Comments on: SBC Debates on Tongues and Calvinism http://www.dennyburk.com/sbc-debates-on-tongues-and-calvinism/ A commentary on theology, politics, and culture Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:07:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Luke Britt http://www.dennyburk.com/sbc-debates-on-tongues-and-calvinism/#comment-10672 Luke Britt Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:44:28 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=761#comment-10672 Matt, Good response. I listened to both, but was mostly encouraged by Dr. Moore's approach to the tongues discussion. I know Pastor McKissic and have respect for his ministry, especially in his love and passion for African Americans. However, I could not believe the tone he used in the conversation. He seemed like he felt attacked by the disagreement and most probably is still aggressively upset about the SWBTS episodes. Innerrancy is not continuationism. They are two separate ideas. Sure, good interpretation must come from the basis of a valid text, but the validity of the text cannot be the proof of every interpretation. Some interpretations are invalid, but that does not negate a belief in inerrancy. Matt,

Good response.

I listened to both, but was mostly encouraged by Dr. Moore’s approach to the tongues discussion. I know Pastor McKissic and have respect for his ministry, especially in his love and passion for African Americans.

However, I could not believe the tone he used in the conversation. He seemed like he felt attacked by the disagreement and most probably is still aggressively upset about the SWBTS episodes.

Innerrancy is not continuationism. They are two separate ideas. Sure, good interpretation must come from the basis of a valid text, but the validity of the text cannot be the proof of every interpretation. Some interpretations are invalid, but that does not negate a belief in inerrancy.

]]> By: dennyrburk http://www.dennyburk.com/sbc-debates-on-tongues-and-calvinism/#comment-10667 dennyrburk Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:08:49 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=761#comment-10667 Dear Matt, That sounds like a worthy reproof. Good word. Thanks, Denny Dear Matt,

That sounds like a worthy reproof. Good word.

Thanks,
Denny

]]> By: Matt http://www.dennyburk.com/sbc-debates-on-tongues-and-calvinism/#comment-10648 Matt Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:05:04 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=761#comment-10648 In the discussion regarding Calvinism, Coppenger, says "Christian culture creates the rule of law, research and development. I mean, Muslims can blow up a car--they just can't build one." After the comment, Johnson laughs and says "that's good." When I heard this comment, my heart dropped into my stomach. It troubles me that it is acceptable for the "elect" to poke fun at those not chosen. It troubles me even more that this is acceptable for our "leaders" (theological professors and heads of Bible colleges). The irony here is steep. A discussion where all parties agree that we are totally depraved and wholly incapable of securing God's salvation of ourselves erodes into making fun of those who aren't fortunate enough to experience God's grace. Am I in the wrong, or should the revolutionizing grace of Jesus demonstrate that only by his grace are we, the elect, not a Muslim, Jew, or Animist? Shouldn't this drive us to our knees in humility instead of a state of arrogant moral elitism that allows us to jokingly classify Muslims as car bombers? In the discussion regarding Calvinism, Coppenger, says “Christian culture creates the rule of law, research and development. I mean, Muslims can blow up a car–they just can’t build one.” After the comment, Johnson laughs and says “that’s good.”

When I heard this comment, my heart dropped into my stomach. It troubles me that it is acceptable for the “elect” to poke fun at those not chosen. It troubles me even more that this is acceptable for our “leaders” (theological professors and heads of Bible colleges).

The irony here is steep. A discussion where all parties agree that we are totally depraved and wholly incapable of securing God’s salvation of ourselves erodes into making fun of those who aren’t fortunate enough to experience God’s grace.

Am I in the wrong, or should the revolutionizing grace of Jesus demonstrate that only by his grace are we, the elect, not a Muslim, Jew, or Animist? Shouldn’t this drive us to our knees in humility instead of a state of arrogant moral elitism that allows us to jokingly classify Muslims as car bombers?

]]> By: Bryan L http://www.dennyburk.com/sbc-debates-on-tongues-and-calvinism/#comment-10630 Bryan L Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:21:04 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=761#comment-10630 Barry, It seems the 2nd point you brought up, the argument of innerrancy, is the same argument that complementarians use against egalitarians. I thought it was funny to see it used that way toward cessaionist(I knew it was only a matter of time). McKissic did a lot better than I expected him to. I really like his taxation without representation comment and how he compared what's going on with racial discrimination of the past. Truthfully I thought Moore started off good but didn't finish as strong. Also some of his analogies were kind of odd or easy to see how they really didn't fit. Blessings, Bryan L Barry,

It seems the 2nd point you brought up, the argument of innerrancy, is the same argument that complementarians use against egalitarians. I thought it was funny to see it used that way toward cessaionist(I knew it was only a matter of time).

McKissic did a lot better than I expected him to. I really like his taxation without representation comment and how he compared what’s going on with racial discrimination of the past.

Truthfully I thought Moore started off good but didn’t finish as strong. Also some of his analogies were kind of odd or easy to see how they really didn’t fit.

Blessings,
Bryan L

]]> By: Barry http://www.dennyburk.com/sbc-debates-on-tongues-and-calvinism/#comment-10617 Barry Mon, 18 Jun 2007 02:52:48 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=761#comment-10617 PS - I love these kinds of discussions, but I wish all involved could stop saying "Well I just believe the Bible." BCJ PS – I love these kinds of discussions, but I wish all involved could stop saying “Well I just believe the Bible.”

BCJ

]]> By: Barry http://www.dennyburk.com/sbc-debates-on-tongues-and-calvinism/#comment-10616 Barry Mon, 18 Jun 2007 02:51:42 +0000 http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=761#comment-10616 Denny, OK, I'll start this thread. I think McK lost the debate when he argued 1) that he "just believes the Bible" and 2) when he said that if you don't believe like he does about tongues, then you don't believe in inerrancy. It was like skew lines listening to McK and RDM. Barry Denny,
OK, I’ll start this thread. I think McK lost the debate when he argued 1) that he “just believes the Bible” and 2) when he said that if you don’t believe like he does about tongues, then you don’t believe in inerrancy.

It was like skew lines listening to McK and RDM.

Barry

]]>