IS Albert Mohler Considered A "stauch" calvinist then?

JF,
Sorry , but all cults have the bible also. What does the bible teach is the issue. That is where a confession of faith is handy.

Benny Hinn and joel osteen have bibles....all of the word of faith people do also....

 

Allan,
That would be pathetic if these men have done that as you say.
I would agree with you then. I have never heard of this happening as you describe..... then again have not been to sioux falls in about 2 yrs:thumbs:
Any men I know are clearly open about what they believe, and most often align themselves with a confession of faith,,,1689, BFM, etc.

 

I agree and I'm not just against Cals who do this but ANYONE (ie. secretly charismatic pastors trying to bring that into a church that is against it / or even a non-Cal pastor trying to creep into a Cal church under false pretenses).. Also, the Calvinists that 'I Know' would not do this.. however it was the ones I 'did not' know that cause the issues in the churches that I have personally dealt with as well as other.. Additionally, those churches were not in SD.


Like I said, it is not 'common place' but it happens enough that it is addressed not only by non-cals, but reputable Cals as well. And thus my point in posting to TomVols about him being upset that the associations were sending out information to 'sniff out' Calvinists and such or find out if your pastor actually holds to the views.

 

It's part of the problem when church committees ask about everything else except doctrine. They just ask all about "What would you do in this circumstance?" And very little about what they believe. That's sad.

 

Agreed. However if I might give a small example of something that is applicable here - when I was speaking once to a church AR. for potentially being their pastor, they asked some very surface questions and in answering them satisfactorily, was about to close up. At which point I asked them, "Don't you care to know what I believe about the Atonement, or salvation, or election, or many other important doctrines you neglected to ask about? They all just smiled, and I sat there after that for another 3 hours!

The point is, some just take the pastors knowledge and views (they believe like us or they wouldn't have applied TO us) for granted.. but it is as 'much' the applicants job to set forth questions about the churches views, as it is for the church search committee to ask about his.

 

Allan,
I first read your post this morning and had no time to respond. Forgive me if some of what I respond is a bit redundant based on what others have posted.

All evidence like this will be somewhat ancedotal. However, I see you did not refute my claims relative to the campaigns being waged. No way one can see this as merely "a few." In my local association, there are three pastors actively waging this war, and doing so in a pretty nefarious and obtrusive fashion. In the neighboring association, there is a cadre of pastors connected with this group I referred to relative to the letter/questionnaire mission. More on that later. But to say this is some sort of diminutive fringe when high ranking SBs have brought it to fore from the platform of the SBC is, as I said earlier and you have not refuted, a develpment that cannot be ignored or seen as some sort of coincidence or anamoly.

This is fallacious. I will not argue that a poll may have occurred on here where Reformed men said they would not allow non-Reformed to preach. However, this has not been my experience. I have seen Reformed men shunned from pulpit supply constantly. A local Reformed pastor often utilizes non Reformed men. My best friend has had two Reformed ministers in his 20 years of ministry (me, for a revival, and his mentor for a revival). For his vacations, sabbaticals, etc., he uses non-Reformed men. I have utilized only one or two Reformed preachers in my ministry. The rest have not been largely Reformed.

Again, I just see this differently because the experiences are vastly different, as are my observations. You may indeed have different observations. However, neither of us should presume to jump to fallacious conclusions. To wit:

Fallacious. Appeal to probability. First, I don't know I've cried foul as much as I've lamented that divisive and pugnacious people are causing unnecessary strife, dividing what Christ gave His body and blood to unite. Second, there's a fair list of non-Reformed who have been at Reformed seminaries. Daniel Akin VP and Dean of the School of Theology at SBTS. Also at the Theology school there under Mohler: Polhill, Seifred, Cutrerer, Howell, Newman, Robert Smith, Rainer, Terry, Lawless, Dever (not Mark) and on and on I could go. I could compile a similar list at RTS, TEDS, and GCTS. Is this list longer than the list of Reformed men who are allowed to teach at non-Reformed schools/seminaries? To the best of my recollection, yes it is. However, it may or may not be apples and oranges. Either way, your fallacious assertion is just that. Appeals to probability just aren't good arguments.

?

I'm puzzled by this. The SBC is comprised of messengers sent by the churches. This doesn't seem to be germane to the conversation. Explain.

Yes I am. I am opposed to political movements of any kind. I am opposed to those who use theological caricatures and fallacious arguments and outright slander and malice to see their will imposed on the churches. I don't care if they're Reformed or not, conservative or not. Our weapons are not of this world. We don't war the way the world does. (2 Cor 10:3-4). It's sad you seem to applaud this.

Fallacy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc and begging the question. So the minister was de facto a charlatan and the one doing the deceiving? This is really a poor argument. While it could be the case, it is just as likely that it is not the case. I'm entering my third decade of ministry. I've dealt with pulpit committees all over the nation. Rarely am I queried regarding theology. Amusingly, my first pastoral search cmte asked me only one doctrinal question: You aren't one of them there liberal dispensationalists, are you :laugh: Seriously. Ran into this a year and a half ago, too. Got this from a church just recently where I supplied, also. Obviously, they don't understand a lot of eschatology (I'm not dispy, by the way) but they have bought a false caricature of what they think eschatology is, and have given it an unnecessary weight. I assert this is the same that is happening with the Cal/Non-Reformed debate. You appear to disagree.

Again, begging the question by assuming facts not in evidence.

This is an alarming assertion on your part. I could set a "trap" but won't waste my or your time. Let me just ask it this way: what other theological premise must one agree with you on in order to remain in ministry? Eschatology? Spiritual gifts? Ecclesiastical government? Either you have other areas, and that's sad, or you don't, and that's just as sad.

I could make the assertion another way: must you agree 100% in all areas with the churches you serve? I have served KJVP churches. I served churches where the NIV was the official Bible. If I'm no fan of either position, why should that negate what would otherwise be a God-ordained place of service that could result in growth for the church, the pastor, and the Kingdom?

A bit of a non-sequitur, and again begging the question. However, I'll play along. I am not in favor of any pastor being deceptive or divisive. Nor am I in favor of groups being deceptive or divisive. You seem to have no problem since the Reformed are suffering. However, you would likely recoil if the shoe was on the other foot. I am merely asking for consistency.

Again, an outlandish begging of the question, or petitio principii if you prefer.

Now you're backpeddling a bit from above when you said categorically that these were a fringe miniscule amount of people. Perhaps you may need to qualify the "large and small" and that would explain away this.

Again, a non-sequitur.

Actually, yes you did. It was edited out due to it being a violation of BB rules. However, it was cited by another poster. I won't repeat it because it was a violation of BB rules and as such it will have to be edited in the other post. This was perhaps the singular most disturbing thing you posted, and extraordinarily disappointing. I can handle a post chock full of illogical and fallacious arguments. But outright ad hominem and perjorative words are not charitable....nor permissible on this board.

Certainly. But the how is very important, and I don't believe we have the right to go to subversive lengths to do so.

Fallacious. Hasty generalization.

At once, I find myself puzzled by this since you are seemingly arguing against this earlier, and amazed by this implied assumption that the founders of the SBc were atheological. First, we don't foster cooperation through division. Second, theology does matter. However, we have no right to use various planks or subplanks of theology as battering rams or wedge issues. Perhaps this is our single biggest point of departure here.

I'll admit that I have not had much interaction with you on here. I know the non-Reformed side tends to have a great deal of respect for you, and I granted that de facto, pretty much (it's just my nature). I'm well aware of your opposition to Reformed theology and that's fine. No problem here. We don't have to agree on everything to agree on the main thing. I did want to respond to the numerous fallacies I saw in your response. I also admit again how dismayed I am at the insulting and perjorative language. That said, I hope to differ with you with respect on this issue even if we are pretty well off topic from the OP.

 

Allan wrote:

Agreed.

Tom Bryant wrote:

Very sad. Agreed.

Allan wrote:

Look at it for what it is, not what we think it is or imagine it is. I have not seen one single man try to make a church Reformed and lose his church over it. I've heard of such. I have seen IFBs fired because they tried to takeover SBC churches. I've seen KJVOs divide churches. I've seen Reformed pastors take non-Reformed churches and the churches have grown exponentially. I've seen non-Reformed pastors do the same at non-Reformed churches.

My point? Observations are just observations. Experiences are just experiences. A hasty generalization is just that, whether it's done by famed Reformed thinkers of today, or posters on a Baptist message board.

This is indeed sad. It is sad whenever churches or ministers are fractured, ripped apart, etc. I recently know of a man who pretty much single-handedly took a church of around 100 and in three years managed to tick off 75% of everyone. This church now runs 20 in Sunday worship. They needed to make a change. They did. But they did it wrong. Now, who's at fault? Everyone. The church called the man and he told them what he was going to do. They didn't hear him or didn't care. When you want what want, you get what you get. So the church was at fault. But the man was at fault. He was derelict in his duties and was extremely divisive and rancorous. But no one, and I mean no one should be forcibly terminated in the middle of the night by a small number. All deserve blame, yet all deserve better than what they got. My point? Pray for churches that have been through the ringer. Pray for pastors that have been through the ringer. Realize that both may have happened at the same time.

I could go on. I've already typed enough for another dissertation :tongue3:

JesusFan wrote:

Very good post. What happened? I blame Obama. :tongue3: Seriously, the internet makes bloviaters out of more than a few. Also, you don't have to be charitable if all you see is a keyboard. And frankly, Satan is alive and well trying to divide Cals and non-Cals. Bible-believing evangelicals are Satan's worst nighmare, so divide and conquer is the MO.

I think people need to read the last chapter of Lloyd-Jones's What is an Evangelical? At the very least, read Mohler's Theological Triage: the Pastor as Theologian. I lean more towards Lloyd-Jones (also one who befriended non-Cals). This should be required reading for all. No one should be allowed to come back and post til you've read Lloyd-Jones. There will be a quiz. Class dismissed. :thumbs:

 

Actually Tom, one not only can but it is statistically verifiable to them being merely a few in contrast to the whole. (few not meaning a couple or a couple more) but referring to a minority.

This is noted or seen by calculating the total number of state associations and setting for the number of those associations that are opposed to having Calvinists in them. You will find that there are not many in comparison to the whole. Additionally, I have no need to nor did I argue against the claim, that I must 'refute' there are some campaigns waged against Calvinism. It is the same with many Calvinists in the SBC who wish to rid it of anything but Reformed views. And with rhetoric getting more and more heated... I do see a 'tendency' for both groups to potentially grow if they are allowed to continue.

Ok.. out of how may in your local association?

Again, compared to how many pastor in total, lets say, in total of your states association. I'm not saying there are some out there, and in some places, more than others (in fact I did say this earlier). My point is that in contrast to the whole, yes.. they are not many.

Really? What was brought to the fore.. be specific. Was it brought forth for a vote? However, all you have given thus far are assumptive views, and opinions as if they confirm anything substantially. Mine are according to the numbers and the numbers do not coincide with your rendition.

Ok.. you state my comment is fallacious, yet you base it upon your experience regarding yourself, and 2 other pastors. I based my point not ONLY on my experiences but the words and declarations of other Reformed pastors (additional note: I have 8 reformed friends that are pastors and none of them would allow someone none reformed to preach from their pulpits). Thus who is exactly is being fallacious in their arguments?

I will agree.. however which group are you referring to.. the Cals who are doing the same thing or the non-Cals?

Again, do either group represent the majority? If not, then by definition they are the 'minority' and thus in reference to total size, not many.

Southern is not a 'Reformed' Seminary Though it has become more Calvinistic, it is not a Reformed Seminary
And neither is their Theology School. Thus you have Cals and Non-Cals working there.

You misunderstand. I do not applaud the fact that such measures must be taken by any side, in order to find out if someone has taken a pastorate under false or deceptive pretenses. The fact it has to be put out there because it is a reality, is what baffles me that you cry out against it.

Hmm.. Facts back up the case. The 'fact' it is an event that has been, is, and appears to be continuing is not a poor argument. The 'fact' that other reformed people (even those of high standing -as I have referenced already) state it is an issue does not lend credibility to it being a poor argument. The 'fact' I have had to deal the results of such doesn't preclude it being a poor argument .. when ALL of the above are noted as those coming into 'these' position did so deceitfully. The 'facts' lend credibility to my statement of some of these men coming into the pastorate KNOWING the church does not hold to their theological view, and thus lied through admission or omission to the search committees. Again, I am not saying ALL do this but it is apparently a problem large enough for other Calvinists to say something about it.

And yet any pastor (or potential one) worth their salt, would know or at least get to know that churches 'theological' views. And even then, the most commonly held theological view held by most churches is? Not Reformed.
I haven't met a pastor yet who came into a church that didn't at least know the general theological view of the church they were presenting themselves to.

I agree

Wrong. It is knowing facts that ARE evidenced. Remember here, I'm not talking about ALL, I'm talking about those I know of, others have specifically dealt with, even Reformed men speaking to. This is not some fanciful dream but a reality, and it 'seems' one of which you turn a blind eye to. It happens but it is not something that is every day nor common place, but it IS and DOES happen enough that it has gotten the attention of even Reformed men such as Tom Ascol at founder.com.

Uh.. you are making an incorrect case here. My point was not agreeing on theology to stay in the ministry, but taking a church through deceptive means.. to quote Tom Ascol - Don't try to hide your convictions. To do so is cowardly and dishonest and has no place in Gospel ministry. I merely paraphrased his statement.

And yet neither of those hold any relevance to the topic nor subject at hand.
Again, you misunderstand the point made above.

Assumptive and argumentative on your part regarding me. Why stoop to ascribing to me a position I never made any indication that I agree with?


Continued...

 

I agree, and thus if you stayed with my arguments and not invent your own regarding my position will allow for much greater consistency. I would NOT recoil if non-Cals were trying to deceptively gain access to reformed and in fact stood my ground against a person who sought to do just that, but into another church (not reformed but different theologically)

Incorrect, You NOT ME made that statement. Thus no back peddling at all.

Actually no I am not.

Actually it wasn't against BB Rules to my knowledge. It was not speaking of anyone here, but was SPECIFICALLY of those who willingly deceive to gain appointment to a church for the purposes of changing it. They lied.. there is no Ad-hom there.. it directly speaks to their actions.

Your assumption have not disputed the facts. Thus you can say it is "Fallacious, Hasty generalization" but the FACT remains. It was not and that is based on facts.

Again, you are not sticking with my statements. I said nothing about the founders as individuals, but the SBC as an entity. It has NEVER held nor ascribed to any specific theological (Reformed, Arminian, ect) view, ever.

Agreed.

Again Agreed.. yet for the SBC it does not, regarding any system of theology but regarding mainline orthodox theological views in general.

Agreed yet again!

.\
It is apparent you haven't had much interaction with me, nor read much of stuff on here. If you did you would know that I am not opposed to nor in opposition to Reformed theology. I disagree with some of their conclusions on a few things but I stand up for and encourage my reformed brothers to study the word and hold fast that truth they understand, unwavering, unless God shows you otherwise. Additionally, there are many on here of the Reformed side that have a good deal of respect for me as well.. and many more no longer here. While that is nice.. I tried to earn the respect of both groups.

I have not noted any fallacies thus far in my arguments, and what 'my' arguments deal with. However the only insulting and pejorative language I used was regarding those who HAVE or ARE willingly using deception to acquire churches they KNOW do not hold the same theological views they hold, for sake of pastoring there and changing the church. I stand by that statement unequivocally.

 

You are evading the point. I tell you what...take the 1689 confession of faith.
you write down in a notebook each of the headings on top of the page, then you write what you know from the bible about each topic,offering whatever verses you know,and a paragraph or two telling what they mean...see which is more biblical and whcih statement is more biblical! Do it honestly
let us know the results......actually we see the results in some of your posts

 

Of all the ministers for Christ that are popular today, Doctor Mohler stands tall as a model Christian in my eyes. You cant bully him & he knows who his God is. After a long weary battle with 4 reformed pastors who attempted to tell me that my baby who died was hell-bound because I & his mother were not Christian (to them that meant Reformed & Covenantal), IE the child was in hell & we put him there, Both Dr Mohler & Charles Haddon Spurgeon begged to differ. CHS even called them miscreants. Both men stood as shining examples of Gods truth in a very painful time of my life

PS: Last year, one of the Presbyterian pastors came to me and admitted his error.

 

All I can say is Hear! Hear!

 

Yea, so do Jehovah's Witnesses and United Pentecostals and Jim Jones and David Koresh and the list goes on and on.

It is not enough, if one wishes to distinguish himself from the hoards of cults and heresies in this culture, to say WITH THEM- "I BELIEVE THE BIBLE!!!"

What is necessary is answering this: WHAT do you believe about the Bible? WHAT do you believe the Bible teaches?

Otherwise you are no different so far as distinctives are concerned from the United Pentecostals.

 

Almost NO Protestant movement believes that Creeds are the source of doctrines. So you really have no beef with most creedal protestants. You are as creedal as we are. So don't dis the creeds man!

And as far as everything else you said in your post, the cultist United Pentecostals would whole heartedly agree with you.

There are also Baptist cults who would say the very same thing you say here.

How do you distinguish yourself in title from them?

Are titles not important?

Do you call yourself a Christian?

Do you call yourself a Baptist?

 

How do I know that you are not a heretic?

You do realize that there are THOUSANDS of Baptist churches that are heretical in this world.

Some believe in works salvation.

Some believe Baptists are the only ones going to heaven.

Some deny the inspiration of the Scriptures.

Some deny the TRINITY.

How do I know by what titles you claim that you are not one of those?

Do you not desire to distinguish yourself?

Are you theologically conservative or theologically liberal?

Are you orthodox or heterodox?