For your consideration…
Think about all of the discussions of Calvinism you have been involved in (or observed) at this site and at others. There have been a LOT of them. I’ve written my share and most of our contributors have weighed in at one point or another. So, I would ask you to consider these questions:
- Have you learned anything significant from the discussion threads for those posts?
- Have you changed your position in any way because of the discussions (or known of someone else who changed theirs)?
- Have you been built up and encouraged by your involvement in these discussions?
- Have the discussions advanced understanding, unity or knowledge in any way?
- In other words, have our discussions of Calvinism served ANY purpose of eternal significance?
If not, why keep going?
There is a group of commenters who have almost nothing to say concerning posts of any biblical topic, any discussion of practical ministry concern, any news or current event topic. They show no interest. But when Calvinism is the subject, they swarm and sink their teeth in and keep going no matter how pointless the discussion. There are some pitbull Calvinists and some pitbull Traditionalists who show little interest in anything other than fighting (I’m sorry, “debating”) over soteriology.
I think those soteriological pitbulls are a blight on the discussion threads here.
And I have a suggestion. Tell me what you think.
I’m toying with the idea of closing comments on all posts that have to do with Calvinism. If someone wants to write about an issue related to Calvinism (pro/con/whatever), they are free to do so. But we will close comments immediately. No discussions. Informative posts that people can read, but no divisive, angry, insulting discussions of Calvinism.
As you can see, I have a very bitter, negative attitude toward Calvinism discussions. I think the topic is worthwhile – there are issues that need to be examined. But as long as the Pitbull Brigade comes out of the woodwork to turn every discussion of Calvinism into a dogfight, I am not sure there is any value in having discussions on the topic at all.
So, tell me what you think.
- I would allow posts that develop an interesting thought about Calvinism – pro or con. Perhaps we could even have more of them.
- But there would be NO discussions. No comments. Read the post. Engage in twitter wars. But comments are closed.
What say you?
Wish you’d have done that long, long ago.
In answer to the original questions: 1. No. I have not learned anything significant in reading the long, trailing, often acrimonious and vitriolic, comment streams. At least about Calvinism/Traditionalism. 2. Nope. My position continues to be aligned with a view of God that is more corporate and less individualistic. Both sides focus on a view of soteriology that God is concerned about particular individuals. I tend to take an Esther 4 approach that God’s ultimate will is not thwarted by individual choices – He is just that sovereign. I once read a definition of Providence that has shaped my thinking… Read more »
Didn’t you shut down Calvinism discussions once or twice before?
Are you including tangential topics like the Sinner’s Prayer, the Gospel Project, the Acts 29 Network, or the soteriological commitments of the next major SBC appointee?
I believe this IS the hot topic in the SBC. It’s what SBC voices are talking about. Shut it down if you wish, Mr. Moderator. We can simply have this discussion, which is of great importance in the SBC, someplace else.
I agree with Rick on the tangential subjects. On Calvinistic doctrine, let all the Calvinists toss out their favorite showpiece words (pelagian, lapsarian, etc.) one or twice, let them sing the glories of dead 19th century Calvinist grandees, declare that we are all highly impressed, and then leave that behind forever. The SBC will have to deal with the subjects Rick mentioned that involve Calvinists and Calvinism (I would include Calvinist pastor who come into an established church and blow it up and some other subjects as well). I am unaware of any place where public discussion are being made… Read more »
William,
Most churches that are “blown up,” Cal or Non are blown up by personalities not by doctrine. More often than not, it is issues like the color or the carpet in the SS room that blow up churches.
Randy, thanks for your pronouncement, but you aren’t SBC, you aren’t even in the states, and all discussions of Calvinism and churches here deal with SBC churches.
William,
Sorry I didn’t see the prohibition against comments from those outside the U.S. If you don’t like my comments, don’t read them.
William,
But he’s still right.
Randy’s response is purely anecdotal and is to be dismissed as such.
Randy, you already hijacked one good topic and seem to have a bottomless reservoir of pronouncements on every subject. If it were possible to participate here and avoid your comments I would certainly do that.
What I’m thinking is different. PReviously, I have (semi-) outlawed posts on Calvinism and the general tone of discussion here improved dramatically. We had some productive discussions of some important topics, but not Calvinism.
I’m proposing something different here. I’m saying we have open season on POSTS about Calvinism topics. But just no comments.
I’ve seen a few helpful posts. I’ve seen almost no helpful discussions. IT’s an opinion.
And I’m not sure why the Gospel PRoject would be included here. IT’s not tied to Calvinism. We haven’t had a post on Acts 29 that I can remember. The sinner’s prayer is largely a Calvinist topic, so it would probably qualify.
Of course, the solution is for people to grow up and have productive discussions on Calvinism-related topics. But some on both sides have shown little desire to do that.
A substantial number of Southern Baptists, including yours truly, believes that the Gospel Project is an initiative driven by the redemptive-historical hermeneutic characteristic of Reformed theology. One of the principal leaders is Matt Chandler, who also presides over the exclusively Reformed Acts 29 Network. I really would hope by now that you would at least understand the existence of our position that these denominational matters are inextricably tied to Calvinism, even if you disagree with this notion. I would view such an understanding as imperative in the effort to be fair to both sides in the discussion. The Sinner’s Prayer… Read more »
I think calling Matt one of the principal leaders is a bit of an overstatement. He did a promo video for it. He, along with many others, gave some input into the curriculum. To my knowledge he is not responsible for visioning, implementing, or anything else that you’d expect a “principal leader” to do.
But that’s not to say that I don’t love Matt Chandler…nor that we wouldn’t benefit from him being a principal leader in any of our curriculum.
So would “Poster Boy” be a better term for his involvement?
What do you mean by “Redemptive Historical?”
Hmmm….maybe poster boy with some input 🙂
Randy,
Laugh all you want at the link, folks, but Wikipedia can sometimes offer a brief, basically decent definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemptive-Historical_Preaching
Rick,
The fact that it took Reformed folk to point out the redemptive-historical method of preaching as more correct and biblical than moralistic (exemplary) preaching doesn’t make it the exclusive domain of Calvinists. At least not in my opinion.
“…more correct and biblical…”
I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder, huh? But then this discussion is about to go somewhere totally unrelated to the OP.
Dale,
Not trying to derail here. Yes it is in the eye of the beholder. As I said, just my opinion as I was replying to Rick Patrick. No offense meant by saying “more biblical.”
Les
Dave — Though I am not in the SBC, (which in Dale’s assessment makes me a ‘drive-by’ commenter [read irritating impertinent troll]), I favor Calvinist theology over any other by conviction and am quite fascinated by how much illiteracy the SBC has swallowed regarding Calvinist theology. I was wondering … instead of limiting the Calvinist threads in some other fashion (and taking away the joy so many SBC’ers have in incessantly arguing about this or that misrepresentation of Calvininsm by guys like Page) … why not limit the discussion to direct quotes by Calvin from either the Institutes or his… Read more »
“irritating impertinent troll”–And yet, somehow endearing…..I do have my love for the Ducks going for me. That won’t get me into heaven, but at least I’m cheering for the right side.
I’ve learned from this site both positions more clearly. Is it a debate? Not necessarily. Too much back and forth and tearing down. Let’s have the discussions and remember to edify toward love and good works which God has prepared beforehand for us to do. In this debate I think we’ve lost sight of other things as the day is drawing near.
We usually talk at not too each other. What is needed I do not think can happen on a blog. We need to be face to face open scripture and discuss scripture. Jhn 6:44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” This is one of many that I would enjoy talking with a group of Chrisitians from all positions about and trying to learn from one another. I am no Bible scholar just a Chrisitan who loves Jesus and wants to grow in… Read more »
Ken, John 6:44 was one of the verses that convinced me of the Sovereign Grace position, because I was always asking in school, “Can I go get a drink of water, etc.” And the teacher was always saying, “Can means ability. What you are asking is permission, ‘May I go get a drink of water, etc.'” Having established that can refers to ability, it was not too difficult to figure out that Jesus said, “No one has the ability to come to me….” Then finding out draw was also used for drawing a sword and for dragging Paul and Silas… Read more »
I would not be in favor of shutting down comments on any discussion by bona fide Southern Baptists. Non Southern Baptists? Now that’s another matter!!!
Ah! Baloney, Jim, we would not very likely be here, if it was not for George Whitefield and all of his Methodist Chickens that became Baptist Ducks.
Jim, just because we don’t have a dog in the SBC fight, doesn’t mean we don’t care about it. Some of my best friends are SBCs.
Dave,
I have an idea that might help. Why don’t you consider having a discussion of biblical passages that concern the issues of depravity, election, “free will” etc? If you are going to find unity, it will be by coming to agreement on these pivotal issues.
Once upon a time, I believe it was Dave who suggested some back-and-forth posts on Calvinism along this line. Not sure where that idea went.
No one wrote any.
I think it had been assumed (at least I assumed) that you (or someone) would be organizing these as a planned, intentional series.
David: If I write one, will you be willing to consider it?
It’s a fair suggestion. As you note, it is unlikely that any opinions have been changed, etc, so the discussions likely accomplish little more than giving me yet another means to waste enormous amounts of time that I could otherwise spend playing monopoly or freecell. That said, as much as I hate to admit it, Rick Patrick has a point. This is a major issue in the SBC and as such is worth discussing. As it stands, Voices is a sort of Switzerland in this discussion, remaining neutral in this fight. I’d hate to see it become a France. It’s… Read more »
“It’s not likely the discussion will accomplish anything, but having it is better than the alternative.” Chris: I’m firmly of the opinion that continued discussion in this manner, (i.e., cyclical, back-and-forth blogging flame wars), will likely accomplishment nothing. But I also believe that both the format and the content of this discussion are ultimately damaging to the SBC. I wholeheartedly agree that, for better or worse, this is a major issue within the denomination; however, I’ve unfortunately grown to believe that we are largely incapable of having this discussion civilly at this time. I don’t know what the answer is,… Read more »
Zack, There are a few reasons why I think the discussion should continue. The main one is fairly straightforward: as a major issue in SBC life, one of the major SBC discussion sites should be facilitating the conversation rather than closing it off, though that is already happening to some degree by blocking posts on the topic. Normally when I participate in an online discussion, I’m not looking to convince the person I’m talking with. I don’t expect to ever hear Rick Patrick or Tim Rogers or C. B. Scott, etc, say, “Chris, you know what, you’re right. You’ve convinced… Read more »
Chris:
Thank you for a thorough and thoughtful response.
I certainly did not mean to imply that the goal of discussion should be agreement; so if I gave that impression I apologize for posing the question poorly.
My only point was that, (from what I see as someone who watches this site closely but only comments sporadically), these discussions in this context seem to produce more disunity than unity. Certainly there is benefit to discussion, and a discussion needs to occur. I guess, however, I’m just having a hard time seeing the any fruit at this time.
Zack, yep, the same discussions with the same vitriol was had back in the 1700s and noted by others, but then the same folks doing the discussing were getting us religious liberty, evangelizing in quality and quantity, coming out of the First Great Awakening and getting ready to have the Second Great Awakening. I remember a time, when Baptists did not have these discussions, did not dare have them, and that was when the Moderates ran things. Get tabbed with the discussions then and you were soon hurting for a place to serve…unless you went outside. Is that what you… Read more »
With all due respect, James, I simply do not understand the parallel you’re trying to make nor how it is responsive to my question to Chris. Since you directly asked me a question, I don’t want to ignore it, but I’m just not sure what you’re asking.
Zack: You had said that the discussions would be non-productive, and I was pointing out that the same kind of discussions were going on in the past and yet had led to that Second Great Awakening, among other things. I also made reference to the silence of death in our midst in the days of the Moderates control, when one did not dare discuss anything too much or too vociferously unless one was getting ready to fight or do the splitsville routine. Once you were tabbed, you had problems with getting churches. Now we can discuss and even fuss (though… Read more »
No we need more. Please please please invite James White and Peter Lumpkins to have a daily blog together so we could all join in the fun discussion thread. Iron could sharpen iron, boys could become men, we could get hair to grow on chests. Even the ladies.
Wow. A+
Brilliant observation, David, one of your best.
I refuse discuss anything with ladies with hair on their chest. But, of course, how are we gonna know?
Welll….
Dave, Can we at least acknowledge that there are two very different discussions here: the larger and more vitriolic being the political discussion about the struggles of the two opposing groups; and the smaller and less vitriolic discussion about the substantive, Biblical and doctrinal issues? Since comments can be at times as long as an initial post, then it seems to me that your proposal amounts only to a stricter filter of what is posted (comments, posts, etc.). I mean, what if after you shut down comments, then everyone who has something to say sends it to you as a… Read more »
“Can we at least acknowledge that there are two very different discussions here” This is a good point. The bitter issue is the one about power politics in the SBC. The theological differences are real and can trigger some pretty heated discussion, but nothing like the political discussions. The irony is, with the embargo against posts dealing with Calvinism, we’ve been left with discussions about the nastier political side of things. “I suggest you move to a zero-tolerance of nastiness (as well as criticism of the moderation), unapologetically defined and executed by you.” I would rather not see the arbitrary… Read more »
As one who has had a “for the foreseeable future, it’s permanent” ban on himself, amen!
Chris,
Parents are arbitrary, but not necessarily in a bad way. Let’s face it: sometimes adults act like children and need some parental arbitrariness. I have faith that Dave would not abuse his authority to promote one side or the other, as we find on “other blogs.”
It’s like my man, Si, on Duck Dynasty says:
“Sometimes, you just gotta disagree to disagree.”
Dave, Another serious comment I would make concerns the form of such a debate. One element lacking in much of this is careful definition. We need to have an agreed on definition of terms before we begin. Otherwise, people talk past each other. One rule I have for my blog is that a person cannot comment on another’s person’s statement until he has restated that persons position to his satisfaction. Another is that you can’t tell me what I believe. I must tell you what I believe, then you can respond to what I think, not what you think I… Read more »
The most sensible post in the whole thread right there. Enforce these as rules and I think you just might be able to have a productive comment stream.
Rick Patrick has a point. This is a hot topic for us in the SBC. My problem in this discussion is with those outside the fold coming in and highjacking threads. Of course, how will anyone know and how would you regulate that? We have open communion on here, so it would be rather difficult. First, you as moderator have the right to do what you want with the comments posted. If you want to close comments on the Calvinism stuff, so be it. Second, I think a different approach might be to close comments after a bit of back… Read more »
Heaven forbid we listen to anything a Christian has to say if he or she is not a Southern Baptist! If they ain’t SBC, they ain’t of the fold!
In this case, yes, Chris. Heaven forbid.
I’d like to hear what you have to say because I sincerely believe that you have an interest in where we are going as a Convention. Unfortunately, it gets lost in the clutter sometimes.
Dale, I guess I qualify on the dissertations bit, being long-winded and given to wordiness. However, I also like to allow every one to have his or her say, even non-SBC, because George Whitefield probably had more to do with all of us being here having this discussion than any can imagine. But we do want to have another Great Awakening, and to do that you have to have the theology that produced the First and Second and the Great Century of Missions and transformed Protestantism from persecuting into an outgoing, we will persuade you movement. The same theology also… Read more »
Dr. J, you have forgotten more history than I will ever know, sir, and I would never attempt to limit your right to say what you do. You have your strong opinions, but are always gracious, in my estimation. I disagree with you at points, and, to be honest, sometimes your tendency to go rather long and make the same points over and over again causes me to lose interest. However, I never question your heart or desire to see Christ magnified. My concern with the non-SBC issue is that many of the voices that we hear time and again… Read more »
Dear Dale: Thank you for your kind response, and I heartily acknowledge your right to differ. My question about your desire for people to be saved is based on my lack of knowledge of who you are and were you are coming from. I haven’t tried to search it out. Nothing else was meant or implied by the question, since I do not think like that. As to the Awakenings, I am fully aware that others have spoken of a 3rd, 4th, and even a 5th. However, I am more into a comparative study of the events identified as Awakenings,… Read more »
Dave, I think it is great to ask these questions. I know I only comment randomly, but I still regularly read the posts on here, as well as the comments if I find the discussion to be helpful. I would say I normally feel built up, challenged, and stretched with the actual posts on this debate, but the comments inevitably make me discouraged and saddened. It is almost always only a matter of time before someone to headstrong joins discussions like these and takes it down paths that people who actually wish to be educated never wanted it to go… Read more »
From those who are observing . .. Have you learned anything significant from the discussion threads for those posts? I have learned that the depth of division within the Body of Christ over this nonessential doctrine is mind boggling. In a time when sharing Jesus and our hope in Him is so critical, I am sure that it pleases the powers and principalities and rulers of darkness with joyful expectation and unmerited glee in the break down of the Church. God is still sovereign and the Great Commission is still the mandate for those who carry the Father’s burden that… Read more »
Close it down, and you can forget about the Great Awakening. Consider the fact that you are simply saying you don’t like being bothered about truths that you don’t believe. Arguments are a sign of life, so long as they are kept from being vicious. In the 1700s the Baptists were doing the same kind of debating, and the Episcopalians commented on it. During that same time, the Baptists had just been effected by the First Great Awakening, were getting ready to experience the Second Great Awakening and to launch the modern missionary movement or the Great Century of Missions.… Read more »
“Arguments are a sign of life, so long as they are kept from being vicious.” I like that, but I think that’s the problem we see. Things become vitriolic and the truths of the discussion get lost in the translation through emotion. Things can devolve rather quickly.
Also, I don’t see a Great Awakening being dependent on the comment stream at SBCVoices.
If the “Great Awakening” depends on us talking about Calvinism on blogs, it won’t be much of a Great Awakening.
David: I did not say it depended on the discussion. The idea is that the discussion is a symptom, indicative of life, of the Awakening that was about to occur back then (the discussions were circa 1770s and the Awakening was coming in 1801 as the high point, though it was even going at the time of the discussions, here and there across the colonies. Read Leland, Gano, Taylor, and the minutes of the Phila, Charleston, assns., the latter of which was recommending John Gill’s writings to its preachers. The theology of both Awakenings, the First and the Second (until… Read more »
Regarding “This is a major issue in the SBC and as such is worth discussing” and “I believe this IS the hot topic in the SBC” … It is a major issue for those who wish to take active steps to limit the numbers and influence of Calvinists in the SBC. For everyone else – including Calvinists themselves – not so much. And how many actually wish to take actions to limit the numbers and influence of Calvinists in the SBC? Not that many, especially when it comes to percentages. The only way to make it appear otherwise is to… Read more »
I like what Job has written here.
If you do not see any big problem aside from non-Cs blogging about problems in the SBC concerning Calvinism, you err. SBCers at every level recognize this. It cannot be eliminated by not discussing it.
Thornton, you sound like a man after my own heart, talking about the need to discuss it.
I’ve worked hard to keep my part in the conspiracy to Calvinize the SBC a secret and I do not appreciate your mentioning it here.
Your neck tattoo gives you away.
You’ve hidden it well, Bro. Moderator. This is the first I’ve read anything about it.
What conspiracy? I have been trying to join one ever since I heard about such a thing, like C.S. Lewis advised in his writings about conspiracies or did he advise not to? I forget.
Job: You sure you got that title right? Sounds more like one of the dear old sufferer’s friends. Cut off all discussion and debate, get rid of the theology, and, hence, no Third Great Awakening, and all the fun we can have in silly arguments on the way to it. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Don’t you folks know that the most positive army in WWII lost? I refer to the Germans. No one ever dared bring up the negatives. As a result the folks who allowed time for the negatives beat the snot out of them. I was just thinking last… Read more »
One thought: add a disclaimer to the end of every post, something like: “Warning: Comments may or may not be hazardous to your health. They are optional. You do not have to read them. If you do not find them helpful, proceed no further. Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”
That’s the first good idea you have had in a LONG time.
I try to limit the publication of my good ideas. The world can’t handle that much awesomeness.
Dave, I will write briefly… I think there is more harm than good preceding from these extra comments. I do not see restoration and unity occurring after heated words are exchanged. I fear that these comments have become stumbling blocks. I do believe the discussion is valid. But we need to emphasis that only mature debate is worth our time. This mature debate would not include name calling, would permit for clarification of definitions, would focus on textual arguments from the Scriptures, would incorporate points of unity and would end with both sides identifying the ways in which they have… Read more »
Psst…Dave…your willingness to host the discussion and let both sides–including hangers on–discuss it at length actually is pretty effective at demonstrating how unimportant the disagreement is. And that’s just talking about a temporal perspective. If God chooses to let this fester and either side’s position is essentially heretical, then he is permitting it for a purpose. I personally am of the opinion that it’s like the blind philosophers and the elephant. We’re each catching an important perspective, but the perspective is based on the part of the elephant we’re coming in contact with: ear, trunk, foot, tail. Now I’ll note… Read more »
I was going to say something nice about Dave’s post. How I’m sympathetic with his frustrations. And this from a more reformed Baptist view. But now I’m all riled up and ready to pronounce the Anathema (and for my pronouncements I am SBC and in the states-like that matters) on those that say the Gospel Project is a Calvinistic plot to undermine the SBC. I got two words for ya, ED and STETZER! He’s not, oh how about Tom and Rainer. Two more good words that aren’t calvinistic. Sorry don’t know about Trevin Wax, but how about Danny and Akin,… Read more »
Trevin has told me directly that he is not a Calvinist.
Clark, I brought up the GP, but did not say it was “a Calvinist plot to undermine the SBC.” Rather, I implied it was rooted in a hermeneutic associated with Reformed thought, and that most of its leaders are more Calvinistic (whether four pointers OR five pointers) than the rest of the SBC. Just so you know, none of the names you mentioned made me feel any better about the theology of the Gospel Project. Names that would impress me are Vines, Patterson, Allen (David), Gaines, Hankins, Lemke, Whitt, Yarnell, Kelley, etc. You may disagree with people like me and… Read more »
Rick, You must have been having too much fun. Did you clean up after the Lord’s Supper? In the same winter segment you cite, why did you omit these names from Session 4? Dorian Coover-Cox, page 48 Robert Bergen, page 50 Paige Patterson, page 51 W.A. Criswell study materials recommended, page 54 Or Session 5? Eugene Merrill, page 62 R. Dennis Cole, page 63 Paige Patterson sermon podcast recommended, page 66 J. Scott Duvall, page 66 J. Daniel Hays, page 66 (If I am not mistaken your fellow traditionalist document signer Hankins hoped these last two would be mentioned.) What… Read more »
Fred: Your reply to Rick is a masterpiece. It is a good reminder to do one’s homework. A RICK! This is quite an indictment of your practice of fairness. Why didn’t you report these, too?
Fred, I disagree with the GP advisory team’s composition. I believe they are more Reformed than is our convention. At least one is not even a Southern Baptist. Not to replay the entire debate here, but consider Ralph Green’s concerns, and please know I could name a hundred other Southern Baptist Pastors who have the very same issues I do with the Gospel Project. I agree with Pastor Green and applaud his courage in returning materials with which he is uncomfortable, even though it resulted in a firestorm of charges and accusations. Hey, we all have the right to choose… Read more »
Rick,
Green’s concerns were shown to be a sham. He was concerned with the overt Calvinism present in the material despite the fact that no such Calvinism can be found. As was noted again and again, it spoke volumes that no examples were given of this alleged Calvinist indoctrination.
Granted, other chapters include various additional writers. My purpose was not a general survey of all notations, but simply to demonstrate that we have authors listed here that the other Lifeway curricula are not seeking to promote to the convention.
My concern is with the greater PRESENCE of reformed writers like Keller and Schaeffer and Platt, among others. Again, you just don’t see this in the other curricula.
Good grief, Rick, my pastor signed the Traditionalist statement and is gungho in the camp, so to speak, and he quotes Spurgeon and even Calvin and Augustine, the latter two, if memory serves correctly. He even used the term sovereign grace in one message several weeks ago, but I certainly would not take him out of the Traditionalist camp. Even John R. Rice and Adrian Rogers could quote Spurgeon, but no one would make the mistake of putting them in the Calvinistic camp. Just because you find quotes in Session Four and Five from some Calvinists, does that mean you… Read more »
I am a Calvinst and have been for thirty years. Discussions of Calvinism do benefit me since listening to the ‘opposition’ always helps sharpen my thoughts on the topic. Every once in a while I will hear (or read) an argument from a non-Calvinist that I’ve not heard before. That always makes me go into the Word and see if there is either a refutation and not. As a Calvinist who has pastored the same church for 25 years, I’ve made no attempt to turn my congregation into a “Reformed” one. I just want them to be a solidly conservative… Read more »
Dave Miller: “As you can see, I have a very bitter, negative attitude toward Calvinism discussions.” Yes, that’s true. o I wonder if there were folks (moderator-leadership types) back in the day of English Parliament who said something similar like: “As you can see, I have a very bitter, negative attitude toward William Wilberforce slavery discussions.” o I wonder if there were folks (moderator-leadership types) back in the day of Athanasius who said something similar like: “As you can see, I have a very bitter, negative attitude toward Arianism discussions.” o I wonder if there were folks (moderator-leadership types) back… Read more »
In each of your scenarios, there is a clear right and a clear wrong – either a heresy being perpetrated or a gross injustice being performed. I will never stand down on the importance of inerrancy and the need to stand strong for fundamental doctrine.
But the Pitbull brigade that loves to bite and devour over the Calvinism issue – yes, I will continue to call them on their nonsense – yourself included, Mr “Truth.”
Bitterness and negativity which bites and devours its owner is not nonsense.
I think cynicism about the ability of people to be grown ups is sufficient reason to offer gentle restraints so they won’t hurt themselves. And that’s the offer I view Dave making: here, let me help you put on this nice, white jacket and tie the sleeves correctly to the back so you won’t hurt yourself.
Iowans are ALWAYS smarter than others.
No thanks to your offer of help of Greg.
Folks with cynical, bitter, negative attitudes who are helpfully alerted to the log in their eye will have have taken a big first step in not allowing their “very bitter and negative attitude” to bite and devour them.
Greg, I just spit all over my monitor! LOL!
What if those on the wrong side of this issue is seen in the future to be a clear right and wrong? I am sure no one called Arianism heresy until it was declared heresy and no one believed it.
As I recall, there was thing meeting called the Snyod of Dort. . .
Well, if one side of this debate is heretical, then a large portion of the SBC is heretical. That’s a pretty big problem.
I’m guessing that there are a pretty equal number of 5-pointers on one end with the Traditionalists on the other, and most of us making up the ground in between the two extremes.
But I do not think that any along that spectrum are gospel-denying heretics.
Dave,
Amen…and thanks for stating that. I also consider you a Gospel preaching Brother in Christ.
David
Seems like to me, that I have heard that this blog is owned by a Calvinist, Tony Kummer, and is managed by David Miller who is not a Calvinist. If that does not reflect what the Calvinists tried to establish in 1787-1800, then I am nonplussed. Am I right on my observations, David?
Dr. James,
Ran across this quote:
“Whitefield (Calvinist) and Wesley (Arminian) preached together and rejoiced in each others great work. This is the way it ever should be.”
Love it! Once people get past the shock that God uses folks who differ, one will find that they are not as far a part as they think.
Right on!
I would not say that your observations are correct.
I was depending on some statements that I thought I had seen on BC Voices and made by you. If my memory has failed. I stand corrected. I was under the impression that at least this was a blog of writers of several persuasion, calvinist and traditionalist. If the latter only is the reality, please let me know. Also let me know, if you intend to cut off all calvinism. While I am not gung ho for that term, I am for Sovereign Grace and for the doctrines of grace as the original founding faith. This I know for a… Read more »
So first, folks on the Traditionalist end preach something dangerous that may lead to false conversions. Then, they’re like Arians only they don’t realize it yet.
Yep, that’s the way to bring unity to the SBC.
What “Truth Unites…” just said demonstrates how misunderstood Calvinism as an issue in SBC life is currently. The fact that that a despondency regarding discussion on Calvinism could be compared with Wilberforce’s movement to end slavery, Athanasius’ faithful articulation of the person of Christ in the face of Arianism, or Paul’s orthodox picture of the Gospel in the midst of the Galatian controversy…shows a lack of historical perspective that is frightening. Regardless of how the discussion continues to take shape (conferences, blogs, lectures) it must continue to be an “in-house,” or family discussion. Non-SBC voices can help us navigate the… Read more »
Kyle Worley: “In light of God’s word we can proceed to look at our historic Baptist confessions, creeds, and statements of faith and seek to glean from our faithful forbearers.”
A little thought when considering the underpinnings of your last statement will help you to see the larger point of my remarks: Stifling and shutting down vigorous discussion would not have given birth to the “historic Baptist confessions, creeds, and statements of faith… from our faithful forbearers.”
Are you related to me?
David Worley
For his sake, I hope not 🙂
Well, there could be worse things in life, than to be related to yours truly. I mean, being in the hospital with severe constipation comes to mind….that’d be worse!
David 🙂
PS. I am related to Darryl Worley…the country singer….Kyle, are you related to him? Also, my family are from Wayne Co., TN.
Yes, there could be worse things…
The plague.
Global Thermonuclear War.
Any Tom Cruise movie.
Many things could be worse, Vol.
(Sorry).
Dave, I think occasionally the problem begins with the initial post. I’d consider guarding the front door to posts on SBCVoices as well. Having said that, I’m all for shutting down comments on Calvinism posts and even keeping a watchful eye on those which rub up against it. My initial reaction is to disagree and encourage you to keep comments. But after thinking through it I believe people would still respond to posts but would do it through more lengthy and hopefully better constructed posts of their own. And they could even submit them to Voices. And if you were… Read more »
I would agree that posts that are strident, that attempt to cast the other side in some sort of negative/threatening light are not helpful.
That is mostly what I am referring to.
Dave, My only caution to eliminating comments on Calvinism articles is that this site allows some back and forth while other sites- on both sides of the spectrum- edit, ban, and generally bully commenters who are not in favor of their perspective. SBC Voices may resemble the Wild West occasionally but that to me is perferable to resembling Orwell’s 1984. The truth is it is probably harder on you thank anyone because you have to read each comment no matter what and evaluate it. Like many readers I just skim comments from posters who say the same things over and… Read more »
Currently, my plan is to: 1) Continue the process of shutting down Calvinism discussions as soon as they get stupid – usually within 50 to 100 comments. 2) Put more of the Pitbull brigade on moderation. That means that your comments will only appear if I approve them. It makes people really mad at me, but I have yet to put a person on moderation and not feel that it generally improved the discussion around here. 3) I’m going to personally continue to ignore Calvinism discussions in general (with a few exceptions) and encourage most of you in the Cooperative… Read more »
but I have yet to put a person on moderation and not feel that it generally improved the discussion around here.
D’oh!!!!!
* How do you determine if a discussion gets stupid? You and I have some pretty serious disagreements about these matters. Can I expect you will be cutting me off with much greater frequency? How is this not simply a matter of your own arbitrary (and wrong) preference in these debates? * “I have yet to put a person on moderation and not feel that it generally improved the discussion around here.” That’s the way moderators always feel, and why moderators do what they do. But I have never seen it practiced in this way that it has not turned… Read more »
Maybe if we just put you in charge, Chris. You have it all figured out, after all!
Yes, as moderator, the decision on stupid is mine.
No, I am not completely fair or unbiased.
I take into account history and “body of work.”
A few more comments like this, and your chances of joining the moderation brigade will increase exponentially!
“A few more comments like this, and your chances of joining the moderation brigade will increase exponentially!”
And so it begins. Dare not to disagree or speak against The Cooperative Middle, or face the moderation queue.
Given that many of the commenters here are pastors, and some of them engage in the bitter bash of Calvinism comments, I’m all for it if only to preserve the dignity of Baptist pastoral ministry. Lord knows I wish I were shut up some in the past, and I’m not even a pastor.
Dave,
All these discussions have been helpful to me. I enjoy every minute of them. I actually have learned alot about Calvinism and Traditionalism.
I understand things that I never understood before. I hate to see discussions about unity and differences go away. I think Calvinists are a great blessing to the SBC. I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters.
@William Thornton: Well, I simply have to err then. Or should I say that while I am willing to concede that there may be problems with Calvinists in the SBC, the proposed solutions are much much worse than the problems. Again, go back to the Acts 29 thing. React to the maybe 100 SBC church plants that are members of the Acts 29 Network by preventing Cooperative Program/NAMB church planting money donated by traditionalist churches from going to Calvinist church plants whether those plants are Acts 29 Network members or not. It would be better to simply expel the Calvinists… Read more »
Job, Glad you recognize there is a problem. I for one do not favor a solution of expulsion and know very few who do. 1 &2. There are few venues where ordinary SBC mortals are discussing this stuff in public. This is one of those places. I am a regular non-Calvinistic SBCer and I think Dave is fair and that this place is neutral. Those who discuss Calvinism may be compared with the money supply and the old axiom “bad money drives out good money.” Bad commenters here drive out good ones. I don’t know a solution to that. Dave… Read more »
You still can’t borrow money.
I’m not sure you can borrow commenters, either.
1) Continue the process of shutting down Calvinism discussions as soon as they get stupid – usually within 50 to 100 comments. Sometimes, considering the misconceptions and preconceptions on all sides, it may take 50-100 comments before some headway is made. Too many people bring their favorite phrases or put the same scars on display as the last discussion; a clear case for moderation I think. But considering the recent post by Dan that you shut down… I think Vol & I were just beginning to make headway on not talking past each other and simple understanding. First we had… Read more »
Sorry, I wasn’t seeing much in the way of progress.
Hey Dave,
This is comment #122….this thread needs to be closed down. Just thought I’d remind you…lol.
🙂
David
I’ve been thinking about it.
Nerd.
lol
I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone that a post about comments to posts about Calvinism blows up with comments like no other posts. Well, no other posts unless those other posts can be seen as involving Calvinism too. To the questions ?Have you learned anything significant from the discussion threads for those posts? — Nothing significant but I have picked up a few minor points here and there ?Have you changed your position in any way because of the discussions (or known of someone else who changed theirs)? — No ?Have you been built up and encouraged by your involvement… Read more »
I’d say shut it down when the comment threading goes whack. Maybe the Interweb is trying to speak to us.
Am I the only one stunned that the Apostolic method of redemptive-historical preaching seems to be held in derision by this comment??
Randall,
I think it has its place occasionally, but join many others who view it as weak in practical application, limited in scope to narrative pericopes, and prone to read Christological interpretations back into some texts where such a meaning ignores authorial intent.
Do not be stunned that some find this preaching method more useful and appropriate than others.
Rick, Well, given that the Apostles derived their oft-used and highly applicable redemptive-historical hermeneutic from none other than Christ Himself…. Lu 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. …I must ask that you bear with my being stunned. That you see the redemptive-historical hermeneutic as “weak in practical application” and “limited in scope to narrative pericopes” and guilty of “ignoring authorial intent” may indicate unfamiliarity with the hermeneutic. The redemptive-historical hermeneutic’s Christotelic (Christ as the telos of all scripture) presupposition informs every Apostolic use of the… Read more »
Randall, please excuse an interloper here, I have noticed that your defense of the Gospel Project is that the Apostles and Jesus used the OT for redemptive – historical exposition. To many of us, myself included, that is a weakness of the Gospel Project. Good hermeneutics will teach one to look to the New Testament for foreshadowing of Christ from the Old Testament. We rely on the NT writers to help us discern if an OT passage is a foreshadowing. Jesus, Peter, Paul, the author of Hebrews, are more suited to identify such foreshadowing than any of us.
Dean,
Have you read the Winter ’12 quarterly on the OT?
I think that is a legitimate and interesting hermeneutical discussion, Dean.
I think some of the anti-Gospel Project rhetoric has been extreme to the point of losing credibility (Pastor Green comes to mind) but I still have questions about the modern gospel-centered hermeneutical approach as it relates to the OT.
I think that is a discussion we need to have, and it is not specifically a Cal/Trad type thing.
For me, all sound interp starts with authorial intent. There is often some divine intent beyond the authorial, but you cannot ignore authorial intent in the process.
How we balance authorial intent with the message of Christ in all scripture is a great discussion.
Dave,
I just finished a rather lengthy paper on the Apostolic hermeneutic. If I spent some time condensing it and submitted it to you, would you consider posting it?
Randall, I have not read the quarterly ’12 winter. However, I will reiterate my position. The NT is the best place to find the foreshadowing of Christ from the OT. When a NT writer declares something from the OT to be a messianic foreshadowing then we know we are sound to teach the OT passage in that manner. This concept is what was taught me in Bible college and two of our SBC seminaries. Dave, this absolutely is not a Cal/trad thing at all with me. It is a principle of interpretation that is part of my core. My argument… Read more »
Dean,
You said:
Then, in response to my question, you state:
Doesn’t it stand to reason that if you are going to be critical of the GP interpretation of the OT you should at least have read the GP interpretation of the OT?
Randall, Brother, you got to lay off the Matlock or other old attorney shows. You keep looking or the gotcha moments. Randall, as an SBC pastor I was mailed numerous pieces to preview. I watched videos with talking points about GP. It is promoted as a material that by design is not committed to adhering to the author’s intent. This is an issue that is not part of our Cal/trad debate. There is value in all Gospel preaching. However I prefer expository sermons from the pulpit and Biblical teaching for classes. When something is advertised that is contrary to your… Read more »
Dean,
What on earth are you talking about??
Randall,
Rejecting is probably too strong a word for my view. Please note I do allow for its occasional use. I do not think it is broadly applicable as a general Sunday School literature philosophy.
My concerns were more clearly stated in my own words and, for that matter, in Dean’s remarks, than in your inaccurate insinuations.
Rick,
May I ask why not?
Randall,
I believe an appropriate Sunday School philosophy should be broadly applicable, whereas the specific approach in question does not handle didactic passages and wisdom literature very well. It is even limited among narrative passages to those with specific Christological implications.
Thus, it is not always a WRONG approach, but is sometimes simply too NARROW of an approach, in my opinion.
Rick, I have my questions about the whole redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
I would not want all LifeWay curricula to follow it.
But isn’t there enough legitimacy to the approach to have ONE curriculum that is built on it?
I am no expert on the curriculum, but from what I have read, there is little Calvinistic bent to it (except for the fact that the hermeneutical approach is common among Calvinists – hence the quotes). But why should there not be a redemptive-historical option among the LifeWay offerings.
Rick,
Your contention that the redemptive-historical hermeneutic is restrictive and limited in dealing with OT narrative and didactic passages is…well…stunning.
May I ask how you arrived at this conclusion? Was it something (or someone) you read? Have you had personal difficulty applying the hermeneutic?
Have you read Beale, Enns, Moo, Marshall, Carson, etc. on the Apostolic hermeneutic?
More importantly to you your critique of the Gospel Project, have you read the Winter ’12 quarterly on the OT?
Excellent comment, David. Since our Lord took the approach of such interpretation, and I do allow for authorial intent, it would still seem to be out of order to disallow a view just because some group likes to use it. Good soldiers learn even from their enemies, and ministers can do the same. Rick, just consider what Wesley learned from Whitefield, when he realized that it was his task from Whitefield himself to preach Whitefield’s funeral. I have read (it has been about 40 years ago), what Wesley had to say about one with whom he had had sharp disagreements… Read more »
Dave, I think it is narrow enough that a very short-term, discipleship small group study featuring it might be appropriate. My view of Sunday School is that it should really focus more on a broader survey of Bible books and themes. Randall, My concerns with the redemptive-historical method are rooted in my own viewpoint that while much of scripture does indeed weave together the overarching meta-narrative of our redemption through Christ, there is an enormous amount of biblical truth that lies outside — not in contradiction — to the “big story.” Many examples could be cited, but the first time… Read more »
Rick your reference to the David and Goliath issue is a case in point for the fact that folks can push an interpretative method to the extreme, even a truly sound like the Apostolic approach and that of our Lord. What we have to guard against in our reactions to such abuses is the tendency to go to the other extreme wherein a sound method becomes an object of suspicion, especially when it is associated with, and used by, a group for which we have an animus due to having been abused by them at some point.
Randall,
It is really hard to fault that method of interpretation when one witnesses it in the words of Christ and the writings of the apostles. One problem is there are nut cases on the web who don’t have the intelligence to understand it. Others simply parrot what they are saying.
Randy,
I guess that’s why I’m so incredulous.
It is more than passingly interesting that both Rick and Dean completely ignored that point in their attempts to marginalize the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
Randy,
We agree on doctrine but gosh golly gee whiz, why do you have to be insulting?
Patience with those who disagree is a command. Patience with weaker brothers is a command. Gentleness is a fruit of the Spirit.
You do the truth wrongly when you speak improperly.
Its not Christ-like.
grace write randy, Feel free to show me some grace here. If the two of you will review the comment stream carefully, I did not so much “fault” the method of interpretation, or “reject” its use as I sought to place it in the more limited parameters I’ve described. I think there’s a difference between saying, “This is wrong” and “This has its place, but we don’t want to overdo it.” I’m not sure how to interpret your “nut cases” comment about those with no intelligence. Randall, You will be relieved to know that I do not disagree with the… Read more »
Rick,
I’ve read Jason Allen (and he’s not making the case SBC Today portrays him making), and I’ve read virtually everything Kaiser has written. Kaiser does not completely disagree with with Christotelic and redemptive-historical presuppositions…especially if you read some of his more recent articles.
Again, have you read Enns, Beale, Moo, Marshall, or Carson on this issue?
And, to be clear, I did not call anyone a “nut-case” or question anyone’s intelligence, so it is unnecessary to associate me with those pejoratives.
Randall and Randy, I do not want this to become a debate that is heated but you claim I ignored a comment that I plainly addressed. You are the ones who are ignoring comments. Jesus did use this means, the author of Hebrews used it more than any NT writer. MY POINT IS THAT I HOLD OT FORESHADOWING TO THIS STANDARD- DID A NT WRITER IDENTIFY IT AS SUCH. I have not rejected what Jesus did but I do not care to listen to you or Chandler or anyone else use typology that is not mentioned as such in the… Read more »
Dean,
If you had bothered to actually read the quarter on the OT you would know that the GP writers in no way violated this principle.
As a pastor who has both read and taught every GP lesson to date, I can tell you that you are falsely accusing your brothers in Christ.
You’ve obviously made up your mind, so I’ll leave you to it.
Randall, you have obviously have made up your mind. You asked a question as if I am from Mars. I will answer your question with a question – answer with integrity- is GP committed to author intent? From my reading they are not. The well known David and Goliath lesson is committed to author intent? The stated goal of GP means author’s intent is not an issue. To me it is a matter of core principles of interpretation. On this issue I am a one string banjo it’s the only note I can play.
Dean, I will answer your question with a question – answer with integrity- is GP committed to author intent? I answered that above. I’m not sure how I can answer your question with any more clarity, but I do recognize what is insinuated by the way you framed the question the second time… I’ve both read and taught every single lesson. You, on the other hand, have not even bothered to read the OT quarter. Your contention that the “stated goal of the GP means authorial intent is not an issue” is simply not accurate. I see no point in… Read more »
Remember that authorial intention includes not only the intention of the original writer but also the intention of the Holy Spirit who inspired them to write. In my view, it is a greater error to miss Christ in the texts where he is than to find him where he is not.
I am stunned.
Perhaps it should be noted here that the redemptive-historical presupposition is part of the larger Apostolic hermeneutic, not necessarily a hermenutical approach unto itself.
But one cannot read the NT without recognizing that both Jesus and the Apostles viewed all of the OT as redemptive history.
Perhaps Rick and Dean are making a categorical error here.
Or perhaps someone else just doesn’t realize that good, Christ honoring people have a slightly different way of looking at this hermeneutic.
Rick,
Let’s not make this personal.
Why not just deal with my arguments?
Rick,
What do you personally find lacking in the RH method that is found in the Order of Salvation approach?
Randall, it would be interesting to see what Rick’s read other than what video he’s watched. I’ve not watched Matt Chandler. Graeme Goldsworthy’s According to Plan is about all I can drudge through as a layman. It sure did help me understand my Bible better. I imagine the kickback is due in large part to classic dispensationalism, though he’d have to say that himself. All I know is I never heard about covenants growing up SBC. The Old Testament was preached to give moral examples or, strangely enough, pulled out for July 4th sermons (which didn’t make sense due to… Read more »
Dave, I’m part of the problem, as I really only post when someone writes something that makes me angry. Usually I simply lurk. I do think that strong moderation would be a good idea on any post where you expect the sort of exchanges you are describing. Also, you might contact the repeat offenders with examples of the sort of things you wish to avoid. I do know that I have gotten into exchanges with certain folks where I simply couldn’t give them the last word, because of the confrontational nature of that “last word”. In those cases closing the… Read more »
Legitimate points, Donald, and I have been warned often that moderating comments will lower our readership. And there is certainly a little bit of that.
But, the fall off is not really that great. What happens, I believe, is that serious people who want to have serious discussions about ministry topics are driven away by the Pitbull Brigade who only wish to fight the Calvinism wars.
Well, definitely, David, do some moderating, when someone get out of hand, out of order, and becomes mean and hateful. Most of us realize that we do do that sometime. Both sides of the coin has its pitbulls. John Wesley’s sermon rejecting calvinism is a pitbull example from the Arminian side, but his letter in his journal attempting to respond honestly to Whitefield’s effort at placating without compromising is also one of the remarkable examples of trying to do what is right. What our ancestors and predecessors did in opening up the lists to differences and variations without conceding the… Read more »
How about we add a “I commit that I have prayed for God’s blessings on each commenter above me” box to the comment box? As in, you either take the time to pray for each name on that list before you comment or you don’t comment? And still planning on shutting the stream off at 125 comments or 5 days, whichever comes first, for every post. If it gets to 125 and is still productive and edifying (from your subjective view, but it’s generally pretty obvious) then it can get an indulgence for an extension. But then it’s done: extend… Read more »
That is a remarkably good idea, Doug.
Dear Doug: I make it a point in my morning prayer and devotional time to mention the names of many who write on this blog, including, for instance, yours, David’s, Tony, Rick Patrick, CB Scott, Bob Hadley, and others, many others. I am praying also that every one will get a burden and a desire to pray and will pray that we might have another visitation of God such as we had in the First and Second Great Awakenings and at other times in our history and however we title them.
It is a little short of amazing to read that some are apparently really seriously bent on getting rid of the Calvinists/Sovereign Grace believers in the SBC, when they were the original authors of the mission movement and the early institutions and the organization of the state conventions and the SBC itself. In fact, one cannot find a Traditionalist as President until the 20th century. As one who has studied our history and whose roots go all the way back to the beginning in the 1700s, if that Holland Middleton who was appointed to execute the will of Daniel Marshall… Read more »
I haven’t been following this blog very long, but here are my thoughts. Have you learned anything significant from the discussion threads for those posts? No Have you changed your position in any way because of the discussions (or known of someone else who changed theirs)? No Have you been built up and encouraged by your involvement in these discussions? No Have the discussions advanced understanding, unity or knowledge in any way? No In other words, have our discussions of Calvinism served ANY purpose of eternal significance? I highly doubt it. If not, why keep going? Exactly. I think we… Read more »
Worth at least a nickel. Maybe a dime! Thanks, Bob.
I still think having in-depth discussions of pertinent texts in their contexts would be helpful. It is amazing how uniting that can be. There would need to be discussion of definition of terms and hermeneutic principles before we get to actual texts, but there are serious issues that need to be considered exegetically.
Rick, You state: Many examples could be cited, but the first time my antenna went up was frankly Chandler’s interpretation of David and Goliath in which he seemingly disallows any approach other than seeing Christ as David, Goliath as Satan and the Israelites frightened in the corner representing believers. That is a particularly ungracious representation of Chandler’s video, and it has been refuted rather effectively several times, as I’m sure you are aware. So Rick, I ask you again: Have you read the Winter ’12 quarterly of the GP on the OT? If you are going to publicly and specifically… Read more »
Randall and Rick,
I didn’t call any of those people “nut-cases.” Actually, “nut-case” is the kindest description of the people I am describing. It is not pejorative at all. I am not suggesting that everyone who approaches the Scriptures differently is a nut case. What I am suggesting is that some who are merely parroting what they read, rather than studying the issues themselves, need to wait until they have studied the issue thoroughly before weighing in on it.
“…some who are merely parroting what they read, rather than studying the issues themselves, need to wait until they have studied the issue thoroughly before weighing in on it.”
That’s a nugget of exceptionally good sense.
Randy,
Under the assumption that you meant others not posting here, why even bother to run these others down? What purpose does it serve? And do you not see how in a disagreement such remarks could be taken personally by those you are disagreeing with?
There are nut jobs in all matters but why even mention them?
Have some empathy for the brothers you are disputing with by not giving them any cause to make a theological discussion a fleshly one. If they think you are throwing stones, they might lob some your way.
Thanks.
Parson,
I mentioned them because they are there. I think people need to be warned against listening to those who clearly don’t even clearly understand what they are opposing.
Parson,
I am used to dodging stones. I am not throwing stones at anyone.
Rick, I agree the method can be and has abused. I am probably referring to anyone you know when I refer to “nut-cases.” I am not intending to be pejorative in the use of this term. One person in particular I am thinking about is clearly on the lunatic fringe. For decades, the typological approach to the OT fell into a state of disrepute because people had abused it. Within the last thirty years or so, its validity has begun to be recognized again. Perhaps, it has begun to be abused again. I have some good friends I believe have… Read more »
Randy,
No problema. Is that how they say it in Costa Rica?
No hay problema. You were really close. Do you speak Spanish?
Muy poquito. A week from Sunday I’ll be preaching in Mexico…and praying that my translator is a better preacher than I am.
Rick,
Where are you going in MX? It is always nice to have a translator who can fix up your sermon for you.
Aguascalientes. We’re looking forward to it.
Rick,
I have never stopped there, but have driven past several times. I wish you well. Be careful. I am sure you know Mexico is not the safest place on earth now. The Mexican people, as are most Latins are very loving people. I will pray for your ministry there.
Dean,
As you know, the method of typological interpretation you describe was proposed by Herbert Marsh. In an Appendix to a book I wrote on Hebrews several years ago, I suggested a different approach to the issue. I would be interested in your responses to it. If you are interested in reading it, send me your email address and I will send it to you. rseiver1@hotmail.com