Ligon Duncan Elected Chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary

"So excited that is the new Chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary. What great news. http://ow.ly/21j60c "

Tweet by Al Mohler – 8/18/13

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/J_Ligon_Duncan.jpg/405px-J_Ligon_Duncan.jpgLigon Duncan (WikiCommons)

In case you haven't heard, Ligon Duncan has just been elected Chancellor and CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS)Here is how RTS announced the news:

"The RTS Board of Trustees has elected Dr. J. Ligon Duncan, III, as chancellor and CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary. Duncan is currently the John E. Richards professor of systematic and historical theology at RTS in Jackson, Miss., and the senior minister of historic First Presbyterian Church (1837), where he has served for the past 17 years. He is the president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and served as President of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals from 2004-2012. Click here to visit the RTS chancellor Web page.

Duncan will continue to teach systematic and historical theology for RTS, and will serve as senior minister at First Presbyterian Church until the end of this year. His appointment as chancellor and CEO of RTS follows his good friend Dr. Michael Milton, who retired as chancellor in May 2013."

Not knowing much about RTS other than its emphasis on reformed theology, I consulted the website.  Here is how it was founded:

"In June 1963, five ministers met in a Memphis hotel room to pray about the need to establish a new seminary. At that time there was no seminary in the southeastern United States holding to Reformed theology and committed to the Bible as God's inerrant Word, the final authority for faith and life. When the meeting ended, the seed that would become Reformed Theological Seminary had been planted….Today more than 2700 students enroll in classes each year."

Lig wasted no time in updating his Curriculum Vitae with his latest accomplishment.  Justin Taylor announced the news on The Gospel Coalition website, and as you might imagine, accolades are pouring in from those in the Calvinista camp.  

As I begin to contemplate the future of RTS under Ligon Duncan's leadership, I decided to look back for any clues.  You may recall that Duncan was one of the speakers at the Rezolution conference held last April in Africa.  We published a post on this conference called A Revolution Against Rezolution:  A Calvinista Conference in Africa.  C.J. Mahaney wrote about his participation in Rezolution (link) as did Kevin DeYoung (link).  How interesting to look back just one month ago and read about Kevin DeYoung's upcoming visit to RTS Jackson, Mississippi (where Ligon Duncan will be based).  According to the announcement, "Kevin DeYoung will deliver the John Reed Miller Lectures on Preaching this fall.  The lecture series will span two days, October 22-23."  

I wondered about the joint appearance of Ligon Duncan and Al Mohler at the PCA Assembly held in June (as announced on the RTS website).  Duncan and Mohler spoke on the topic:  “Commending and Defending the Total Truthfulness of Scripture”.  It will be interesting to see whether Mohler becomes a frequent speaker at RTS now that his buddy Lig is in charge.

And let's not forget the upcoming Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference.  Since Southern Seminary students can earn academic credit for attending T4G, we would imagine that RTS will follow suit.  We'll be sure to let you know if and when it happens…

As I look further back at Duncan's prior decisions, I believe he erred in coming to Mahaney's defense so quickly.  You may recall his post on the Reformation 21 website entitled:  A Word about C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries.  Here is an excerpt:

"I would then encourage you to ignore the assaults of wounded people on attack websites and blogs, and that you discount the opinings of those who have no real knowledge of these matters or relation to SGM or authority to comment upon them, and that you refrain from assuming that you (or they) are in a position to render judgment on these things.

It is clear that far from a scandalous cover up, our brothers at Sovereign Grace are taking these matters with utter seriousness and are endeavoring to walk in Gospel repentance and humility and fidelity. C.J. knows of my complete love and respect for him. And my brethren at Sovereign Grace know of my support and prayers for them. Al Mohler has spoken about this here. And, of course, C.J. has reached out to Mark Dever for counsel and accountability, but I want to emphasize that we fully respect the process that SGM is taking to review the entire situation and that we have no intention whatsoever of joining in the adjudicating of this case in the realm of the internet – a practice as ugly as it is unbiblical."

At the time Ligon Duncan was president of the Alliance for Confessing Evangelicals, and he used their website (Reformation 21) to throw his support behind his buddy C.J. Mahaney.  If you consult Duncan's Curriculum Vitae, you will see that his stint as president of this organization ended in 2012.  Then in early 2013 we discovered that his blog post supporting Mahaney had mysteriously vanishedLigon Duncan's Post Defending Mahaney Accidentally Deleted.  We're not sure exactly when it went missing, and we are left shaking our heads…

In late May (after the judge dismissed the case against SGM, et al on a technicality) Duncan once again defended Mahaney (along with his T4G buddies Mohler and Dever), which didn't go so well as it played out in the social media.  We summed up what happened in a post entitled T4G, Facebook and the Games People Play.  We are grateful for the internet because it enables us to keep track of these tactics and missteps in the Calvinista camp. 

Now that Ligon Duncan is assuming a more prominent role in the reformed world, it will be interesting to watch and see what happens as the Calvinistas try to enlarge their territory.  We know there are some in the traditional reformed camp who do not approve of the antics of the Neo-Cals (Calvinistas).  Will they continue to remain silent as the T4G leaders exert more and more influence in Christendom?

To see Ligon Duncan from a different angle, here he is rapping with his brother John who worked with R.C. Sproul Sr.

Lydia's Corner:   2 Chronicles 30:1-31:21   Romans 15:1-22   Psalm 25:1-15   Proverbs 20:13-15

Comments

Ligon Duncan Elected Chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary — 107 Comments

  1. What differences do you see between those you refer to as "Calvinistas" and those you refer to as "traditional reformed"?

  2. Ligon Duncan is a highly educated, intelligent man. Other highly educated, intelligent individuals have seen fit to make him Chancellor of RTS. His word carries much weight in the neo-Calvanista movement. Therefore I pray he will see how his defense of C.J. Mahaney undermines his integrity with a huge segment of the evangelical Christian world and, in my opinion, cuts against the very tenor of what Christ teaches.

    My brother wrote an article about Ligon Duncan some time ago. I believe it is worthy of review:
    http://livingtext.blogspot.ae/2013/06/ligon-duncan-amongst-miscreants.html

  3. srs wrote:

    What differences do you see between those you refer to as "Calvinistas" and those you refer to as "traditional reformed"?

    Thanks for asking this question. Here's how we define "Calvinista" under our glossary of terms (found under 'The Basics' section at the top of our blog):

    Calvinista: These are Calvinists gone wild. They are self-important, self-assured, and absolutely convinced that they know what the Bible says on every subject. They also believe anyone who doesn't agree with them is utterly wrong. They spend lots of time running around to conferences, getting together with other guys (women have no place in this discussion) who also agree with them 100%. In fact, they spend more time speaking at conferences than pastoring their churches.

    We have friends who are Calvinists, and we have no problem whatsoever with them. Some of our regular commenters are traditional Calvinists.

    It's those who self-identify as "young, restless, and reformed" that we label as "Calvinistas".

  4. @ TW:

    Thanks for sharing the link to your brother's article. I came across it in preparation for this post.

    Yes, Duncan appears to be held in high esteem in conservative Christendom.

    I hope the "traditional reformed" (mentioned above by srs) will pay closer attention to what is going on in their circles.

  5. @ Deb:

    You should look for a traditional Reformed person to do a guest post on what they see as they differences between themselves and a “Calvinista,” since the question seems to come up a lot. There are at least three or four traditional Reformed commenters here, maybe one of them would be willing? And judging by my conversations with them in the past they’d probably do an excellent job.

  6. For those who are interested, the new album I’ve been working on for forever is now available on NoiseTrade for a donation of any amount (or for free!)

    http://noisetrade.com/steadyon/through-the-darkness

    There are songs on here about dealing with spiritual abuse and encouragement for abuse survivors, so I hope you will check it out. It’s a very important project for me, containing a lot of songs of the kind I was looking for when I was going through my divorce and had to leave my church.

  7. @ Hester:

    An excellent suggestion! Any takers?

    We would love to feature a guest post on the distinctions between "Calvinists" and "Calvinistas".

    There is a world of difference IMHO.

  8. Hester wrote:

    You should look for a traditional Reformed person to do a guest post on what they see as they differences between themselves and a “Calvinista,” since the question seems to come up a lot.

    Yes, I’d like to second Hester’s idea. I don’t know if Craig Vick is a regular reader here, but he hangs out at Julie Anne’s blog and made a terrific contribution to a recent debate on Calvinism there; also Michael Newnham, a.k.a. the Phoenix Preacher, would be a good choice. And I’m sure there are other regular readers here who would qualify.

    But I definitely think it’s a good idea.

  9. My traditional Calvinist friends just shake their heads and say the neo-Calvinists are “unbalanced.”

  10. Hi all
    Back from vacation. I am reading Roger Olson’s book, Against Calvinism. (Michale Horton did the forward). He makes the same point, right up front. He says there is a distinct difference between the neo Cals and the traditional Reformed. His book is aimed at the neo Cals.

    About 6 months ago, I received a call from a prof at a Reformed seminary who wanted to assure me that there is a big difference between the traditionals and the Neos (sounds kind of Matrix, doesn’t it?).

    I like this idea. In fact, it might be nice to have two posts-one by a traditional and one by a Neo and have them explain why they are one and not the other. The hiccup would be getting a Neo to do it. I am not sure they like us very much…

  11. @ Dee:

    Do the Neos even know that they are Neos? Piper, for instance, would probably claim to be Reformed, as I believe all the rest of the Neos would claim. BTW – I’ve heard some very triggering comments from folks right out of WTS, so I’m not exactly sure how different their theology is. It may be that the way it is applied is the main difference. It would be interesting to hear the debate though.

  12. Deb wrote:

    It’s those who self-identify as “young, restless, and reformed” that we label as “Calvinistas”.

    My writing partner calls them “Hypercalvinists”, much more Calvinist than Calvin.

    He describes them as uniformly in their Twenties and completely on-fire for Calvinism, so into Predestination and Determinism that they’ve slipped into “Socratic Atheism” where God Himself is nothing more than a puppet of Utter Predestination. Completely assured that They Are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

    The starry-eyed Twentysomething description reminds me too much of file photos of young SS at a Nuremberg Rally or Communist Party Youth under Stalin or young Jihadis going after their 72 Virgins in Paradise — young, starry-eyed, so Totally Committed to The Cause they have no lives outside The Cause.

  13. Then in early 2013 we discovered that his blog post supporting Mahaney had mysteriously vanished — Ligon Duncan’s Post Defending Mahaney Accidentally Deleted. We’re not sure exactly when it went missing, and we are left shaking our heads…

    Just like those retouched photos of doubleplusunpersons around Comrade Stalin?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_censorship_of_images

  14. @ TW:

    I hope you’re right about Ligon Duncan, but his history of statements in C.J. Mahaney’s defense, including the one in May, give me little hope that will happen anytime soon.

    Along the same lines, how come no one on the governing board of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is willing to challenge President Albert Mohler’s defense of Mahaney? It seems to me that the substantial donations Mahaney and SGM have made to SBTS should have prompted at least one board member to question if Mohler has a conflict of interest in defending Mahaney. Or perhaps the SBTS board is simply a rubber-stamp group of yes-men.

  15. I wonder how much contact Ligon Duncan has had or will have with adult women of similar stature in higher education or business? Why do I get the feeling that he, like so many male Calvinistas, would be uncomfortable with a woman as his professional equal? So many of these male professional Christians don’t have any contact whatsoever with women who are their equals. Consequently, it’s easier to fall into a trap of believing women are not as smart and not up to certain tasks or positions (“can’t teach men,” for example).

    For the record, I wouldn’t consider myself his professional equal, since I’m not in higher education and I don’t supervise a few hundred people in my current position. That said, he couldn’t do my job, where I have to negotiate between competing interests to get needed technical changes done without (as much as possible) alienating one side or another. He’s got the luxury of being able to be dogmatic. I, on the other hand, must herd cats.

    As a general principle, I don’t have a problem deferring to people who have more experience than I do. However, in intelligence and other general qualities, I think I am his equal and I wouldn’t defer to him just because he happens to be male or a seminary president.

  16. As far as I am concerned, Calvin was just the Ayatollah Khomeini of his time, except with a Bible instead of a Koran. Predestination, totalitarian rule, subjugation of women, fantaticism for The Cause, The One True Way, God Wills It — only difference is Calvinists use a Bible instead of a Koran and there’s no 72 virgins waiting in Paradise.

  17. @ Dee:

    In fact, it might be nice to have two posts-one by a traditional and one by a Neo and have them explain why they are one and not the other. The hiccup would be getting a Neo to do it. I am not sure they like us very much…

    I think the bigger problem would be what Bridget said. The Neos think they are firmly in the historic Reformed tradition, even though the actual historic Reformed tradition seems to disagree with them. In fact, do you know how hard it is to even find out that some Reformed disagree with the Neos? I didn’t know that until coming here, three years after initially discovering Calvinism. The Neos load up their websites with the writings of old Calvinists (Baxter, Bunyan, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc.) and present their own writings alongside them. (Monergism.com is a prime example.) And unless you already know what to look for, you won’t be able to tell the difference. In fact, I’m still not clear on what the differences are, aside from an overemphasis on church discipline among the Neos. Thus why I think a guest post (or guest post series) would be awesome!

  18. The other day my Twitter wall exploded with accolades to and about Lig Duncan regarding this appointment. It didn’t give me warm fuzzies reading all of those tweets knowing his history with CJ. If this man can sign his name to a statement of support for CJ, it shows me he is out of touch with reality and/or is choosing to close his ears to the many voices crying out. So now he is appointed to a bigger position with more prestige and IMHO already missed a huge opportunity where he was currently positioned. So, he continues to climb the ladder of church leader celebrity status and moves further away from real people, real victims, real issues where he can speak even louder because of his “status.” Blech.

    Whenever a church leader is held to such a high esteem, it makes me wonder where Jesus fits in with their personal esteeming.

  19. singleman wrote:

    how come no one on the governing board of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is willing to challenge President Albert Mohler’s defense of Mahaney? It seems to me that the substantial donations Mahaney and SGM have made to SBTS should have prompted at least one board member to question if Mohler has a conflict of interest in defending Mahaney. Or perhaps the SBTS board is simply a rubber-stamp group of yes-men.

    How do you know that no trustee is willing to challenge Mohler? I can assure you that the SBTS board is hardly a group of rubber-stamp yes-men (and women). These are servant-leaders in Southern Baptist life who have a proven track-record in Kingdom service.

  20. Looks like that movement is working hard to keep some semblance of respectability. But they have NO moral credibility. His words:

    “I would then encourage you to ignore the assaults of wounded people on attack websites and blogs, and that you discount the opinings of those who have no real knowledge of these matters or relation to SGM or authority to comment upon them, and that you refrain from assuming that you (or they) are in a position to render judgment on these things. ”

    ….are a knife in the heart of those who were molested at SGM. What a cruel man. They do not have any moral credibility with me and I intend to make sure as many people as possible know about his words to the victims of child molestation.

    May men like him stop being glorified as representing Christ to us.

  21. Confused wrote:

    How do you know that no trustee is willing to challenge Mohler? I can assure you that the SBTS board is hardly a group of rubber-stamp yes-men (and women). These are servant-leaders in Southern Baptist life who have a proven track-record in Kingdom service.

    Sorry, but on this one they have to have the courage to go public with it. It is that big. They ARE rubber stamp yes men. Mohler would not have any other kind now. He finally consolidated his power enough to make that happen.

  22. Bridget wrote:

    Do the Neos even know that they are Neos?

    I suspect that they do although they would not admit to it. In fact, many of them like to play games with defining themselves as Calvinists. I plan to do a post on that soon. Some are being told to answer the question “Are you a Calvinist?” by answering “What do you mean?” They seem to get a kick out of the fact that many people will not ask the right questions. At that point they will say”Oh no.” And silently smirk.

    However, I can assure you that the person with whom I spoke is not at all enamored with the current Neo crowd and neither are any of his friends.

  23. Anon 1 wrote:

    Sorry, but on this one they have to have the courage to go public with it. It is that big. They ARE rubber stamp yes men. Mohler would not have any other kind now. He finally consolidated his power enough to make that happen.

    In other words, Man-o-Gawd Mohler is the type of pointy-haired boss who can only tolerate rubber-stamp yes-men in his august presence. AKA the same autocratic management style as Saddam Hussein, Hillary Clinton, and a lot of management-level characters in Dilbert.

  24. Julie Anne wrote:

    The other day my Twitter wall exploded with accolades to and about Lig Duncan regarding this appointment.

    By “accolades” you mean (Pottsylvanian accent) “All Hail Fearless Leader!” Like courtiers trying to out-flatter each other for Fearless Leader’s favor?

    (See above re Pointy-haired Autocratic Management Style. And don’t Baptists rag on Catholics for their autocratic hierarchy and “Roman Dictator” Pope?)

  25. Anon 1 wrote:

    Looks like that movement is working hard to keep some semblance of respectability. But they have NO moral credibility. His words:

    “I would then encourage you to ignore the assaults of wounded people on attack websites and blogs, and that you discount the opinings of those who have no real knowledge of these matters or relation to SGM or authority to comment upon them, and that you refrain from assuming that you (or they) are in a position to render judgment on these things. ”

    Again, All Hail Fearless Leader!
    All Hail the Golden Calf!

    Stick a fork in ’em, they’re done.

  26. @ Anon 1:

    …would you say the Puritans were more like the Neo Cals today in method and doctrinal beliefs?

    I have heard Neo-Cals described as neo-Puritan. Unsure if that was a reference to doctrine, practice or both.

  27. Hester wrote:

    @ Anon 1:

    …would you say the Puritans were more like the Neo Cals today in method and doctrinal beliefs?

    I have heard Neo-Cals described as neo-Puritan. Unsure if that was a reference to doctrine, practice or both.

    My reading of some of the church discipline issues sounds eerily like 9 Marks. Not the punishment because that would be illegal but the things that are considered discipline worthy.

  28. @ Hester:
    I would say the Westminster Confession of Faith is a good look at historical Calvinism/Reformed belief (though there are difference, for example, it did not reflect Calvin’s view of the Sabbath).

    In fact, the WCF was created by Puritans, so I don’t know that it’s accurate to link neo-Cals and puritans. Really it was a different world the puritans lived in, so it’s hard for me, at least, to evaluate some of their behaviors.

    There are sections of the WCF I disagree with, but overall it does seem a lot more balanced than a lot of the “neo-cals” today. For example, right along the part where it says God ordains all things, it also says that God is not the creator of evil nor does he work in such a way as to violate man’s free will. Whether you can agree this makes sense or not, neo-cals do not place the emphasis the same. You will hear a lot more about the sovereignty of God than you will man’s free will.

    But really, I don’t think the difference is as much doctrine as it is behavior.

  29. Calvinism, or any particular tenets thereof, doesn’t have to “make sense”. We’re too limited in our ability to comprehend for that to be a criteria. The real question is “Does the Bible say it”.

    I have been in the Calvinist camp since 1970. Been a Southern Baptist, too, since 1981. I’m pretty familiar with the WC of F and the BF&M, and there’s just no outright conflict in what they say. There’s plenty of room for both, as the differences mostly have to do with the infinite things of God, which we’re not quite up to getting our minds around.

  30. And, not so incidentally, when I was a Presbyterian, we laughed at the guys you call “Calvinistas”. We called them TR’s … short for “Truly Reformed” .. as they seemed to think they were the only ones who really were reformed.

  31. @ Jeff S.:

    But really, I don’t think the difference is as much doctrine as it is behavior.

    This is my gut feeling about the situation too.

    I’m not well-versed enough in the details of different schools of Reformed thought to know, for instance, that the WCF has a different view of the Sabbath than Calvin. I have a sense that Calvinism on the Continent and Calvinism in England and America had some differences historically, but I’d have to do some more research to confirm how and why. Obviously one difference is that the Puritans got the chance to “road test” some of their ideas in the Commonwealth and New England (with relatively nasty results).

    Per the Puritans’ behavior, some of it was obviously over-the-top (Salem witch trials, Cromwell, etc.), even to the point that their contemporaries sometimes criticized them for it. Overall I think the Puritans are not quite as monstrous as their detractors make them out to be, but definitely not angelic like many neo-Calvinists portray them. One book I would like to read is Escaping Salem: The Other Witch Hunt of 1692 by Richard Godbeer, which is about a (much more sensibly conducted) trial in Stamford, CT the same year. There were evidentiary standards in place, but the “court” in Salem (and Cotton Mather) unfortunately ignored them.

    I wish I could remember who described the neo-Cals as neo-Puritan.

  32. @ Dee:
    That smug reply “what do you mean” seems to go hand in glove with the reports that young freshly trained Neo-Cals are snuggling up to established churches leadership and attempting to get in and take over, slowly, but methodically. It happened at my old church, that church is now completely staffed with young, gullible early-twenty somethings.

    “What do you mean”, I would ask them if Roger Olsen or (Insert whichever admired neo-cal leader they follow) applied to be the pastor of your church, who would you want? Then, when they pick their idol, ask them why? When they say they have a good grip on theology, ask them how that is possible given they don’t seem to understand the basic differences between Calvinists and everyone else, and point out if they don’t know what “Calvinist” means, they probably couldn’t judge good or bad theology if it came up and slapped them in the face. Fight fire with fire and snark with snark, in my view.

  33. @ Nicholas: There are several things to consider. First, and always first, the doctrinal ties. Secondly, the monetary and business ties. Lastly, hierarchy always trumps the little guy in some systems. The godly are the leaders and the pew sitters are the ungodly.

  34. Val wrote:

    That smug reply “what do you mean” seems to go hand in glove with the reports that young freshly trained Neo-Cals are snuggling up to established churches leadership and attempting to get in and take over, slowly, but methodically. It happened at my old church, that church is now completely staffed with young, gullible early-twenty somethings.

    No, completely staffed with Calvinjugend.

  35. It’s worth noting that the reformed / calvinist world has always been a fractious place. You have presbyterians, reformed baptists, and a few other groups, and they frequently have nasty (I almost used the b-word) rows with each other and amongst themselves.

    For example, not so long ago, TGC published articles from people with different views on baptism. I remember that each side called the other “sinners” – hardly a gracious or helpful way to discuss a contentious point of theology. There are plenty of other similar cases.

    The one thing I have concluded from all this is that protestantism is so focussed on “truth” that it doesn’t know what to do when different people have different understandings of the “truth”. The only means of coping that it has is division. If you don’t agree with what your church sees as “truth”, you start a new church where your version of “truth” is the official doctrine.

  36. Bob Cleveland wrote:

    And, not so incidentally, when I was a Presbyterian, we laughed at the guys you call “Calvinistas”. We called them TR’s … short for “Truly Reformed” .. as they seemed to think they were the only ones who really were reformed.

    Bob, As an SBC’er what are your thoughts on Mohler and his relationship with Mahaney and constantly defending and promoting him over the last few years during all the scandals?

  37. Ian wrote:

    It’s worth noting that the reformed / calvinist world has always been a fractious place. You have presbyterians, reformed baptists, and a few other groups, and they frequently have nasty (I almost used the b-word) rows with each other and amongst themselves.

    Oh, yah. When I was in undergrad, there was a denominational upheaval in my already-small denom, the Christian Reformed Church (which was itself a conservative off-shoot of the Reformed Church of America). Ultra-conservative elements split off into Netherlands Chr Reformed, Orthodox Chr Reformed, and there were already Reformed Presbyterians and I don’t know what all else. Noone could get along with each other! God’s very integrity was at stake!!! Some of my family went Orthodox CRC and they wouldn’t allow an organ in church because they considered it to be more than one instrument (had “voices”, right?) 🙄

  38. @ Patrice:
    YRR Kevin de Young is a member of the Reformed Church of America, (the more liberal version of my old denom.) I read his blog for a bit, and he regularly wrote of his mission to bring it back into the fold. “Go Netherlands Reformed,” I once commented. “They need you.” but it was deleted. Netherlands Reformed are not cool or hip. They are actually very sour. Seems he could actually do some good over there. Hooyah

  39. @ Anon 1:

    Yes, Calvin did do a “road test” in Geneva, from what little I know about Geneva. (Which is why I usually avoid commenting on Geneva and stick to New England, i.e. my backyard.) Whether that was duplicated anywhere else on the Continent, I don’t know. To my knowledge it certainly wasn’t duplicated on the country-wide level like in the Commonwealth and the colonies. If I’m missing something please tell me.

    And when I say New England is in my backyard I almost mean it literally as the English probably ran very close to my backyard when retreating from the Mystic Fort massacre. 🙂

  40. Anon 1 wrote:

    Hester, do you think Calvin road tested his theology in Geneva?

    Why does this sound like “My Theology is Perfectly-Parsed, My Doctrine (all three volumes of it) is Correct, What Could Possibly Go Wrong?”

  41. Confused wrote:

    How do you know that no trustee is willing to challenge Mohler? I can assure you that the SBTS board is hardly a group of rubber-stamp yes-men (and women).

    How close are you to that board? Are you on it? Are you a trustee? How many board members have you had dinner with? I would suggest that no one knows the real inner workings of an organizations, religious or secular, unless they are in the inner circle.

  42. oh thanks for that link Patrice.. I have been wanting to read that.

    I have a first edition of Zwieg’s, Mary Queen of Scots that I adore. It is very old. It has a purple cloth binding.

    Boy was John Knox not a good guy at all in that book. I read a side of him one does not see in most official history!

  43. Hester wrote:

    @ Anon 1:
    …would you say the Puritans were more like the Neo Cals today in method and doctrinal beliefs?
    I have heard Neo-Cals described as neo-Puritan. Unsure if that was a reference to doctrine, practice or both.

    Here’s one summary:
    1. Reformed Theology
    2. Christian Hedonism
    3. Classical Epistemology
    4. Missional Ecclesiology
    5. Continuationist Pneumatology
    6. Gospel-Centered Counseling/Shepherding
    7. Multigenerational Faithfulness
    http://neopuritan.wordpress.com/what-is-neo-puritanism/

  44. @ Dave:

    Well, I think the entire summary at the Neopuritan blog told us a lot more about the author than about the Puritans…esp. that J. I. Packer quote. Was glad to see him recommending an Edmund Morgan book. I note, however, it was the not the one that showed why their super-strict membership requirements would have killed their churches from within had they not modified it, or the one that explained how their approach to evangelism was almost entirely family-centric and overall neglected people who weren’t already in Christian homes.

    Also, I’m a little confused at some of his seven points:

    1) Why does he think continuationism is a Puritan trait? I don’t remember speaking in tongues being encouraged in MA Bay. Probably much too similar to a “private revelation” which would have been…frowned upon to say the least.
    2) “Christian Hedonism” originated with John Piper. To read it back onto the Puritans is anachronistic. Also if I recall correctly it had an awful lot in common with Ayn Rand when I went and looked at it.

  45. @ Patrice:

    Please tell me that Zweig was exaggerating about those “ordinances” and “discipline” in chapter 2…though unfortunately I suspect he wasn’t.

    They couldn’t even name their own kids?!?!?!

  46. @ Dave A A:

    The owner of the neopuritan blog has also given his take on the SGM scandal in this lecture: http://www.thewellboise.com/sermon/what-is-abuse-and-its-cure/

    Partially a response to emergent blogger Zach Hoag and a defense of “Biblical counseling”, the above speaker gives his perspective on the proper response to abuse in the Christian environment. He doesn’t defend SGM’s actions, but does defend T4G’s “Statement in Support of CJ Mahaney.”

    Concerning that blog post, that seems to be standard Driscoll/Mahaney theology.

  47. There will be a sad end for these men as the truth will come out. “Be sure your sin will find you out…”

  48. Anon 1 wrote:

    I have a first edition of Zwieg’s, Mary Queen of Scots that I adore. It is very old. It has a purple cloth binding.

    Lucky you!

    Yeah, Knox visited Geneva and said something to the effect of: “This Calvin town is the best Christian school since the apostles”. (Shabby quote—my memory is awful.) Something REALLYYY wrong there.

    In that era, leaders treated people contemptuously and their ideologies with love. I can’t grasp it from my context. I do not know why these guys are our heroes-of-faith. It has enraged me so deeply that I had to back away from it altogether.

  49. @ Hester:
    I don’t know for certain but I think it’s generally accurate. Zweig wasn’t known for being a revisionist but he was an interpreter. He loved open-heartedness and art/food/flowers. These were seen by John Calvin as temptations to sin so it is to be expected that Zweig would carry personal rancor—one can see it in the book.

    Plus there is no doubt that Calvin was one of those burning crusader-types who tried to destroy anyone/thing that got in the way of his ideas of God’s truth/purity. (As if God and creation stand existentially opposed.) Strange ideas of ordinance/discipline are plausible.

    I also tend to believe Zweig because I recognize milder strains of the attitudes/thoughts he presented from my childhood. The Calvinistas are more whole-hog: the wacky spinnings of the legalistic mind, intense focus down to the smallest details (in scripture and in life), promotion of the cleansing power of work and personal sacrifice, lack of privacy for the plebs, power-hunger, near-absence of the Holy Spirit as an operator. Fundamentally, ideas of love are completely over-shadowed by the necessity for purity. One can also see how some of Calvin’s ideas regarding relation of religion to state were revived by the Reconstructionists/Dominionists (all tricksy).

    Yet I know some of the most amazing Calvinist believers. They have taken the lovely aspects and simply sloughed off the crap while not rejecting the label/definition. I don’t know how they do it; I couldn’t! I guess we all have shameful people and ideologies in our pasts: familial, national, religious. Keeps us humble and careful?? I don’t know.

    And there IS also good in Calvin’s thinking. For eg, he wrote about caring for the earth/animals; went on for a bit about leaving farm soils in better shape for our children than when we inherited it.

    Here is a large site on Servetus. Lots o’ interesting material, some downloadable pdfs: http://www.miguelservet.org/servetus/council.htm

  50. Patrice wrote:

    Anon 1 wrote:
    In that era, leaders treated people contemptuously and their ideologies with love. I can’t grasp it from my context. I do not know why these guys are our heroes-of-faith. It has enraged me so deeply that I had to back away from it altogether.

    So what’s different today then?

    Let me answer – heretics are only metaphorically burnt at the stake now…

    Someone once observed that, throughout history, whenever calvinism dominates, it always results in oppressive totalitarianism, whether it is in a church or a country, or anything inbetween.

  51. TW wrote:

    Ligon Duncan is a highly educated, intelligent man. Other highly educated, intelligent individuals have seen fit to make him Chancellor of RTS.

    I don’t know much about Dr. J. Ligon Duncan, III, though I shudder to think what the “J” stands for given that he chose to be known as “Ligon”. But I stray…

    The thing is that being highly educated and intelligent, as Paul noted to the believers in Corinth, cannot make him Christ-like. (Nor could it me.) Indeed, ever-expanding knowledge pushes us inexorably into arrogance, and pursuing it is inherently dangerous for a follower of Jesus. We do theologians no favours at all by revering them for their learning and erudition. I accept that theology can usefully serve us when handled with proper caution. But it is a cruel and deceitful master, and I don’t think the Church does enough to protect educated and intelligent men and women from the seductive pleasures of speculations, myths and endless genealogies.

  52. @ Anon 1: I am not sure. They definitely had control problems. The problem with the Puritans is that it is all tied up in settling the Americas and the age that they were in.

    I wonder if the control was their way of coping with a strange new world that they could not control to their satisfaction. What I mean is this. OK, the winter was a lot colder than England, their were hurricanes leading up to the winter, and the Natives are none too excited about their presence. So, what better way to take control than to have all sorts of rules and doctrines to which everyone adhered?

    Also, I think the idea of of a monarchy, with some people born to be kings, featured into the development of a strongly authoritarian culture. Look at Calvin’s reign. He was not dissimilar to some minor monarch in his approach.

    In fact, the more I think about your question, the more I realize that it is a miracle that our Founders were able to create a republic that was not based in authoritarian rule but in the will of the people.

    I think that monarchy and rulers die hard.

    Really liked your question. I will be chewing on that for weeks.

  53. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The thing is that being highly educated and intelligent, as Paul noted to the believers in Corinth, cannot make him Christ-like. (Nor could it me.) Indeed, ever-expanding knowledge pushes us inexorably into arrogance, and pursuing it is inherently dangerous for a follower of Jesus. We do theologians no favours at all by revering them for their learning and erudition.

    I agree Nick. In the words of Leonard Ravenhill:
    “We are suffering today from a plague of ministers who are more concerned that their heads should be filled than that their hearts be fired. If a preacher leans toward headiness, let him spend his years of schooling before he enters the pulpit. Once he gets there, he is in it for life. Added degrees will not matter, because twenty-four hours a day are not sufficient for him to bear the names of his flock before the Great Shepherd, or fulfill the parallel responsibility of preparing their soul-food. The fact, then, is that spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Neither God nor His judgments have changed. By His prerogative, there are still things withheld from the prudent and “revealed unto babes.” And babes, brethren, have no colossal intellects! The Church of this hour boasts an all-time high in the IQ of its ministry. But hold on a minute before we triumph in the flesh. We are also having an all-time low in spiritual births, for the devil shudders not, Brother Apollos, at your verbal Niagaras!”
    -Leonard Ravenhill, Why Revival Tarries, pages 143-144

  54. Hester wrote:

    Why does he think continuationism is a Puritan trait?

    Another interesting comment. I believe that one of the reasons that Sovereign Grace Ministries has been so supported by these men (and I use gender specifically) is due to the unique combining of Neo-Cal and the unique gifts.

    Recently, I have heard statements from the young and restless leaders commending this approach. I think you will hear more of it in the days to come.

  55. It’s like the arbitrary church discipline of which you complain. You’re just like “them.”

  56. Ian wrote:

    So what’s different today then?…Someone once observed that, throughout history, whenever calvinism dominates, it always results in oppressive totalitarianism, whether it is in a church or a country, or anything inbetween.

    You’re right, chronic human problem—just gorier sometimes than others. And it’s also not just Calvinism, is it? Anywhere/anytime there is a bunch of people, a few of them will want power. Thus, potential for totalitarianism is always among us.

    Every ideology has been twisted to give fascism a reason to grow. Conversely, power-hunger can grow in any ideology. (Of course, ideology is not required either: cf desire for pleasure/things, obsession over money, the game itself, etc.)

    But this is why heavy emphasis on proper interpretation/application of scripture from “best” translations has proven inadequate to stem the horrors of the human heart. Calvin really thought he had it right. So did Knox, Luther, etc, most of the popes before them, celebrity pastors for centuries afterwards. On and on.

    It’s important to trace Calvinism’s roots, especially because it is re-influencing current faith. Any twisted or easily-twisted idea therein must be kiboshed. Our theological structures must be as sturdy as we can make them against our own flaws. But in the end, it is not “proper understanding of scripture made manifest”, or perfected “confessions of faith” or most-effective liturgy or best organizational structures that will keep us from ourselves. These are merely useful tools for the Holy Spirit, who calls us always and ever to love Him above all and our neighbors (“other”) as ourselves. If we find that we are spending most of our time maintaining/repairing our tools, then we are not using them which means we’re not doing our jobs.

    Ach I’m just spouting. Spilling out leftover dreck from “Two Abusers” comment thread. It is weird how the true answers can sound namby-pamby! Love! Holy Spirit! Whoop-de-doo! Yet there it is.

    IMO, of course. YMMV

  57. @ TW:

    @ Nick Bulbeck:

    I agree with you both. But then you have such scriptures as this

    2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.
    3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.
    4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

    . . . along with others about “being able to teach” and “feed my sheep.”

    This seems to have led to a plethora of “pastors” who believe that it is their “job” to study. They justify being the “preaching” pastor (spending enormous amounts of time studying, along with amounts of money to buy books and take classes) with these scriptures.

    There are people in my congregation who believe that the preaching pastors should be studying and not shepherding. Jesus seemed to be more concerned with “caring” for people. This does include some instruction, but does it necessitate endless studying of books?

    I’ve come to the conclusion that many church leaders should really be teachers or professional students, although the pay usually isn’t as good. They don’t often also make good shepherds or “carers” of souls.

  58. Dee wrote:

    In fact, many of them like to play games with defining themselves as Calvinists. I plan to do a post on that soon. Some are being told to answer the question “Are you a Calvinist?” by answering “What do you mean?” They seem to get a kick out of the fact that many people will not ask the right questions. At that point they will say ”Oh no.” And silently smirk.

    Again, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

    Because you didn’t give My Exact Definition of the term (and you misspelled One Word), your point is obviously completely invalid, Poot! Sniff! Ahhhh! Smug Smug Smug.

  59. Patrice wrote:

    The Calvinistas are more whole-hog: the wacky spinnings of the legalistic mind, intense focus down to the smallest details (in scripture and in life), promotion of the cleansing power of work and personal sacrifice, lack of privacy for the plebs, power-hunger, near-absence of the Holy Spirit as an operator. Fundamentally, ideas of love are completely over-shadowed by the necessity for purity

    Citizen Robespierre and Mullah Omar would agree.

  60. Patrice wrote:

    Every ideology has been twisted to give fascism a reason to grow. Conversely, power-hunger can grow in any ideology. (Of course, ideology is not required either: cf desire for pleasure/things, obsession over money, the game itself, etc.)

    But if the Ideology is of Cosmic importance — whether God’s Predestined Will or the Inevitable Dialectic of History — you can justify a LOT more power-hunger because then everything is raised to Cosmic levels.

  61. Bridget wrote:

    This seems to have led to a plethora of “pastors” who believe that it is their “job” to study. They justify being the “preaching” pastor (spending enormous amounts of time studying, along with amounts of money to buy books and take classes) with these scriptures.

    Calvin was one of those whose job it was to study and pontificate. Until at age 25 he got the absolute power and blank check to try it all out for real. And Geneva suffered the collateral damage.

  62. Patrice wrote:

    In that era, leaders treated people contemptuously and their ideologies with love.

    Not just “in that era”.

    Remember Citizen Robespierre and Comrade Pol Pot?

  63. @ Janey:
    I only partly agree. The issue here is not inner workings, but outer workings. Congress is often referred to a “rubber stamp” congress even when there are significant (minority) disagreements. I think what people see is that Mohler is allowed to make rash and even false statements about Mahaney, and is not held accountable. Regardless of the “inner” workings of the board, thy haven’t done anything public about it.

  64. @ Dee:

    The problem with the Puritans is that it is all tied up in settling the Americas and the age that they were in. I wonder if the control was their way of coping with a strange new world that they could not control to their satisfaction.

    This could be true for the New England Puritans (and you’re hardly the first to suggest it), but it’s not as if the English ones didn’t have their own “control issues” too. Cromwell, anybody? 😉

  65. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    But if the Ideology is of Cosmic importance — whether God’s Predestined Will or the Inevitable Dialectic of History — you can justify a LOT more power-hunger because then everything is raised to Cosmic levels.

    It’s possible that an Ideology of Cosmic Importance merely keeps the plebs quieter longer. Tyrants are already convinced of their own god-like status/powers whether there’s Cosm(et)ic Support or not.

    So maybe the primary difference is the quality of the propaganda.

  66. Bob Cleveland wrote:

    Calvinism, or any particular tenets thereof, doesn’t have to “make sense”. We’re too limited in our ability to comprehend for that to be a criteria. The real question is “Does the Bible say it”.

    Yes, the real question is does the Bible say it? However,I was just disagreeing with someone the other day who also said that God doesn’t have to make sense. But every time I find in our translations something that does not make sense, I ‘put it on the shelf’ until a deeper study into the earlier writings and/ or a historical study of the times in which they were written teaches me something about that area of study that does make sense. The Holy Spirit has given us the mind of Christ so we can understand, I think we do God a disservice with blind obedience. I doubt that even Abraham would have offered up Isaac had he not reasoned out what he knew God had already promised about posterity through Isaac specifically.

  67. Sergius Martin-George wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    By “accolades” you mean (Pottsylvanian accent)

    …. as in Pottstown, Pennsylvania?

    No, Pottsylvania from Rocky & Bulwinkle.

  68. @ Anon 1:I’m not privy to Al Mohler’s relationship with CJ Mahaney and the others involved. Were I in his shoes, I would have to be absolutely certain of myself, and of the facts, before saying anything on either side of the issues involved. But I’m not in his shoes.

    I do know Al Mohler to be a godly man and a faithful servant. But I hasten to add there’s only ever been ONE perfect one of those, and we killed Him…..

  69. @ Bob Cleveland

    Nice try Bob.

    W T of F?

    There’s plenty of room ?

    ..for victims of spiritual abuse, or worse?

    What?

    …the differences mostly have to do with the infinite things of abusive churches, which we’re not quite up to getting our criminal justice system around…

    (sadface)

    Sopy

  70. Dee wrote:

    I like this idea. In fact, it might be nice to have two posts-one by a traditional and one by a Neo and have them explain why they are one and not the other. The hiccup would be getting a Neo to do it. I am not sure they like us very much…

    Dee – I am unusually good at putting the other side’s point of view, even if I violently disagree with it. (There’s a downside to that gift, as there is with having perfect pitch.) I don’t mind being a YRR / Neo-Calvipuritan for a day.

  71. @ Dee:
    Have you been to Jamestown settelment in VA? they had strict rules as well. I think our founding fathers were geniuses.

  72. @ Joy Huff:
    I have been to Jamestown and Williamsburg on many occasions. Our farm is 68 miles south of there in North Carolina.

    Dee’s family and my family toured around Williamsburg together about 10 years ago. We dined at one of the historic taverns. Was it King’s Arms, Dee?

  73. TW:

    Thanks for the Leonard Ravenhill quote. He was an interesting guy. Spoke at the church I attended in about 1980.

    Bob Cleveland:

    Thanks for your balance!

    In terms of seeing that RTS continues with a high view of Scripture, RTS appears to have made a good choice.

    I agree with TW in the hope that Duncan and the others will reconsider and reflect upon their unwise public statements regarding Mahaney and SGM, and their failure to address what appear to have been very unhealthy discipleship and shepherding methods, which displayed themselves most prominently in the handling of child molestations in their congregations. Including Mahaney among the 4 in T4G was a big error. Polity may not be the focus of T4G, but including Mahaney in the group was a tacit approval of SGM’s polity as being within the acceptable spectrum of Christian Church life. If even a quarter of what has been reported by former SGM people is true, neither SGM nor Mahaney should be put on a public platform as an example.

  74. Anonymous, Acting like Mohler, Duncan and Dever did NOT agree with the shepherding methods and promote them (see ALL of their many statements over the last 2-3 years) is disingenuous. If they are considered “godly” then that word has changed definition to mean something else which is not good for victims of child molestation but very good for molesters. They are men to be leery of. Not men to trust or describe as “godly”.

    I did not see Bob’s response as “balanced” but uninformed. There will always be those who side with the famous and powerful. It takes guts to stand up for the least of these.

  75. @ Anon 1:
    Take the very hottest words off Dr Mohler’s keyboard:
    http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/08/21/the-sheer-weightlessness-of-so-many-sermons-why-expository-preaching-matters/
    “Every sermon presents the hearer with a forced decision. We will either obey or disobey the word of God. The sovereign authority of God operates through the preaching of his word to demand obedience from his people and to delight them in it. Preaching is the essential instrumentality through which God shapes his people as the Holy Spirit accompanies the word. As the Reformers remind us, it is through preaching that Christ is present among his people.”
    Standing alone, this might sound balanced.
    But, put in the context of Mohler’s SBTS leadership and SGM support, these words could mean something very unbalanced indeed– ie: The Preacher usurps the authority and power of the Holy Spirit.

  76. Dave AA,

    Check this out what he taught at a pastors conference at FBCJax:

    http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/02/al-mohler-pastors-are-god-appointed.html

    “….”…we believe that those who teach and preach the word of God are God-appointed agents to save God’s people from ignorance.” Al Mohler

    He believes this about CJ Mahaney. His many public affirmations of Mahaney’s teachings and behavior make it clear. As do Dever and Duncan.

    The question is: Are THEY teaching the “Word of God”? I say no way since it would not result in what we have seen from them.

  77. @ Anon 1:

    Your comment reminded me of something I should have included in the post. Ligon Duncan was one of the speakers at the SGM Pastors Conference last November.

    http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Sovereign-Grace-Pastors-Conference-CJ-Mahaney-interviews-Ligon-Duncan.aspx

    At the above link, the SGM Staff stated:

    “Ligon is a faithful friend of Sovereign Grace Ministries, and this is evidenced so clearly in the interview this evening.”

    Just to give you a head’s up – remember the three-man panel that judged whether Mahaney was ‘fit for ministry’? Well, one of them will be speaking at the upcoming SGM Pastor’s Conference. So much for objectivity…

    http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/events/pastors-conference/speakers.aspx

  78. “His õõ On The Sparrow?”

    hmmm…

    As you know, certain Calvinesta 501c religious professionals, have embedded themselves like ticks, steadily sucking all the life blood out of Jesus’ church. 

    $ure.

    (some are even easy to spot…their in bed with  da proverbial (C)harlatan (J)ester Mahaney.)

    Screeeeeeetch!

    Pray, Act, n’ Avoid.

    Contrary to belief, pet doctrines are not required to follow Jesus Christ.

    Read youze bible…

    Don’t b fool’d.

    got da real thing?

    hmmm…

    Yeah,

    Make sure you got the right One, Baby!

    (grin)

    hahahahahaha

    Many in the days to come will say, “I represent Christ”, and mis-lead a whole pile of kind folk.

    Please, please, please, please…

    let it not b U.

    *
     
    It is the very error of these religious goons;
    He comes more nearer error than truth,
    And drives the penitent mad.

    (sadface)

    S“㋡”py

  79. @ Deb:

    Deb, lots of folks refuse to connect dots. The new thing is to blame it on SGM “polity”. And some forget that CJ was instrumental in T4G even SGM facilitating the administrative aspects of it. Not sure why some think he was “invited” to “participate”.

    But then that is why blogs like this exist. :o)

  80. Deb wrote:

    “Ligon is a faithful friend of Sovereign Grace Ministries, and this is evidenced so clearly in the interview this evening.”

    Just to give you a head’s up – remember the three-man panel that judged whether Mahaney was ‘fit for ministry’? Well, one of them will be speaking at the upcoming SGM Pastor’s Conference. So much for objectivity…

    “One Hand Washes the Other…”

  81. @ Anon 1:
    I’d forgotten this other quote, “If you do not preach and teach the word of God, if you do not faithfully teach the word of God such that your people hear it and understand it and grow upon it they are consigned to unfaithfulness and many will be consigned to hell. “

  82. @ Dave A A:

    Hmmm . . . God is not able, Jesus is not able, the Holy Spirit is not able . . . to save, redeem, equip, instruct, empower, love their own? Christianity will fail without the pastor doing his job?!

    I’m glad I don’t believe what Mr. Mohler says.

  83. Bridget wrote:

    @ Dave A A:
    Hmmm . . . God is not able, Jesus is not able, the Holy Spirit is not able . . . to save, redeem, equip, instruct, empower, love their own? Christianity will fail without the pastor doing his job?!
    I’m glad I don’t believe what Mr. Mohler says.

    I am glad I don’t believe in what he teaches either. Feel badly for people who do.

  84. Patti wrote:

    I doubt that even Abraham would have offered up Isaac had he not reasoned out what he knew God had already promised about posterity through Isaac specifically.

    God would have seen through that in an instant.

  85. @ Dee, Deb & Joy Huff:

    Have you been to Jamestown settelment in VA? they had strict rules as well.

    …though Jamestown’s rules may have been based, at least initially, more on a need to keep the settlement alive than any religious motivations – it did almost fail at least once. Much higher death rates and very different demographic than MA Bay. Also, non-COE ministers (i.e., Separatists and/or Puritans) were actually banned from VA in the early days:

    “For the preservation of the puritie of doctrine and unitie of the church, it is enacted that all ministers whatsoever which shall reside in the collony are to be conformable to the orders and constitutions of the church of England, and the laws therein established, and not otherwise to be admitted to teach or preach publickly or privatly, and that the Gov. and Counsel do take care that all nonconformists upon notice of them shall be compelled to depart the colony with all conveniencie.” (1643)

    This page has more info: http://www.virtualjamestown.org/rlaws.html

    BTW, I LOVE Williamsburg!!!!!

  86. @ Anon 1:

    Duncan wrote those words after Detwiler’s documents were published online. This was way before the lawsuit. Though they demonstrated insensitivity, they were not in reference to sexual molestation.

    Of course, his later statement, co-written with Mohler and Dever, *was* in reference to the lawsuit.

  87. Dave A A wrote:

    @ Anon 1:
    Take the very hottest words off Dr Mohler’s keyboard:
    http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/08/21/the-sheer-weightlessness-of-so-many-sermons-why-expository-preaching-matters/
    “Every sermon presents the hearer with a forced decision. We will either obey or disobey the word of God. The sovereign authority of God operates through the preaching of his word to demand obedience from his people and to delight them in it. Preaching is the essential instrumentality through which God shapes his people as the Holy Spirit accompanies the word. As the Reformers remind us, it is through preaching that Christ is present among his people.”
    Standing alone, this might sound balanced.
    But, put in the context of Mohler’s SBTS leadership and SGM support, these words could mean something very unbalanced indeed– ie: The Preacher usurps the authority and power of the Holy Spirit.

    OK, so let presbyterian Ligon Duncan preach a sermon on infant baptism to Albert Mohler – we’ll soon see if Mohler is obedient to the sovereign authority of God operating through preaching… Or let Wade Burleson preach a sermon on egalitarianism – I’d love to know if Mohler would be obedient.

    Mohler’s words are ambiguous, but he could be saying “The preacher is God’s chosen mouthpiece, disagree with his interpretation of the Bible and you are disagreeing with God”

  88. @ Anon 1:

    Knox was admittedly a contentious character. One mainstream Protestant history wrote to the effect that his acerbic personality put people off. Apparently Knox was also shocked when he went to Geneva to find that Calvin saw nothing wrong with playing boules on a Sunday!