Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 11/11/2011 8:45:57 PM PST by This Just In
Susie...I read the book years ago and know Scott.
As you might surmise, I agree with you entirely on this.
Excellent. Scott has been vilified and persecuted for a long time now! There is an agenda out there that means to destroy people like him and Christian Theology—along with Judaism. It is the God v. Satanism, that is enveloping the world right, now. Few people, like Scott, realize the scope of this battle and he is very dangerous to the Leftist movement.
Wish the best for him.
achilles2000,
You have failed to answer two question. I asked you to post and substantiate quotes/sources by Dr. Mohler which support your accusations. You haven’t provided any. Bob Allen’s article does not qualify.
Furthermore, I asked you to your to state your spiritual beliefs, and more directly, what are your theological principles.
Of course I don’t know Bob Allen personally. Our discussion has nothing to do with Bob Allen personally. We were discussing his article, not the man.
“Homophobia” is a smear...” is nonsense. I’m not addressing their interpretation or use of the word. I speaking in terms of root meaning and sexual orientation. The sodomites did not create the word “phobia”.
I must log off, but will return later this evening-or hope to-with another response.
Good day,
TJI
Fine. First, it was that I hadn’t spoon-fed you links supporting what I said. Now, articles that don’t support your views don’t “qualify”. Allen’s reporting is correct, and, if you knew more about the Convention, you would know that there are forces at work trying to soften the position of the SBC toward sodomites - just as it has happened at FOTF. This can also be seen in the 10/31 cover story of the Southern Baptist Texan.
But because you think you are well informed on the inner goings on of the convention, let me ask: How many past or present Presidents or other officers (i.e. First VP and Second VP) of the Convention do you know personally? How many past or present members of the Executive Committee do you know personally? How many SBC seminary students and faculty do you know? How many reporters and editors for the state convention SBC papers or for Baptist Press do you know? How many Annual Meetings have you attended in the last 10 years? Did you take the time to go to Phoenix this year? When someone is active in the Convention it is very interesting what can be learned.
State my spiritual beliefs? Do you fancy yourself some sort of Grand Inquisitor? The question isn’t even precise enough to merit an answer. But, being the irenic soul that I am, I will answer that I subscribe to the BF&M 2000 (which Mohler had a significant hand in formulating, but you knew that, didn’t you?). If the question has to do with Mohler’s Calvinism, be assured it has nothing at all to do with that. My theology is Reformed.
Regarding “homophobia” you surely aren’t serious. The word was manufactured by sodomites because they needed something that they could use to smear those who oppose them - just as liberals use “racist” to smear people who disagree with them. Yes, they didn’t “create” the word “phobia”, or “homo”, for that matter. That, however, is absurdly beside the point, and I think you know it.
Mohler has written and said many fine things over the years. But, in the last two years or so he has gotten entangled with GCR coalition, which is dragging the emergent/emerging/Acts 29 crowd into the SBC. So, much so that they are showing up at seminaries and at the Annual Pastors’ Conference: http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/02/is-the-2011-sbc-pastors-conference-over-the-top-for-grassroots-southern-baptist-pastors-by-peter-lumpkins.html#more
And more generally: http://www.mbla.org/Acts29.htm
You can pretend to be informed about the SBC and Mohler all you like, but you wouldn’t waste anyone’s time defending Mohler’s indefensible comments about “homophobia” or his involvement in the GCR if you really were informed.
It is up to the police to decide if the suspicion is reasonable based on factual evidence and deserves more attention.
In this case it did.
You continue to focus on the Convention. Throughout my posts I have addressed your accusations concerning Dr. Mohler. The link you provided fails to address my inquiry concerning Dr. Mohler’s actual statements concerning the specific issues we discussed.
What does my association with any have to do with the topic of discussion? Disqualifying someones position because they may not have attended conventions, or know individuals is asinine. Have you ever met Martin Luther? Despite the fact that you’ve never actually met Martin Luther doesn’t have anything to do with your Reformed principles, does it?
Surely the minutes, transcripts, or videos, are available from these meetings. I am not interested in anyone’s statements concerning the accusations you’ve leveled against Dr. Mohler. I would like to read his statements. You said, “You may not like Bob Allen…”. I never stated I didn’t “like” Bob Allen. Disagreeing with an individual doesn’t equal disliking him personally. Perhaps you are projecting. After all, one just has to look at your ad hominem and condescending comments.
You used the words “nice”, and, “understanding”, not I. I don’t believe we’re supposed to be “nice”, and, “understanding”. I’m sure you’ve read the passage involving Christ and the adulterous woman who was about to be stoned. Our Lord wasn’t “nice”, or, “understanding”. He was compassionate, showed her mercy, and told her to go and sin no more.
We are not called to abdicate or capitulate our orthodoxy for the sake of “winning souls to Christ”. I read what Dr. Mohler stated concerning “homophobia”, and as I stated previously, I agree with his statement. We do NOT have to fear anyone. Are we to fear adulterers? Heterosexuals engage in the same type of sexual depravity as “sodomites”. They sodomize one another. Are they not in our congregations? God’s Word focuses on ALL sin.
So that I may be perfectly clear, I do not believe the Church universal is called to accommodate and/or compromise biblical theology for the sake of a group of individuals such as homosexuals. I do not believe we shy away from expository teaching from the pulpit so as not to offend some individuals.
There is a cancer called the Emergent Movement growing in our churches (thankfully, not my own). There has always been abhorrent doctrine, and Christ warned us of these false teachers.
You and I know that for quite some time Christians have shied from openly engaging society in matters of spiritual significance, and more specifically-heaven, hell, sin, and redemption in Christ. What were once Christian universities; Harvard, Princeton, Yale, which are now secular institutions serve as a prime example of our capitulation.
From what I have read and heard by Dr. Mohler, he is encouraging Christians to adopt a new mindset in engaging our society. Until I read otherwise, I must take him at his word. You were the individual leveling the allegations. The burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders.
You continue to push the “well informed” angle. I never stated I was “well informed”. I addressed your attacks with quotes from Dr. Mohler and asked you to substantiate your claims by quoting him in response. You have yet to do so.
Grand Inquisitor? So Christians are prohibited from inquiring? Precise? You’re the first individual I’ve met who had to wrestle with that question. I was expecting something as clear as “Lutheran”, or, “Baptist”, or, “five point Calvinist”, or simply Christian who believe in the triune God of the Bible.
I am going to send your comments to Dr. Mohler. I would like him to address these accusations point by point. I will be sure to send you his response.
In closing, I would like to say that I appreciate your deep conviction in these issues concerning the church and biblical orthodoxy, and your dedication to examining our spiritual leader’s philosophical and biblical doctrines concerning the Church universal and orthodox theology. I hope this matter boils down to a misunderstanding. Despite your heartfelt convictions, I am sorry to see that you’re more than willing to insult individuals personally simply because you disagree with them, and that you are unable to exercise self restraint in leveling ad hominem attacks (e.g. – “soft-minded), and displaying spiritual self-righteousness. Your conduct can be compared to that of the Pharisees. You attack Dr. Mohler and myself with as much venom and condescension as the stone throwers. The hypocrisy is palpable.
Yup, and CPUSA is part of the demonrat base.
I mention the Convention, Annual Meetings, officers, etc. because Mohler is heavily involved behind the scenes in the Convention. What he is doing in connection with the GCR is critically important for understanding where the Convention is heading and what is happening. Those things are not, for the most part, written about in BP or elsewhere. For the most part they are only known if someone is present at meetings, close to the actors, etc.
Bob Allen’s reporting is accurate. You may not like it, but it doesn’t change the fact. There is within the GCR group (which controls the Convention) a desire to change the SBC’s image with respect to the sodomite lifestyle. Mohler has taken a leading role in that, just as Richard Land has been given the task of - and is - positioning the SBC to support McCain style amnesty. To fully appreciate how rabidly the amnesty agenda is being pursued you would have had to have seen the floor “debate” on the amnesty resolution in Phoenix. Similarly, Mohler and others have been rather free with smears regarding those opposed to their attempt to “soften” the SBC on the sodomite lifestyle.
As for ad hominem comments, please review your own posts. And, yes, I become somewhat short with people whose opinions aren’t based on anything more than what people print and wishful thinking. If you were to spend a significant amount of time involved in the Convention and actually knew the people who make things happen and what they are doing, your views would assuredly be different. “Nashville” isn’t that different from Washington, D.C.
I’m sorry that you agree with Mohler. Mohler had no basis for his smear. Even on your terms, he has absolutely no empirical basis for claiming that Baptists have some sort of inordinate fear of sodomites. He was simply posturing for the purpose of intimidating laymen into accepting a less robust rejection of the sin. He and the GCR crowd think that if they can make the SBC less opposed to the culture that baptisms and membership will start increasing again. That is all that this, the amnesty push, the infiltration of the emergents, the “diversity” quotas, and the rest of the things that the new leadership is intent on forcing into the SBC are about.
I could respond to the rest of your post, but experience has shown that it wouldn’t be worthwhile. Your problem is pride and hero-worship.
I understood your reasons for highlighting the Convention, etc. I was seeking information, as you well know, concerning Dr. Mohler specifically.
Hero-worship? Please don’t flatter yourself. Name calling may provide you with a sense of superiority and justification because you disagree with me, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’ve displayed as much Christian charity as the Pharisees. Nice deflection.
Someone disagrees with you because you call Dr. Mohler a liar (despite the fact that you can’t produce ONE piece of evidence to substantiate your accusation), and you accuse them of hero worship? Basically you’re saying, “Dr. Mohler’s a liar despite what he writes about, and I’m telling the truth. Believe me because I’ve attended these Annual Meetings and the Convention”.
Well, until I here a response from Dr. Mohler I can either take your word for it or his, or wait and see.
I have no doubt that your allegations concerning some of the leaders are legitimate.
I have read my posts. I have read your ad hominem and condescending attacks. I guess your self-righteous indignation is justified. After all, you’ve attended the meetings.
TJI
In this case, suspicion had nothing to do with it. There were eyewitnesses to at least two incidents: one of Sandusky in the shower with a young boy and the other an actual rape of a young boy.
Actual suspicion is based on very little in the way of observable evidence Suspicion is hunches and impressions based on suggestive evidence such as behavior or coincidences, and not eyewitness evidence to a crime or highly inappropriate behavior.
I agree, this was not simply suspicion, it was an eyewitness account, by someone Paterno trusted enough to make a coach.
First, I told you specifically that Mohler was supporting the GCR. That is specific, and apparently you don’t understand the seriousness of that. There is more, but pointing anything further out is not worth the effort.
Second, you are very free with invective while accusing me of doing what you began and continue to do. You might consider that there is an element of projection there.
Third, I have not called Mohler a “liar”, as you put it. Falsely attributing things to others doesn’t help your case. Mohler has gone way off the tracks with the GCR and the “homophobia” slur, which he has subsequently tried to walk back. There are things that could be constructively changed in the Convention, but weakening the Cooperative Program and inching (or galloping in some instances) in the direction of social liberalism aren’t among them.
I don’t think Mohler is malicious, but I do think that he has become too focused on what he sees as the needs of his institution and I know that he really doesn’t understand the sodomite problem in our culture because he doesn’t understand sodomites or the lifestyle.
If this were a more rational exchange we would be agreeing that Mohler has done a lot of good in the Convention but has recently made some serious errors in judgment that endanger Southern, the Convention, and the people who look to him for guidance.
Achilles2000 said:
First, I told you specifically that Mohler was supporting the GCR. That is specific, and apparently you don’t understand the seriousness of that. There is more, but pointing anything further out is not worth the effort.
This Just In reply:
You said Dr. Mohler supported the GCR, but you have yet to post any quotes to substantiate your accusation. You wish for me to take your word for it because “you told me…”, and for me to do so would be irresponsible given the seriousness of this matter. Your comments contradict what I have read and heard from Dr. Mohler himself.
Achilles2000 said:
Second, you are very free with invective while accusing me of doing what you began and continue to do. You might consider that there is an element of projection there.
This Just In’s reply:
Accusing you of being a liar is hardly “invective” or “projection”. I accused you of statements which I believed to be false base solely on Dr. Mohler’s words. In your initial post (#8) you said:
“Everyone should know that Mohler was not long ago castigating Baptists for the non-sin of “homophobia”
I read Dr. Mohler’s article regarding the subject and your statement was a gross misrepresentation. When I noted this discrepancy you linked me to Bob Allen’s article. Mr. Allen’s either being disingenuous or dishonest concerning the topic. Furthermore, when I mentioned that I had been reading and listening to Dr. Mohler for many years, you responded:
“Of course, when you want to change things without losing revenues, you continue to muddy the water by telling the traditionalists what they want to hear most of the time. That way they can ignore or deny what is really happening.”
You are accusing Dr. Mohler of lying. You stated that he says one thing during the Convention and Annual Meetings, and another elsewhere. If he was speaking out of two sides of his mouth, Dr. Mohler would be trying to willfully deceive the members.
I was never under the impression that you believed Dr. Mohler to be malicious. I know that your concerns are legitimate. I have seen and read about the changes as well, but I have to question your comments when you’ve failed to substantiate your accusations.
Achilles2000 said:
“If this were a more rational exchange…”
I find this to be amusing. Your posts weren’t irrational. I understood you perfect.
I have sent Dr. Mohler a letter, which includes your comments. I know that due to his responsibilities and obligations, Dr. Mohler employs staff to read his emails. I’m hoping he’ll respond to my letter personally. I’ll be sure to contact you then.
I’m sure they will delighted to get your letter, which is likely to be as confused as your posts.
If you don’t know that Mohler has been a supporter of the GCR, you aren’t following the Convention. It isn’t a secret, and you could have found it out yourself.
The entire dispute comes down to 1. Mohler said the things attributed to him, 2. he has generally supported the GCR, and 3. I assert that 1 and 2 are bad for the SBC and for Evangelicals generally because Mohler has a large following.
Mohler got enough blow-back from the comments that Allen quoted that he has been trying to walk them back, but it is clear that the GCR group (and especially the younger ones) is headed in that direction.
You seem to be struggling to maintain your point, whatever it actually is, but you are also trying to personalize this to Mohler. It isn’t that at all. The problem in the SBC is broader. Moreover, just because Mohler is trying to soften his comments after the fact doesn’t mean he is lying (a word you like to use but seem not to grasp well). Mohler is just trying to make his argument in a way that will be more acceptable. My point, however, is that any way he puts it, the implicit accommodationism is wrong. What happened at PSU is an example of where accommodationism leads. Recall? That is where this exchange began.
I’m sure that none of this will help and that you will continue in your bluster and confusion.
As I read your responses I’m reassured that refraining from judging Dr. Mohler was a prudent decision.
Your insults and condescension are escalating. Despite the fact that you can comprehend my replies well enough to respond seems to be an indicator that my posts make sense, but than again, it was never a question for me.
When you reduce all that’s been discussed, I’ve maintained the same argument:
You accused Dr. Mohler of lying. Judging by what I know of Dr. Mohler, this seems to contradict your allegations. I asked you to provide proof using Dr. Mohler’s own words. You couldn’t because the allegations involve activities at the Conventions and Annual Meetings, etc.
I hope Dr. Mohler responds to my inquiry.
You are hopeless. Again, bluster and distortion. And I guess it is condescending to point out that you are not merely uninformed, but intellectually very, very lazy. You seem to think you are entitled to information “room service” beyond the ample information given to you which could have been used by you to check further.
Here is Mohler affirming exactly what Allen said he said in Phoenix. You probably won’t notice the spin (or understand how he is spinning it) after his initial response to Lumpkins’ question: http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/al-mohler-on-homophobes-in-the-sbc.html
You could have easily found this yourself.
Even more comical is your writing to Mohler as if a response would be equivalent to a message from Mt. Sinai.
“…Condescending to point out that you are uninformed, but intellectuall very, very lazy.”
Not really, but then again, why point out the condescending remarks? Judging by your posts, you wouldn’t admit any wrongdoing regardless.
Intellectually lazy? I visited both links you provided before the Lumpkins video. I also reread Dr. Mohler’s articles. I never dismissed any of your accusations, but sought proof. You’re the individual who accused Dr. Mohler of lying, not I. So the burden of proof squares with you. You’re crying about “very, very lazy” while saying, “You could have easily found this yourself” when all you had to do was search and post a link? Who’s being very, very lazy? It’s a good thing you’re not a prosecuting attorney. I can see you now, standing in front of the jury box.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,…the defendant is guilty because I said so. I rest my case.”
I am unable to view the video at the link from my home pc. I will actually take the time out to drive to an internet café’ located quite a distance from our home (we live in remote America) and view the video.
Mt. Sinai? Not at all. Just a response from a mere mortal. I told myself, “Even if Dr. Mohler was to respond, achilles2000 would accuse him of lying in his email.” Your Mt. Sinai remark is a classic indicator.
You still think that you get mileage over throwing the word “lying” around recklessly and imposing burdens of proof (BTW, who bears the burden of proof in a legal matter is ultimately a matter of convention. Moreover, those burdens shift back and forth between parties according to conventions). Because you like to use judicial imagery, I would point out that judges take judicial notice of easily ascertainable facts.
Although it is irritating to have to say it again, my criticism of Mohler is not, and never has been, that he is “lying” but that he is showing poor judgment. Other than these issues I have never had any particular disagreement with his views or actions.
If you watch the video, you will find that Mohler immediately acknowledges Lumpkins’ points and then turns to implicitly knocking down a strawman. Mohler is very good from the platform and knew the question was coming, but, analytically speaking, Lumpkins’ point stuck, though very few will realize it.
I viewed the video. I deeply appreciate the way in which Peter Lumpkin addressed the mic. He was civil, articulate, and concise.
I was able to view the video once. I’m glad to hear that Dr. Mohler didn’t skate around the question, and confirmed that he stated what Merritt had written. It is clear that there was a time limit on both those asking questions, and Dr. Mohler’s time to respond. I wished Dr. Mohler could have elaborated on what he meant when he used the word, “lie”. If he should respond to my inquiry, I will ask him to clarity his point.
Dr. Mohler addressed the questions Lumpkin’s asked. He explained why he made the statements in that interview, and his comments do not contradict what Dr. Mohler had printed (as Dr. Mohler stated, he’s written over 200 articles on the subject).
I won’t beat a dead horse. I quoted your statement in accusing him of lying. You and I disagree on this, and other points.
Until I hear from Dr. Mohler, we will have to agree to disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.