by the Contributing Editors of SBC Today
This is a list of recent blog posts which we found interesting. That we found them interesting doesn’t mean we necessarily agree with or endorse the ideas presented in the posts, but that we found them to be intriguing and thought-provoking. (They are listed in no particular order of interest). Please post your comments to discuss any article that strikes your interest. If you have recent blog posts to nominate, please send the link to sbctoday@gmail.com.
About Theology
- “Watering Down Immersion: A Response to David Mathis,” by Nathan Akin in the B21 blog, responding to Mathis’ perspective that a church should not require people to have scriptural baptism, in that including them is more important.
- “Is There a Double Standard in Calvinistic Cooperation?” by Paul Stohler in the Out of the Gray blog, arguing that Calvinists sometimes apply a double standard in theological discussions and perceptions within the SBC.
- “My Response to John Piper’s Recent Statements about God and Tornadoes,” by Roger Olson in his blog, responding to Reformed pastor John Piper’s claim that God decreed the tornadoes and targeted these specific communities and individuals for the destruction, injuries, and killings caused by the tornadoes. Also see his Further thoughts about catastrophes and God’s judgment.
About Issues in the SBC
- “Comments by ‘Lee’ Need a Response,” in the Paul’s Passing Thoughts blog, with a wife and mother recounting a very painful personal experience that helps explain why some traditional Baptists react so negatively to any compromise with the New Calvinism.
- “Getting Ready for NOLA,” by Tim Rogers in the Southern Baptist in North Carolina blog, affirming what Fred Luter’s candidacy for President of the SBC brings to convention life.
- “Red and Yellow, Black and White,” by Waylon Bailey in his blog, noting the effort to achieve greater diversity in appointments to various SBC boards and agencies.
- “The Great Commission Resurgence: Alive or Dead?” by William Thornton in the SBC Plodder blog, evaluating the impact of GCR on Cooperative Program support and the work of Baptists.
About Ministry and Worship
- “Church Planting: Exegeting Your Community,” by Matt Steen in the Church Thought blog, with ideas about how church plants (or any churches) can exegete their communities. This is a part of a larger series on church planting.
- “5 Tests to Determine If Your Church Is Truly Gospel-Centered,” by J. D. Greear in the Between the Times blog, with five marks of a gospel-centered church drawn from a recent Greear message at a conference (the audio is also available).
- “People Migration to Larger Churches,” by Thom Rainer in his blog, with statistics about the phenomenon of moving from smaller to larger churches.
- “Romans 12 Blueprint for Christ’s Church,” by Joe McKeever in his blog, noting the pattern for the New Testament church outlined in Romans 12.
- “A Critique of the Christ-less Church,” by Jesse Owens in the Helwys Society Forum blog, with a critique of churches drawn from some comments by Mary Flannery O’Connor.
About the Personal Devotional Life
- “All of Your Mind,” by Mark in his “Here I Blog,” reflecting on the command to love God with all our minds.
- “An Evangelical Looks at Saint Patrick,” by Russ Moore in the Moore to the Point blog, reflecting on the life and witness of St. Patrick.
- “Seven Ways to Destroy Your Marriage,” by Perry Noble in his blog, with a list of what he promised in the title that should be avoided in marital life.
- “Spiritual Anger,” by Brad Whitt in his blog, reflecting on spiritual anger as expressed in 1 Samuel 11:6.
- “What Are You Waiting For?” by Joe McKeever in his blog, with a passionate appeal for persons to humbly acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior.
- “Jesus Heals the Lame,” by Lynn Jones in the FBC Booneville Pastor’s blog, with encouragement that Jesus can heal old wounds and hurts.
- “Investing Time,” by Jeff Powell in the Pastor’s Thoughts blog, noting the spiritual significance of how we invest our time.
About Christians and Society
- “The Problem with ‘Modern Discipline’,” by Dan Barnes in the SBC Voices blog, commenting on appropriate discipline of children.
- “The New American Divide,” by Charles Murray in the Wall Street Journal Saturday essay, with a MUST READ article offering a comparison of two quasi-mythical towns, Belmont and Fishtown, and how they are moving further and further apart year in lifestyle and life experience. We have to grasp our communities in this way to understand how to minister in each of these settings. While you’re at it, read Murray’s “Why Economics Can’t Explain Our Cultural Divide,” which further explicates this cultural issue.
- “Nicholas Kristof Affirms ‘Kony 2012’,” by Denny Burk in his blog. If you don’t know what Kony 2012 and the Invisible Children movement is all about, you to need to read this article, talk to a college student, and be able to provide your own opinion about this issue. It’s the rage topic on college campuses.
- “The Empire of Entitlement,” by Pete Wilson in the WithoutWax.tv blog, commenting on the dangers of entitlement in American society.
Thanks for linking over to me!
Grateful for Piper speaking faithfully and biblically; aggravated with Olson for again distorting and misleading. Wonder if he even read Piper’s comments? He seems to indicate that he has not: “Apparently, he has at least implied that God sent them as judgments on particular communities and reminders of their need to repent.” He heard the journalists offer summaries and responded to their summaries, not Piper’s words.
Would also like to see Olson deal with any of the passages Piper uses to show that his claims are not his but are God’s own declarations of how God has acted in the world. He speaks demeaningly of things that are clearly biblical. That says more about Olson’s heart than Piper’s theology.
Amen Chris Roberts. That is a distortion of what Piper said.
Further,
The link to Olsen’s post says,
“…responding to Reformed pastor John Piper’s claim that God decreed the tornadoes and targeted these specific communities and individuals for the destruction, injuries, and killings caused by the tornadoes.”
Just a couple of days later, after being called out by commenters pointing out to Olsen that Piper did not say that, Olsen posted again and said,
“True, in this particular blog [the one SBC Today links to] entry Piper does not explicitly say the tornadoes were God’s judgment on those towns.”
The link here is misleading.
1. The link to Puryear’s blog does not work.
2. Mark’s blog is titled “Here I Blog” not “Here I Stand”
3. The description linking to the Olson post should be rephrased for accuracy as Olson had to eat crow regarding his own deception in the matter.
A response to the link to Paul Stohler’s post on “cooperation”:
Paul,
First, none of the organizations you listed are SBC organizations. The issue of cooperation is within the SBC, not entities outside of the SBC. To call out those organizations is beyond the bounds of this discussion.
Second, the notion that Founders Ministries or a Calvinistic church in the Boyce or Carroll tradition must have non-Calvinists in their organization or pews in order for them to be “cooperating” is not what cooperation within the SBC means. If that be the case, I ask… “Where were the Calvinist panel members at the John 3:16 conference?”
The SBC functions as a large tent that has churches whom, because of their varying theological commitments, should never mingle at the local fellowship level. This is all good and well and part and parcel of what the SBC is. We are not one big church, but many churches committed to giving resources for the proclamation of the Gospel. Cooperation within the SBC does not mean having a mixed bag of non-Calvinists, Arminians, and Calvinists on the same pew, but having Calvinist, Arminian, and non-Calvinist churches giving toward a common goal.
Recently, some churches have refused to give Cooperative Program money to SEBTS and SBTS because of the issue of Calvinism. That kind of action is the very definition of “non-cooperation” and the “do things my way” mentality that will split the SBC.
I know that William Birch’s blog is down. A serious matter apparently. His links need to be removed.
I thought Piper did sound a whole lot like Pat Robertson, when he made the statements he did about the tornadoes that wiped out towns, killing people. Piper said that the tornadoes were the fingers of God. And, it really sounded like Piper was saying that God wanted the tornadoes to hit these towns…killing these people…that it was what God wanted to happen.
I think Piper was very wrong to say these things like He did. His view of the sovereignty of God really sounds like a fatalistic view to me.
So, would Piper say that a woman, who was raped, was raped because God wanted that to happen to her? Would Piper say that a child, who was run over by a drunk driver, say that it happened, because God wanted that to happen?
David
David,
I’ll raise your Piper with a Steve Gaines who said:
Source: Misusing Scripture to Scare Christians: Gaines Suggests Non-Tithers Could Be Killed by God Just as Ananias and Sapphira.
Besides, Piper can’t be said to be fatalistic if he is also claiming God is acting directly.
That is a huge “ouch.” Piper isn’t even SB. Dr. Gaines is pastor of Bellevue BC! Maybe the criticisms were around when he said these things, but I didn’t see them.
I agree with what Steve Gaines said. Steve said that God did that to Ananias and Saphira…and we do know that from the Bible….we’re told that. And, he said “What if God were to do that today…” What if….
Piper said that God did kill the people in those towns with a tornado. Piper said that it was the finger of God, and it was the will of God.
Huge difference.
BTW, Pat Robertson also said that it was God, who killed a bunch of people with hurricanes and several, other natural disasters. That it was the judgment of God on those people. How could Pat know this? And, how could Piper know about the tornadoes?
Of course, Pat Robertson thinks that God tells him things. But, Piper said what he did, because it fits with his fatalistic view of the sovereignty of God.
David
And again, if you hold to Piper’s view about God’s sovereignty, and everything happening is the will of God, and what God chose to do; would you not have to say that a woman being raped was the will of God? Would you not have to say that a family of 4 being killed by a drunk driver was the will of God? that God wanted this to be, and that’s why it happened?
I still believe Piper is wrong….very wrong.
Now, of course, anything and everything that happens is either caused by God, or allowed by God. God is sovereign, and He is all powerful. God could choose to stop a man from raping a woman. God could choose to stop the drunk from hitting the innocent family. But, sometimes God doesnt choose to intervene. Sometimes, God allows things to happen. But, that doesnt mean that He causes it to happen.
So, God sometimes allows people to do the sinful things they do, which causes bad things to happen. But, to say that God wanted a volcano to erupt and kill families, is not accurate. To say that God wanted Saddam Hussein and his thugs to rape a woman right in front of her husband, and then murder the husband right in front of the crying wife, who’d just been raped; would not be accurate. It would not be the way to see these things.
That would make God the originator of sin.
And, Piper has absolutely no way of knowing whether God caused the tornadoes to wipe out towns and kill people, or not; just as Pat Robertson has no way of knowing if those hurricanes and tsunami’s were God’s judgment on the people, who suffered thru these things.
Of course, we all heard many, many people condemn Robertson for being a wacko and a nut for making his statements. And, a lot of the condemnation came from the Reformed crowd, and rightfully so. But, Piper gets a pass, since he’s the darling of the Reformed bunch.
David
David,
I’d like to call your attention to another of Piper’s controversial quotes…in the aftermath of 9/11. Here is a portion and tell me where you disagree with him:
Notice in particular this:
“Oh, yes, Satan is real and active and involved in this world of woe! In fact Job 2:7 says, “Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.” Satan struck him. But Job did not get comfort from looking at secondary causes. He got comfort from looking at the ultimate cause.”
Do you acknowledge ultimate and secondary causes?
And to Dr. Gaines, do’t miss that he said, “God killed him.” And, BTW he misinterprets and misapplies the passage. They didn’t die because they refused to tithe. They died for lying to God about their proceeds.
Dr. Gaines said, “Every time a Christian refuses to tithe, they’re just like Ananias and Sapphira.”
No, every time a Christian lies to God they’re just like these two.
Les
So, Les, I’m taking it that you believe that a woman, who is raped, is done so because God wanted it to happen? Because God willed it?
Also, Steve Gaines said that they were lying to God and stealing…but you’re right, it was more about the lying than it was about what Ananias and Saphira gave, which caused God to kill them.
BTW, Les, I’m not saying that God never has killed anyone. I’m not saying that God wont kill someone. Of course, God has killed people. He killed the Egyptian army in the Red Sea. And, God will most certainly kill people at the battle of Armageddon. The blood will be as high as a horses bridle.
But, Piper cannot know that God wanted to kill the people in the towns, which the tornadoes struck. The Bible does not teach us such a thing. And, we should not blame God for the bad things that happen. We should blame sin, and what sin has done to our world. We should blame the sinful choices of man, when that’s the case. But, we should not blame God for the bad things that happen.
David
David,
First, let us be reminded of what else Piper said in his piece on the tornadoes.
“We are not God’s counselors. Nor can we fathom all his judgments. That was the lesson of Job. Let us beware, therefore, of reading the hand of providence with too much certainty or specificity. God is always doing a thousand things when he does anything. And we see but a fraction.”
So, when you say, “But, Piper cannot know that God wanted to kill the people in the towns, which the tornadoes struck,” Piper agrees with you that he “canot KNOW.”
Second, I reject your premise when you ask, “So, Les, I’m taking it that you believe that a woman, who is raped, is done so because God wanted it to happen?”
Saying God wants or desires something to happen is not the same thing as saying hat He decreed the thing. I’m using “want” or “desire” in a pathos sense.”
Because God has decreed all things doesn’t mean He “wants” or “desires” all things that happen in a fallen world (Matt. 23:37-39). He does not take pleasure in the kinds of things you describe.
So my contention is that everything that happens is consistent with His decreeing all things. If there is a random or stray molecule (or person, or car driver) that is outside His sovereign rulership and ordination, then He is not God.
And, God has purposes in all things whatsoever come to pass.
Look at what God says in Habakkuk when He asks God why He is not doing somethng to stop the violence?
” “Look among the nations, and see;
wonder and be astounded.
For I am doing a work in your days
that you would not believe if told.
For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans,
that bitter and hasty nation,
who march through the breadth of the earth,
to seize dwellings not their own.”
(Habakkuk 1:5-6 ESV)
These were some pretty bad things happening to God’s people.
Habakkuk’s response?
” Are you not from everlasting,
O LORD my God, my Holy One?
We shall not die.
O LORD, you have ordained them as a judgment,
and you, O Rock, have established them for reproof.”
(Habakkuk 1:12 ESV)
God raised the Chaldeans up as instruments of judgment on His own people!
Mark,
Did you notice the transitional statement …”If God treated us …like he treated them.” I think his people got the point without the abuse that you are accusing him of.
Ron,
I disagree. Gaines did not state what Scripture teaches. Gaines’ premise before he makes the conditional statement that you point out is, “Every time a Christian refuses to tithe, they’re just like Ananias and Sapphira. They’re lying to God and they’re stealing from God.”
When a Christian lies about their giving they are like Ananias and Sapphira. A Christian is not like them simply because they refuse to tithe because Ananias and Sapphira did not wholly refuse to “tithe” but they did give of their money.
Mark,
David made a great point with Piper’s tornado and the finger of God. You switched the subject because you know he was right. Then you slander an Elder by trying to make him look like an unfit spiritual abuser.
Ron,
If I might cut in on this dance for a moment.
First, I have tried to answer David on his comments. But second, it seems to me wholly inappropriate to even bring up Ananias and Sapphira in the sermon on tithing. At a minimum, I see this as a scare tactic because the context is not about tithing at all. And the implication is clear–tithe or else…maybe…is in the minds of the hearers.
Just my $0.02 on this part of the discussion.
I really don’t think it is helpful for “SBC Today” to link to Roger Olson’s website given that he is an active member of a CBF church (which incidentally, was the first Baptist Church in Texas to call a female pastor).
Ron,
I didn’t switch subjects, but pointed to an example of poor teaching/improper use of Scripture. I did not avoid David’s question because I knew he was right. Funny though, when I pointed out the error in David’s fatalism charge all he can do is change the subject to an emotion plea to what God did or didn’t do in the case of a hypothetical rape. There is much that could be said using David’s own rhetorical approach (i.e. foreknowledge, omnipotence, etc.), but I chose not to go there because interacting with him at times is like running down a black hole.
As to your charge of slandering an elder, show me where I did that? If you cannot then your accusation of me is just as bad. I agree with Les who pointed out that Gaines use of Ananias and Sapphira was,”At a minimum, I see this as a scare tactic because the context is not about tithing at all.”
If Gaines is incorrectly using the incident of Ananias and Sapphira as a scare tactic to get people to tithe then he is spiritually abusing those he was speaking to. I have already pointed out the context of Ananias and Sapphira which was not, as Gaines implied, that they withheld the tithe, but that they lied.
There is my case against Gaines in simple form. Please explain how that is not spiritual abuse to use such tactics?
Mark,
I’m just wondering why you seem to always resort to mean spiritedness and name calling and ridicule when you discuss things? I’ve seen you get very nasty and ugly often, and I just wonder why?
I really did not appreciate the whole black hole comment, where you were implying that I cant be reasoned with? because I’m too stupid? Is that what you were implying with that comment?
David
I don’t see where Mark resorted “to mean spiritedness and name calling and ridicule when [he] discuss[es] things.
I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but let me answer you regarding his black hole comment. You usually don’t answer questions directly – especially when it seems the answers to the questions point out something you don’t want to be seen. Instead, you ask more questions – usually in the form of ‘what if’ scenarios. This type of evading can been seen as a ‘black hole’ of sorts when it comes to have a reasonable discussion.
Jason, as Dave Hester from Storage Wars would say, “Yeeeep!”
Thanks.
Piper did say that the tornadoes were the fingers of God. He did say that they did what God wanted them to do.
I dont agree with that. I think he’s wrong. I think he’s being fatalistic. I think he’s ascribing to God some very bad things that God shouldnt be blamed for.
God is sovereign. But, He does not cause every natural disaster. He does not necessarily cause people to get cancer, or heart disease, etc… Of course, He allows these things to be, and to happen….but, He does not necessarily cause them, as Piper is saying. And, as Pat Robertson also said.
Sin has caused everything that’s bad to be in our world. Sin. And, this does not diminish the sovereignty and the power of God in any way. Not at all.
David
Les,
As you read in my comments above, I’m not saying that God wont come down on people in judgment. I’m not saying that God wouldnt kill people. He has, and He will. Of course, God killed people in the OT, and He will kill a whole army of people in the future, as we see in the Book of Revelation. God will also cast people into Hell, one day, at the Day of Judgment. And, God can do whatever He wants to do….He is God.
That’s not the point.
Piper was saying that those specific tornadoes did what they did, because God wanted them to do the damage they did. He was saying that God wanted this to happen to those people.
David
Mark,
Pastor Gaines was not a part of any of the comments or the top blogs … you pulled his name out of thin air and said:
“I’ll raise your Piper with a Steve Gaines who said:
As soon as Ananias heard these words, he fell on the floor dead. God killed him….Every time a Christian refuses to tithe, they’re just like Ananias and Sapphira. They’re lying to God and they’re stealing from God. If God treated us this morning in this room like He treated them in that day, how many people would be wrapped up in blankets and taken out the back door [dead]. Think about it. Think about it.”
You used this watchdog blog to support your claim.
You slander a Pastor for stirring up fear by using this N.T. example of hypocritical giving. You must have forgotten that the Word says in Acts 5:5 “…And great fear seized all who heard what happened.” And again in v.11 “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.”
Are you saying that God didn’t know there would be … great fear?
Pastor Gaines was preaching a message that God gave him to preach to his flock, not yours and not you. Why don’t you allow the Father to be his judge?
John Piper has said of Ananias and Sapphira, “…faking faith in the presence of God is a fearful thing.” He is correct. I don’t know the entire context of Pastor Gaines message, but a non-tithing Christian (who claims to be a born-again Bible believer) is also faking faith every Sunday that they do not trust God enough to do what the scripture asks them to do.
Mark … why don’t you just admit you were wrong so you can sleep better tonight.
Ron,
I think you missed the point.
What Gaines did was misuse the scripture to make ‘tithing’ the reason why the people died. It is called fear mongering to extract money out of the ignorant and enslaved.
with that I am…
prchrbill
Ron,
Using your New Testament please teach me where the Apostles or The Lord Jesus Christ taught this:
“…but a non-tithing Christian (who claims to be a born-again Bible believer) is also faking faith every Sunday that they do not trust God enough to do what the scripture asks them to do. ”
with that I am …
prchrbill
Ron,
I will sleep just fine, but thanks for passing judgement on me in that manner.
It seems that one of us has a reading comprehension problem. I dealt with exactly what Gaines said and he equivocated. All you have to do is show me that he did not equivocate by applying the example of Ananias and Sapphira to that of one who does not tithe at all.
Yes, I brought up Gaines in the post partially in jest to show that it should not just be Calvinists who say things that one might disagree with, but on this blog Calvinists are the favorite whipping boy. That said, I will break down for you further how I understand that Gaines is misusing Scripture.
Agreed, but why did this happen?
The problem is that Ananias and Sapphira did not refuse to tithe. Scripture states [emphasis added], “But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet.(Acts 5:1-2 ESV)”
Then, “And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.”(Acts 5:8 ESV)” She agreed to lie with her husband about the amount, but they did tithe.
Yes, they lied and because of the lie they stole. However, had they just told the truth about the amount and the amount that they were pledging to give they would not have been stealing.
This claim takes us back to Gaines’ premise that, “Every time a Christian refuses to tithe, they’re just like Ananias and Sapphira.” However, as I’ve already shown this is not the case since Ananias and Sapphira did tithe. Gaines is using a scare tactic about death and not tithing which the passage in question does not support.
I agree with verse 5 and 11 about fear coming over the whole church and all who heard about these events. The question which has just been answered above is why the fear came over everyone and it was because God killed them for lying and not for merely not tithing.
I hope that helps!
Mark,
Because you pulled Pastor Gaines out of thin air (he wasn’t mentioned in the top blogs or comments) and brought him into this conversation (with the vicious watchdog blog) … you are the problem not your supposed correct interpretation of the text.
You used a well known and well respected pastor ….to prove your point. You used him. And you abused him in public. What has he ever done to your personally?
Criticizing Piper is fair game but we’re not allowed to compare Piper’s comments to the public comments of another pastor?
Chris,
I have to agree with you. Piper is also a well known and respected pastor and that didn’t stop the criticisms here toward him.
Well, for one thing, just one, small part of this message by Steve Gaines is what’s shown. We’re not really seeing it in the context. But, from my reading it, Steve says that everytime a Christian refuses to tithe, then they are being LIKE Ananias and Saphira. Steve said that they are LYING to God and stealing from God. He did say that they were like the killed couple, who LIED to God about money.
I’m not saying that I agree 100% with what Steve said here, but let’s at least represent him right….and understand that there was more to this sermon than just one little snippet that someone pulled out to try to make Steve look bad.
On the other hand, we can read exactly what Piper said, in its entirety. But, he’s the darlin’ of the Reformed crowd, so he gets a pass…..while poor, ole Pat Robertson gets hanged in effigy by this same crowd, for saying something very, very similar.
And then, we see people come in here, and try to use all kinds of debate techniques to try to get the conversation away from Piper, and aim it towards someone like Steve Gaines.
Anyway, this is my last word on this….I’ve got other things to do….I stand by what I’ve said.
David
David, I suppose we just have to agree that we disagree on this one.
I will say this, though. You keep referring to John Piper as the “darlin’ of the Reformed crowd.” Well surely Reformed folks appreciate Piper and his ministry. But I have seen more than a few times other Reformed folks disagree with Piper on things.
Have a great day.
based on most of these comments, y’all should probably go outside more often.
How do I click like?!?
I just don’t get involved in these conversations, because I have little to no interest in attacking/defending men–especially brothers. I can just rarely bring myself to be so obsessed with a man that I will attack him or defend him from attack at great length (notable exceptions, of course, should the situation arise). I’m far more interested in ideas.
Such as the idea of voicing your criticism of those who voice criticism? Irony strikes everywhere. :)
Hi Chris, I’m afraid you have misunderstood, as your comment is a non-sequitur from mine! It doesn’t follow from my statement that I think *all* criticism is wrong, or even most of it. What follows is that I’m more into criticizing ideas than people, especially brothers. It would be a mistake for one to infer that a criticism of the idea of attacking brothers is itself an attack on a brother.
Of course it is.
No it isn’t.
lol ;)
David,
So your god is not in control of Tornadoes? Is he, therefore, not in control of the sea either when it behaves contrary to your design too?
Curiously interested in your god,
Anthony Clay
p.s. this is not mean spirited, just trying to understand your god.
Can we cut the whole “your god” thjing? It’s rude, condescending, and implies the person with whom you disagree worships a false god; in which case he is not your brother, but one on his way to an eternal Hell. Hardly charitable, people.
Anthony,
While you and I may agree on the issues surrounding the sovereignty of God, I agree with Randy. That is not the best way to have a constructive discussion.