Is that the famous Night Owl I’ve heard about (at top of OP)? He looks as if he has just swallowed a gallon of high-test coffee!

Deb wrote:

Oh yes! He (or she) is ready to dive-bomb onto the next Neo-Cal pastor that weasels his way into a traditional SB church.

I thought you had managed to aquire a photo of me, then I noticed the owl’s eyes are not green like mine! : )

Keep ’em comin’ , Deb. People in my rural area are clueless for the most part about the YRR. Our church is searching for a new pastor. Guest speakers have come in and quoted Piper, Dever, Platt, and others, and too many just say, “Amen”. Scary.
Men at our church, as well as men at the non-cal Bible college my husband attended, have recommended books by Piper and Voddie Baucham. When I found out my husband was reading those books, I informed him about their beliefs and the kind of men they are.
My husband has also read Tony Evans on recommendations from men at our church. I can’t figure out what Evans is, but I don’t like him!

I love the owl picture it sort of reminds me of the feeling I get when some of the new pastors get caught changing things before they have consolidated power. The “who” us / me innocent aw shucks I just feel the Lord leading me line. I have been involved in several powerplays in church politics where new pastor comes on in as a youth or singles pastor with sights on being a lead pastor at the expense of the lead pastor now in charge. I was involved in the ministry to people with disabilities so we were way down the list when it came to importance or big picture thought. One pastor, I remember started in the singles group and the singles were a church unto themselves as for power and financial capability in this particular church but most of the singles wanted to stay with the main church. That was my first question to him right up front, so do you plan on staying here for 5-10 years or so? Oh Yes the Lord lead me here I am committed etc. I had already put on the hip boots because I knew what was coming. Right after the new singles pastor got his “church sponsored” PhD he started his move. He split the singles group and took many of the heavy hitters with him and the rest were left to rot on the vine. This destroyed the ministry to the disabled which of course was measured a no loss zero sum. That still breaks my heart. It broke alot of other hearts as well. But he got his lead pastorship, big church, and his education. I think new pastors should have to sign a specific document like you listed above to conform to the norms in polity of the congregation as they are now and only on congregational vote via bylaws in place should be able to change things. Also, they should have to sign A non-compete clause of some type including not to pilfer congregants if the pastor should leave or get the boot.

Reading the definition of TULIP and having raised sheep once upon a time, I conclude that these pastor guys who adhere to TULIP are not really pastors at all. According to TULIP a pastor is not necessary. They don’t have to preach the gospel, feed sheep, disciple sheep, care for wounded sheep, lead them to safe water to drink, shelter them, protect them from predators…because according to TULIP, some are gonna make it, while most are not. And the ones that do, will presevere. And it’s all because God set it in motion. So WHAT are these pastor guys doing? Their job must then be to shear the sheep! We employed this hired (hireling) guy to come in and shear our sheep. That’s all he did. A sheep-shearer is not a pastor shepherd.
Pastors that use ‘stealth and deception’ and ‘not honest about what they believe and what changes they plan to make’ are like the Pharisees of old.

What I find remarkable is that the FUNDAMENTALIST were so worried about a few LIBERALS; therefore they had to TAKEOVER the SBC to purify it, but never saw the monster coming in the Neo-Cals.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Yes, shame on them! I wonder how many Southern Baptist churches will be rocked by stealth Neo-Cal pastors this year.

Question 7 in the OP, “Do you hold to the TULIP theology” has a loop hole that I’ve noticed some defenders of the movement jump through. They will deny being neo-Cal since they only agree with 3 or 4 points of the TULIP when they know that functionally that is exactly what they are. I’m not calling anyone a liar, at least not by name.

Thank you Deebs for this article. It contains the essential truths about the New Calvinist movement sweeping through SBC ranks. It should be printed as a bulletin insert at 45,000+ SBC churches next Sunday!

I actually sort of feel sorry for the hundreds/thousands of YRR graduates from SBC seminaries who embark on a search for their first pastorate. When seminary President Danny Akin counsels them to “Put your theological cards on the table in plain view for all to see”, this severely limits their job opportunities in SBC life! This is not a deck of cards they should have been carrying in the first place, Dr. Akin! It’s a hot potato you gave them – what did you expect them to do with it?! So they must compromise their integrity for a season and hope God will wink at their rebellion … but sovereign God sees all, young man.

Another major problem with the release of the YRR army on SBC churches is that they don’t have the experience or spiritual maturity to lead a church. Before New Calvinism came along, the “traditional” model was for a young man fresh out of seminary to serve as an associate to an older pastor (which is actually the Biblical model). Now, they come into churches like bulls in a china shop and go about breaking the dishes. If God keeps our tears in a bottle, then all the weeping of SBC saints caught up in this mess must be overflowing to His feet. It is never right to do wrong, but wrong is prevailing in New Calvinism … wrong motives, wrong practices, wrong before God.

Max wrote:

this severely limits their job opportunities in SBC life

This is where Acts 29 steps in and plants a new church in an already over-served community.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Because cooperative dollars support the seminaries, and the SBC churches I have been a member of all trusted the seminaries to produce good pastors. Before being snookered by young hot-shot neo-cals, these churches were snookered by the seminaries. Shame.

The neo-cals are the branches of a tree which is bearing a fruit which should not be in SBC. This movement is the product of SBC theo-politicians who have cast fruit at Southern Baptists they don’t want! Certain SBC seminaries are the trees bearing such fruit – where should the axe be laid to stop this rebellion? The roots.

Max wrote:

SBC has borrowed from the Acts 29 model of planting churches. While you can’t get your hands on data to identify the number of SBC New Calvinist church planters, the steady stream of reports in the blogosphere indicate that it is substantial. Indeed, many of these SBC church plants hold dual affiliation with Acts 29. The President of Acts 29, Matt Chandler, pastors an SBC church.

The SBC will continue on this trajectory as long as the money keeps coming in.

Is Covenant Theology about church discipline and all that or something else?

I talked to the pastor a minute the other night about the calvinist in Baptist churches. He was kind of like yes, I’ve heard of that.

Also, the way my church described total depravity was just ‘we all have the capacity to sin’. I’m not sure they take it as far as some of these people.

Someone may have posted this already, but I found it very interesting. Dennis Darville and some other guy discuss how a pastor search committee should work. I thought it was interesting to see Dennis in person, and hear him tell his story — with no mention of the “M word” (Maranantha).

Watch “Pastors Center: The Pastor Search Committee” on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/125460204

I’m asking a serious question here:
If there is “unconditional election” and “irresistible grace” then why would Calvinists need a church at all? God already knows who’s in and they already drawn to him so really you may as well go and lie in a hole and wait for the end.
Also what is the “Great Commission” about then? Aren’t Christians supposed to go to all nations (or something like that)?
Wouldn’t pastors be useless since the elect already know due to irresistible grace? They don’t need pastors because they’re already in.
And why would Jesus need to show up at all? God already chose the elect, so if he’s God and can do anything then punishing the Son is pretty sadistic.
In fact, if it’s all pre determined, then the fall in Genesis was engineered meaning God meant for all the suffering to happen so he could kill his own Son for kicks just so the elect can get to heaven.
I don’t get it.

Lea wrote:

WHY are these people not just becoming Presbyterians???

Because the SBC New Calvinist leaders want all the SBC stuff! It certainly would have been a much easier row to hoe for them to join the Presbyterian ranks of like-minded folks – no messy church takeovers to have to do, no need to lie your way into a pulpit, no weeping and gnashing of teeth church splits, etc. But leave behind all the stuff?! No way! If they convince mainline Southern Baptists to return to the Civil War theological roots of SBC’s slave-holding Calvinist founders, then they can capture 45,000 churches, seminaries, publishing house, mission agencies, etc. With this possibility on the horizon, why would you want to simply be absorbed by the Presbyterians?!

@ Max:
Great analogy! If I could take it a step further, the SBC is experiencing an oil slick that is polluting the water and damaging Christian lives.

Lea wrote:

The million dollar question (in more ways than one, as I think the answer is ‘money’) is WHY are these people not just becoming Presbyterians???

Money and Power? Southern Baptist churches are autonomous. Once a Southern Baptist congregation has agreed to elder led governance and the pastor has his yes-men in place, this group has almost total control.

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

My Presbyterian church, while having a “session” or elder board, they are elected by the general congregation, AND we all vote on the budget! I hope we would not let one of these NEo-Cal’s take over our church!!

This is true in my case as well as far as I can tell. At least, they gave all the salary numbers of the pastors in detail one day. And it seems a lot more warm and fuzzy than these people…

dee wrote:

Yesterday, a Twitter conversation ensued when Courtney Reissig, wrote an article on ESS for Christianity Today in which she claimed that those of us women who do not agree with ESS need to watch our tone and be (I am not kidding) WINSOME!

Oh my gosh!!!

I saw a little of that but I don’t do twitter.

K.D. wrote:

I wonder just what is being taught at the seminaries these days? I seriously wonder what kind of a ‘rodeo’ the SBC seminaries have become since I was there in the 1980s?

I’ve literally been brokenhearted over this the past few days. I really enjoyed my time at Southeastern, and I’m so disappointed at the direction its taken in the past 10 years.

dee wrote:

That is why i prefer to use the term “doctrines of grace.” I read an article once in which the Calvinista said to use this term since most of the idiots (implied) out there will not know what they are talking about. He went on to say “I believe in grace, don’t you?” That is not the full truth and they know it.

Back in the days I was intensely interested in Christian apologetics, I did a lot of reading about cults. One of the things I learned about cults, even the ones who sound somewhat Christian (Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses) is that they use much of the same lingo and terminology as regular Christians do, but they define them different.

I remember being at one site that was, I think, about JW’s, and it had a list of words, with a side- by- side list of how those words were understood and meant by Christians vs. JWs, and there was a world of difference.

With the cults, I can’t remember reading if that is just how they spoke and wrote or if they were deliberately trying to be misleading, but it sure looks like the YRR crowd is intentionally trying to be misleading.

And! Sorry – I see parallels all the time – this reminds me of the Muslims who think it’s okay to lie about stuff, so long as it promotes or protects their religions. The term for that Islamic practice of lying to serve their religion is ‘Taqiyya.’

I guess Neo Calvinists have their own version of Taqiyya. Maybe it could be called “Cal-Taqiyya”? 🙂

dee wrote:

Thought: Just register your name with Twitter and get a screen name. It takes two seconds. Then you can follow all the hullabaloo without have a Twitter account yourself.

Is there a hashtag to follow?

dee wrote:

But Aimee Byrd nailed her on that and said she asked Owen Strachan to take it down and he refuse and said it was Biblical.

Oooh! Nice.

I pop over to twitter every now and then, you can read without an account. I just hate the format.

dee wrote:

Yesterday, a Twitter conversation ensued when Courtney Reissig, wrote an article on ESS for Christianity Today in which she claimed that those of us women who do not agree with ESS need to watch our tone and be (I am not kidding) WINSOME!

I saw some of that discussed on other sites the last few days.

I find it really appalling you have this group (CBMW and others) that teaches stuff about women that I find very sexist and reprehensible –
Further, they’re been prostituting doctrine about the Trinity to promote their sexism, they won’t respond to women (not even complmentarian women) who ask them questions about all this –
But then this token Comp lady has the audacity to write that page at CT where she “tone polices” egalitarian people.

(She denied in her page that she’s a token woman, but yes, she is a token.)

Complementarian beliefs are really debasing to women, but comps want to be treated like kid gloves from their critics.

Most complementarians won’t listen to your arguments if you’re a woman, and doubly so if you’re a woman and they don’t like HOW you express your views.

The complementarians expect female critics to be super, super genteel and demure in how they discuss their disagreements.

If they think you (a woman) are being “uppity,” or being too spirited, resolute, no-nonsense, or strong in how you discuss things, they will just discount anything you have to say. It looks like she is playing that card.

ishy wrote:

The SBC is the largest denomination in the US, almost twice as large as the UMC, which is the next one down.

I have heard that so much, and while it is true it does not present the actual picture either of baptists or of denominations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists_in_the_United_States

Note that the total number of baptists is said to be 33 million of which only about 16 million were SBC at the time of this article. And note that the number of RCC is reported as 79 million. And that is just two groupings, baptist and catholic. IMO the SBC needs to start seeing itself in more realistic terms.

The whole article is informative and shows that both arminian and calvinist thinking go all the way back to the beginnings. They are both ‘traditional’ in baptist thinking to that extent.

On baptist pews, and sometimes in the same churches there are conservatives/fundamentalists and also moderates/liberals. Also on baptist pews sometimes in the same churches are people who ‘lean more’ in the direction of some calvinist thought at least in some things and some who ‘lean more’ in the direction of arminian thought. At least this has been my personal experience. That this creates a potentially volatile situation is not surprising.

@ ishy:
ishy wrote:

Lea wrote:

The million dollar question (in more ways than one, as I think the answer is ‘money’) is WHY are these people not just becoming Presbyterians???

1.The SBC is the largest denomination in the US, almost twice as large as the UMC, which is the next one down.
2. Churches are ripe for takeover by their emphasis on the pastor and his sermons.
3. There is some historical precedent for this type of Calvinism in Baptist history.

To be fair, you can be Calvinist in your salvation beliefs and still differ quite a bit with Presbyterian beliefs. Presbyterians typically believe in infant baptism, Covenant Theology, are sacramental, etc.

These “Reform Baptists” would be more like Piper and Dever than Keller and Duncan and would fit better in those kinds of churches.

dee wrote:

She said that it was 50/50. We have screen shots. I went over to CBMW and checked. Here are the truthful numbers.

3 out of 11 staff are women.
There are 0 women on the Board of Drectors.
6 out of 26 members of the Council are women.

Maybe they just have a perception problem. I was in the admin building at SWBTS a few months ago where there was a banner listing the various chairs. Not only was the chair named for Dorothy Patterson at the top, it was in a larger font than all the others.

dee wrote:

So, Reissig was playing games. And she is a woman! I plan to write about this soon.

She MUST SUBMIT!

ishy wrote:

I have a few female friends who are openly complementarian, when it’s clear their husbands are not. They want their husbands to bear the burden of decision-making. Would make a fascinating psychological study….

And there are those women who are not themselves comp in any describable way but who complain that their husbands will not 'assume the responsibility' or 'step up to the plate' or 'act like a man' even to the point of counting the husband as one of their children and saying that they don't really have a husband but more like another child. Didn't somebody write a book about angry women and passive men?

ishy wrote:

I actually have a number of female friends that would call themselves complementarian, who would never allow themselves to be silenced.

See, I think they have bought this title, which is an annoying made up word which is really clunky btw, when what a lot of them really mean is that they work together with their husbands, or they stay home with the kids, or they don’t mind having male pastors, or what have you. And all of that is really pretty harmless. It’s all the other stuff like patriarchy that’s added on top that does damage.

ishy wrote:

I have a few female friends who are openly complementarian, when it’s clear their husbands are not. They want their husbands to bear the burden of decision-making. Would make a fascinating psychological study….

Now that is a different one. I read these stories about wives who wanted their husbands to be spiritual leaders which seems sort of bizarre to me. I think they have been taught that that’s correct and are to comply maybe? I don’t know.

BTW, the church I’m at now is Presbyterian so Calvinism is baked into the cake. They aren’t sneaking in or anything. But NOT complementarityismistism! And apparently that’s important to me right now.

Celia wrote:

I know Al Mohler and Sproul will say it’s not possible to be anything but a 5 pointer.

Limited atonement was described as sort of ‘double’ predestination? I still haven’t wrapped my head around all of it. I’m probably about to start reading books.

ishy wrote:

I have a few female friends who are openly complementarian, when it’s clear their husbands are not. They want their husbands to bear the burden of decision-making.

I would call that refusing to take personal responsibility …. refusing to think …. having someone else to blame if a bad decision is made.

another Brian wrote:

“Reform Baptists”

I’m learning that there are as many “reformed” threads in Calvinism as concrete treats at the local custard shop! It’s the New Calvinist-YRR flavor that Southern Baptists should be concerned about … they are militant and aggressive in belief and practice … and will leave you with heart-burn.

@ Lea:

Exactly. I don’t think many complementarian women realize they are supporting and defending a belief system that doesn’t respect them or their views, but once some of them start catching on they are not welcomed or respected in that ideology (such as A. Byrd), she may have her eyes opened and leave it behind.

I mean, she already sees that some complementarian beliefs are ‘way out there’ and nutso, (such as the CBMW “soap bubble” page), but it is complementarianism at its very foundations that is flawed, not just the extreme, wacko versions of it that are sold by Driscoll, Piper, etc.

She seems to think that the world of “soft complementarianism” is “biblical” and safe for women – and I think she may be starting to see that is not the case.

I hope she comes to realize all that eventually, dumps complementarianism, and becomes a mutualist/ egalitarian.

Lea wrote:

I think Aimee has been noticing this and it’s been ticking her off for a while. I think it would be fun to watch if she really goes to town on them.

A post script. I think there may be one objection to this.

I’ve noticed that complementarians, (usually the male ones), don’t want to deal with women dissenters, unless – unless – said woman is disputing the “male headship / woman submit” stuff as put forth by complementarians.

Then the male comps are happy to argue ’til the cows come home how male authority over women is God-approved.
Complementarians are keen on arguing women into the ground to get them to believe in womanly submission, male rule, etc.

But as to responding to other aspects and concerns (e.g., how comps promote E.S.S. to bolster their view, or how comp “male headship” plays a role in domestic violence), they don’t respond too much.

Catholic Gate-Crasherdl wrote:

Is that the famous Night Owl I’ve heard about (at top of OP)? He looks as if he has just swallowed a gallon of high-test coffee!

MOTHMAN!

@ Nancy2:
That would be more accurate or truthful. 🙂

@ Lea:
The way it used to work in the SBC was sorta of “of course a woman can’t be the Pastor” but women did pretty much everything else in church and were not silenced anywhere else. Woman were supposed to “submit” to their husbands but men were supposed to “love” their wives. This was more of focusing on what was perceived as each others strengths. It was a give give kinda thing. I think now it’s evolved into the idea of mutual submission. The idea is that men (complete generalizations here) are not so good at the love thing so the command was given to them to work on love and for women submitting was a weak point. When it plays out it looks egalitarian. But the old SBC was way different.

Lea wrote:

Anyway, I think this applies to the neo-cal folks. They see it as math. The new Calvinist types have taken the heart and the poetry out of it.

“His mind is made of wheels and metal.”
— Treebeard re Saruman

Daisy wrote:

There are definitely some men out there who are lazy, won’t step up to the plate and help their female partner carry the load in life (such as, doing house work, paying bills, etc), but I think it’s a big leap from encouraging such men to be adults and take on more responsibility in their romantic relationships to complementarian groups like CBMW and such telling wives that the husband can and should be the Master and Boss in the marriage.

I’ve seen a few complementarians harken back to the 50s and how life was just great for families back then, but this isn’t biblical. Agrarian societies mean hard work for everyone, and everyone pitching in to run the household and farm. They had to work as a team just to survive.

Plus, when my mom passed away 20 years ago, my dad didn’t know how to do anything for himself. I taught him how to cook, how to do laundry, and a lot of other household things, because my mom had been working full time and doing everything else. He really hadn’t ever tried to “raise” us before, and now he had two teenagers to finish raising. I think severe family roles really end up hampering a family in the long run.

Daisy wrote:

In cases where soft comp men listen to women and are kind and respectful – I think it’s in spite of complementarianism, not because of it.

Celia wrote:

The way it used to work in the SBC was sorta of “of course a woman can’t be the Pastor” but women did pretty much everything else in church and were not silenced anywhere else. Woman were supposed to “submit” to their husbands but men were supposed to “love” their wives. This was more of focusing on what was perceived as each others strengths. It was a give give kinda thing. I think now it’s evolved into the idea of mutual submission. The idea is that men (complete generalizations here) are not so good at the love thing so the command was given to them to work on love and for women submitting was a weak point. When it plays out it looks egalitarian. But the old SBC was way different.

Yes. I think that sort of ‘old school’ version can work when men are decent. And it may be like Daisy said, in spite of not because of.

I think these theology of comp that is being pushed now can be neutral or hurt only. It never helps. And that makes it a problem.

K.D. wrote:

I wonder just what is being taught at the seminaries these days? I seriously wonder what kind of a ‘rodeo’ the SBC seminaries have become since I was there in the 1980s?

K.D.: While my experience at SWBTS (mid-80’s) was more positive than what you have described yours as, I share your concern. There have been many changes on “The Hill” that I am uncomfortable with. That said, I am encouraged by the fact that many of the students I come in contact with on a regular basis are high-caliber individuals with a true desire to serve God occupationally. I try not to let my skepticism about the institution show too much (part of the reason I remain anonymous here at TWW).

FW Rez wrote:

Here is my theory on why neo-Cals prefer Elder-led polity: to them it is all about authority. While the traditional Southern Baptist views scripture as being the story of God’s love and redemption, neo-Cals start with the premise that it is all about God’s authority over everything. They then attempt to model and/or replicate this authority in everything they do. They only see 2 alternatives: hierarchy or anarchy.

As a different spin on this, I wonder if this is part of what’s coming into play.

FWIW … If you truly believe in the “T” of TULIP — total depravity — then there is no good in us at all. (In the extreme, this ends up *functionally* denying that we were made in the image of God and therefore still have something positive, even if marred.) This means you need police to keep people in line with “God’s will” (Law) and to punish the guilty (which everyone is). So, is it really about “authority,” or is it about power and fear, because fear is about punishment. [1 John 4:18, and let’s see what the ESV has to say: “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.”] So, these are not pastors, these are policemen; their system is punitive, it hides behind the language of mediating God’s authority among people, and it is ultimately modeled after Old Testament judges and kinds — a system that was ended at the cross with Jesus Christ’s death, wasn’t it?

They may be against anarchy, but aren’t they embracing anachronism? They are acting like the Mosaic Law is the ultimate polity for today, and despite all the wordage about “grace,” the function thereof all too often gets demonstrated as being missing from their hierarchy.

Lea wrote:

Daisy wrote:

In cases where soft comp men listen to women and are kind and respectful – I think it’s in spite of complementarianism, not because of it.

Celia wrote:

The way it used to work in the SBC was sorta of “of course a woman can’t be the Pastor” but women did pretty much everything else in church and were not silenced anywhere else. Woman were supposed to “submit” to their husbands but men were supposed to “love” their wives. This was more of focusing on what was perceived as each others strengths. It was a give give kinda thing. I think now it’s evolved into the idea of mutual submission. The idea is that men (complete generalizations here) are not so good at the love thing so the command was given to them to work on love and for women submitting was a weak point. When it plays out it looks egalitarian. But the old SBC was way different.

Yes. I think that sort of ‘old school’ version can work when men are decent. And it may be like Daisy said, in spite of not because of.

I think these theology of comp that is being pushed now can be neutral or hurt only. It never helps. And that makes it a problem.

Imagine what would be happening in the SBC today if the powers to be would have allowed the SBC churches to decide if they wanted a female or male pastor.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

So, is it really about “authority,” or is it about power and fear, because fear is about punishment.

They do seem fond of “discipline”.

dee wrote:

That is why, way back in 2009, we invented the term “Calvinista” to differentiate them. These guys are involved in holy war against anyone who does not see *the truth* as the YRR gospel boys contend.

Don’t know how germane to the subject this is, but morning drive-time on KFI this morning had an interview with the father of Scientology Maximum Leader David Miscavage. (The occasion was the father’s tell-all bio of Miscavage titled Ruthless hitting the bookstores.)

What stuck out to me is when Miscavage the Elder was describing David’s rise to power as Elron’s “gatekeeper” (a parallel to Stalin), his interviewer asked David’s age at the time.

The answer was “he was 25” (and he’d been raised in Scientology since age 9). I couldn’t help thinking of those YRR Elders/Pastors-in-Waiting — Young True Believers/privileged protégés of the guru. Except Miscavage was YRR to Elron Hubbard instead of Calvin.

Celia wrote:

Well, it goes without saying for any relationship to work both partners should be decent.

When both partners are decent, they allow each other to use their strengths and knowledge without gender boundaries. Example: my husband is considerably bigger than I am – he is definitely better at lifting things ….. he’s great with woodwork, and can handle a chainsaw like a pro. But, I’m better with animals …. when the horse needs care from the vet or a shodsman, I handle the horse. Sure, the horse is big, but, as my granddaddy would say, I have “the touch”. Home canning???? oooooohhhh! My husband has helped me make jam and jelly until he has it down – he can do that by all himself and as well as I can! (He doesn’t have picking down, yet. But, we both rinse the soap bubbles off of the canning jars.)
Eat our shorts, Owen!

roebuck wrote:

To me, “complementarian” ought to mean that each party does what they’re good at, for the furtherance of the household. I.e., they complement each other.

Ah. See, if they had meant that, they would have left it at ‘complementary’, which also has the benefit of being a real word. Like egalitarian.

The entire made up word deal was a tell – an attempt to rewrite and obscure.

Nancy2 wrote:

Molly wrote:

And it’s all because God set it in motion. So WHAT are these pastor guys doing? Their job must then be to shear the sheep! We employed this hired (hireling) guy to come in and shear our sheep.

And steal the wool!

Don’t forget the taste of fresh mutton! (drool drool drool…)

@ roebuck:
I agree. I think it’s ridiculous that these comps parse their theology out so much to the point of who loads the dishwasher.

Actually total depravity is affirmed by many camps of Arminian theology and is not the same as there being no good in us. It means to them that every aspect of us is tainted. Physically, we all age and die or get sick and die. Mentally we are not as bright as we would have been before the fall. Emotionally and relationally ditto. Spiritually also.

Only the hyper camp makes us utter worms.

And for those in SBC churches that are no longer healthy but want to stay Baptists, there are a plethora of choices from totally independent, IFB, CBF, ABC-USA, more than one kind of Missionary Baptist, Free Will, Primitive, and Primitive Baptist Universalist. Not all have the same theology so you will have to find what they believe, but you have options even if you stay Baptist.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Lea wrote:
The bible is not a formula. It is poetry. If you focus too much on these few mentions of women and submission you lose the point rather quickly.
Rob Bell (the guy who got piled on by Team Hell?) wrote something similar on his Tumblr blog — about “Poem Truth” and “Math Truth”, and how we read the Poem Truth of the Bible as if it were Math Truth.

Exactly! I heard it explained as the Hebrews used hyperbole and symbolism, and everyone knew what the author meant. Western society today, though, has a very literal mentality that we got from the ancient Greeks, and this messes with how we interpret the Bible.

Celia wrote:

Hubby and I laugh at John Piper’s advice about a woman being careful about giving a husband driving directions.

I had a (male) friend who when I was driving and didn’t know where something was would give random directions, whether he knew where he was going or not he would just be like ‘turn left’. And I started asking if he really knew or if he was just guessing 🙂

Stan wrote:

Well, Carl Trueman and Aimee Byrd are trying to work through the differences and you can see how that is going. See above: I don’t think a Presbyterian church is more likely to be neoCal than any other evangelical church. It may be less if you’re in ECO or EPC. A Presbyterian church teaching Calvinism is not the red flag, but if you see a 30 year old pastor saying “gospel-centered” and then smirking, you may want to dig around

The PCA is a very conservative Presbyterian denomination, so I can see it welcoming the neo-cals. The Orthodox Presbyterians are very conservative too, but they might be too extreme for even the neo-cals!

Daisy wrote:

Then the male comps are happy to argue ’til the cows come home how male authority over women is God-approved.
Complementarians are keen on arguing women into the ground to get them to believe in womanly submission, male rule, etc.

Well, at least they’re showing us they’re not datable. I always avoid a man who says that God put men in charge because what he’s actually saying is that God put HIM in charge. Sorry bud, I’m too smart to believe that.

To me a good standard to go by is if a man believes a woman can be a minister. If he does, then I know he truly respects women.

Muff Potter wrote:

Read Article 13 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy. Hyperbole is disavowed as a legitimate literary device in Scripture

Lord have mercy! Thousands of theologians will disagree with that.

Muff Potter wrote:

Patriciamc wrote:
Exactly! I heard it explained as the Hebrews used hyperbole and symbolism, and everyone knew what the author meant. Western society today, though, has a very literal mentality that we got from the ancient Greeks, and this messes with how we interpret the Bible.

Read Article 13 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy. Hyperbole is disavowed as a legitimate literary device in Scripture.

We had a sunday school class on the prophets, and I forget which one it was, but they were talking about all the puns or something. I wish I could remember the details, but it gave me a better appreciation for sure for what the writers were doing. (like calling making an illusion to rocks, when a town’s name meant ‘rock town’ or something – stuff that wasn’t at all obvious in english).

@ Celia:
My husband and I are both good with directions and maps. We swap up driving on long road trips. He’ll sleep for 3 or 4 hours and ask me where we are.
My first husband (deceased), total opposite. We were going to a friends house once, he was driving. Directions said to turn left at the stop sign. He turned right. I said, ” Hey, Tony said to turn right!” He said, “I did turn right!” I asked, “Which wrist is your watch on?” He stopped the car in the middle of the road, held both hands in front of his face, and said, “Oh.” Yeah, Piper would have loved us.

Gram3 wrote:

The do not have an argument that holds water, so they fall back to accusation.

I feel like any mention of Jezebel is sort of the Godwin’s law of church arguing with females. If you accuse someone of anything related to Jezebel, you clearly have no argument at all.

Patriciamc wrote:

Lord have mercy! Thousands of theologians will disagree with that.

And many thousands more of just regular Joe and Joan believers who study the Bible on their own and who don’t come up with the same conclusions as Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, and John MacArthur, three ideologues who got the statement rolling in the first place.

dee wrote:

Divorce Minister wrote:
Do you (or anyone here) see a difference or distinction between the Calvinista folks and those following the Old School Reformed stream in the Baptist tradition
I think we worded it this way in the past. “These are not your Daddy’s Reformed friends.” That is why, way back in 2009, we invented the term “Calvinista” to differentiate them. These guys are involved in holy war against anyone who does not see *the truth* as the YRR gospel boys contend.

I guess my questions are more about refining the discernment process. Discovering that the pastor is Reformed in theology does not necessarily place him outside the traditional Baptist theological stream a la Spurgeon. Not every Reformed pastor acts like a jerk. So, the question is how does one distinguish between the YRR type and a traditional type who is willing to support some theological diversity in the congregation?

Patriciamc wrote:

Muff Potter wrote:

Read Article 13 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy. Hyperbole is disavowed as a legitimate literary device in Scripture

Lord have mercy! Thousands of theologians will disagree with that.

Spiritual Engineering Manual.
Axiom, Axiom, Axiom,
Fact, Fact, Fact,
check, check, check…

Linda wrote:

Only the hyper camp makes us utter worms.

Utter worms WITH BENEFITS (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean…)

Nancy2 wrote:

brad/futuristguy wrote:

They are acting like the Mosaic Law is the ultimate polity for today,

Teetering on Reconstructionism?

Or Shari’a.

Stan wrote:

Calvinism is gimmickized as the lost wisdom of the romantic past that will bring the church back to glory.

Like the Lost Romantic Past of the Aryan/Nordic Race?
(Thule Society and its more well-known descendant.)
Or like As It Was In The Days of The Prophet (pbuh)?
(Wahabi Islam.)
Or like the Lost Wisdom of the Ascended Masters of the Root Races?
(Theosophy.)

The word “Gnostic” means “He Who KNOWS Things”.
“Occult Gnostic” means “He Who KNOWS Hidden/Secret Things”.

Celia wrote:

But for neoCals they want the men to control the women so the leaders at the church only have to control the men.

The Great Chain of Being.
Kiss Up, Kick Down.

ishy wrote:

Well, I guess I’m not an inerrantist anymore!

Inerrant ……
By modern standards, Solomon’s temple as described in the KJV – the temple itself would be about 3 stories high, while the porch would be more than 16 stories high.
Does that make perfect, inerrant, sense?

ishy wrote:

We really need a TGC dictionary.

Winsome?

K.D. wrote:

FW Rez wrote:

K.D. wrote:

I wonder just what is being taught at the seminaries these days? I seriously wonder what kind of a ‘rodeo’ the SBC seminaries have become since I was there in the 1980s?

K.D.: While my experience at SWBTS (mid-80’s) was more positive than what you have described yours as, I share your concern. There have been many changes on “The Hill” that I am uncomfortable with. That said, I am encouraged by the fact that many of the students I come in contact with on a regular basis are high-caliber individuals with a true desire to serve God occupationally. I try not to let my skepticism about the institution show too much (part of the reason I remain anonymous here at TWW).

Seminary is a funny, sometimes odd place. I have a couple of friends I keep in contact with from my time on ” The Hill.” One completed his MDiv and has nothing to do with the SBC, much like me. He is in the natural gas business. Another of my friends didn’t complete his degree, was called in seminary to a church in the middle of “no-where” in Deep East Texas. He’s been pastor of that medium sized church for years and will probably retire from that church, even though he didn’t finish seminary, he talks of much like you, in a positive sense…

Maybe dropping out is the key to keeping it positive. I didn’t complete my degree either. Glad to hear of your friend’s successful tenure in ministry.

Daisy wrote:

Most complementarians won’t listen to your arguments if you’re a woman, and doubly so if you’re a woman and they don’t like HOW you express your views.

That’s so very true!

And they are actually NEVER going to like HOW you express your views, if your views contradict theirs.

You can never be humble or gentle enough in your presentation.

Ever.

mot wrote:

Imagine what would be happening in the SBC today if the powers to be would have allowed the SBC churches to decide if they wanted a female or male pastor.

There would be real autonomy autonomy and not show autonomy. In other words, Baptist churches would actually be (ana)Baptistic. I think one of Michael Haykin’s personal missions is to remove any remnant of Anabaptist history from Baptist history.

@Headless Unicorn Guy–yep, as in imperfect. And of course those of us heretic in Wesleyan churches believe prevenient grace has got that covered–for everyone.

Stan wrote:

A Presbyterian church teaching Calvinism is not the red flag

🙂

Celia wrote:

Hubby and I laugh at John Piper’s advice about a woman being careful about giving a husband driving directions.

I wonder how John Piper feels about female air traffic controllers when he is flying. Should the male pilots just ignore instructions from the female controllers? I hope Piper checks the cockpit crews gender before he settles in for a flight.

Gram3 wrote:

I wonder how John Piper feels about female air traffic controllers when he is flying. Should the male pilots just ignore instructions from the female controllers? I hope Piper checks the cockpit crews gender before he settles in for a flight.

I’m a bit spiteful sometimes. If Piper ever needs an ambulance, I hope there is a woman driving it.

Lea wrote:

I feel like any mention of Jezebel is sort of the Godwin’s law of church arguing with females.

It was funny in a way. They did not even attempt an argument from the actual text, nor did they attempt to show how Female Subordinationism makes any logical sense. They did not mention Jezebel, but did point out that females are more vulnerable to deception (2 Timothy) and women desire to overthrow the authority of men (Genesis 3:16.) There is a script, and they were following it faithfully.

Gram3 wrote:

It was funny in a way. They did not even attempt an argument from the actual text, nor did they attempt to show how Female Subordinationism makes any logical sense. They did not mention Jezebel, but did point out that females are more vulnerable to deception (2 Timothy) and women desire to overthrow the authority of men (Genesis 3:16.) There is a script, and they were following it faithfully.

And as we all know, it’s hooey hooey. They don’t even take a look at why the women at that point were open to deception. They just assume it’s a flaw of all females. Nonsense!

Now you’ve gotten me started. : )

Deb wrote:

Not sure whether you have seen this post I wrote a week and a half ago. The video you pointed out was the inspiration for that post.

Oops, I somehow figured that someone else had found that video. You ladies are so prolific, it’s hard to keep up with all of the posts. Not to mention the mini-books that each comment section becomes. It’s quite an education!

Regarding Calvin, I stopped reading the theological forums when they started arguing whether John Calvin would actually be a 5-point Calvinist, were he to be resurrected in today’s theological world. The idea was that Calvinism developed into something rather different from what JC wrote. Do perhaps Calvinista-ism could be seen as a further development.

Would John Calvin be a Calvinista?

Lea wrote:

I feel like any mention of Jezebel is sort of the Godwin’s law of church arguing with females. If you accuse someone of anything related to Jezebel, you clearly have no argument at all.

I wonder why they never bring up the witch of Endor?

JYJames wrote:

Lies take the elevator and arrive quickly but truth takes the stairs, and eventually does get there, later.”

Over time now, the fast and furious lies in this dilemma are becoming apparent in the light of slow truth, at last.

I needed to hear that this week. Thank you.

Nancy2 wrote:

I realized that part of the sanctuary would be on the county highway right-of-way, and therefore would not be approved. I tried to point that out, and was quickly shushed. The church approved the plan. The plans were presented to the county zoning commission and were rejected.

Probably a bunch of females on the zoning commission. The county engineers are probably female, too. That’s what happens when you let females into engineering and law schools. Chaos. Utter and complete chaos which cost the men of that church a lot of money and time.

Patriciamc wrote:

Did you winsomely say, “I told you so.”?

Winsome defn: charming in a childlike or naive way.
Nope!

Where do Southern Baptists go when they leave? The answer in one chart
http://religionnews.com/2016/06/28/southern-baptist-gains-and-losses-in-one-chart/

Nancy2 wrote:

I wonder why they never bring up the witch of Endor?

She wasn’t ruling.

Linda wrote:

Physically, we all age and die

The rest of you may be aging, but I’m like Jack Benny. I’m 39 and holding.

Bridget wrote:

WINSOME!

Was Jesus winsome? Who in the Biblical record was winsome, anyway? Winsome sounds like someone singing on The Mickey Mouse Club back in the day.

Lea wrote:

I feel like any mention of Jezebel is sort of the Godwin’s law of church arguing with females. If you accuse someone of anything related to Jezebel, you clearly have no argument at all.

The other standard complementarian fall backs for shutting down women who disagree with them about gender roles:
1. you’ve been seduced by secular culture and let that color how you read the Bible
2. you’re a feminist

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Utter worms WITH BENEFITS (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean…)

I was saying on an older thread I cannot comprehend how or why complementarian men would want to have sexual relations with women as they do (some of them never shut up about sex and how men are supposedly owed it by women), but some of them regard women as being animals, not human.

In that, they teach that women are not quite as made in the image of God as males are. Which kind of renders women (from their view) as being lower than human, animal-like…

Which (in their logic) means they’re into bestiality, something which is gross and the Bible says God says is sin.

I can’t think of how those types of comps square that.

Gram3 wrote:

I wonder how John Piper feels about female air traffic controllers when he is flying. Should the male pilots just ignore instructions from the female controllers? I hope Piper checks the cockpit crews gender before he settles in for a flight.

I wonder how he feels about male flight attendants? (Owen Strachan would probably say they are “man fails”)

Nancy2 wrote:

I’m a bit spiteful sometimes. If Piper ever needs an ambulance, I hope there is a woman driving it.

I saw something funny on Twitter a few months ago.

I don’t remember the specifics. It was something about a woman (possibly a paramedic, or some occupation like that – a first responder-) who saved the life of an injured Imam (Muslim clergy).

This imam was a horribly sexist guy whom the article said regularly said during his services or where ever women should not have jobs outside the home, stuff like that. The irony made me laugh pretty hard.

I tried to find that story again in my links, and then I did a web search for it, but I couldn’t find it again.

@ Deb:
Not PR, obviously.

@ Nancy2:
And then there was Jacob’s daughter, Dinah.

@ Nancy2:
Oh dear.

ishy wrote:

I still haven’t come up for a definition for winsome. It’s like a foreign language word to me.

I did struggle a bit over the definition of pastor, which is why I added “local”.

I think it means pleasant, attractive but slightly vulnerable, but above all non-threatening.

ishy wrote:

I still haven’t come up for a definition for winsome. It’s like a foreign language word to me.

Winsome is like a drippy boring girl in an 18th century novel – as opposed to a cool smart girl like Lizzy Bennett. Thin, ruffles wafting in the breeze, always smiling but in a sort of off but charming way.

I understand the definition of the word, but I’m sure like with all the other words, they don’t mean what everyone else means by them.

GSD wrote:

Would John Calvin be a Calvinista?

Not to those More Calvinist than Calvin.

Daisy wrote:

Adults who don’t marry or who divorce and become single again sometimes have to learn tasks considered masculine and feminine. CBMW doesn’t care about them.

That is only fair, since we don’t care about them either.

@ Lea:
And men. Equally creepy view.

@ JYJames:
OTOH, I’m sure Sisera thought Jael was winsome!

ishy wrote:

roebuck wrote:

I think it means pleasant, attractive but slightly vulnerable, but above all non-threatening.

I was thinking something more like “like porcelain doll”, pretty, delicate, and most importantly, silent.

I would say no (in YRR-speak), because they are always saying you need to present this or that concept ‘winsomely’. In their parlance, I seem to detect a touch of deceit to it, as well…

Lea wrote:

ishy wrote:

I still haven’t come up for a definition for winsome. It’s like a foreign language word to me.

Winsome is like a drippy boring girl in an 18th century novel – as opposed to a cool smart girl like Lizzy Bennett. Thin, ruffles wafting in the breeze, always smiling but in a sort of off but charming way.

That’s more like ‘ditzy’ 🙂

Challies, how could I forget Challies???

That was supposed to be two separate comments.

@ Bridget:

Burwell wrote:

Max wrote:

Lea wrote:

WHY are these people not just becoming Presbyterians???

Because the SBC New Calvinist leaders want all the SBC stuff!

Lea and Max, someone else may have already answered you, but in my opinion the biggest reason Neo-Cals don’t become Presbyterian is because they do not believe in paedobaptism.

I can’t imagine why not once you accept the elect deal unless it is sheer habit.

Although some of them have a weird view of baptism like they don’t want to baptize kids because they just aren’t sure and worrying the African missionaries might be creating false converts? IMO some of these people jump past Calvinism into thinking they are god.

dee wrote:

3 out of 11 staff are women.
There are 0 women on the Board of Drectors.
6 out of 26 members of the Council are women.
So, Reissig was playing games. And she is a woman! I plan to write about this soon.

Go get her!

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Utter worms WITH BENEFITS (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean…)

Chuckle…chuckle…

JYJames wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
True, surely, and harshly stated.

I learned growing up that I would often have to state things harsh to be noticed instead of dismissed with a pat on the head and a “That’s Nice”.

Also, when you have to make an important point, Impact helps.

Lea wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Their view of women is very creepy really.

Yeah. Wifey must be like a dependent little girl in every way except sexually (where she has to service/satisfy Patriarch Hubby on demand).

The creepy vibe I get is halfway between “Personal Perfect Porn Star Syndrome” and “Borderline Pedo but Won’t Admit to It.” (Hmmm… Don’t a lot of Patriarch Pastor/Dictators who’ve attracted the attention of TWW have Pet Pedos they protect at all costs? Or should that be “Pet Proxies” with plausible deniability?)

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
That works.

Prefer ROSE to TULIP:
Risen with Christ
Openly among the Saints
Seeking Him
Ever grateful.

Max wrote:

It would have been easier for the Neo-Cals to straighten the Presbyterians out on baptism, rather than trying to convince Southern Baptists to toss out God’s plan of salvation for whosoever will. Bottom-line, I think, is that SBC has more assets to pirate.

Max: The SBC boys are used to stealing. They did not support the SBC very much before they took the whole organization over. They said something to the effect they should not be asked to give to an organization that did not match its “beliefs.” Know the Neo-Cals are trying to do the same thing to the Non_cals. The SBC would never have fallen into the hands of the FUNDAMENTALISTS if the MODERATES had not been so Christ-like towards them. FUNDAMENTALISTS are AGGRESSIVE and MILITANT–characteristics that most MODERATES do not possess.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

I learned growing up that I would often have to state things harsh to be noticed instead of dismissed with a pat on the head and a “That’s Nice”.

My mother brought me up to be a quiet, passive doormat who never shows anger.

When I was a teen and worked as a sales clerk, I had this co-worker (she was about a year younger than me) who harassed me for weeks before I finally went against my mother’s worldview and confronted this obnoxious girl in the staff room one day (with the boss’s permission).

The first time I confronted her, I was very angry BUT I kept my anger in check:
I was civil in how I spoke, did not raise my voice, did not use profanity or ad hominem.

But I made it very clear and plain I was tired of her verbal abuse and cattiness, and that if it did not stop, she would not like me the next time I had to pull her aside.

Because I did not appear threatening to her, she merely smirked at me and walked off when I was done talking. She resumed being a little jerk the next day at work.

I gave her another week or two, and I confronted her again in private (and again with the supervisor’s permission).

This time, I didn’t hold back. I was so angry at her, I was physically shaking, my face was red and purple, my voice was raised, and spittle was flying out of my mouth. I refrained from using personal insult or vulgarities, but I really let her have it.

I could tell from her facial expression she was afraid of me by this time. She even started crying at one point (which I told her only hacked me off even more, which it did. She was not the victim. I was.)

After that second encounter, she was very respectful towards me. She was sweet as pie to me the next day I came into work – a complete attitude change from her. I never had another problem with her.

I really hate how some people won’t take your polite correction and change. You have to explode in a rage and turn into The Hulk before they take you seriously.

@ Daisy:

i long ago learned a particular kind of ‘done’/cut direct that works very well with a certain type of obnoxious person. Certainly some people will not hear you if you are too nice, but you don’t always have to be loud for them to get the picture.

Bonus? If you do it right THEY get super mad and sometimes loud. And then you get quieter.

Not meant as a criticism, merely a comment on my personal style of dealing. Because when I am really and truly angry not just miffed I get quiet.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
That’s the lesson I’ve learned for life on the internet. Going back for years there’s this one person who has for years been rather hateful but she had fooled some people for a while because they didn’t know her history. She couldn’t resist and finally showed her true colors. One of her BFF internet friends is still around, still playing her syrupy sweet passive aggressive game fooling people but I think some are starting to notice how she throws her digs in every chance she gets.

Max wrote:

where should the axe be laid to stop this rebellion? The roots.

Agree completely. Mohler can create propaganda blurbs like “conservative resurgence” (proper term: fundamentalist takeover), but at the end of the day he sold out the denom and has essentially been derelict in his duty. The entire mammon loving crowd that gathers under the YRR banner has proven to be a cancer, and a decidedly un-Baptist one at that.

Divorce Minister wrote:

Is the difference a matter of practice or doctrine, in your opinion? Clearly, Reformed folks have inhabited the Baptist tradition in the past. What makes this current stream so problematic?

The difference is that Spurgeon was born again.

@ Lea:
Oh I know what you’re saying. I’m more like you in person where if I’m quiet I’m the maddest.

I’m just very sad today because some good people have been hurt while going through a difficult time because someone turned out to be different than what they’d thought. I know I’m not the only person who saw it coming but it’s still very sad.

A local Bible church we’ve known just had their Pastor resign. Hubby and I knew the people and some situations at the church and told our kids a couple of years ago that Pastor and his co Pastor will not be able to stay at that church together. One of them will lose the power struggle and leave. My kids are amazed at my ability to predict the future. I’m not a fortune teller, I’ve just been around the block way too many times and can spot the troublemakers pretty quickly and easily.

Max wrote:

Regarding going together like oil and water, the YRR (who are acting like rebellious children) could learn a thing or two from a post on Science Kids:
“…
Right now, the “oil” has floated to the top in SBC ranks. But, it’s not an anointed oil which causes precious unity. It is a slimy substance that will never mix with the water which has been there for years. Pouring more oil into the mixture is not the answer; it just causes a bigger separation…

NeoCalvinism’s “Exxon Valdez” and all its damage.

Celia wrote:

I’m just very sad today because some good people have been hurt while going through a difficult time because someone turned out to be different than what they’d thought. I know I’m not the only person who saw it coming but it’s still very sad.

I think if the people in the pew saw how some religious leaders act behind closed doors they would be shocked. A lot of bullying goes on behind closed doors.

Celia wrote:

they believe they are entitled to all the stuff. They are the original “Founders” therefore they believe they’re only taking the SBC back to it’s rightful heritage. Never mind that the biggest growth of the SBC was through all those non Calvinists years.

Hmmmmmm …….. Calvinism makes a comeback, and baptisms and membership decline.
Are the two connected?

@ Nancy2:
According to the Calvinists there is a connection just not the way you think. See all those numbers before were false conversions and not real. You can’t compare the Calvinists current numbers to those numbers because what they’re doing is REAL GOSPEL(TM) work.

@ Velour:
And people think God doesn’t have a sense of humor.

Celia wrote:

@ Velour:
And think of all the wildlife (pew sitters) who have been harmed.

And generations of “wildlife” to come who have been “contaminated” by NeoCalvinism’s toxic sludge.

@ Velour:
If only we could decontaminate it with some Dawn.

Celia wrote:

@ Velour:
If only we could decontaminate it with some Dawn.

You read my mind!

I think of TWW as a wildlife sanctuary. Older birds who’ve been cleaned up help the younger ones.

Got my new feathers right here!

@ Lea:

I am usually quiet and soft spoken even when angry. That was the first approach I tried with the rude co-worker.
She blew me off then because she didn’t take me seriously- not until I blew my top off at her and raised the voice and showed anger.

Former CLCer wrote:

This is a little off topic, but I thought it was hilarious!
http://babylonbee.com/news/fda-approves-ritalin-treat-hyper-calvinism/

That is very funny. I’m surprised since I thought the founder/writer was a neo-cal. Lark News is great too, but I think they’ve slowed down on posting.

Hi, All!

Yep. I’m still on the “women keeping silent” topic. I want to know what the Bible REALLY says.

I am now reading 1 Corinthians 14:34 based on the info at Bible Hub.

The interlinear Greek reads:

the women in the churches let them be silent not indeed it is allowed to them to speak but to be in submission as also the law says

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/14-34.htm

My translation:

The women in the churches, let them be silent — NOT —

(no, nay — HELPS Word-studies
3756 ou – no (“not”). 3756 (ou) objectively negates a statement, “ruling it out as fact.) http://biblehub.com/greek/3756.htm

— indeed it is allowed them to speak

(Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
preach, say, speak
A prolonged form of an otherwise obsolete verb; to talk, i.e. Utter words — preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter.) http://biblehub.com/greek/2980.htm

but

(except, however, nevertheless) http://biblehub.com/greek/2980.htm

in submission to the Lord (The previous verse mentions that God is a God of peace, not of disorder, so this “but” makes sense in context.)

(HELPS Word-studies
5293 hypotássō (from 5259 /hypó, “under” and 5021 /tássō, “arrange”) – properly, “under God’s arrangement,” i.e. submitting to the Lord (His plan).)http://biblehub.com/greek/5293.htm

just as
(according to the manner in which, in the degree that) http://biblehub.com/greek/2531.htm

indeed
(even, also, namely) http://biblehub.com/greek/2532.htm

the law
(mostly refers to the Mosaic Law, but can be read as “custom”.) Makes sense to me that Paul is referring back to the established order for worship about which he has just been teaching. http://biblehub.com/greek/3551.htm

agrees (or says).
http://biblehub.com/greek/3004.htm

So, that’s my reading (at this point) and I’m sticking to it.

btw, I will not go by trs.

The next verse I read as:

If, on the other hand, they (the wives) desire to ascertain anything. let them ask (or inquire of) their husbands at home; indeed it is dishonoring for a woman to chatter in church.

“desire” here is a really positive word indicating a good trait.

2309. theló Strong’s Concordance
theló: to will, wish

Short Definition: I will, wish, desire
Definition: I will, wish, desire, am willing, intend, design.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 2309 thélō (a primitive verb, NAS dictionary) – to desire (wish, will), wanting what is best (optimal) because someone is ready and willing to act.

2309 /thélō (“to desire, wish”) is commonly used of the Lord extending His “best-offer” to the believer – wanting (desiring) to birth His persuasion (faith) in them which also empowers, manifests His presence etc. See 2307 (thelēma).

“ask” Get this!! Here’s what Paul tells WIMMIN to do.

HELPS Word-studies
1905 eperōtáō (from epi, “on, fitting” intensifying 2065 /erōtáō, “inquire, ask”) – properly, ask appropriately (aptly), >>>>>*****done by someone on “preferred footing” who makes a request from a “preferred position.” <<<<<<<****** 2065 /erōtáō ("ask pointedly") is the regular word Jesus used for making requests to the Father (Jn 14:16, 16:26,
17:9,15,20).

1. to accost one with an inquiry, put a question to, inquire of, ask, interrogate (ἐπί directive

2. by a usage foreign to the Greeks, to address one with a request or demand; to ask of or demand of one:

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
ask questions, demand, desire.

"speak"

This word can also mean to chatter. Maybe even "buzz." hah!

hence λαλεῖν is employed not only of men, especially when chatting and prattling, but also of animals (of birds, Mosch. 3, 47; of locusts, Theocritus, 5, 34;

Seems plausible that Paul is contrasting "right" speaking/participation in the established order of worship with disruptive chatter, and kindly effecting some needed "housekeeping" for the sake of the order of service.

Not only were the Gentiles being grafted into Hebrew worship, but the Temple rites themselves were under transformation. Plus the gentiles represented many gods and styles of worship. I'm sure the Apostles dealt with a lot of worship "housekeeping" issues.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/14-35.htm

All of the meanings can be accessed from the above site.

Divorce Minister wrote:

Do you (or anyone here) see a difference or distinction between the Calvinista folks and those following the Old School Reformed stream in the Baptist tradition (e.g. Spurgeon)? Is the difference a matter of practice or doctrine, in your opinion? Clearly, Reformed folks have inhabited the Baptist tradition in the past. What makes this current stream so problematic?

I do not categorize all Calvinist/Reformed theologians as YRR/Neo-Calvinist/Neo-Puritan/“Calvinistas.” There are very specific “markers” that identify the differences between the Old-Line versus virulent New forms. FWIW, I outline what I see as those distinctive paradigm markers in this article I posted in 2012; the toxicity can often be found in an excessive degree of emphasis on a particular aspect, not merely having that aspect.

https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/calvinistas/

I have experienced the differences between Old and New. Had it not been for a humble (and intellectually brilliant) Reformed Baptist pastor-church planter in the 1970s, I don’t know that I would still be following Christ. He and his wife opened their home and poured out pastoral care that basically called me back to life after a devastating church split that took three years before it finally destroyed the church where I’d become a born-again Christian.

I’ve also encountered more than a few YRR-type church planters and leaders. They present a stark contrast, with their emphasis on knowing an abstract theological system, and behavior modification to gain conformity but without necessarily underlying transformation through the Holy Spirit.

Velour wrote:

Celia wrote:

@ Velour:
If only we could decontaminate it with some Dawn.

You read my mind!

I think of TWW as a wildlife sanctuary. Older birds who’ve been cleaned up help the younger ones.

Got my new feathers right here!

Dawn is amazing stuff! We live in the woods, where it’s hard to keep poison Ivy in check. But smear some Dawn on the incipient reaction, wash and rinse thoroughly, and presto! It never gets to the weeping / oozing stage. Dawn nips it in the bud by stripping out the toxic oils. A colleague recommended this, and I thought he was nuts till I tried it. Ever since then, we’ve stocked up on Dawn by the case load. No, I don’t get a kickback from Dawn…really!!

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Dawn is amazing stuff!

Yep. They told us at the ophthalmologist’s office that Dawn Original was the best for washing eyeglass lenses, either glass or plastic. Sure enough. So i tried it also for dishes and I love it.

ishy wrote:

I still haven’t come up for a definition for winsome. It’s like a foreign language word to me.

“Manipulative”

@ okrapod:
I am uncertain that the number of Southern Baptists is accurate. Out of this 16 million number, there may be considerably less who are active on a local church’s rolls. Actively growing non charismatic Protestant churches may not be in predominantly white denominations.

What are Neo Calvinists doing with inactive members? Like the Puritan’s they love to prove their holiness through church discipline. I remember that pride filled boastful Mark Dever video on disciplining members to prove how good the pastors and elders are. At least I thought it was pride filled and boastful, like so much Nicereo Calvinism.

The chart above between traditional Southern Baptists and Reformed Baptists is an apt comparison.

Max wrote:

“I picked up the cheapest grape juice and crackers I could find at Walmart. Get some on the way out!” Did he learn how to abuse the sacraments like this at seminary? On the other hand, his church membership is increasing, not declining; I guess the Millennials like good preachin’ like this!

Even Muff Potter finds this as close to blasphemy as it can get.
Totally bereft of any reverence.

Muff Potter wrote:

Max wrote:
“I picked up the cheapest grape juice and crackers I could find at Walmart. Get some on the way out!” Did he learn how to abuse the sacraments like this at seminary? On the other hand, his church membership is increasing, not declining; I guess the Millennials like good preachin’ like this!
Even Muff Potter finds this as close to blasphemy as it can get.
Totally bereft of any reverence.

I totally agree. Very shocking. Like, get out of the way, the lightening bolt is coming.

Max wrote:

This is the same youngster (a 29 year old “lead pastor”) who irreverently proclaimed on communion Sunday “I picked up the cheapest grape juice and crackers I could find at Walmart. Get some on the way out!”

Just looking at the way this is written, I am wondering if the young man maybe felt ill at ease with presiding over the Lord’s Supper and using the words of sacred Scripture to do it? All I know is that his own words say more than what is on the surface. But what?
Priests imprisoned in the Russian Gulag system would have nothing more than a bit of cracker or crust to use, certainly no wine. But even there, it was never about the elements anyway.

My first impulse was to get really upset with the young ministers’ words, but there is something in them that stops me, and I don’t understand what it is.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Safe journey.

They’re on the move to Calvinize the world. It’s as if their bibles say: “Go into all the world and preach Calvin to the whole creation.” Here it is….the coming documentary film entitled “Calvinist.”
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1832273783/calvinist-documentary-film

FW Rez wrote:

Question 7 in the OP, “Do you hold to the TULIP theology” has a loop hole that I’ve noticed some defenders of the movement jump through. They will deny being neo-Cal since they only agree with 3 or 4 points of the TULIP when they know that functionally that is exactly what they are. I’m not calling anyone a liar, at least not by name.

Per #1, I’ve heard Calvinists use the term ordinances for the Lord’s Supper and baptism. It’s Presbyterians that use the term *sacraments.*

Lowlandseer wrote:

@ Molly:
The idea that Calvinists don’t or can’t or shouldn’t preach the Gospel really needs to be put to bed. This old article from the Evangelical Times neatly explains why.
http://www.evangelical-times.org/archive/item/1222/Biblical-theological/Calvinism-and-open-air-preaching/

One of the most dreadful things said in that article is the following:

“Unfortunately, today’s “John Evangelical” is not interested in condemning the world. He is rather more drawn to the idea of turning the church into some kind of show to which Mr. Worldly can come – and feel happy and at ease.”

Condemning the world? This is NOT preaching the Good News of the gospel of Jesus Christ! “For God sent the Son into the world, NOT TO CONDEMN THE WORLD, but that the world might be save through Him.” The Gospel of John 3:17

And now I think I understand why I couldn’t stand listening to that open air preacher back in the day before I was a Christian. He preached a condemning gospel, which was NO GOSPEL AT ALL!

Darlene wrote:

One of the most dreadful things said in that article is the following:

“Unfortunately, today’s “John Evangelical” is not interested in condemning the world. He is rather more drawn to the idea of turning the church into some kind of show to which Mr. Worldly can come – and feel happy and at ease.”

Condemning the world? This is NOT preaching the Good News of the gospel of Jesus Christ!

shortly before his execution, the great Lutheran martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote these words:
” ‘The Church is the Church only when it exists for others…not dominating, but helping and serving”

@ Christiane:
another Bonhoeffer contribution was this insight:
““We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do,
and more in the light of what they suffer.”

goodness knows Our Lord felt compassion for the suffering of others, and His Church was sent forth into the world as He was sent … would be good for the Church to be conformed to the same mind and the same heart of Christ

@ Darlene:
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

That’s the next verse Darlene.

And there are many more examples of warnings being given together with the call to repent.

The Heidelberg Catechism starts off by making the point that you need to know your sin, find God’s remedy for sin and live a life of gratitude thereafter.

@ Darlene:
What you are describing is what I would call “hyper-Calvinism” and it appears that it was a view held in many instances by Baptists rather than mainstream Reformed churches. I found this explanation helpful

http://www.theopedia.com/hyper-calvinism

Max wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:
Calvinism makes a comeback, and baptisms and membership decline.
Since there are no altar calls in New Calvinist works, it’s tough to line up baptismal candidates. A young reformer at an SBC church plant near me uses social media to round up the elect. Periodically, he will post “Baptizing next Sunday! Sign up on Facebook!” This is the same youngster (a 29 year old “lead pastor”) who irreverently proclaimed on communion Sunday “I picked up the cheapest grape juice and crackers I could find at Walmart. Get some on the way out!” Did he learn how to abuse the sacraments like this at seminary? On the other hand, his church membership is increasing, not declining; I guess the Millennials like good preachin’ like this!

Our former church Pastor, referred to the Lord’s Supper, as juice and crackers. Couldn’t believe my ears. Was this a kindergarten class, or cheap disregard for communion, or ignorance?

Max wrote:

This is the same youngster (a 29 year old “lead pastor”) who irreverently proclaimed on communion Sunday “I picked up the cheapest grape juice and cracker

“But let a man examine himself …… ”
This boy’s behavior is immature, disrespectful, irreverent, disgusting, and misleading to the congregation. Makes me wonder if he is truly saved!

Lowlandseer wrote:

@ Darlene:
What you are describing is what I would call “hyper-Calvinism” and it appears that it was a view held in many instances by Baptists rather than mainstream Reformed churches. I found this explanation helpful

http://www.theopedia.com/hyper-calvinism

Yes. This is not at all the impression I get from my Presbyterian church. I think they’ve had longer to think it through to a more warm and fuzzy place.

Nancy2 wrote:

But, if they will invade traditional SBC churches through stealth and deception, change polity, change doctrine, what keeps them from doing the same to Presbyterian churches?

I am very thankful for TWW. If it was not for this site most Southern Baptists would not have a clue about the TAKEOVER by the Calvinists. My opinion is no one dares to challenge Al Mohler.

I know ESS belongs to earlier threads but now that Albert Mohler has entered the debate making outrageous claims, I thought you would be interested to read Carl Trueman’s response which quotes Bruce Ware’s admission that they are promoting something that the Church has never at any time endorsed. In other words, ESS is a false doctrine (my view).

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-reply-to-dr-mohler-on-nicene-trinitarianism?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=471ad42be8-Postcards+From+Palookaville&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-471ad42be8-119263361#.V3PCwJB4WK0

Deb wrote:

@ Lowlandseer:

Thanks for this update. So much going on these days… And to think that I was hesitant to join Dee in our blogging venture because I didn’t think there would be enough to write about…

Deb: I love how Al Mohler has a blog but does not allow comments.

Lydia wrote:

How can this be when he also teaches that God does the choosing?

Outstanding observation!

Darlene wrote:

Divorce Minister wrote:

Do you (or anyone here) see a difference or distinction between the Calvinista folks and those following the Old School Reformed stream in the Baptist tradition (e.g. Spurgeon)? Is the difference a matter of practice or doctrine, in your opinion? Clearly, Reformed folks have inhabited the Baptist tradition in the past. What makes this current stream so problematic?

DM, this is my viewpoint and some (or many) here at this site may differ with me. I think since the beginning of Calvinism, which of course started with John Calvin himself, the DNA is inextricably one of a cold, impersonal, judgmental, aloof, condemning God who looks upon His creation with disdain. It is a system that rejoices in God sending some to hell and choosing a small portion to be saved, all for His glory. And so we have sermons that are lauded by Calvinists such as Jonathan Edward’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” After reading that sermon, I don’t know how anyone could be comforted by God’s love. And then we have A.W. Pink – another man whose writings are lauded by Calvinists – who said, “The fact is, that the love of God, is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.” I would not want to hear Pink preach the gospel. What about “But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom 5:8 AND “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.” Rom 5:10 That there have been any Christians that hold to Reformed tenets who have been/are kind and loving is due to the mercy and grace of God – NOT because of their doctrine. And that is a good thing, because I don’t think all Calvinists think through the implications and teleology of their doctrine. This new breed of Neo-Cals are just resurrecting the ghost of John Calvin himself. They are filled with Calvin’s DNA and fully convinced as Spurgeon said that “Calvinis IS the gospel.” They are strident, caustic, vitriolic, uncharitable, arrogant, and determined to Calvinize the church and society. They are more about Calvin than Christ and although they deny this, read their words and listen to their sermons which betray what they deny.

Darlene — amen, amen! I agree with every word.

I do have Calvinist friends who are “better than their creed” — wonderfully kind and loving. But the creed itself is just as you describe it, and IMHO some Calvinists do mirror it in their behavior toward others. Just my two cents’ worth FWIW.

Darlene wrote:

They’re on the move to Calvinize the world. It’s as if their bibles say: “Go into all the world and preach Calvin to the whole creation.” Here it is….the coming documentary film entitled “Calvinist.”
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1832273783/calvinist-documentary-film

It looks like they won’t make their goal so maybe the world will be spared this absurdity.

@ Lydia:
I don’t quote see what you’re driving at Lydia. On the one hand there is the justice of a holy God, and on the hand, the mercy of a gracious God. Both are preached, both are held in tension and, to me, are reconciled in Christ.

@ Lydia:
I don’t think you can write off the Creeds as pseudo-intellectualism. They are a declaration and witness to the truth of God. They stand as a bulwark against error throughout the ages. Phillip Schaff describes it as part of the Christian witness and sees them as the spontaneous expression of the faith of the Church Herman Hoeksema says that creeds are to the church what testimony is to the believer. And they are not set in opposition to the workings and promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Darlene wrote:

Why don’t these pastors fresh out of seminary go to Reformed Baptist churches? They would fit right in there.

Agreed. It would be a better fit. Piper is a Reformed Baptist and the SBC-YRR love him. However, as noted earlier, SBC’s New Calvinist leaders need their young army to stick with them in order to take SBC back to its Civil War-era theological roots. They need the energy and rebellious behavior of youth to pull off SBC Calvinization, a strategy that is working.

mot wrote:

Deb wrote:

Deb: I love how Al Mohler has a blog but does not allow comments.

Oh, but Al LOVES to hear from his readers. You can send him an email. 😉

__

“Preaching A Different Gospel, Perhaps?”

hmmm…

  New Calvinism has become a 501(c)3 parasitic movement?

Why?

Their’s is the correct religious’establishment’s theological system and ‘other churches’ are not teaching these ‘Reformed’ doctrines.

What?

 Therefore the practice of propagating TULIP has become an overwhelming obsession with these pastorial individuals. (leding even to the takeover of Kind Folk’s established 501(c)3 congregations and fellowship halls.

Might makes right?

hmmm…

  They are so caught up in spreading their ‘Reformed’ belief system (I.e. Calvinism) , by stealth I might add, that they have lost sight of the reason for the church establishment to exist at all; –to give Jesus His proper place, to service the body of Christ according to ‘His words’, to bring all to the maturity of the faith in ‘Jesus Christ’, to share the good news of what Jesus’ resurection means, sharing the promised ‘offer’ of eternal life extended to each of us with others, to the building up in the faith as we await His promised coming.

Not propagating John Calvin’s ‘Christian Religion’ as presented in his 16th century writing, “The Institutes Of The Christian Religion”. Let us be aware that the religious system as taught by John Calvin is sourced from 4th century Augustinian gnostic writings, and not from the Holy Scriptures.

Skreeeeeeeeeetch !

  In essence, we have ‘another gospel’, that Apostle Paul talked about in the New Testament. 

(Please remember Apostle Paul’s warning.)

  Apostle Paul warned that there is a different gospel, a perverted gospel, that is being preached by many pastors and elders. (Galatians 1:6-9)

Apostle Peter also explains this perverted gospel in II Peter 2:1-3.

  Apostle Peter teaches that false teachers or preachers will secretly introduce destructive heresies or deviations to the Gospel of Christ. 

  These false preachers will exploit people with made up stories and many will follow their shameful ways,

  These may include personal opinions, man-made doctrines or man’s religious practices or traditions that are contrary to the truth written in the Bible and therefore will result to a different Gospel – i.e. a perverted gospel. [1]

In II Peter 3:16, Apostle Peter speaks of twisting the scriptures. Please be aware of this practice as this could be happening in a 501(c)3 church near you.

(Please see your bible for details…)

ATB

Sopy
__
ref: [1] http://www.uniquebiblestudy.com/bible-study-guide-lessons-01e.htm

—

Nancy2 wrote:

to put on my scarecrow

A Calvinist scarecrow? That’s one that really needs a brain.

Thanks for the laugh.

Lea wrote:

This is not at all the impression I get from my Presbyterian church. I think they’ve had longer to think it through to a more warm and fuzzy place.

For many years, I took piano lessons from a Presbyterian minister’s wife, a lovely gracious woman. I met her husband who was a kind man and most certainly an honorable gentlemen in the best sense of the word. I saw no evidence in either individual of Calvinist-militant behaviors. They were gracious and kindly souls and when I hear ‘Presbyterian’, I still recall those good people.

@ Lydia:
Thanks for taking the time to explain where you’re coming from. I tend to agree with you that such debates/discussions are hard going and I do try to keep out of them as much as possible. 🙂

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:

Nope, not anything that anybody said; just being cautious because it is so easy to (a) be misunderstood and (b) step on somebody’s toes.

On the subject of the early Creeds of the Church, I can understand that they were productive in matters of the ‘canon’;
and in settling the initial orthodox definitions of ‘Who Christ Is’ (the Divinity of Christ), the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity ….
the early Councils were responses to the heretical opinions that attacked Who Christ was, and I am certain from what I read about ESS (Eternal Subordination of the Son) that it would have been considered heresy by those early councils. ESS is a direct attack on the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and on ‘Who Christ Is’.
That the Church was able to come together and resolve to effectively condemn the early heresies, does reveal something of its organic ability to work as ‘Church’ guided by the Holy Spirit, with devotion to receiving the deposits of faith from the Apostles and guarding them and passing them on to future believers intact. I respect the work of the early Councils, yes.

Lowlandseer wrote:

And Jonathan Edwards finishes his sermon with what could be termed an “altar call”.

It is a curious exercise, while the debate rages on whether salvation hinges on the sovereign God or mankind’s free will, some preachers imply it swings on their preaching. In my limited understanding theirs is a self serving resolution to the debate that elevates themselves and demotes both God and man.

Christiane wrote:

Lea wrote:
This is not at all the impression I get from my Presbyterian church. I think they’ve had longer to think it through to a more warm and fuzzy place.
For many years, I took piano lessons from a Presbyterian minister’s wife, a lovely gracious woman. I met her husband who was a kind man and most certainly an honorable gentlemen in the best sense of the word. I saw no evidence in either individual of Calvinist-militant behaviors. They were gracious and kindly souls and when I hear ‘Presbyterian’, I still recall those good people.

I used to be on the paid staff as a youth director for a Presbyterian church. Not a single hint of neocalvinism there. Some very kind, low-key, humble people all around.

Lydia wrote:

The debates were circular and black holes. To me, they mirrored debates on Scripture interpretation except they were talking about a few men’s interpretation put into confession form and debating that instead.

On other threads I’ve pointed to the The Apostle’s Creed only as a set of markers which I adhere to, especially their supernatural components. Do I hold with what the rest of the post-Constantine fathers (and by extension the 16th cent. reformers) taught as absolute musts? Certainly not. I too am a firm believer in the freedom of conscience and I keep my own counsel as to what I believe or disbelieve.
And yes, theology (in my opinion) really is an arcane black hole with immense gravity that will suck you in and squeeze the very life out of you if you let it.

@ mot:
In both Arminian and Calvinist camps, heaven or hell depends ultimately on acceptance or rejection of the Gospel. And yes, it depends on the pastor’s preaching. That is the essence of the Great Commission and the reason why Paul in Romans 10 asks “how can they hear without someone preaching to them…..how beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news.”

Lowlandseer wrote:

And yes, it depends on the pastor’s preaching.

No it does not. Preaching by a pastor on Sunday morning is ‘one’ way to hear the gospel. It is not, in my opinion what the gathering of believers is even for since those that need to hear the good news are not believers. Sharing the gospel with unbelievers can be done by any believer anywhere at anytime. It does not take a preacher on Sunday morning.

Bridget wrote:

No it does not. Preaching by a pastor on Sunday morning is ‘one’ way to hear the gospel. It is not, in my opinion what the gathering of believers is even for since those that need to hear the good news are not believers. Sharing the gospel with unbelievers can be done by any believer anywhere at anytime. It does not take a preacher on Sunday morning.

I’d venture to say that the pastor’s focus should not be on preaching the gospel in church. It should be on building up those already following Christ.

It’s everyone in the pews that should be preaching the gospel the rest of the week.

Max wrote:

mot wrote:
I can not imagine wearing a shirt announcing to the world that I am a CALVINIST!!http://301endlessyardsale.com/
Oh yeah. I’ve seen them wearing “Calvin Is My Homeboy” T-shirts and sporting long pointed beards like the one old John had. These folks are radical! You can also get Calvinus beer (I’m not kidding). Makes the Jesus movement of the 1960s pale in comparison.

Is this the t-shirt you’ve seen?

http://301endlessyardsale.com/

There are a variety of styles available on the Internet.

A clear display of worshipping man, not God. 🙁

Nancy2 wrote:

Try rinsing the Dawn soap bubbles off of a Great Pyrenees!

try a garden hose, if the dog will co-operate at all, LOL

Christiane wrote:

try a garden hose, if the dog will co-operate at all, LOL

It takes two people. Egalitarian team work!

Our youth group did a fund raiser car wash and people brought their dogs and not just their cars. I thought that was a great idea. There were a lot of clean dogs and wet teens.

Lowlandseer wrote:

I know ESS belongs to earlier threads but now that Albert Mohler has entered the debate making outrageous claims, I thought you would be interested to read Carl Trueman’s response which quotes Bruce Ware’s admission that they are promoting something that the Church has never at any time endorsed. In other words, ESS is a false doctrine (my view).
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-reply-to-dr-mohler-on-nicene-trinitarianism?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=471ad42be8-Postcards+From+Palookaville&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-471ad42be8-119263361#.V3PCwJB4WK0

I wonder if they’re surprised by the amount of push-back they’re getting. I think they’re so used to being worshipped and adored that this is throwing them for a loop.

Christiane wrote:

@ Nancy2:
I can only imagine … LOL
getting ready to wash a dog? Put on a swimsuit and if necessary, a shower cap …. and let the games begin …. LOL

A few years ago, our Great Pyrenees encountered a skunk in the dead of winter. It was so cold outside, we had to bathe the GP in the bath tub. He shook a few times – the shower curtain caught a lot of it, but we had to wipe down the bathroom from floor to ceiling and wall to wall. Took me weeks to get all of the dog fur off of everything!

Patriciamc wrote:

I wonder if they’re surprised by the amount of push-back they’re getting. I think they’re so used to being worshipped and adored that this is throwing them for a loop.

I beat they are freaking. They are not used to having to answer the people.

mot wrote:

I beat they are freaking. They are not used to having to answer the people.

And it’s not just girls they can ignore freely either!

Yes, I bet they are very annoyed.

Christiane wrote:

It is possible that there is little or no recognition of the supreme importance of informed ‘conscience’ as moral guide within the neo-Cal doctrines? The whole control-obedience-submit-authority thing tells me that is a strong possibility.

Here’s something they teach as ‘fact’. You cannot trust your own Jiminy Cricket within, or your own moral compass for that matter, they are too hopelessly sullied by ‘sin’ to entertain in any serious fashion.
Nor is it just a Neo-Calvinist thing, Calvary Chapel teaches the same fiction, all backed up of course by a ‘plain’ and perspicuous reading of Scripture.
Voltaire was right on the money when he wrote:

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

mot wrote:

I beat they are freaking. They are not used to having to answer the people.

Trueman cannot be dismissed as a female, a non-theologian, an egalitarian feminist, a liberal or even unReformed. He forgot as much church history yesterday as Mohler ever learned. That is why their boxers are bow-tied.

@ Bridget:
I think you need to read the early chapters of Acts to get a better picture.

@ Daisy:

From that article, they described Steve Gaines as "a more moderate Calvinist".

So there actually was NO non-Calvinist choice?

Christiane wrote:

Just looking at the way this is written, I am wondering if the young man maybe felt ill at ease with presiding over the Lord’s Supper and using the words of sacred Scripture to do it? All I know is that his own words say more than what is on the surface. But what?
Priests imprisoned in the Russian Gulag system would have nothing more than a bit of cracker or crust to use, certainly no wine. But even there, it was never about the elements anyway.

My first impulse was to get really upset with the young ministers’ words, but there is something in them that stops me, and I don’t understand what it is.

Was that your sly way of demonstrating the meaning of the word “winsome” for those who were wondering? 😉

@ Daisy:
From the article:
“Revolution wherein Barna observes that “most churched Christians believe that since they are not gifted in evangelism, such outreach is not a significant responsibility of theirs,” “
Well, well, now. I wonder what percentage of those “churched Christians” are submissive women who cannot teach men?

@ Nancy2:
Eewwww. iPad has a mind of it’s own?

Mot, this is the purpose of Pound Sand Ministries: tell men who are abusing the ‘gospel’, who will not listen to reason and act as though they have an immunity card to verbally abuse those who question or disagree, to pound sand. Winsomely and with a smile, of course.

siteseer wrote:

Was that your sly way of demonstrating the meaning of the word “winsome” for those who were wondering?

Tee hee. If me and/or my daughter ever go all “winsome”, you’d better watch your back!

siteseer wrote:

Was that your sly way of demonstrating the meaning of the word “winsome” for those who were wondering?

Oh, this reminds me that I came up with a better definition of winsome this morning. I like the porcelain doll analogy, but add a pull string to repeat the words of the owner.

It’s clearly not winsome if you have an opinion of your own.

ishy wrote:

Oh, this reminds me that I came up with a better definition of winsome this morning. I like the porcelain doll analogy, but add a pull string to repeat the words of the owner.
It’s clearly not winsome if you have an opinion of your own.

Ah, “Child’s Play”. ; ^ )

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

they look like two giant snow-covered marshmallows, off in the distance.

Our GP’s name is Bumbles, in honor of the snow monster on “Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer”. “Bumbles bounce!”

Nancy2 wrote:

CBMW needs to change their name to CBMWS: Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanly Submission.

CBMYWOMAN.

Council for Biblical Manhood and You Womanly Other ManWannabes Are Not.

Lowlandseer wrote:

@ Bridget:
I think you need to read the early chapters of Acts to get a better picture.

I don’t really understand this. It is 2000 years later. Most “preaching” today is to the choir, so to speak. It is done inside the church, for the most part, to people who chose to be there. I am not really mapping your assertion in terms of American Christianity. Are you suggesting that preaching activates election?

I keep thinking of Romans 1, for example. Because of creation, we are without excuse…to paraphrase. And the little Hindu girl sent to be a temple prostitute at age 6 who never was preached to with the Good News. (My daughter asked me this while reading a bio of Amy Carmicheal)

Nancy2 wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
Dawn is great, but the downside is that it is so difficult to get all the soap bubbles off…
Try rinsing the Dawn soap bubbles off of a Great Pyrenees!

I was still pondering the rinsing of Dawn off the horse!

BL wrote:

CBMYWOMAN.
Council for Biblical Manhood and

Or ……. CBMWW.
Council for Biblical Manhood and Winsome Womanhood.

@ okrapod:
FYI: Pay no mind to Bumbles. Watch out for our coon hound and our pitbull mix!

okrapod wrote:

Oh goodness, you people and your big dogs.

I had a half pyr/half lab once. Sweetest dog ever but drove me crazy breaking down the back fence to go swim in the lake.

One time I woke up at 3/4 am, she had been swimming and had come home and was sitting in my front yard and scared the dickens out of the guy delivering papers by barking very deeply at him!

Christiane wrote:

This is the same youngster (a 29 year old “lead pastor”) who irreverently proclaimed on communion Sunday “I picked up the cheapest grape juice and crackers I could find at Walmart. Get some on the way out!”

Just looking at the way this is written, I am wondering if the young man maybe felt ill at ease with presiding over the Lord’s Supper and using the words of sacred Scripture to do it? All I know is that his own words say more than what is on the surface. But what?
Priests imprisoned in the Russian Gulag system would have nothing more than a bit of cracker or crust to use, certainly no wine. But even there, it was never about the elements anyway.

My first impulse was to get really upset with the young ministers’ words, but there is something in them that stops me, and I don’t understand what it is.

It has occurred to me that the young preacher was being ‘satirical’ in this sense:
‘Satire’ makes fun of a person, idea, or institution
and
the purpose of ‘satire’ is not just to entertain, but also to inform or make people think.

I am looking at the young man’s words, and I am also thinking about the attacks on Our Lord in the form of ESS.
I am also thinking of how the young man, without even realizing it, has been able to take advantage of the removal of this phrase from the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message: ” The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ”

I am seeing a ‘pattern’ that exists in the neo-Cal teachings that is probably being expressed indirectly by the young preacher’s words in the form of ‘satire’. If so, he does two things: he sends a message to his own tribe of his own loyalty to them, AND it appears he is using satire to undermine the traditional reverence of the Southern Baptist people for their celebration of the Lord’s Supper as ‘ordinance’ with all respect and dignity.

All this is my own opinion or conjecture, and for what it’s worth, a way for me to try to ponder what is going on, that a young minister could be in so much trouble and maybe not even be aware of it.

Christiane wrote:

It has occurred to me that the young preacher was being ‘satirical’ in this sense:

I would say more flippant than satirical.

Lowlandseer wrote:

@ Bridget:
I think you need to read the early chapters of Acts to get a better picture.

The Bible makes a distinction between preaching the gospel to the world and preaching the Word to the church. All Christians are commanded to preach the gospel in Mark 16:15, and “in all the world”. Romans 10:15 says that you can’t preach unless you are sent.

In the early chapters of Acts they didn’t have churches yet. They were meeting in the temple and in public places. The Jews at the temple were predominately not Christians, and not preaching Christ.

The emphasis in Greek is also not on the preacher at all, but on the gospel and God’s Word. It’s God who does the work. “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.” 2 Cor. 4:5

This idea that you should bring your friends to church to get them saved by the pastor is nowhere in the Bible. You should be getting them saved before they ever step foot in the church.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g2784

Gram3 wrote:

What a clown show. They want to say it is “Biblical” but none of them agree on what is “Biblical.” It seems like something is certainly and plainly “Biblical” until someone calls them on how ridiculous they are, and then it somehow becomes not so important and disappears. Kind of like soap bubbles do…

Is the woman submitting to her husband’s demands? That makes it biblical!

Is laughter bubbling up throughout the internet over the latest glorified example of a husband ruling over his kitchen fiefdom issuing decrees to his wife on the soap-status of each rinsed dish? That makes us a joke, so take down the offending post, and let’s say it was unbiblical if anyone asks about it.

This intense focus on patriarchy as it plays out in the real world, is destructive to women & children and does a dis-service to many men, as well.

Some men who do not have a controlling nature feel neutered when they fail to meet up with the manly-man mold of husbanding, superimposing a false expectation upon themselves, and failing to be what God called them to be.

Some men who do have a controlling nature feel justified in exacting obedience/submission from their wife to their every whim & desire in minute detail, and failing to be what God called them to be.

Nancy2 wrote:

I disagree, on a technicality. They had the church. They just didn’t call a building “church”.

And all members were to participate. It was not a one man show.

Daisy wrote:

So long as a woman is disagreeing with complementarians or a complementarian view, she will never be humble enough, feminine enough, demure enough, nice enough, or whatever enough for their tastes.

I have had one occasion when my presentation must have been groveling enough, because instead of the leadership addressing my FITB bad attitude – I was told that I was on the edge of deception, and before the conversation was over, I was informed I was DEEP in deception, said with much regret of course.

So, they couldn’t nail me with pride, rebellion, arrogance, disobedience, divisiveness, disrespectfulness – so, they were able to discount it all because I was deceived.

No details of the supposed deception were ever given. (rolling eyes)

BL wrote:

So, they couldn’t nail me with pride, rebellion, arrogance, disobedience, divisiveness, disrespectfulness – so, they were able to discount it all because I was deceived.

Funny how all roads here lead to the ‘rome’ of ‘women are wrong and should sit down and shut up and let the men folks handle things’…

Deb wrote:

It doesn’t sound like he was in the Calvinism camp at the time of this conference. Has Gaines changed his position during the last three years?

No clue. But the article more than once described him as the more partly reformed and even goes through tulip points!

Nancy2 wrote:

okrapod wrote:
Yep. They told us at the ophthalmologist’s office that Dawn Original was the best for washing eyeglass lenses, either glass or plastic. Sure enough. So i tried it also for dishes and I love it.
If you use Dawn Original to bathe dogs and cats, it will kill the fleas. My daughter has even bathed her horse with it!

Are these examples of soap bubble egalitarianism? 😉

Lydia wrote:

I was still pondering the rinsing of Dawn off the horse!

The horse is not rinsed until a man says it is rinsed.

Gram3 wrote:

Lydia wrote:
I was still pondering the rinsing of Dawn off the horse!
The horse is not rinsed until a man says it is rinsed.

A man might think twice about that when she is on a horse holding a hose like a warrior princess. :o)

Lydia wrote:

Was it about doctrinal cults? They tend to ignore the sociological aspect of cults. Gee, I wonder why?

It covered both to some extent. It was an overview, but they did have a good bit on inboarding techniques of cults. It was a summer week-long class (8 hours a day), and they had a guest speaker who had been a Scientologist. So he had a lot to say about how cults pull people in.

BL wrote:

Some men who do have a controlling nature feel justified in exacting obedience/submission from their wife to their every whim & desire in minute detail, and failing to be what God called them to be.

There is nothing in the Female Subordinationist dogma that makes good people better. It does, however, give some cover to people who are not good yet want to appear to be so. Controlling leads to manipulation and passive aggression or, worse, covert aggression. A good man is not a better man due to observing Female Subordination, and a good woman is not a better woman due to observing Female Subordination.

okrapod wrote:

In my youth we (SBC) were not people of the creeds and councils and I was taught that to be such made you too much like a certain group which I shall not mention lest we have another prairie fire here.

LOL. 🙂

If this is a reference to me, I can assure you that I am not usually holding any matches or gasoline cans. Nor am I desirous of starting a bonfire when & if the Catholic Church is mentioned, referenced, or discussed.

You are correct that Southern Baptists were not creedal.

I personally didn’t encounter an anti-papal foundation to this anti-creedal attitude, as much as I viewed it as a response based upon the Baptist tendency toward prickliness & resistance (multiplied by the Southern aspects) toward anyone and anything set up as some sort of final authority outside of, or in addition to, Scripture.

Lea wrote:

Funny how all roads here lead to the ‘rome’ of ‘women are wrong and should sit down and shut up and let the men folks handle things’…

Men who disagree with the leadership are treated in exactly the same way.

But, it takes leadership a little longer to squelch the men, with women they have shortcuts. l)

Friend wrote:

I’ve had trouble finding a swimsuit to fit my dog, although I did cut ear holes in my shower cap for her.

Our dogs just skinny-dip!

Nancy2 wrote:

My daughter is out here at the farm right now. She went blackberry pickin’ with a semi-automatic on her hip!

where ARE you? Afghanistan? Iraq? Texas? 🙂

Nancy2 wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

they look like two giant snow-covered marshmallows, off in the distance.

Our GP’s name is Bumbles, in honor of the snow monster on “Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer”. “Bumbles bounce!”

LOL! Too cute!

Christiane wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:
My daughter is out here at the farm right now. She went blackberry pickin’ with a semi-automatic on her hip!
where ARE you? Afghanistan? Iraq? Texas?

You kid about a semi-auto on their hip while berry picking….but this is sort of normal here in Texas…my Mother had a Bond Arms derringer in .410 shotgun in her pocket the last time she picked blackberries….

@ K.D.:
after I typed ‘Texas’, it came to me: SNAKES !!!

K.D. wrote:

They did not have one when I was at SWBTS, but I would have taken it…..but makes you wonder just what they would consider cults?

I was giving this as an example of how they should teach about hyper-Calvinism — like a cult.

The class itself was way before all this, and covered JW, the ICC, and focused on Scientology, as that was the guest’s past. He ran a ministry which did interventions for people from Scientology. We also took a trip to the Mormon temple, though I do not think they employ cultic inboarding practices. The readings were considerably more detailed, and pulled from a range of cults. I don’t remember now what we read, but it was a lot.

Actually, it had people from all 6 seminaries, and was in Phoenix the week before the SBC convention. We all got passes to watch the convention. My mom’s family lived in Phoenix, so I didn’t have to pay for a room and I got to visit grandma.

@ K.D.:
I remember blue-berry picking in the mountains of Massachusetts, off of the Mohawk Trail. My aunt had warned us about bears. So my cousin hides in the bushes, and after I am completely engrossed in a large berry patch, he rustles a paper bag and growls.
FIRST i PEED AND THEN I RAN. All the way to the lake nearby and into the water, shoes and all. (It was the only way to go back to Aunt Rhoda’s house with any dignity as jumping in the ‘lake’ provided cover for being wet.) If I’d had a gun and aimed at the growling bushes, cousin Larry would probably be dead. Good times, those long-ago days.

Gram3 wrote:

There is nothing in the Female Subordinationist dogma that makes good people better. It does, however, give some cover to people who are not good yet want to appear to be so. Controlling leads to manipulation and passive aggression or, worse, covert aggression. A good man is not a better man due to observing Female Subordination, and a good woman is not a better woman due to observing Female Subordination.

I quoted it all, ’cause I just wanted to see it again. 😉

People are no longer husband and wife, they are husband-role and wife-role.

Weird AND fake.

K.D. wrote:

You kid about a semi-auto on their hip while berry picking….but this is sort of normal here in Texas…my Mother had a Bond Arms derringer in .410 shotgun in her pocket the last time she picked blackberries….

Gotta be prepared for things that crawl on their bellies!
Little Miss Lizzie (dog) got bit on the snout by a copperhead Friday night.

BL wrote:

Lydia wrote:
Was it about doctrinal cults? They tend to ignore the sociological aspect of cults. Gee, I wonder why?
Simple.
Doctrine is of God.
Sociology is of Stan.

I don’t think that’s what she meant. I think she meant how cults bring and keep people in the fold by manipulation and force. It’s a distinction between Buddism, a world religion, and Scientology, who manipulates people into joining then prevents them from leaving.

12 Signs of a Cult: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

@ Nancy2:
PS, KD. My husband has a mounted bobcat on the wall. The dogs treed it not too far from the chicken coop!

ishy wrote:

BL wrote:

Lydia wrote:
Was it about doctrinal cults? They tend to ignore the sociological aspect of cults. Gee, I wonder why?
Simple.
Doctrine is of God.
Sociology is of Stan.

I don’t think that’s what she meant. I think she meant how cults bring and keep people in the fold by manipulation and force. It’s a distinction between Buddism, a world religion, and Scientology, who manipulates people into joining then prevents them from leaving.

12 Signs of a Cult: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

Who is Stan? 😉

Oh my gosh, though — that “12 Signs of Cult” site is so Web 1.0. I felt as if I had been Tardis-ed back to 1997! LOL!

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Tardis-ed back

Ha!

Nancy2 wrote:

She went blackberry pickin’ with a semi-automatic on her hip!

Why the gun? Are blackberries dangerous in your parts?

@ Nancy2:

On the bright side, come TEOTWAWKI you all ought to be able to survive on rattlesnake meat and kudzu.

But back to seriousness, I live in the city and we have periodic sightings of some black bear or other wandering around. Usually a young one about to get himself in trouble. I have some bear spray for when we go camping, but I don’t carry it around in the city of course.

Max wrote:

Perhaps the answer to the Calvinist vs. New Calvinist dilemma is for churches to hold two Sunday morning services structured around the respective theologies.

Don’t laugh. Our parish has one service for the older cradle Episcopalians who have been there forever and who do not care for (approve of?) the anglo-catholic bent of the other two services. There are not a lot of them, but their preferences are treated with respect and accommodations are made. Then of the other two masses, one is a sung mass (chant, incense and such) and one is not sung.

So, accommodations are made for a degree of theological difference as well as accommodations for a degree of liturgical preference. I don’t seen anything wrong with that at all. But then, if one thinks that every detail of their theology and preferences are a direct revelation of eternal and comprehensive truth to be forced on all humanity I guess it would not work too well.

Christiane wrote:

ishy wrote:
12 Signs of a Cult: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
goodness, neo-Cals seem to tick off a lot of those boxes, so maybe an analysis of what SBC seminaries are teaching these up-and-coming neo-call YRR’s would be interesting to see

Exactly why I think they should be taught as a cult. Any group that tries to force people to join, and then tries to force them from leaving is a cult in my book. I don’t care what they believe.

BL wrote:

I thought that Lydia was referencing the tendency for churchianity to believe that a Christian group with good doctrine can’t be a cult.
In that the Christian cult is being assessed by its *doctrine* (and judged good) as opposed to assessing it by its sociology (which is cultish & bad, but doesn’t even come up into consideration).

Perhaps that, too. But I’m of the opinion that you pretty much have to have some bad doctrine to be a cult. But I see the doctrine being a lesser issue in cults, because what they really want is power and control.

Max wrote:

Yes, SBC has passed several resolutions over the years in opposition to the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages.

One summer when I was in Eastern Kentucky for a locum tenens they told me that the baptist preachers preached against drinking while the taxi drivers sold alcohol out of their car trunks. They said that as long as this went on the county stayed dry and it was good for everybody’s business, the preachers and the taxi drivers.

BTW, there are some fine people in that part of the state based on my limited experience there.

@ BL:
Bingo.

@ Nancy2:
Your comments remind me of my childhood when the city cousins went to stay with the country cousins every summer. It was like going to a foreign country. We were taken snipe hunting and subjected to all sorts of creepy Crawley warnings, kicked by donkeys, horses avoiding us, forgetful of electric fences and holding on for dear life on the tractor. Chiggers were not created by God! They are of the fall!

We were like deer in the headlights for 2 weeks –but a bit tougher each summer. :o)

And there really is something special about eating what you picked that day. I still cannot find tomatoes that good.

BL wrote:

I thought that Lydia was referencing the tendency for churchianity to believe that a Christian group with good doctrine can’t be a cult.

Yes that is exactly what I was thinking. Cult is a very controversial word. Thought Reform works better but TR is cultic. Driscoll, Mahaney, Piper, Mohler. etc, etc practice all 8 characteristics of Thought Reform.

“Cult” seems have the imagery of a compound in Utah or Hari Krishnas selling flowers at the airport or mass Moonie weddings. Remember those?

Patriciamc wrote:

okrapod wrote:

A bit ago I planted a blackberry patch in my back forty, apparently oblivious to the famous attraction between blackberries and rattlesnakes.

Oh my. I think of all the times I picked blackberries in my great uncle’s yard.

I just erased it off my bucket list. :o)

Lydia wrote:

“Cult” seems have the imagery of a compound in Utah or Hari Krishnas selling flowers at the airport or mass Moonie weddings. Remember those?

Oh, yes! I remember well.

Maranatha Campus Ministries went with arranged marriages too. Though not of the mass kind like the Moonies.

Celia wrote:

Oh snap!

http://sbcvoices.com/an-interesting-observation-about-sound-doctrine/#comment-325280

Wow. I am a bit surprised ESS is getting any traction there. Dave Miller:

“Kitty, anyone who says that Grudem is “out of their league” in a theological debate, is probably arguing from prejudice, not reality. He’s a brilliant theologian and it’s ignorant to insult him.

Now, can we return to the topic of the post and not turn this into an ESS debate?”

So, according to Miller, Kitty is ignorant for disagreeing with the brilliant Grudem on ESS.

See why it is impossible to be in an SBC church anymore?

I did not think the ESS thing would gain traction but it is as Al Mohler weighed in and tells us to be humble about heresy. ( This just cracks me up as in said fox to chicken)

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2016/06/al-mohler-on-heresy-lets-show-humilitysometimes.html

I’ve posted another update on the open discussion thread. Thank you!

http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-10/#comment-263459

@ Christiane:
Go Kitty!

Christiane wrote:

@ K.D.:
Do you have air ambulance services for emergencies in your area? What a life-saver.

We do have an air ambulance if needed. And if the injury is that bad, they carry us to Houston.

@ Lydia:
And of course, Kitty is automatically labeled a leftist because she dares to question Grudem and does not back down!

I am so glad to be out of SBC churches at ground zero!!

@ Lydia:
Did you see his stupid repons “I didn’t call you ignorant I said what you said was ignorant.” (insert eyeroll) Methinks he doesn’t understand how we identify someone as ignorant. Is it like a physical malady?

Celia wrote:

@ Lydia:
Did you see his stupid repons “I didn’t call you ignorant I said what you said was ignorant.” (insert eyeroll) Methinks he doesn’t understand how we identify someone as ignorant. Is it like a physical malady?

That is an old one there. They call you ignorant then insist it is not an insult. Dave and his comrades have been doing that for years. Oh, and if you do take it as an insult then you are just an ignorant rube who is the real sinner. These are not people who reason. They dictate.

Can I just say again how wonderful it is to be out of that world? Lord save us from the Mohlers and his adoring followers.

@ K.D.:
Ah, Houston …. trauma-level hospitals

Christiane wrote:

@ K.D.:
Ah, Houston …. trauma-level hospitals

Galveston for burns….John Sealy Hosp., affiliated with Univ. of Texas Med School…

Lydia wrote:

“Cult” seems have the imagery of a compound in Utah or Hari Krishnas selling flowers at the airport or mass Moonie weddings. Remember those?

I don’t think all new Calvinists have arrived at cult status yet, but the churches who try to force church conversions to authoritarianism, and those that try to force their members to sign covenant agreements where they can’t leave without permission are two of the biggest signs of a cult. Doctrine is just a tool to enforce authority, it’s not really the motivation.

Lydia wrote:

Your comments remind me of my childhood when the city cousins went to stay with the country cousins every summer. It was like going to a foreign country. We were taken snipe hunting

I took one of my city cousins kangaroo hunting over Christmas break once. I told her that the rabbit tracks in the snow were tracks from a small species of kangaroo. She bought it, hook, line and sinker, until we went back to the house and she told her mom all about it.

Lydia wrote:

That is an old one there. They call you ignorant then insist it is not an insult. Dave and his comrades have been doing that for years. Oh, and if you do take it as an insult then you are just an ignorant rube who is the real sinner. These are not people who reason. They dictate.

Can I just say again how wonderful it is to be out of that world? Lord save us from the Mohlers and his adoring followers.

It is truly Pravda at Voices.

Nancy2 wrote:

I am not, by nature, winsome. I usually get deleted at Pravda, so most of the time, I just read and laugh.

It is laughable to read the comments as the commentators for the most part are living in their own alternative universe.

Same old commentators and same recurring comments.

@ Nancy2:
Too funny!

Velour wrote:

How come a UCLA grad didn’t know that a snake couldn’t move in snow?

If Jungle Fever (malaria) can cause brain damage, just imagine what Concrete Jungle Fever does to a person!

JYJames wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
True, surely, and harshly stated.

HUG quoteth plagiarist *pastor* whacko Doug Wilson from Moscow, ID who is indeed *harsh*.

Lydia wrote:

So, according to Miller, Kitty is ignorant for disagreeing with the brilliant Grudem on ESS.

See why it is impossible to be in an SBC church anymore?

Grudem’s ST is their bible. And they are inerrantists when it come to their bible and their god. It is tragic that “men” like the ones at Voices are in pulpits. They do not have a clue what pastors should be doing. They are an embarrassment.

Nancy2 wrote:

If Jungle Fever (malaria) can cause brain damage, just imagine what Concrete Jungle Fever does to a person!

You said a mouthful there Nancy2 and I agree. LA and environs really is a concrete and asphalt jungle as far as the eye can see. The people there have become so divorced from nature and her ways that in a kind of rueful way, they really have become brain damaged even though they’ll crow about how ‘smart’ they are with how many APPS they can cram onto their ‘smart devices’.

Gram3 wrote:

They do not have a clue what pastors should be doing. They are an embarrassment.

They are part of the reason the SBC is dying IMO. They seem to have no concern about the Neo-Cal Pastors they are going to live in charge of the SBC when they die or retire.

Muff Potter wrote:

The people there have become so divorced from nature and her ways that in a kind of rueful way, they really have become brain damaged even though they’ll crow about how ‘smart’ they are with how many APPS they can cram onto their ‘smart devices’.

Ha ha! My daughter and her hubby live in a large town in a neighboring county. My sil is a city slicker ….. makes a living as an IT guy – virtual reality specialist/trouble shooter for the city. He says if there is ever a major disaster, they’re (his mom and dad included) loading up and coming out to the farm because we know how to survive!

Nancy2 wrote:

@ Nancy2:
Oh, and apparently men being husbands and father’s really isn’t all that important. Certainly not a “ministry” to which they should be devoted, or even worth mentioning.

Right. It comes natural with the kephale err…the plumbing :o)

Here is the latest from Voices

“I’ve read up on you, Kitty, and kinda figured out your agenda. You are are Bernie Sanders supporter, an advocate of LGBT rights, and most certainly not an evangelical Christian. So, my conclusion is that you are a troll, coming on here to disrupt our site. Your Facebook account made that pretty obvious.

So the fact that you do not support Grudem’s biblical view is hardly surprising. I asked you not to troll this site, now I’m going to insist.

I suspect you also may be using a pseudonymous account to hide your real identity, but the 320 cat pictures were a blessing.”

This is the kind of hardball Miller plays. No proof of his conclusion provided, but he is god and he has spoken.

Nancy2 wrote:

Even if what Miller said is true, how did he do that without using information he has a the moderator and violating the privacy terms?

He does not care. He wrote one time that he was a foot soldier during the so called CR, so he has practice at smearing other people, all in the name of the Lord.

Lydia wrote:

I keep warning people these guys are real snakes. The good thing about Miller is he is publicly mean so one can be forewarned. The ones who suck you in as nice and objective in order to obtain intel in which to blindside later (unless you stay nice enough) are the really scary ones.

How many people’s lives did Miller destroy using the same tactics during the CR? You are right those guys are snakes and beyond mean. The truly scary part is they are pastors.

Lydia wrote:

IP addresses.that is how these pastors spend their time and the pew sitter money.

Miller is the moderator and has access to the IP addresses and I am sure he knows what to do with them.

Nancy2 wrote:

So, he did the lower level dirty work to help the Calvinists gain control?

Absolutely! He has plenty of training in ruining and or attempting to ruin people’s lives and he is a pastor. But he got rid of all of them “liberals.” I am being snarky with that last sentence.

Max wrote:

You will never meet a humble Calvinist

I meant to say “You will never meet a humble “New” Calvinist …”

During my 60+year journey as a Southern Baptist, I have worshiped alongside several classical Calvinists. I have found them to be civil in their discourse and of humble spirit. It’s this “New” tribe that does not have a meek bone in their body. There are know-it-all rebels among them who are running roughshod over the people of God for which they will pay a price, individually and corporately, for their actions.

Look what Miller does now:

”

Since Kitty would not leave the ESS subject alone, I did a little internet snooping and found someone of her name – a lesbian, LGBT rights advocate, a “Christian” left winger, and a vocal critic of conservatives and Christians. I assumed Kitty to be a troll on that basis.

She has assured me that she is not the same Kitty who was on that site, and another person (her husband?) has said the same. I will accept their representations.

So, I apologize for putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5. Kitty, I am sorry for making that link and assuming that you were the same person who shared your name and some of your views. I should have checked it out.

My point remains – I did not write an article about ESS and you have been dismissive and demeaning to Grudem and others who do not share your viewpoint. I’m going to insist that we leave that alone on this comment stream.

Does anyone else consider this an apology?

From Miller:

“She has assured me that she is not the same Kitty who was on that site, and another person (her husband?) has said the same. I will accept their representations.”

Miller would not take the word of a woman. He had to have her husband support her representation.

mot wrote:

“My point remains – I did not write an article about ESS and you have been dismissive and demeaning to Grudem and others who do not share your viewpoint. I’m going to insist that we leave that alone on this comment stream.”

Quoting Miller:

“I’ve read up on you, Kitty, and kinda figured out your agenda. You are are Bernie Sanders supporter, an advocate of LGBT rights, and most certainly not an evangelical Christian. So, my conclusion is that you are a troll, coming on here to disrupt our site. Your Facebook account made that pretty obvious.”

But THAT is not ‘dismissive and demeaning’.

Log meet speck.

Lydia wrote:

Might have been true in the 1st century with arranged marriages. Usually to a much older man.

Hah! You are acting as if SCRIPTURAL, HISTORICAL, and CULTURAL CONTEXT matters!

The patriarchals just whizz right by that, not taking into consideration the vast difference between current marriages in the west and marriages in the east during that time. Not dissimilar to the arranged marriages we see even now in many countries.

Marriages arranged by family patriarchs while the marriagees were still children.

Yeah, in that context telling those wives to love their husbands was indeed radical.

However, the pats take that ‘wives love their husbands’ and add their own twist to it.

To train a women to love her husband ends up being defined as ways “to subordinate yourself completely in a winsome, joyful way to hubby’s every whim”.

Happily. even when it’s something as monumental as rinsing off the soap bubble she couldn’t see, that hubby, the dish-washing overseer, could spot from several feet away.

Just how neurotic have/will wives become who live under the constant burden of saying, doing, and being in all minutia, the wife-model that patriarch hubby has created in his own mind for her to be?

mot wrote:

Someone better get a screen shot of his nastiness to Kitty. It just might disappear.

So true!

Ken P. wrote:

I also noticed that the neo-cals seem more accepting of the Liturgical Calendar, something traditional Baptist were against. I didn’t know what Advent was until college, and all of the neo-cal sites do all sorts of things for Advent. I did know what Lent was as a kid because it starts the day after Mardi Gras, but some of the neo-cal sites were debating the observation of Lent. Certainly no traditional Baptist in my youth would have never considered.

My denomination finds paths toward holiness in the liturgical calendar and the times of Lent, Advent, and the rest. For this very reason I completely agree with you that these should never be foisted on congregations that do not want them. Aesthetics and customs matter. Baptists have Baptist ways of finding holiness, because Baptists have a long history and ample intact traditions.

Nancy2 wrote:

mot wrote:

Someone better get a screen shot of his nastiness to Kitty. It just might disappear.

So true!

Yep, he deleted it. Sorry Dave Miller we saw what you posted.

Max wrote:

Well, it started with John Calvin …

Love your comment!

Friend wrote:

Since Kitty would not leave the ESS subject alone, I did a little internet snooping

Here is the big issue to me. Someone disagrees with me, so I have to go find dirt (let alone whether anything he said actually was ‘dirt’) on her to destroy her! What a bizarre way to interact with someone on an intellectual issue.

Me thinks Dave is not confident in his ideas or his ability to argue them. A woman was apparently getting the better of him and that bothered him enough to go snooping like a crazy ex boyfriend. Here is his entire problem.

Nancy2 wrote:

He does what he can to protect his Holy, Man O’Gawd reputation……. Far too many people had seen that comment already!

What must it be like to be a member of the church he pastors particularly if you are a STRONG WOMAN!!

Lea wrote:

Since Kitty would not leave the ESS subject alone, I did a little internet snooping

And then he allows a post by one of his friends on guess what–ESS.

Hi! Just an update about how my family is doing at FBCRM since the “big mess”. Have been too busy to post and followed this discussion over here. I am no longer grieving and concerned about my young son. He accepted Christ Sunday morning in our home before he left to go to camp for a week. He and I had been talking for some time about this and he asked me before he left for camp, to buy him a cross necklace to wear at camp. After that request, I knew he had come to a decision and we talked and prayed about it before he left.

God is working at FBCRM. There is no tension, no division and from what I read in weekly budget reports available at church, the bills are all getting paid. I could not be more happy. I am looking forward to what God has in store. (But I will also be honest. I will have a hard time with being somewhat distrustful of new staff and pastors in the future.)

Thank you for this website. It has been very informational after what I have experienced for the last 2 years. I wish I had found this sooner and I would have been much better informed and would have known what to look for and pray for.

No longer Grieving….