A forum for a community of people interested in discussing salvation in Jesus Christ by grace through faith
| October 26, 2008 Theological Pedigree to Gain a Hearing | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 10 2009, 06:33 PM (29 Views) | |
| lightninboy | May 10 2009, 06:33 PM Post #1 |
|
Dear Guests: Last week, at the Sharper Iron (SI) blog site, I was engaged in several discussions on issues of concern to Fundamentalism, Independent Fundamental Baptists in particular. The SI site is made up of administrators moderators and participants that are by and large strongly Calvinistic in their theology. Many embrace Lordship Salvation. SI is a site for Fundamentalists, but it is IMO exemplifying a steady shift of many Reformed men in the Fundamentalist camp toward the Evangelical mindset typical of Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. John Piper. Another one of the concerns I have had for several years has been in regard to a trend that has taken root and is growing in some segments of Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) circles. That trend was displayed in an article by Dr. Kevin Bauder, which I link to below. I am reposting here at my blog the remarks that I posted at SI as a stand alone commentary on Dr. Kevin Bauder’s article, To the Young Guys: Speak to be Heard. My article title is Theological Pedigree to Gain a Hearing Dr. Bauder: You wrote, “You want people to listen to you? One of the best things that you can do is to finish school.” In 2001 I spoke at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College for two days on the topic of missions. After one chapel the floor was opened for Q & A. One young man asked about advanced theological training in preparation for the mission field. His question was one of concern about going to seminary and he used the term, “cemetery,” suggesting seminary would chill evangelistic fire. My reply was two fold: 1) If the fires of evangelism go out it goes out in the heart of the believer, the believer lost his fire- seminary does not do that; 2) Anyone headed to the mission field would do well to gain advanced theological training because you will need a sharp sword on the foreign field. I am for and support encouraging our young Fundamentalists (YF) headed for the ministry to avail themselves of as much formal advanced theological training as possible. To reiterate: I am for the attainment of advanced theological training, which I want you (and other readers of what is to follow) to be clear on before I react to select portions of your article. You wrote, “If you want to be heard, get a real education. The more you get, the better the hearing you’ll likely gain.” Fundamentalist, young or old, is not even the issue here. I am going to address the standard you have set for what you believe earns a man the right to be heard and/or taken seriously. Let’s review some men, in their youth, that by your standard should not have been given a public hearing because they had no advanced theological training. As a matter of fact, if my research is correct, these men had practically no formal training of any kind. (All biographies from Wikipedia) G. Campbell Morgan In 1886, at the age of 23, he left the teaching profession, for which he had been trained, and devoted himself to preaching and Bible exposition. He was ordained to the Congregational ministry in 1890. He had no formal training for the ministry, but his devotion to studying of the Bible made him one of the leading Bible teachers in his day. His reputation as preacher and Bible expositor grew throughout England and spread to the United States. Charles H. Spurgeon Charles Haddon Spurgeon, commonly C.H. Spurgeon, (June 19, 1834 – January 31, 1892) was a British Reformed Baptist preacher who remains highly influential among Christians of different denominations, among whom he is still known as the "Prince of Preachers." He also founded the charity organization now known as Spurgeon's, that works worldwide with families and children, as well as a famous theological college which after his death was called after him: Spurgeon's College. His sermons were translated into many languages in his lifetime. D. L. Moody His Sunday School teacher said of Moody, "I can truly say, and in saying it I magnify the infinite grace of God as bestowed upon him, that I have seen few persons whose minds were spiritually darker than was his when he came into my Sunday School class; and I think that the committee of the Mount Vernon Church seldom met an applicant for membership more unlikely ever to become a Christian of clear and decided views of Gospel truth, still less to fill any extended sphere of public usefulness." C. I. Scofield Scofield served as secretary of the American Home Missionary Society of Texas and Louisiana; and in 1890, he helped found Lake Charles College (1890-1903) in Lake Charles, Louisiana. As the author of the pamphlet, "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth" (1888), Scofield himself soon became a leader in dispensational premillennialism, a forerunner of twentieth-century Christian fundamentalism. In 1895, Scofield was called as pastor of Moody's church, the Trinitarian Congregational Church of East Northfield, Massachusetts, and he also took charge of Moody’s Northfield Bible Training School. Although, in theory, Scofield returned to his Dallas pastorate in 1903, his projected reference Bible consumed much of his energy, and for much of the time before its publication, he was either sick or in Europe. When the Scofield Reference Bible was published in 1909, it quickly became the most influential statement of dispensational premillennialism, and Scofield's popularity as Bible conference speaker increased as his health continued to decline. H. A. Ironside During this time, Ironside also began his career as a writer, publishing several Bible commentary pamphlets. In 1914, he rented a storefront and established the Western Book and Tract Company, which operated successfully until the depression in the late 1920s. From 1916 to 1929, Ironside preached almost 7,000 sermons to over 1.25 million listeners. In 1918, he was associated with evangelist George McPherson; and in 1924, Ironside began preaching under the direction of the Moody Bible Institute. In 1926, he was invited to a full-time faculty position at the Dallas Theological Seminary, which he turned down, although he was frequently a visiting lecturer there from 1925 to 1943. After a series of sermons presented at the The Moody Church, in Chicago, he was invited to a one-year trial as head pastor there in 1929. Almost every Sunday that he preached there, the 4,000 seat church was filled to capacity. While there, he continued traveling to other US cities during the week for preaching engagements. In 1932, he expanded his travels internationally. Ironside preached the 1935 funeral of Billy Sunday, at Moody Church. In 1938, he toured England, Scotland and Ireland, preaching 142 times to crowds of upwards of 2,000. In 1942, he also became president of the missionary organization, Africa Inland Mission. In 1930, Wheaton College presented Ironside with an honorary Doctorate of Letters degree, and in 1942-06-03 Bob Jones University awarded him an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree. If the YF takes your comments seriously he has effectively been told to be seen and NOT heard (in public) until he has attained what you deem a suitable theological pedigree. If you follow the standard you just set for the YF to get a serious hearing then you, and any who share your opinion, can’t listen to any young man without an advanced degree, which would have to of included a young Spurgeon, Moody, Ironside and Scofield if the likes of them were among us today, and probably are. You are essentially telling the YF to stay out of the public arena of discussion unless and until he has earned an advanced degree. Taking the standard you set seriously would mean that not until he had been awarded an honorary Doctorate in 1932 you would not have taken H. A. Ironside seriously. Dr. Bauder, if we follow your, “minimal educational requirement to command a hearing… the necessary command of languages, exegesis, and theology,” we shouldn’t take any preacher seriously, regardless of age, who has not arrived at the level of theological pedigree you set as the minimal acceptable standard. You have effectively told the YF that he can’t speak to be heard until he has arrived at a level of academic excellence you have set as the standard to get a hearing. Finally, I want to cite the following from you, “Broadly speaking, most Christian leaders have to earn a Master of Divinity degree before many people are interested in what they have to say.” Dr. Bauder I appreciate your encouraging the YF to equip themselves for ministry. What you wrote, however, is IMO a sample, an eloquent sample, of the INTELLECTUAL ELITISM that has found its way into some segments of Fundamentalism. LM |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
![]() |
|
| lightninboy | May 10 2009, 06:42 PM Post #2 |
|
Comments: 1. Kevl said... Hi Lou, This is the attitude I also faced at SI while I stayed there. I do not want to give the impression that I didn't find incredible men serving the Lord there. I surely did. But I could not keep up with who was wearing which badge.. if you get my meaning. The problem with waiting until you've received such a "high" education from men before you are listened to is exactly that... this education is mostly from men. And the nature of man's wisdom and teaching brings us to consensus instead of revelation. I have long since stopped seeking agreement with men. I now continue to train my heart to seek fellowship in revelation from God. Do we agree? That is good, do we agree with God first and then each other? WONDERFUL! Kev 10/26/2008 6:05 AM 2. Lou Martuneac said... Kev: Thanks for this note. The only reason I stay at SI is to be a voice for those who may need and/or appreciate what I am speaking for. There is, without any doubt, a fair amount of the kind of elitism coming from some men at SI, primarily its moderators. If there is one common denominator I see in the elitist group at SI it is Calvinism. That is not an indictment of all who are Reformed in their theology, and not to say you don’t find elitism in non-Calvinistic circles, but it is palpable at SI. Jim Johnson comes to mind immediately as an example of a raw intellectual elitist and snob. Yet we came to find that he was, on a massive scale, plagiarizing other men with theological pedigree. Then Dr. Stephen Lewis (Pres of RMBC) and the rest of the GES camp either ignored Johnson’s plagiarism and/or essentially laughed it off. LM 10/26/2008 6:24 AM 3. Kevl said... Lou, isn't it amusing that most men of great theological training will quote these very men you've listed here, in appeals to authority, in support of their many arguments. I would like to add one of my heroes of the faith CH Mackintosh to your list. While he did open a school, as did DL Moody, I don't believe he received formal theological training prior to this. I love the story the above link makes of his conversion. He obtained peace with God through reading J. N. Darby's 'Operations of the Spirit', and learning that it is Christ's work for us, not his work in us, that gives peace. Kev 10/26/2008 1:32 PM 4. Lou Martuneac said... Kev: You wrote, “Lou, isn’t it amusing that most men of great theological training will quote these very men you've listed here, in appeals to authority, in support of their many arguments.” This is especially why I chose Spurgeon. A young Spurgeon today could not even get to first base with the elitist men we have in our circles. IMO, there are young men among us with great spiritual gifts and a message that should be heard, but Bauder’s plan is to restrain and keep them out of public discussion until they earn a degree he feels is a suitable prerequisite to get a hearing. Sad. Lou 10/26/2008 3:33 PM 5. Aaron's said... I would just encourage everyone to read Dr. Bauder's essay in its entirety and see if he is saying a) You're not entitled to be listened to unless you have advanced degrees, or b) If you have a good education you are more likely to succeed in your efforts to be heard. I believe the piece is intended to be practical advice, not to establish rights or lack of rights to be heard (as though any individual could do that for anyone else). On SI's Calvinism, the site has no position on the subject, nor has any effort been made to measure constituencies on that point. Articles somewhat critical of Calvinism have been published recently. It's true many at SI are Calvinistic in theology. It's also true that many are not. The same is true regarding Lordship Salvation. Some are probably for it, but many are not (I suspect most). SI aims to stick mostly to the fundamentals and leave room for a wide variety of perspectives on other matters. Aaron Blumer SI Publisher publisher@sharperiron.org 10/26/2008 8:45 PM 6. Lou Martuneac said... Dear Aaron: I appreciate your stopping by to offer a point of view from your perspective as SI’s publisher on Dr. Bauder’s article. I trust you noticed that I provided a link to the article so those who wish to may read it in its entirety. I do agree with your assessment that there is “practical advice” in Dr. Bauder’s article. I began my critique of the article (here and at SI) supportive of the practical advice offered. I do, however, maintain that irrefutably there is a definite air of intellectual elitism in Dr. Bauder’s article. You wrote, “On SI’s Calvinism, the site has no position on the subject, nor has any effort been made to measure constituencies on that point.” The administrators and moderators at SI set the tone for and govern the direction of SI. Would you be so kind as to name any SI administrators and/or moderators who are NOT Calvinistic in their theology? Thanks again for sharing your perspective. Kind regards, LM PS: This is small matter, but while I do not mind your addressing my guests, I would have appreciated the courtesy of your at least acknowledging me with a simple greeting prior to or following your remarks. 10/26/2008 9:50 PM 7. Susan R said... Hello, Bro. Martuneac- SusanR here from SI. Just wanted to raise my hand to say that while I am on the SI Admin Team, I am not a Calvinist. As a matter of fact, I'm Irish. But I am also of the female gender, so maybe that means my vote doesn't count. But since this is about rejecting elitism, perhaps my comment will be taken seriously.The SI site clearly states the doctrinal matters on which SI bases its comment policy. Many topics are up for discussion, and tolerating debate is not the same as promoting or advocating all sides of all ideas debated, just as Bro. Blumer pointed out in his comment. I also understood Dr. Bauder's essay (clearly marked as an essay) in much the same way as many others did- advice from his point of view. He submits his blogs knowing they will receive the same critiquing as others', with folks posting on what points they agree/disagree. IMO, this hardly smacks of someone attempting to suppress dissent. Bro. Martuneac, had you considered opening a direct dialogue with the Admin and Moderating Teams regarding your concerns before posting your objections about how the site is operated, as well as your opinions of the moderating team? (which has recently experienced a major turnover, btw). Perhaps some of your misconceptions could have been addressed at the horses' mouth, so to speak. I'd also like to say that this statement- "Bauder’s plan is to restrain and keep them out of public discussion until they earn a degree he feels is a suitable prerequisite to get a hearing" I find to be completely out-of-line and just a bit ridiculous. It sparked a sudden mental image of Dr. Bauder as Lex Luthor. I hope you can consider this comment in the spirit in which it was intended. Online communications often leave much to be desired when it comes to tone of voice, and I do not wish to convey any disrespect or hostility. Sincerely, SusanR SI Forums Admin 10/27/2008 5:41 AM 8. Lou Martuneac said... Susan: I appreciate your comments here, but I am asking Aaron to name whom among the administrators and moderators are not Calvinistic in their theology. I would also be interested to know what percentage of the admin/mod team are non-Calvinists. Not simply neutral or undecided, but clearly not Calvinistic in their theology. As a follow-up I would be curious whether or not a non-Calvinist such as myself would be welcome to serve as a moderator and what qualifications are viewed as prerequisite for appointment as an admin or moderator. As you can see Aaron, “the horse’s mouth” has posted here. I am hopeful he will answer the questions I have posted for his attention. I’ll look forward to his reply later today. You suggest I have misconceptions; about what? 1) SI is highly Calvinistic in membership and from my view among its admins and moderators. Citing how many administrators and moderators there are at SI, and then naming how many are non-Calvinists would be appreciated. I do not care about how SI is operated, its none of my concern. I am observing the obvious bent toward Calvinism of its leadership and most of its active membership. Is there a problem with expressing the obvious openly? 2) As for Bauder’s article: I have and will again acknowledge there is helpful practical advice in it. There is, however, without any question an air of “intellectual elitism”, which has found its way into Fundamental circles. My assessment of the “elitism” that Bauder’s article exudes at time is IMO spot on. I do appreciate the opportunity I have to comment at SI. I have been able to contribute two articles, which were: You’re First Step Won’t be Your Last IDOTG: Martuneac Responds to Wood’s Review The first was asked for and openly received by SI admins. The second I had to plead for it to appear on the SI home page and my request was finally agreed to. I am not suggesting in my various remarks that SI is sold out lock, stock and barrel to Calvinism, but without any doubt SI leans very heavily in that direction. Thanks again for offering your perspective. Lou 10/27/2008 6:24 AM 9. Lou Martuneac said... Dear Aaron: I am going to ask a question(s) not knowing what the answer may be. I am curious about these things and would appreciate your reply. You may be able to help dispel any misconceptions there may be about SI. 1) In the SI Blogroll are any of those blogs administered by men/women who are clearly non-Calvinists? 2) is there any reason why my blog would not be added to the SI Blogroll? On #2 I am not angling for a spot on the Blogroll. I simply believe a clear answer to that question may reveal whether or not a clearly non-Calvinistic, non-Lordship Salvation, non-Zane Hodges opinion would be recommended and/or tolerated by SI and its leadership. Thanks, LM 10/27/2008 6:28 AM 10. Adam Blumer said... Hi, Lou I hope you're doing well. A member of the SI admin team, I just wanted to raise my hand and say that I do not use the terms "Calvinist," "Calvinism," or "Lordship Salvation" in describing my position according to Scripture. Certain articles we post for discussion should not be confused as positional papers of SI or the SI admin team or moderators. They are posted precisely for one thing: discussion. We often find varying viewpoints on any number of different issues, but hopefully everyone is challenged in his thinking. I hope that helps. Have a great day in the Lord. Adam Blumer SI Admin adamblumer@sharperiron.org 10/27/2008 6:40 AM |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
![]() |
|
| lightninboy | May 10 2009, 06:42 PM Post #3 |
|
Comments: 11. Lou Martuneac said... Hello Adam: I'll have to pick this up late tonight or in the morning. I appreciate and understand why some, maybe you, have an aversion to the labels, “Calvinism,” and “Lordship Salvation.” Those labels do, however, identify specific systems of theology. Understanding that I do not use those labels as pejoratives, would you align yourself with those systems? Or maybe I could ask if you would consider your view closely aligned to the so-called, “Doctrines of Grace?” Finally, in your capacity as an SI admin, may I ask for your response to my two questions above to Aaron, which were: 1) In the SI Blogroll are any of those blogs administered by men/women who are clearly non-Calvinists? 2) Is there any reason why my blog would not be added to the SI Blogroll? Thanks and kind regards, Lou 10/27/2008 7:12 AM 12. Susan R said... I am confused, Bro. Martuneuc, since I am here as an Admin to answer for myself; what difference does it make if Aaron thinks I am Calvinistic when *I* am here to say that I am not? I was not asked about my Calvinism or lack thereof before being asked on as an Admin. None of the mods were asked if they were or were not Calvinists before they were approved by Admin as mods. They are *volunteers*, btw. I also oversee membership approvals. All that is required of applicants is that they use their real name in their profiles. They are not required to fill in the fields for church or doctrinal affiliation, but they are asked to read and comply with the SI comment policy which contains a range of doctrines. Obviously this is a matter of faith on the part of SI Admin that folks will apply honestly for membership. Until they prove otherwise by posting in violation of the comment policy, they are allowed to comment freely, whether they are Calvinistic, Armenian, or Venusian. I think leaping from 'Dr. Bauder's essay had an air of elitism' to 'Sharper Iron is a closely guarded haven of Calvinism' is quite feat. My mental legs aren't long enough for that one. ![]() What you believe is obvious is obviously not obvious to others. I believe the proper approach would have been to contact Aaron, the Admin Team, and the moderators and ask them *personally* what they believe, instead of publicly making false assumptions. I find asking Aaron to answer for me unacceptable, since he has no knowledge (until now) of any leanings I may have toward or against Calvinism. I also believe that any questions about the membership approval process would be best directed to me, since I oversee this aspect of the site. How SI operates is at the heart of this discussion, because it is IMO your misconceptions about how an internet forum operates that has led to many of your inaccurate conclusions. Thanks for answering my comment. SusanR SI Forums Admin 10/27/2008 7:13 AM 13. Lou Martuneac said... Susan: I think you badly misunderstood some elements of my reply to you earlier. LM 10/27/2008 7:16 AM 14. Susan R said... Bro. Lou (is it ok for me to use your first name?) Do you mind pointing out what I am not understanding? I have no wish to misinterpret or misrepresent your comments. SusanR SI Forums Admin 10/27/2008 7:27 AM 15. Aaron's said... Lou, About your questions on Calvinism among Moderators and Admins at SI. The truth is, before this morning I have the matter no thought at all. I'm vaguely aware of how a few stand on the matter, but I didn't ask and I haven't combed through their forum posts with the goal of finding out. So I just learned this morning that Susan does not consider herself a Calvinist, and my brother doesn't own the label either. I don't consider this important news. I do think soteriological systems are important, just not important for leadership roles at SI. Interesting thing, though, I've never expressed my own views on the question and don't think I've posted on that topic either. For all you know, I'm so Arminian I believe you can lose your salvation twice before lunch. (Arminians, pls pardon the caricature... just having a little fun). Maybe we can all move on to some better use of our time now? I realize that Bauder-parsing and Bauder-misconstruing are favorite indoor sports for many--and taking shots at SI can also be fun. And I don't mind (much), really. But I do have to get some leaves out of the backyard. (-: Lou, I applaud your passionate concern for the purity of the gospel. I mean that. Aaron Publisher http://sharperiron.org 10/27/2008 9:11 AM 16. Kevl said... Hi Lou, I had been surprised this conversation didn't get going.. then I looked away for 20 hours or so and look what's happened! Brothers, and Sister, thanks for coming here to converse on the subject. I am a former member of the SI forums. In the late winter/early spring I actually asked for my account to be deleted so that I would not be tempted to return. The behavior I found myself engaged in was that upsetting to me. I do not mean to disparage the name of SI, or any of the many orderly brethren who fellowship there in an online sort of way. However, I was constantly confronted with the air of elitism from many posters and felt bludgeoned by "doctrines of grace" in all but only one or two threads I ever participated in. There were men who's names would stop all conversation. And any time a topic drifted towards questioning, or did question Calvinism that would become the focus of the thread. Now, at the time at least, there was a very short cut of rule on the forum. Threads could only be so many pages long and then they would be locked by a moderator no matter the current status of the conversation. So.. .conversations would almost always look like this. Original post - interesting topic. postulations and further questions. implications against Calvinism brought up. Pages and pages of support for Calvinism and argument against it. A return to the original topic and some sane conversation. Shortly followed by a moderator locking the thread because it was too long. I saw this happen time and time and time again. Someone would want to converse on a topic, it would offend a Calvinist and that would hijack the conversation until it was closed. I did question this. I sent emails to various moderators and admins. It was always "someone else" who locked the thread... or ignored how the conversation was hijacked. I ended up spending most of my time finding ways to quickly appease the popular names who were Calvinistic in their leaning so that I could have some conversation. In the end I found I was spending all my time arguing and no time learning or enjoying fellowship. It almost became addictive for a while. So I had to break fellowship, to protect my walk and to keep from causing my beloved brethren from stumbling. Kev 10/27/2008 12:39 PM 17. Lou Martuneac said... Hello Aaron: Thanks for the reply. Although you want to move on I think we are just short of that point. It would be very helpful to me for you to address the one set of lingering questions I submitted to you and Adam. 1) In the SI Blogroll are any of those blogs administered by men/women who are clearly non-Calvinists? 2) Is there any reason why my blog would not be added to the SI Blogroll? On #2 I am not angling for a spot on the Blogroll. I simply believe a clear answer to that question may reveal whether or not a clearly non-Calvinistic, non-Lordship Salvation, non-Zane Hodges opinion would be recommended and/or tolerated by SI and its leadership. IMO, this is an important question, and would please do me the kindness of an answer? Finally, although I appreciate the tongue in cheek over Arminianism it does seem to me that you are evading the crux of one of the reasons why you posted here in the first place, which is Calvinism. You wrote, “On SI’s Calvinism, the site has no position on the subject, nor has any effort been made to measure constituencies on that point. ” Would you be transparent enough to state one way or the other, in unvarnished terms whether or not you lean toward Calvinism, or if you prefer, the so-called “Doctrines of Grace?” Finally, you wrote, “I realize that Bauder-parsing and Bauder-misconstruing are favorite indoor sports for many--and taking shots at SI can also be fun.” IMO, and speaking for myself, I did not misconstrue the portions of Bauder’s article, that I critiqued. The elitism in the article is palpable and unfortunately becoming a growing trend among some of our men in IFB circles. Furthermore, I am not in the business of taking pot-shots at SI. I appreciate elements of what SI brings to its members and guests. On the Bauder article I called it as I see it and any reference to the obvious bent toward Calvinism and LS at SI should not be considered “taking shots at SI.” You have likely found just as I have that if you get out in the public forum you are going to be on the receiving end of applause and/or criticism. Thanks again for stopping by, but I do encourage you to address my question about SI’s Blogroll. Yours faithfully, LM 10/27/2008 9:21 PM 18. Lou Martuneac said... Adam: You wrote, “As a member of the SI admin team, I just wanted to raise my hand and say that I do not use the terms ‘Calvinist,’ ‘Calvinism,’ or ‘Lordship Salvation’ in describing my position according to Scripture.” Fair enough. So, what term would you use “in describing your position according to the Scripture?” Lou 10/27/2008 9:55 PM 19. Lou Martuneac said... Susan: I do plan to get back to your comments and questions. I have been very busy and have to work today, which is normally my day of. Yes, you may call me, "Lou." I have been called worse. ;-) FWIW, I am in PM's with the Blumers at SI, hoping they will interact with me in private on the questions I asked them here, which they obviously do not want to acknowledge, let alone answer in the public forum here. Kind regards, Lou 10/28/2008 7:08 AM 20. Susan R said... Bro. Lou, I just want to say that I was fully prepared for you to ignore me, and I apologize for my cynicism. If you really want to experience elitism, you should try being of the female gender. Well... not literally...:D I have interacted (via PM) with Dr. Bauder on a couple of occasions, and was pleasantly surprised when he responded quickly and respectfully to me. I must tell you that this is highly unusual in my experience, and is one reason why, in spite of some statements he made in his essay, I don't find the overall message elitist. Some of the comments to follow are dripping in it, but IMO not the OP. Thanks for responding. 10/28/2008 7:23 AM |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
![]() |
|
| lightninboy | May 10 2009, 06:43 PM Post #4 |
|
Comments: 21. Aaron's said... Lou, About your two questions... "1) In the SI Blogroll are any of those blogs administered by men/women who are clearly non-Calvinists? 2) Is there any reason why my blog would not be added to the SI Blogroll? " A preface to my answers to the questions... When I took the helm of SI in May, 95% of the current blogroll selections had already been made. I do not know what criteria Jason went by in making those choices. There is currently no formal process for applying for the blogroll. A few new entries have been added either because they asked to be or because someone recommended them. It's unlikely that any screening process ever involved a Calvinist/Doctrines of Grace filter. It's extremely unlikely that a question like that will be on the list during my tenure. What SI believes regarding salvation by grace through faith is articulated in our doctrinal statement and we're not filtering moderators, admin team members, blogrolls or anything else according to their position on the Calvinism-Arminianism scale. So to answer your questions... #1. I don't know. #2. Having never asked (to my knowledge) would be one reason. (Complaining publicly doesn't exactly grease the skids either). Lou, I don't know how else to say it. Whether people are Calvinists or not is simply not on my radar. Hope that helps. Aaron Publisher http://sharperiron.org 10/28/2008 10:15 AM 22. Don Johnson said... Lou, I think you have gotten side-tracked from your original post. Most of the complaints about SI flowed from your comments section rather than your post. As to the post, Is Bauder elitist? He certainly gives that impression in his writing and speaking. The constant use of Greek, Hebrew and Latin, the $64 vocabulary (try out 'interlocutor', for example... why not 'questioner' or something that the average guy could understand?)... all of these give the impression of one who is vastly impressed with himself. Some of the comments in his post also give that impression, which you and others reacted to. However, having said all that, there is a good deal of value to the points he raised, however insufferably he raised them. The young would do well to heed his advice and be patient in their own ministries until they earn a seat at the table, so to speak. While Spurgeon et al accomplished a great deal with little education and so on, they were the exceptions and exceptional individuals in their own right. And when they were young, their opinions probably carried very little weight amongst their peers. They hadn't yet built their reps, eh? As to SI I am banned from SI, it is entirely my own fault. I said something extremely stupid which Jason deemed bannable. His call. No problem from my end, it keeps me from the temptation to get into endless and fruitless argumentation. I don't think the problem with SI is Calvinism as such. The problem is that a great deal of the participants are what I call FINOs, Fundamentalists In Name Only. For some strange reason, they want the label but not the baggage or the philosophy. Many of these individuals also happen to be Calvinistic, and seem quite willing to give anyone "Reformed" a pass when they display ungodliness and even outright wickedness [note often muted disapproval of Driscoll as an example]. The problem, in my view, is that the membership scrutiny on the point of "are you a fundamentalist" is pretty well left to the self-testimony of the member himself. Very few people, if any, have been asked to leave SI because they display a non-fundamentalist point of view. Some have been asked to leave because of heretical views, apparently. I also recall one classmate of mine who is now Anglican. I tangled with him a good deal in the early days of SI, but he was ousted more for his Anglicanism than for his non-fundamentalism. So to sum up, SI is too lax with its membership and allows too much evangelical philosophy to be promoted unchecked. Some astonishing comments have been made in recent threads, for example, by the Davis brothers, and no one has batted an eye. (Of course, they were too busy arguing Calvinism!) FWIW Maranatha! Don Johnson Jer 33.3 10/28/2008 11:16 AM 23. Lou Martuneac said... Hi Don: I appreciate your comments and I’ll touch on them in succession. Yes, this did get somewhat side-tracked, but that is the nature of threads and I allow for it in moderation. Lou 10/28/2008 12:24 PM 24. Lou Martuneac said... Don: As to Bauder and elitism: I have posted here and at SI that the article did offer practical advice with which I concur and support. The Pillsbury example I cited was my attempt to show like-mindedness on advanced training for ministry. The sections of the article I cited do, IMO, have a strong intellectual elitist mentality about them. If I did not care about ethics and saved them, I could post e-mails from men that scolded and told me that I have no business publicly commenting on theology or writing a book because I have ONLY an M.A. Bauder’s comments do have the elitism in them that I, say again, is a growing trend in some segments of IFB circles. You wrote, “…all of these give the impression of one who is vastly impressed with himself.” This is not a big deal and I did not think about it until his latest article, but did you ever take note of how Bauder is dressed in his photo at SI? He is wearing his full Ph.D. regalia. Do a Google images and you’ll find a near full body shot of the picture at SI. That is how I found the picture of him in a suit like Spurgeon, Moody plus the other men and used it on purpose, instead of his regalia picture. That was my subtle way of watering down the air of elitism. :-) Again, this is not a big deal, but why the regalia outfit? LM 10/28/2008 12:43 PM 25. Lou Martuneac said... Don: I want to reiterate this section from your earlier extended comment. I put some key points in bold and I will follow with some reaction. I don't think the problem with SI is Calvinism as such. The problem is that a great deal of the participants are what I call FINOs, Fundamentalists In Name Only. For some strange reason, they want the label but not the baggage or the philosophy. Many of these individuals also happen to be Calvinistic, and seem quite willing to give anyone "Reformed" a pass when they display ungodliness and even outright wickedness [note often muted disapproval of Driscoll as an example]. The problem, in my view, is that the membership scrutiny on the point of "are you a fundamentalist" is pretty well left to the self-testimony of the member himself. Very few people, if any, have been asked to leave SI because they display a non-fundamentalist point of view. Some have been asked to leave because of heretical views, apparently. So to sum up, SI is too lax with its membership and allows too much evangelical philosophy to be promoted unchecked. Some astonishing comments have been made in recent threads, for example, by the Davis brothers, and no one has batted an eye. (Of course, they were too busy arguing Calvinism!) This FINO issue you raise here has been debated at SI. Last year there was thread about the left-leanings of SI. Mike Harding was pointing out that direction to SI in threads and for it he was roundly criticized. He was right on target in his remarks, which I believe were meant to help SI. Unfortunately, his remarks stung many at SI to fury against him for it. No question about allowing for evangelical philosophy to go virtually unchecked. Last year John Brown, who strongly advocated Rick Warren and Warren’s Purpose Driven methodology was challenged by almost no one in SI leadership. Brown is NOT a Fundamentalist, but even with SI knowing this, he was given free rein. Then there as Paul Barber, who Dr. Ketchum finally declared to him, “You are delusional if you (Barber) think you are a Fundamentalist.” Like you I have noted, and posted publicly at SI, that because of the common bond of Calvinism between some IFB men and the evangelicals, Reformed IFB men will give the Reformed Evangelicals a pas for issues that they (IFM men) would never condone or tolerate in their own ministries. Any denial of the obvious overlooking that goes on is absurd and cannot be taken seriously. I have asked for men to at least provide qualifications, disclaimers and/or warnings, but this is virtually NEVER done, not even with Driscoll. Thanks again for the notes. Lou PS: Maybe you can contact Aaron Blumer about reinstatement if you so desire. 10/28/2008 1:07 PM 26. Lou Martuneac said... Don/All: Although I do have concerns with some of the tone and theological bent of Sharper Iron I do appreciate the opportunity I have to post there on issues that concern me. I frequently post on the twin errors of Lordship Salvation and the Crossless Gospel. I have also posted extensively on biblical separatism, which fidelity toward the biblical mandates for separation seems to be wavering in IFB circles. LM 10/28/2008 1:08 PM 27. Lou Martuneac said... Aaron: I really appreciate your coming back to address my questions from earlier. I do, however, think you have misinterpreted my questions if you believe they are complaints. I can’t see how asking those two questions can be interpreted as “complaining.” Maybe those questions put you in the hot seat, I don’t know, but you’re the boss at SI and that means you will at times have to field questions, in public, you’d prefer in private. In any event, I do appreciate the transparency and trust we can have new discussions that will be mutually edifying. Kind regards, Lou PS: I’ll follow with a PM at SI. 10/28/2008 1:18 PM 28. Lou Martuneac said... Susan: OK, I’m back, but have only 15 minutes. Glad you find I was not going to ignore you. My critique has been over the elitism in portions of the article. I’m sure Dr. Bauder is a fine man especially in the kind of setting you described personally in your previous comment. There are, however arenas of thought and discussion where there has been a presence of elitism. Not by Dr. Bauder personally, but some in his circle of influence are trending toward intellectual elitism. Like you neither did I find the overall article elitist. I have acknowledged my appreciation for the overall purpose of Bauder’s in my post at SI. There are, however elements that are IMO unquestionably elitist. Dr. Bauder was eloquent in those remarks, but there is without any doubt a growing trend toward elitism in IFB circles. Some are blunt with it. Lou 10/28/2008 2:12 PM 29. Aaron said... Lou and others, As you know, SI operates on an honor system when it comes to who is a fundamentalist and who isn't. (But why would anybody want the name without the substance? I know for more men and women who want the substance without the name!) Anyway, maybe when we're bringing in steady revenue we can hire some judges and have our own little inquisition, but in the mean time there are lots of ways to draw specific posts to our attention if they seem to be inconsistent with our doctrinal statement. All of them are more efficient than vague references in blogs. Aaron B. SharperIron.org 10/28/2008 2:37 PM 30. Lou Martuneac said... Hello Aaron: As you may be aware I did bring to SI admin’s attention Antonio da Rosa for his obvious disdain for Fundamentalism not to mention his heretical (Zane Hodges) Crossless/Deityless interpretation of the Gospel. I believe I went through Dan Miller and possibly Larry as well. Last year I and others did raise concerns with SI admins over why John Brown and Paul Barber were allowed to post at SI. It has occurred to me and been my experience to find that some will take on a name/label to get chance to spread what he know is antithetical to the blog he is posting at for the purpose of gaining and hearing and attracting the unsuspecting. I trust you realize that this kind of subterfuge is not uncommon in the blogosphere. Some simply redefine the terms in their own language to suggest they are what they claim to be. Speaking for myself I am not a backroom whisperer about problems as I see them and definitely not vague when I reference them. Finally, as kindly as I can put it to you, as a man in a fairly high profile leadership position you would do well to tone down phrases such as, “…we can hire some judges and have our own little inquisition.” Lou 10/28/2008 2:57 PM |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
![]() |
|
| lightninboy | May 10 2009, 06:44 PM Post #5 |
|
Comments: 31. Susan R said... Bro. Lou, While I appreciate your passion to see doctrinal purity at SI, I think your approach has been unnecessarily confrontational. Your initial accusations of a cabal of Calvinists running the site have been proven wrong, and you have not acknowledged or apologized for those harsh and inaccurate statements, many of which were aimed at me as an Admin. I for one don't appreciate being accused of being involved in a conspiracy to promote false doctrine. Several incidents you have brought up are problems that arose during the previous 'administration', including the composition of the blogroll, and thus IMO should not be brought up as something for which the current Admin and Mod Teams should answer. I believe that asking the *current* Admin and Mod Teams about the new direction of SI would have been more productive than slurs such as "The SI site is made up of administrators moderators and participants that are by and large strongly Calvinistic in their theology. Many embrace Lordship Salvation." You say you haven't taken any potshots at SI, but the above is not a question or even speculation- that's a statement. I know the thrust of your article was aimed at Dr. Bauder, and you are welcome to your opinion of him and his writings, but taking a sideswipe at SI and its leadership was uncalled for, and as I said- I believe you should have asked the Admin and Mods personally about their beliefs, and given time for a response, rather than making unfounded accusations in public and then implying that admin was reluctant to answer publicly as if we have something to hide. Again- I believe and support your desire as commendable, but IMO your approach is inappropriate. Sincerely, Susan R SI Forums Admin 10/29/2008 5:49 AM 32. Lou Martuneac said... Susan: You are entitled to your opinion, some of which is IMO slightly naïve. I think you are overreacting and overstating the case you try to make. You wrote, “ …conspiracy to promote false doctrine.” Susan, you need to lighten up and tone down the emotional rhetoric; OK? You wrote, “Several incidents you have brought up are problems that arose during the previous 'administration', including the composition of the blogroll, and thus IMO should not be brought up as something for which the current Admin and Mod Teams should answer.” First, you acknowledge that there were/are problems at SI. Second, I brought it up exactly for the current Admin to have an opportunity to answer, and he has been interacting with me on it. Finally, you need to remember that my article here is about the sample of elitism in Bauder's article. I'd like for you to focus on that issue in future comments. LM 10/29/2008 7:05 AM 33. Adam Blumer said... Lou, I replied to some of your questions, but my post appears to have disappeared unless there's a time delay. (?) Sorry if I'm being off topic, but I wanted to answer your direct questions. Adam Blumer SI Admin Team 10/29/2008 7:17 AM 34. Adam Blumer said... Lou, I have three times tried to reply to you, and nothing seems to be working right in Blogger. Maybe this time will work. Okay. I don't use any of the terms you listed to describe my doctrinal position. For one, none of those terms are in the Bible, and what the Bible says is my basis. I have also found that the terms are confusing and divisive among the average non-seminarians in the pew, so I personally wish people would avoid using them. I personally haven't found them to be helpful; in fact, they've often been just the opposite. As for where I stand, I believe in justification by grace through faith. I believe God chooses those who will be saved and that people also have a choice. The Bible teaches both truths. Reconciling those facts is beyond me. I just believe what the Bible says and leave them in the realm of "mysteries" to be revealed someday. I also believe that once a person has trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation, he cannot lose his salvation. I'm not sure which term you'd assign to me, but that's where I stand. When Jason Janz asked me to join the admin team in 2006 as editor, he gave me no litmus test on Calvinism or Arminianism. I agreed to the doctrinal statement, and I was in. Period. I'm not aware of any other SI leadership members being subject to such questions. If they label themselves "Calvinist," I'm not personally aware of it. As my brother stated, SI has no official position on Calvinism. If you claim that the leadership leans toward Calvinism, I do not know what you base that assertion on. There is no hard evidence on which to base that claim. None of us have ever been polled on the topic, and nothing is in print that I'm aware of showing what percentage of us lean toward Calvinism and how many lean toward Arminianism. If you are responding to the direction of conversations in forums, please keep in mind that those conversations do not necessarily represent the SI leadership. I wish we could achieve more balance sometimes, but the fact is that we are run by volunteers and simply do not have time to monitor the dozens of new conversations that occur in the site every day. Moderators step in when talk becomes intemperate or off topic or if it strays from the doctrinal position. Beyond that, people talk, and what they say shouldn't be viewed as "SI's position." If someone's talk means that he is not a fundamentalist, then he lied when he signed up as a member; it's not our fault though we do try to find these people and remove them from the membership when we can. Yes, there are abuses. Sometimes people say unkind things and gang up on others. Since my brother took over the reins of leadership in May, he has been moving toward measures to curb the nastiness and promote more peace with a focus on substance and not on personal attacks. We are doing what we can, but we are not perfect, and unfortunately those who had a bad experience rarely talk about the good experiences. Most people have had good experiences by and large. The best way to see where the SI leadership stands is to see what is being printed on the front page. However, sometimes we post a controversial article that does not necessarily represent the leadership for the sake of eliciting healthy thinking and discussion. That's what the site is all about: helping people think through what they believe and being better at articulating where they stand. For that reason, a lot of topics are discussed, and not everyone is always on the same page. For that reason, there are differences, and sometimes posters are not mature enough to know how to respond in a godly way. I'm sorry when I hear that a lone voice was ganged up on or silenced, but he at least had a chance to say something to support his position. We are logistically unable to track down every lone voice and try to add balance to the forum. About Kevin Bauder, his articles actually come from his mailing list, and we have permission to reprint them. What he says reflects his views and should not be considered SI's position either. I hope what I've said helps answer some of your questions. I appreciate your desire for doctrinal purity. SI strives for the same thing. 10/29/2008 7:50 AM 35. Kevl said... Adam wrote the following very well. As for where I stand, I believe in justification by grace through faith. I believe God chooses those who will be saved and that people also have a choice. The Bible teaches both truths. Reconciling those facts is beyond me. I just believe what the Bible says and leave them in the realm of "mysteries" to be revealed someday. I also believe that once a person has trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation, he cannot lose his salvation. I'm not sure which term you'd assign to me, but that's where I stand. Amen. I have not read rest of your post, and am out of time but I praise the Lord for your public declaration of faith. (not that your faith was in question, it's just wonderful to see it displayed) Kev 10/29/2008 9:28 AM 36. Lou Martuneac said... Hello Adam: Just home after 12 hours at work. I’m not sure why your earlier replies did not publish, no technical problems that I am aware of and I received no separate e-mail alerts that you tried to post. Anyway, you made it in. I do appreciate the time you took to share your theological views. You wrote, “I believe in justification by grace through faith. I believe God chooses those who will be saved and that people also have a choice. The Bible teaches both truths. Reconciling those facts is beyond me. I just believe what the Bible says and leave them in the realm of ‘mysteries’ to be revealed someday. I also believe that once a person has trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation, he cannot lose his salvation. I’m not sure which term you’d assign to me, but that’s where I stand.” That is as balanced a view as I have read in some time and I appreciate your sharing it here. I also appreciate having read your history with understanding and perspective on SI. As for Bauder’s articles: I never did have the impression he was espousing views that might be an official position of SI. Kind regards, Lou 10/29/2008 10:04 PM 37. Greg said... Lou, From the quotes I read, Dr. Bauer didn't seem to acknowledge that men could be trained in the local church which is actually the ideal Scriptural blueprint: 2Tim. 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. Even if seminaries are to be used (though they are not sanctioned in Scripture), the Scriptural blueprint should at least be acknowledged rather than despised. I think if one were to argue (not that Dr. Bauer has) that this blueprint is no longer practical because of cultural changes, it would be another example of this sort of elitism. At least, I wonder why Dr. Bauer didn't comment directly on this. -- Greg 10/29/2008 10:29 PM 38. Lou Martuneac said... Greg: Thanks for making this observation. It is helpful and appreciate it. Lou 10/29/2008 10:36 PM 39. Kevl said... Greg, I second Lou's comment. Kev 10/30/2008 6:04 AM 40. David said... Lou, I'm also one of the moderators at SI, and I can confirm that 1. No questions about Calvinism or lack of it were asked of me when I was asked to be a moderator (which incidentally, was almost 2 years after I had been posting as a regular member), and 2. I also do not identify as a Calvinist. The description that Adam posted of his view is exactly what I would claim for myself. Prior to being a member at SI, I would have called myself a "biblicist" on that topic, but I finally realized that that term was also completely unhelpful, as that is where men of integrity on all sides of that particular question are trying to be. In fact, as a non-theologian, and with a view like Adam expressed above, I try to stay out of the Calvinism arguments completely, and I read them only to the extent of meeting my responsibilities as a moderator (and even there I'm moderating only tone and things like that -- I leave the deep theological issues to the pastors on the moderation team). Those threads are to me some of the least interesting threads, as I think they are arguing something that will not be able to be clearly understood this side of heaven. Regarding elitism, I do not really have all that much to say, but I do think that 2 Tim. 2:2 certainly can apply to seminaries, and in fact, I think that where pastors are unequipped for reasons of either time/ministry responsibilities or because they themselves don't have much formal training, sending young men to seminary (not neglecting practical apprenticeship in ministry) is the right thing to do. Young men (and women for that matter) should learn from those with the ability to teach them well. Finally, I really appreciate that SI is not so bound to "who is in the camp" when deciding who can participate. I would agree that much wisdom needs to be used when reading material that is posted on SI, not all of which I would agree with, and it should be intuitively obvious that one will not agree with every opinion posted by regular members. SI is useful to me precisely BECAUSE it is not beholden to only a particular stream of fundamentalism (say IFBX) and all the baggage, both good and bad, that is associated with it. I would actually consider myself a FIPBNIN (fundamental in position but not in name). I'm not only not interested in the past baggage and set of traditions of the fundmental movement, I really no longer want the name for various reasons including what that term has come to mean to the world at large. I'm not ashamed of being fundamental, and I am a member of a church that uses the term, but I still find the name itself more and more unhelpful. I find it very attractive when people want to just find out what the Bible has to say on something and follow that, and not just trust some handed down tradition, without any examination. Will that mean that each generation will have to cover old territory and make some mistakes? Absolutely! How can any one of us learn to trust in God and his Word without getting down in the trenches of the Word and doing much of the examination ourselves? So, there it is. I can't give you percentages, because I don't know them, but you have now heard from at least 3 on the team at SI who do not consider themselves Calvinistic. Dave Barnhart 10/30/2008 8:38 AM |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
![]() |
|
| lightninboy | May 10 2009, 06:45 PM Post #6 |
|
Comments: 41. Lou Martuneac said... Dave: Thanks for the note here. Glad to read you identifying with Adam’s remarks. I am kind of wondering if those who are Calvinists among the SI admin and moderator group would be willing to come forward and openly acknowledge such. Kind regards, Lou 10/30/2008 11:03 PM 42. Lou Martuneac said... Dear Guests: This week I have been commenting quite a bit at the SI blog. Pastor Mike Durning wrote me a note, which was, “I hold your opinion in high regard, after your crusade against a Crossless Gospel. So I really want to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that there are some IFB leaders saying “Hey, kid, head toward Evangelicalism”, or are you saying that some IFB leaders are encouraging practices that are more associated with Evangelicalism?” My reply follows and I wanted to share it here. Hello Brother Durning: Again thanks for the previous note and sorry it has been difficult for me to find time for a reply. I will out of necessity need to be brief. You asked if I’m saying, “Hey, kid…” or are “IFB leaders encouraging practices that are associated with Evangelicals.” Not exactly. What I am concerned about is how some IFB pastors/leaders are pointing our IFB people in the direction of the Evangelical camp with virtually no cautions or qualifiers. Our IFB men have a strong liking for the academic scholarship in the Evangelical camp: books, schools, etc. So, they often quote, refer to, promote, and/or endorse the Evangelicals as men worthy of emulation. The problem is that there are virtually no qualifiers or cautions whatsoever about the associations and methods of ministry that are inherent in the Evangelical camp. The IFB men who are promoting the academia of Evangelicals would never allow for or tolerate in their IFB church or institution some of the methods of ministry found in the Evangelical camp. Yet those things are ignored or get a pass. The problem with, and likely more to your question to me, is that it is naïve to think that we can uphold men in the Evangelical camp and not expect that some of our YF’s will become like the Evangelical in practice, such as CCM/Rock concerts for the youth, RAP music in the church and trips to the Toronto Blessing. Not to mention the non-cessation of the sign gifts and “cussing” pastors. What we point our YF’s toward makes it very likely they will become what we pointed them toward. Some won’t draw the distinction between what they read in the Evangelical’s books, which are at times a huge disconnect from what they (Evangelicals) do in practice. So, are “IFB leaders encouraging practices that are associated with Evangelicals?” Not necessarily, but IMO some practices that are associated with Evangelicals will be adopted and practiced by some YF’s who were pointed in the direction of the Evangelicals by IFB men. BTW, next week I am publishing somewhat of journalist piece that demonstrates yet another example of this disconnect in the writing ministry of one of Evangelical stars whom some of our IFB men are frequently touting to the YF’s. As for what my friend wrote, I shared it with the forum. I understand his concern and did not read too much into or beyond what I believe he wrote. I’ll let it stand on its own merit. He did write a follow-up, which I posted. In my limited time to follow-up I hope my reply is satisfactory. Yours faithfully, Lou 10/31/2008 8:31 AM 43. Don Johnson said... Lou, thought I'd chime in again. First, it is not just that there are little cautions being given to young men, but rather there is ENTHUSIASTIC endorsement. Mahaney's books are the GREATEST guide to "cross-centered" living, etc. (I've read that one... well... not too impressed, but that's another argument.) The point, however, is that when cautions are given, they are relatively mild, but they are also accompanied by effusive praise. Second, for Dave, (hey, Dave, long time!), as we have discussed before (I think), the 'baggage' as you call it is really immaterial. You can't escape baggage. In the eyes of some, we are tainted by the televangelists by the label Christian. So??? What you really want is to decide if you are willing to contend for the faith over the same principles, generally speaking, that fundamentalists have done in the past, and are doing in the present. If yes, then you will mark a division between yourself and conservative evangelicals and will see some dangers in their philosophy and teaching. If no, you probably won't, but then you will find yourself marking a division between yourself and self-identified fundamentalists (nut-bars and mainstream). You won't be able to straddle the fence forever (although the fact you aren't a pastor may make it easier to stand in the shadows). Finally, for the comment by Greg above, it appears that he is coming from a Landmark type position on the local church. A couple of comments: first, the fellow in question is Bauder, not Bauer. Second, Bauder's seminary, Central Baptist Seminary happens to be run in a local church, 4th Baptist of Minneapolis. So... Of course, I would think that Bauder nor Central would hold to your view of the local church, but it does seem your points there stand on a weak foundation. Maranatha! Don Johnson Jer 33.3 11/02/2008 12:48 AM 44. Lou Martuneac said... Don: Thanks for the follow-up. I appreciate your thoughts and concerns. Mahaney, I am not well read on, therefore, not real clear on, but I sense a BIG red flag because of his associations. I do agree with this note, "The point, however, is that when cautions are given, they are relatively mild, but they are also accompanied by effusive praise." I have been engaging this issue and Lordship Salvation at the SI blog. I'll have more in the morning. Lou 11/02/2008 11:34 PM |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| « Previous Topic · Lou Martuneac's In Defense of the Gospel Blog · Next Topic » |






But I am also of the female gender, so maybe that means my vote doesn't count. But since this is about rejecting elitism, perhaps my comment will be taken seriously.
3:40 AM Jul 11