Featured Call for a little more honesty

Jon, I was going to comment on this last night (on the other thread), then thought better of it. Since you decided to start another thread rehashing it, I decided to point out what I think was this unusual exchange in which you responded quoting another member's post, directly wrote about "The member who made this comment..." -- then came back later and said to that member "that was not my response to you..." Seriously? How could anyone not think otherwise?

I have enjoyed discussions with you in the past, and expect to in the future, but is this thread really necessary? It was hashed enough in the other thread, and doesn't really need rehashing, does it? Why not move on? (Or maybe discuss it privately with the other member.) I would have sent this to you privately, but your settings seem to not allow it -- at least I couldn't figure out how.

 

So, did you ban The Bib? You deleted his post, for all to see. You gonna ban him? For all to see?

 

Good. I feel better!

 

I removed my post because I was told that it was against forum rules to publicly rebuke a moderator. I did not know that, and so when informed I responded appropriately as i did not want to openly violate rules.

However, you say "I am not a fan of the SBC, BTW" which you must admit is another generalization as I am sure that is not true in every case, as even I am a fan of some SBC churches where I still have friends that are sound in the faith and do a great job. However, in general the SBC is far too liberal for my doctrinal tastebud and there was a SBC wide trend during the time I was involved that promoted easy believism. Indeed, Dr. Tom Nettles, a staunch Calvinist was professor of church history when I attended and he shortly left the seminary because he disagreed with this pressure type evangelism which he viewed as infective to the whole SBC and made that clear by sphereheading a movement within to return the SBC to what he believed was a more Biblical type of evangelism. I think if you would have asked him, (who received his doctorate from South Western Theological Seminary, and also taught there as well as at Mid-America and Trinity Divinity Theological School) at the time I was in Seminary he would have agree with my analysis with regard to the SBC as a whole, that it had shifted to what he considered a wrong type of evangelism. Would you have charged him as you have charged me?? I don't think so, as unlike me, he could back up his claim, as he made the same claim just a little later upon leaving Mid-America.

I think making general negative remarks about a denomination according to personal perspective and experience is not something that should cause such reaction from moderators. It only demonstrates that its being used to score points. You treat a negative evaluation of a denomination as though it were a personal attack on every member of that denomination which I think is obvious overkill and uncalled for.

If I may convey a little bit of postive criticism it seems you look for opportunities to justify provoking others by such caustic charges. It is one thing to speak negatively about a denomination but quite another thing to personalize it. I made no such personalizations and i said nothing different than Dr. Nettles said at that time, and which motivated him to lead a whole movement within the SBC to counter what he viewed was invasive to the SBC as a whole.

 

...an old culinary technique for savory meat....so old that Esau probably knew about it... I use it so often that I've a top secret creation, 'Larry's Rub'; 2 parts salt, 1 part each blk pepper, granulated garlic, granulated onion

 

I understand Dr. Tom Nettles just recently retired from his position as Professor of Church History at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. I remember well our relationship when I was in Seminary at Mid-America. After a student told him that the department head of the publishing department (me) held to a landmark view of church history he sought me out. At that time, the Seminary was housed in a Jewish Rabbinical Temple across from Bellview Baptist Church in Memphis. This temple had been a school to train rabbi's. The offices for the professors was above in a second story that surrounded the lower story dinining area. The professors could walk out of their office and there was a balcony overlooking the eating area. One day I saw Dr. Nettles standing on the balcony looking down at me. The next thing I know he is sitting directly across my table and saying I heard you embrace the Landmark movement and immediately starting questioning me about my views of the origin of the English Particular Baptists and their connections with the church of England. Well, that started a good friendship and he challenged me to study some specific areas. At that time the University of Tennesee contained records of the Bodleian Library. I spent the next six months doing original research by painstakenly calling up countless of Anabaptists writings and then reported my findings back to Dr. Nettles. I think I substantiate my position from original sources. Dr. Nettles made no immediate response but promised to look at the source materials. Unfornately, he shortly left thereafter and we never completed our mutual study which he instigated on that particular day in the lunch room. He left and sphere headed a movement for the reasurrgence of Calvinism within the SBC and as I understand it was fairly successful.

 

It was not a view restricted to me at that time, as I said, Dr. Tom Nettles had the same view at that time and actually started a movement within the SBC for the very purpose to shift the emphasis back to what he considered a more Biblical evangelism. He would have made the very same characterization.

I think what you are saying is completely ridiculous and actually an excuse to violate the very thing you claiming to oppose. Making general negative statements about a denomination is not the same as personally attacking every church and every member within that denomination. Furthermore, I told you that I still had professors still in the SBC which I admired and so it is obvious I was not attacking every member of the SBC by simply making general negative remarks. Again, I feel you are taking advantage of a situation that is useful to attack others but under the guise of piety. Sorry, but that is what comes across to me by the very way you went about it and the overkill over something that did not need to be interpreted the way you did and there is not much of anything you can say that can change my mind.

I have nothing more to say on this subject and I am dropping it.

PS. I made these observations based on your previous post where you said you would not ban me for these kind of comments, so I take you at your word. Otherwise, I would not have made these comments at all.

 

Thanks for the PM. I see my mistake. I was trying to find a way to message to your profile page, rather than "start a conversation."

 

Then your wish has been granted as I never mentioned "churches" even one time in that article that you reacted to. The only time I ever mentioned the word "church" was in the singular and that was contextually identified as my own church. However, repeatedly throughout that short post I said "SBC...SBC....SBC....SBC.....SBC.....SBC...SBC...SBC....SBC" a total of nine times. The only other word you could use to possibly infer (and had to be inferred) I was refering to "churches" plural was the word "services" and it was to the many I had observed first hand. So, the term "churches" never occurred even once.

 

It is not against the rules to rebuke a moderator. Moderators cannot and should not feel they can post with impunity. It is not the rebuke that is against the rules; it is the spirit of the rebuke which often crosses the line.

I've been a moderator here in the past for several years. I've given and received rebuke many times.
Proverbs 27:5 Open rebuke is better than secret love. (KJV)

Paul gave us a good example:
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (KJV)

 

Do you not think what he said was accurate? SBC as a convention, it's programs, it's training, it's missionaries, all trickle into the local SBC churches. What the convention does, most member churches adopt. Easy believerism is rampant in the SBC and it's churches. I get into it all the time with my pastor about it. Our church treats the "sinners prayer" like an incantation or something.