Moore and the ERLC

[agedman]

I'm actually a signer of the statement.

Ok, I take that as not having a problem with it.

Perhaps someone can point to something I missed or inappropriate bias swaying my opinions.

I did notice Scripture was used for support of each point.

 

[Reformed1689]

Ok, I take that as not having a problem with it.

Perhaps someone can point to something I missed or inappropriate bias swaying my opinions.

I did notice Scripture was used for support of each point.

Why do you think people are saying there is a problem with it?

 

[agedman]

Why do you think people are saying there is a problem with it?

Just what I found on line and some discussion on this thread.

 

[Ziggy]

There is nothing wrong with the statement. What is wrong is the negativism leved against the statement by almost all leaders in the SBC and ERLC, especially in their urging various seminary faculty not to sign it -- this apparently because it goes against something in relation to their view of the Social Justice and Critical Race Theory viewpoint.

I.e., has any SBC seminary president, agency head, or faculty member actually signed it? If not, that seems to say it all.

 

[Reformed1689]

There is nothing wrong with the statement. What is wrong is the negativism leved against the statement by almost all leaders in the SBC and ERLC, especially in their urging various seminary faculty not to sign it -- this apparently because it goes against something in relation to their view of the Social Justice and Critical Race Theory viewpoint.

I.e., has any SBC seminary president, agency head, or faculty member actually signed it? If not, that seems to say it all.

Actually Dr. Mohler had some very interesting things to say about why he has not signed it. He explained it at Shepherd's Conference this year and Dr. MacArthur was right there on the stage with him. It's a non-issue. Mohler flat out said that we should not take someone not signing it as the same thing as them not agreeing with what is in it.

 

[Jerome]

I.e., has any SBC seminary president, agency head, or faculty member actually signed it? If not, that seems to say it all.

Bam!
Scott Aniol of SWBTS.

I tracked down a photo of John MacArthur, Tom Ascol, Todd Friel, and Scott Aniol on the patio of 'Herbs' (coffee house in Dallas) in June 2018, snapped while they were in the midst of cooking up this anti social justice manifesto:

source



more photos, after they'd moved inside 'Herbs' to a meeting room for a strategy session:



HERBS coffee house, Dallas

 

[Ziggy]

Good... At least one SBC faculty member signed. Where are the 9? Or 99?

Last I recall there used to be many SBC faculty involved in the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood who should have signed it, since the Council likewise supported it -- but apparently no sign of them either.

Is the reason opposition to MacArthur since he initiated it and is not SBC? Or something else?

It certainly is otherwise a clear biblical statement that should have no exception taken to it, so far as I can see.

 

[agedman]

Bam!
Scott Aniol of SWBTS.

I tracked down a photo of John MacArthur, Tom Ascol, Todd Friel, and Scott Aniol on the patio of 'Herbs' (coffee house in Dallas) in June 2018, snapped while they were in the midst of cooking up this anti social justice manifesto:

source

View attachment 3309

more photos, after they'd moved inside 'Herbs' to a meeting room for a strategy session:

View attachment 3310View attachment 3311

HERBS coffee house, Dallas

I’m not certain this really has much to offer.

Are you pointing out something negative or positive concerning HERBS coffee house, the coffee, perhaps Dallas,?

Not certain what importance the photos carry.

More to the point, is there a reason you didn’t sign it that you can specifically point to or did you sign it?

 

[Reformed1689]

Is the reason opposition to MacArthur since he initiated it and is not SBC? Or something else?

Mohler said one of the reasons he did not sign it is because he didn't write it or have any input as to the wording but he also emphasized that not signing should not be taken as disagreement.

 

[Ziggy]

Did Mohler write or have any input on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? Did he not sign that? Or the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? Did he sign that?

Sounds like a politically based cop-out to me.

 

[Reformed1689]

Did Mohler write or have any input on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? Did he not sign that? Or the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? Did he sign that?

Sounds like a politically based cop-out to me.

There was more to it than that. Just listen to what he said at the Shepherd's conference. Honestly, him, and others not signing it, is blown out of proportion.

 

[agedman]

There was more to it than that. Just listen to what he said at the Shepherd's conference. Honestly, him, and others not signing it, is blown out of proportion.

I don’t think that it is blown out of proportion.

Not signing is not neutral ground.

It is stating that there is disagreement with something written.

That is why I ask for the clarification.

I do know one who didn’t because they felt the document too narrow and not well defined in what the term “social justice” meant in the document.

Personally, at this point, I’m wondering if personal bias against someone for some other reason isn’t more Influential in not signing than some problem with the document.

It is as everything political, it isn’t that something said, but who says something that is the cause for rejection or acceptance.

 

[Reformed1689]

I don’t think that it is blown out of proportion.

Not signing is not neutral ground.

It is stating that there is disagreement with something written.

That is why I ask for the clarification.

I do know one who didn’t because they felt the document too narrow and not well defined in what the term “social justice” meant in the document.

Personally, at this point, I’m wondering if personal bias against someone for some other reason isn’t more Influential in not signing than some problem with the document.

It is as everything political, it isn’t that something said, but who says something that is the cause for rejection or acceptance.

Did you listen to the full explanation or just what I wrote?

 

[agedman]

Did you listen to the full explanation or just what I wrote?

what you wrote.

can you give the link to the conference, I'll try to listen to it.

 

[Reformed1689]

what you wrote.

can you give the link to the conference, I'll try to listen to it.

Lunch Q&A Session

The question starts at about the 19 minute mark.

 

[agedman]

Lunch Q&A Session

The question starts at about the 19 minute mark.

thank you!

I'll take time latter and attend to that link.

 

[Reformed1689]

thank you!

I'll take time latter and attend to that link.

You are welcome