activities and writings.
They are increasingly talking, frequently conferring, and elaborately writing about "church planting" and "missional lifestyle" matters. One can research the history of the Flounders back to the origin in 1982 when Ernest Reisinger and several of his proteges among the Southern Baptists --
Fred Malone, Tom Nettles, Ben Mitchell, Bill Ascol and
Tom Ascol, R. F. Gates -- met together at a motel in Euless, Texas and planned a "Conference" to be held in Memphis (
A Quiet Revolution, pages 56-57), and
there has been little to no "church planting" emphasized -- and no statistics reported.
After all these years, they are
finally at least talking about planting churches. Perhaps they have at last "discovered" the Great Commission and are taking their first steps toward trying to participate in its fulfillment. Perhaps they are coming to the realization that the Commission is about winning lost souls, not about
"reforming" (or splitting) alleged "Arminian" and "Pelagian" churches and turning them into Hybrid Calvinist "Reformed" Pedobaptist-like churches.
Flounders plant a blog
FLOUNDERS ANNOUNCE PLANTINGOF ANOTHER BLOGI received an email from a reader who called my attention to the fact that Flounders' assistant, Timmy Brister, and Flounders' head, Tom Ascol, have launched what they call a "church planting" blog,
http://sowinggrace.com/It is said:
"In order to facilitate discussion, provide resources, and encourage those involved in church planting, a new blog was created called Sowing Grace. Tom Ascol and I will be addressing issues related to church planting directly related to our church planting center but also indirectly to anyone who finds the information profitable."The gentleman who wrote to me asked if either Ascol or Brister had ever planted a church, and I replied as follows:
The only "planting" that Ascol and Brister have done -- at least, to my knowledge -- is the planting of blogs and twitters. If either one has planted a church, I am not aware of it. They recently have talked a lot, read a lot, and conferred a lot about church planting (according to their writings), but if anything like a church has been planted they have not mentioned it. The
"purpose" of the Flounders has always been to allegedly
"recover the Gospel" and
"reform" churches, and if they are now going to try to "plant" churches, we hope they can do a better job at this than they have done in their orginal purpose.
LEAD -- A Pedo conference?
BRISTER TUTORED AT APEDOBAPTIST CONFERENCE?It seems that both Timmy Brister, assistant to Flounders' leader, Tom Ascol, and perhaps even other Flounders have been tutored the past few days by the Pedobaptists.
Concerning the
LEAD conference in St. Louis, I received the following information via email about the speakers involved:
>>
Five of the leaders are paedobaptistic (Bradley, Chapell, Doriani, Thune and Nabors), but I would not say it is under the control of Covenant Theological Seminary (two of the presenters, Bradley and Chapell, teach there and Randy Nabors is a graduate). I have searched in vain for denominational affiliation for the other churches/pastors on their respective church websites, including the host church, The Journey. However, Matt Carter of Austin Stone Community Church appears to be associated with Southern Baptists of Texas (
http://www.austinstone.org/who/church_history) and Jonathan McIntosh of The Journey was educated at Missouri Baptist University (
http://www.journeyon.net/jonathan-mcintosh/).
I don't understand why churches cannot put an affiliation on their websites, even if to say they are unaffiliated or nondenominational.
Ian
>>
It is strange how those who claim to be successors of Southern Baptist "founders" of the 19th century are so infatuated with non-Baptist tutors.
____________________________
Concerning comments
IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT . . .I have received some commentary with regard to the posting of comments. In Charles' necessary absence, please note the following:You may send comments to my email address --
pilgrimpub@aol.com -- and I will be happy to post them on this blog.
From time-to-time, Charles (who has the exclusive facility for the posting of comments submitted via the blog's form by readers) has to be away and is not able to attend to the blog in regard to posts submitted via the form.
Therefore, anyone who wishes to post a comment may email it to me and I will be able to place it in the comments category. -- Bob L. Ross
ESV Study Bible & regeneration
DOES THE ESV STUDY BIBLE TEACHHYBRID CALVINISM ON NEW BIRTH?I received the following email from Ian:
>>
Bob:
Not surprisingly, Steve Camp and Monergism.com laud the
ESV Study Bible for teaching that
regeneration precedes faith. The problem is the ESVSB did not get this right nor is this biblical 'monergism' (if the term must be used).
It is sad that neither Camp nor Monergism.com highlight evangelistic study sections from the ESV since these would point men and women toward faith in Christ.
http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2008/10/regeneration-precedes-faith-esvsb-gets.htmlIan
<<
Bob's comment:
While I have not studied the notes in the ESV Study Bible, if indeed it teaches
"regeneration precedes faith," that is certainly contrary to
Creedal Calvinism, Baptist Confessions, and noted Baptist Theologians. It is, however, the view of several post-seventeenth century
Pedobaptists, such as Shedd, Berkhof, and Sproul who maintain the
"covenant children" notion that children born to believers receive "regeneration" in early infancy.
Steve Camp and John Hendryx's so-called "Monergism" website teach the
born again before and without faith heresy which we have refuted in a number of articles on this blog for more than two years.
This heresy is the "heart" of Hardshellism.
Stephen Garrett has posted comments on Camp's blog which take a stand for the truth that there is
no regeneration (new birth) without faith. Also,
Stephen's own blog,
Baptist Gadfly, has a mass of material which maintains what we understand to be the truth on the new birth -- sinners called
"by the Word and Spirit," not by the Spirit alone or apart from the means of the Gospel. See 1 Corinthians 4:15 --
For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.For a thorough study on the subject, see Puritan
Stephen Charnock:
A Discourse of the Word, the Instrument in Regeneration.
Just "head cheese"?
A READER'S REMARKS ON CERTAINTERMS USED BY MODERN THEORISTSIt seems to be the case that most of the talk and writing originating from people in, or associated with, the Flounders' camp is probably nothing more than "head cheese" -- just a lot of chopped up stuff mixed together.
See Wikipedia definition.
Ed Stetzer and Timmy Brister are a couple of the Internet sources for a lot of such "head cheese," "souse," or just plain ole "baloney."
Here's an email I received which comments on some of the current "head cheese" propagated by alleged
"church planters" who concentrate on
theory in their writings and "conferences" in contrast to the actual practice of winning souls and starting churches.
>>
Many terms and phrases are coined by persons in our day to describe what the church is supposed to be by nature, namely, a witnessing body of believers to an unbelieving world. While the phrase
"missional" came into prominence about two years ago and has ascendency, I don't understand this
"movemental Christianity" that Timmy Brister has used on a few occasions (
see here). It seems a strange term to me.
Ed Stetzer has also used it. I have consulted a few dictionaries, including my
Shorter English Oxford Dictionary, and there is no such word as
"movemental." Why not use commonly recognized phrases or biblical phraseology which is already familiar and has a goodly heritage?
What strange things we create.
With regards,
Ian
>>
These types are generally "arm chair," "conference," and "seminar" types who attempt to dazzle people with "vain jangling" rather than having anything substantial to actually show by way of practice. They seem to speak and write to impress one another.
Ernest Reisinger, when he was alive, was always using the words
"reform" and its derivatives, but his "model" of reform turned out to be a model for division and decline. See
Founders Local Church Reformation. When the likes of Brister, Stetzer, and the Flounders have anything substantial to demonstrate their "missional" and "movemental Christianity," then perhaps people will get some idea about what type of product is actually produced in accordance with their theoretical "head cheese."
"Together for the gospel"?
DR. STEVE LEMKE ON BAPTISTS-PRESBYTERIANSDr. Steve Lemke of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary has an interesting article about the differences between Pedobaptist Presbyterians and Baptists.
What is a Baptist? Nine Marks that Separate Baptists from PresbyteriansTimmy Brister, who apparently has assumed a role of an Internet "spokesperson" for the Flounders, has spent quite a few articles ostensibly in review and reply to Dr. Lemke, and has made the statement that
"While Baptists and Presbyterians may not be together on the ordinance of baptism, at least they are together for the gospel."
Does this comment indicate that Brister and and the Flounders endorse the Pedo Presbyterian "gospel" that
infants born to Christian parents partake in "regeneration" in early infancy or even before they are born (as per Pedo
John Frame)?
Does this comment indicate that Brister and the Flounders endorse the modern Pedo "Reformed" Presbyterian phantasmagoria that sinners are
"born again before believing in Christ" (as per Frame, R. C. Sproul, J. I. Packer, Iain Murray, John Murray, and other such Pedos who teach the Reformed "ordo salutis" baloney)?
While in some theoretical/soteriological categories the Pedos are similar to Baptists, yet on a practical level, especially on the new birth, the Pedo church memberships are
primarily sustained by infants who are presumed to be "regenerated," receive baptism, and are added to the church roll -- all in contrast to the Baptist view of conversion which is believed to be by means of the Gospel. If it were not for the practice of adding infants to the Pedo church rolls, they would most likely decease in due course of time.
One may indeed hear some Gospel-related truths in Pedo churches, but it is seldom that one can hear the Gospel being addressed to lost sinners in Pedo churches. In this respect, it can hardly be said that the Pedos and the Baptists are "together for the gospel."
C. H. Spurgeon has rightly observed:
>>
I do not know, an error which causes the damnation of more souls than that at the present-time. There are thousands of people who firmly believe that they shall go to heaven because they were sprinkled in infancy, have been confirmed, and have taken the Sacrament.
Sacramental efficacy and baptismal regeneration, all spring from the first error of infant baptism. Had they kept to the Scripture, had the church always required faith before baptism, that error could not have sprung up. It must have died before the light of the truth, it could not have breathed, it could not have had a foothold in the Christian church.
But one error must lead to another—you never need doubt that. If you tamper with one truth of Scripture, he that tempts you to meddle with one, will tempt you to tamper with another, and there will be no end to it, till, at last, you will want a new Bible, a new Testament, and a new God. There is no telling where you will end when you have begun.
>> --
New Park Street Pulpit, Sermon #307, page 168.
SPURGEON again:
>> Some imagine that faith comes by
hereditary descent, and they act upon the supposition. Hence, in certain churches, birthright membership is thought to be a proper practice, and the child of a Christian is thought to be a Christian.
In some other churches, though the
theory would not be stated in so many words, yet it is
practically accepted, and children of pious parents are regarded as scarcely needing conversion. The text is forgotten which saith that the heirs of salvation are born,
"not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God." >>
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Sermon #1031, page 39. Dr. Lemke rightly commented in his article:
"
Most Baptists would not recognize the salvation of those sprinkled as infants, and would be very reluctant to relegate the meaning of baptism as only for believers to be merely a
secondary issue, because what is at stake is the doctrine of salvation. Modern day Baptists should not compromise this soteriological issue and count it as merely a peripheral issue. Baptists in prior generations suffered persecution and even martyrdom from Calvinist and Catholic authorities in defense of their beliefs. Clearly, their convictions were that believer’s baptism was an essential rather than secondary issue."
As a member of the Flounders, Timmy Brister's thinking is naturally effected by the fact that the
Flounders are a development launched by virtual Presbyterians who called themselves "Baptists."
Founder Ernest Reisinger wrote to Pedobaptist Iain Murray,
"We are a congregation of Baptists that is almost Presbyterian" (
Ernest C. Reisinger, A Biography, pages 104, 105).
Reisinger and his associates became the foremost promoter in the USA of Pedobaptist/Hybrid Calvinist publications by the
"Banner of Truth Trust," headed by Murray.
Brister and Tom Ascol are what might be called
"Bapbyterians."
Child conversion urged
ARE WE SEEKING THE CONVERSION OF CHILDREN?Alvin Reid, Professor of Evangelism at Southeastern Theological Seminary and author of
Introduction to Evangelism, has a helpful chapter on evangelizing children,
“MTV and the Internet, or Jesus Christ and Fishing Nets: Evangelizing the Next Generation”(pages 243-263).
Being favourable to
child evangelism and cautious about how it is done, he concludes:
“Keep in mind that children only need to receive Christ. They don’t have to explain the gospel in detail. Children may not be able to explain why they have this need, but they must sense a need for Jesus. They must understand that God’s provision for meeting the need they feel is Jesus. They don’t have all the theological answer, but they must understand that it is through Jesus that God meets the need they are experiencing. They also must know how to appropriate or to claim God’s provision—through faith by trusting him as they commit their lives to Christ” (Alvin Reid,
Introduction to Evangelism, Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998, pp. 253-254).
The Metropolitan Tabernacle in London is convinced that God seeks the conversion of children and has structure their Sunday School with an evangelistic focus (see Jill Masters,
Building an Outreach Sunday School (London:
The Wakeman Trust, 2005) and
“Lessons for Life” Curriculum).
In
The Necessity of Sunday Schools, Peter Masters, Pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, writes:
“It is a matter of great concern that many Sunday School materials are not particularly evangelistic. In many lesson-aid publications the Gospel comes up only occasionally, and then without any depth of persuasive reasoning. Many such aids do no more than outline Bible ‘stories’ and often in a light and trivial manner.
The children are not taught the nature and consequences of sin, or the sinfulness and hurtfulness of it. There is scant attention to the graciousness of Christ, and the necessity of salvation.
We need to teach lessons which reflect thorough preparation by teachers who are deeply concerned for the conversion of their children. Our labours must be undergirded by the conviction that it is God Himself Who calls us to emphasise the Gospel to the young” (Peter Masters & Malcolm H. Watts,
The Necessity of Sunday Schools in this Post-Christian Era (London: The Wakeman Trust, 1992), p. 72).
Chapters 4
(“The Biblical Warrant for the Evangelisation of all Children”) and 6
(“A History of Evangelism of Children”), written by Malcolm H. Watts, stress the importance of intentionally seeking the conversion of children.
This labour to
evangelize children is in keeping with the efforts of C. H. Spurgeon when he was pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Alvin Reid is of this same tradition. But are we?
Do we believe that God calls children to repentance or do we distrust the conversion of children? If the latter then we will only teach them with hopes that one day they will believe in Christ. Rather, with all earnestness and diligent we ought to instruct children to trust in Christ
while they are children. Some will come later in life; some will never come to Christ; some will come to Christ as children and should be immersed in the name of the triune God for a life of discipleship. We should instruct children to seek the Lord while they are young. They, just as much as adults, ought to be the focus of our evangelistic efforts.-- Contributed by Ian D. Elsasser
Frame of mind on Finney
JOHN FRAME HAS A DIFFERENTFRAME OF MIND ON FINNEY>>Dear Bob:
Guy Davies of the
Exiled Preacher blog hosted an interview with
John Frame. I think you will appreciate Frame's endorsement of Finney's evangelism, though I doubt the Calvinists who have criticized him of late will not nor will they appreciate being described as Hyper-Calvinists:
_____
GD: Which theological book have you found most helpful in the last twelve months? It is a must read because....JF: Believe it or not,
Holy Spirit Revivals, by Charles Finney (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 1999). Finney here is very different from the picture of him given in the standard Reformed polemics. He is thoroughly dependent on God’s sovereign working, through the prayers of his people, to reach the lost. His opponents, as he describes them, appear to me to be hyper-Calvinists, not authentic Calvinists: people who think that an inquirer should wait passively for the Spirit to change his heart, rather than obeying the biblical command to repent and believe. On that issue, assuming that he has described it correctly, I certainly would have been on Finney’s side. His Systematic Theology, however, contains some significant errors and confusions. He should have stuck to evangelism.
http://exiledpreacher.blogspot.com/2008/10/blogging-in-name-of-lord-john-m-frame.html______
Interesting, indeed.
With regards,
Ian
>>
Bob: Thanks, Ian, for calling this to my attention. It is good that at least one person among the "Reformed" camp does not follow the "party line" about Charles G. Finney. [See
Spurgeon and Finney vs. the Founders and
Timmy Brister Bristling From "Finneyitis"].
Most of the modern "Reformed" who carp about Finney's evangelism are probably simply repeating the criticisms by
Hybrid Calvinist Presbyterians of the past who opposed Finney due to his getting professions of faith from Pedobaptists who
supposedly were "regenerated" in infancy. Any evangelism which tends to undermine the "born again before faith" heresy of the Hybrids is repudiated by the anti-Finneyites in the "Reformed" camp as
"Arminian," "synergism," and
"semi-Pelagianism." Finney's zeal to win lost souls was (and is) a rebuke of the
dead evangelism of the majority of the "Reformed."
Brister's misplaced concern
IS TIMMY BRISTER'S CONCERNA MISPLACED CONCERN?Pedobaptist Iain Murray of the
Banner of Truth has observed in the
Preface of his 1995 book,
Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism:>>
In the 1960s it seemed to many of us that Spurgeon's continuing significance had to do with his witness to the free-grace convictions of the Reformers and Puritans over against the shallow and non-doctrinal evangelicalism of our day. Thirty years later that witness remains relevant and yet it is apparent that
the recovery of doctrinal Christianity is not necessarily our chief need today. In many churches there has been a real increase in knowledge and a
resurgence of Calvinistic belief has occurred across the world. The word 'forgotten' is happily far less applicable to Spurgeon than it was forty years ago. But it may well be that the time has come when we need to be
MUCH MORE FAMILIAR with a rather different emphasis in Spurgeon.
While I know of no evidence that Hyper-Calvinism is recovering strength, it would appear that
THE PRIORITY WHICH SOUL-WINNING HAD IN SPURGEON'S MINISTRY IS NOT COMMONLY SEEN TO BE OUR PRIORITY.The
revival of DOCTRINE has scarcely been matched by a revival of EVANGELISM. While not accepting the tenets of Hyper-Calvinism it may well be that we have not been sufficiently alert to the danger of allowing a supposed consistency in doctrine to
OVERRIDE THE BIBLICAL PRIORITY OF ZEAL FOR CHRIST AND SOULS OF MEN.Doctrine without usefulness is no prize. As Spurgeon says,
'You may look down with contempt on some who do not know so much as you, and yet they may have twice your holiness and be doing more service to God.'>>Is not this the
real issue that Timmy Brister, Tom Ascol, and the Flounders should be concerned about -- more so than concern about what Dr. Steve Lemke, Jerry Vines, Johnny Hunt, Frank Cox or other "non-Calvinists write and say about "Calvinism"?
Mr. Murray, by the influence he exerted on
Ernest Reisinger, founder of the Flounders, and by his anti-invitationism, is the virtual "grandfather" of the Flounders movement. The above words were not written by a
"non-Calvinist," but by a "Calvinist" after the same order as Timmy Brister and Tom Ascol.
Murray's remarks should be much more significant to the Flounders than anything written or said by Dr. Lemke or any other "non-Calvinist" in the SBC, or will be said at the "John 3:16 Conference," for Murray has obviously seen firsthand that
the "resurgence of Calvinism" has not been matched by a "revival of evangelism."Murray's words fitly describe the Flounders' movement since its origin in the 1980s. The movement has always been and still is relatively
DEAD in regard to evangelism, soul winning, and the planting of churches consisting of anything but proselytes.
Do the following words remind you of any modern day "Calvinists"? --
". . . it will be seen that those who never exhort sinners are seldom winners of souls to any great extent, but
they maintain their churches by converts from other systems. I have even heard them say, 'Oh, yes, the Methodists and Revivalists are beating the hedges, but we shall catch many of the birds.' If I harboured such a mean thought I would be ashamed to express it.
A system which cannot touch the outside world, but must leave arousing and converting work to others, whom it judges to be unsound, writes its own condemnation." (C. H. Spurgeon,
Lectures to My Students, Second Series, page 187, Pilgrim Publications 1990 edition).
Instead of spinning his palabber in whining "replies" to Dr. Lemke and others, Brister should be carefully considering the observation that Iain Murray makes about the
"resurgence of Calvinistic belief" and the lack of evangelism on the part of the resurgers.
Brister on Flounders' purpose
FLOUNDERING BRISTER RE-AFFIRMS
WRONG "PURPOSE" OF FLOUNDERSIn what ostensibly is a review of an item written by Dr. Steve Lemke of New Orleans Baptist Seminary, Timmy Brister quotes the Flounders'
"purpose," and re-affirms the
wrong purpose for their parasitical, proselyting existence. See Brister's comments at --
Steve Lemke on “Four Streams” of Calvinism, Part 1Brister is the recently-hired assistant to Flounders' head,
TOM ASCOL, pastor of Grace Baptist Chuch, Cape Coral, Florida. Here is what we said about the Flounders' floundering "purpose" in a
previous post of May 2, 2008, calling on the Flounders to repent of the error of their way:
>>
A careful examination of the Flounders
statement of purpose on their web site will reveal that there is
no committal to the primary commission of preaching the Gospel to every creature, winning souls, and establishing churches.Rather, their purpose is to "reform" existing churches in the Southern Baptist Convention in accordance with their version of the "doctrines of grace" -- meaning the version of
"Calvinism" held by the Reformed Pedobaptists, involving the heresy of
"born again before faith."In consequence of the pursuit of this purpose, the Flounders have become a
proselytizing sect, and have nothing to show by way of winning souls and establishing churches of new converts. If they have established a single new church composed of converts made thru preaching the Gospel, I have yet to learn of it. Rather, they spend their time and money on such projects as
mailing Presbyterian "Reformed" DVDs to Baptist pastors, trying to seduce them to believe in
Hybrid Calvinism.
Therefore, perhaps more than any other "corporate" group in need of "corporate repentance," the Flounders are a leading candidate.
>>
Now on his blog, Timmy Brister is quoting and
re-affirming this "purpose" of the Flounders in contrast to the Commisssion to make disciples, baptize converts, establish churches, and thereby build up the Kingdom of God.
Despite all the Flounders' more recent jabberwocky and palabber about
"church planting," this movement is DEAD in regard to evangelism, soul winning, and the establishment of churches. To my knowledge, the ONLY churches "planted" by the Flounders are those which came into being due to
divisiveness over "Reformed" doctrine. If Brister knows one that started differently, he is welcome to give us that information.
Steve Lemke is absolutely correct in saying that the Flounders
"make their Calvinism the focal point of their ministries."I knew the Founder of the Flounders,
Ernest Reisinger personally since 1966, and his consuming obsession was to proselyte people to the modern Pedobaptist version of "Calvinism," involving -- among other things -- the heresy of
"born again before faith," no public "invitations," and "Presbyterian" church government.
Reisinger's "model" or "example" of "reforming" a church is presented in his book, A Quiet Revolution, chapter 4, and it was unfortunately hatched at the North Pompano Baptist Church in North Pompano
Beach, Florida after Reisinger became pastor in the late 1970s.
Reisinger's "reformation" work led to the
ultimate demise of this church. See
Flounders' Local Church Reformation
Brister & Hansen
BRISTER'S BASKING IN
HANSEN'S PHANTASMAGORIA
Timmy Brister, Flounders' Tom Ascol assistant, seems to
basking in the haze of some comments by a "Johnny-come-lately," Collin Hansen, formerly described as an "associate editor" and an "at-large" writer for
Christianity Today Magazine -- as if what one reads by a contributor to CTM is necessarily of any great significance.
According to
Crossway Books' latest catalog, a blurb for Hansen's new Crossway title,
Young, Restless, Reformed, Hansen is
"now at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School " where (so I am told by Crossway) he is a
"student."I could not pry the name of Hansen's church affiliation from the
Crossway Books' contact, but the church was described as
"non-denominational." That at least perhaps indicates that Hansen is
not a Baptist by church identification.
Trinity EDS, however, is identified with the
Evangelical Free Church of America, a
Pedobaptist denomination. I do not know if Hansen is himself a Pedobaptist. Apparently, he is "Reformed" according to the modern version of "Reformed" theology. So it is no surprise he would "cotton" to the likes of Brister.
Brister's penchant for Hansen's writings and Hansen' interest in Brister apparently stem from their both being
"young, restless, reformed" -- in other words, both are
young novices in the theological arena with somewhat limited perspectives.
I recall that sometime ago, Hansen (or someone) referred to Brister as
"the face of Calvinism in the SBC." Some, however, may disagree that the "face" is the most appropriate body-part to indicate the type of "Calvinism" represented by the likes of Brister and his Flounders' friends.
Baseball--goat vs holy water?
HOLY WATER vs THE GOAT
IN NLDS AT CHICAGO?
For years, the Chicago Cubs have been plagued by an alleged "curse" placed on them by the owner of a goat. If you don't know the story, there are a number of sites on the Internet where it is told --
see Wikipedia Since the Cubs have not returned to the World Series since the incident about the goat in 1945, the
"curse of the goat" has grown to epic proportions, and by some has supposedly accounted for plays on the field which have allegedly accounted for the Cubs' losses.
Now the Cubs are once again in the National League Division Series, opening today at the Cubs' Wrigley Field against the Los Angeles Dodgers. You can bet your goatee that if the Cubs fail to win the NLDS and subsequently the NL Pennant and fail to make it to the World Series this year, the "curse of the goat" will once again be the "talk of the town."
A Roman Catholic priest has already sprinkled "Holy Water" in the Cubs dugout, perhaps as a means of dispelling the "curse of the goat."
Of course, the self-proclaimed "rational minded" baseball fans discount the "curse of the goat," and the "biblically minded" persons discount any influence by Roman Catholic "Holy Water." Baseball players across the years have often been given to superstitions of various sorts, but this is a "first" (for me at least) to see a Roman Catholic priest applying "Holy Water" to the dugout.
I am curious which superstition will win out -- the "curse of the goat" or Roman Catholic "Holy Water."
NOTE: I got back from Wednesday night church service to see the last out of the first game. Score: Goat 7, Holy Water 2.
