Minnick Reviews 2009 FBFI Fellowship
Kent, thanks for the specific examples… I see why you and Julie are concerned now.
Personally, I think you were right to address the SI post and yes, some of the language in the multiple replies and blog posts was over the top. Part of “iron sharpening iron” involves members moderating [kind of] each other through these threads.
FWIW, the moderating team here at SharperIron worked *very* hard to try and ensure a civil tone in the discussions on this website for everything pertaining to Sweatt and the ensuing mess. Sometimes I wish I could pull back the “magical curtain” and let people see the angst that goes into some of the mod/admin decisions when it comes to intervening in forum threads…it’s not easy or pretty!
Finally, I skimmed the Naselli blog today but hadn’t seen any of those comments or the original post before. I think you were right, but I am also in partial agreement w/ Jason Cornwell that the title of the children’s program was a little bit much. I wasn’t there, haven’t listened to the messages [for the kids] , so I don’t know for sure, so I’m inclined to write it off as a faux pas and let it go.
So…back to post #29 now - what is the right way to respond to publically taught error? Your turn :)
@ All - As for the discussion on Girl Scout Cookies? I LOVE their shortbread ones…even if they are overpriced. :D
Personally, I think you were right to address the SI post and yes, some of the language in the multiple replies and blog posts was over the top. Part of “iron sharpening iron” involves members moderating [kind of] each other through these threads.
FWIW, the moderating team here at SharperIron worked *very* hard to try and ensure a civil tone in the discussions on this website for everything pertaining to Sweatt and the ensuing mess. Sometimes I wish I could pull back the “magical curtain” and let people see the angst that goes into some of the mod/admin decisions when it comes to intervening in forum threads…it’s not easy or pretty!
Finally, I skimmed the Naselli blog today but hadn’t seen any of those comments or the original post before. I think you were right, but I am also in partial agreement w/ Jason Cornwell that the title of the children’s program was a little bit much. I wasn’t there, haven’t listened to the messages [for the kids] , so I don’t know for sure, so I’m inclined to write it off as a faux pas and let it go.
So…back to post #29 now - what is the right way to respond to publically taught error? Your turn :)
@ All - As for the discussion on Girl Scout Cookies? I LOVE their shortbread ones…even if they are overpriced. :D
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
When looking at numbers in the FBFI, I believe there are three (if not more) sets that need to be considered:
- the entries in the national directory
- the entries in the various regional directories
- the entries in the Frontline Magazine subscription listThe numbers in set B are larger than set A. And set C is unreliable except as cross-referenced to B and A. As for myself, I’m listed in the California Regional directory and on the subscription list. My take is Bro. Minnick is speaking about the regional numbers rather than the national.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Rob Fall] When looking at numbers in the FBFI, I believe there are three (if not more) sets that need to be considered:That could be, Rob, but the fact is that one is not a member of the FBFI unless he pays the annual dues and is included in the national directory. I agree that he could be part of the California Fund Bapt Fell group by virtue of whatever membership standards the regional group determines. In some areas where I’ve lived, all I had to do was attend the meetings & I’d show up on the list….didn’t even have to sign a doctrinal statement.
- the entries in the national directory
- the entries in the various regional directories
- the entries in the Frontline Magazine subscription listThe numbers in set B are larger than set A. And set C is unreliable except as cross-referenced to B and A. As for myself, I’m listed in the California Regional directory and on the subscription list. My take is Bro. Minnick is speaking about the regional numbers rather than the national.
Sorry for the old rock and roll reference, but Jay makes the main point when he says:
“What is the right way to respond to publically taught error?”
Pastor Sweatt has made false comments and characterizations in a public forum. He started at the the FBFI meeting and willingly chose to have them repeated on sermonaudio.com and his church’s web site. It is my understanding that his statements were not “slips” but things that he sincerely believes and has said before in public and private. We know that his “prophetic” misstatements are not original with him but IMO, Dr. Bauder and others were simply saying “enough is enough”.
This type of misrepresentation of Calvinism has created the following realities in fundamentalism:
—Seminaries that stand against the “tenants” of Calvinism
—Seminaries that teach classes warnings against the evils of Calvinism
—Periodicals that publish sermons by Spurgeon with his Calvinism edited out
—Churches that honestly accept everything that Pastor Sweatt said as the absolute truth with the result that they have a blind and unlearned prejudice against Biblical terms like election, predestination, foreknowledge and Romans 8:29-30.
—Churches that would heartily “amen” everything Pastor Sweatt said and add the following:
“God has done all He can do–the rest is up to you.”
“In salvation God does His part–you must do your part.”
“God wants to save everyone but He can’t save anyone unless they’re willing.”
and “You shouldn’t pray for God to save sinners. He’s already done all he can do.”
As fundamentalists we are concerned with truth. Thus the question stands, what do we do with publicly proclaimed error. The first generation of fundamentalists confronted it and renounced it. What will the second generation do? The third generation (the young and restless) are watching.
“What is the right way to respond to publically taught error?”
Pastor Sweatt has made false comments and characterizations in a public forum. He started at the the FBFI meeting and willingly chose to have them repeated on sermonaudio.com and his church’s web site. It is my understanding that his statements were not “slips” but things that he sincerely believes and has said before in public and private. We know that his “prophetic” misstatements are not original with him but IMO, Dr. Bauder and others were simply saying “enough is enough”.
This type of misrepresentation of Calvinism has created the following realities in fundamentalism:
—Seminaries that stand against the “tenants” of Calvinism
—Seminaries that teach classes warnings against the evils of Calvinism
—Periodicals that publish sermons by Spurgeon with his Calvinism edited out
—Churches that honestly accept everything that Pastor Sweatt said as the absolute truth with the result that they have a blind and unlearned prejudice against Biblical terms like election, predestination, foreknowledge and Romans 8:29-30.
—Churches that would heartily “amen” everything Pastor Sweatt said and add the following:
“God has done all He can do–the rest is up to you.”
“In salvation God does His part–you must do your part.”
“God wants to save everyone but He can’t save anyone unless they’re willing.”
and “You shouldn’t pray for God to save sinners. He’s already done all he can do.”
As fundamentalists we are concerned with truth. Thus the question stands, what do we do with publicly proclaimed error. The first generation of fundamentalists confronted it and renounced it. What will the second generation do? The third generation (the young and restless) are watching.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[BryanBice]As loosey goosey as the FBF is, showing up is about all it takes. From what I’ve observed over the years (35+) is the organizers of the stand alone version (Cedarholm, Weeks, Parker, et al.) wanted it a fairly loose membership. The only part that was tight knit was the executive board.[Rob Fall] When looking at numbers in the FBFI, I believe there are three (if not more) sets that need to be considered:That could be, Rob, but the fact is that one is not a member of the FBFI unless he pays the annual dues and is included in the national directory. I agree that he could be part of the California Fund Bapt Fell group by virtue of whatever membership standards the regional group determines. In some areas where I’ve lived, all I had to do was attend the meetings & I’d show up on the list….didn’t even have to sign a doctrinal statement.
- the entries in the national directory
- the entries in the various regional directories
- the entries in the Frontline Magazine subscription listThe numbers in set B are larger than set A. And set C is unreliable except as cross-referenced to B and A. As for myself, I’m listed in the California Regional directory and on the subscription list. My take is Bro. Minnick is speaking about the regional numbers rather than the national.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Ron, you are scaring me with these phrases. Don’t type anymore of them.
“God has done all He can do–the rest is up to you.”
“In salvation God does His part–you must do your part.”
The round figure of 1,000 LDS bishops in Southern Idaho alone would agree with these statements. The religion of the Intermountain West is the polar opposite to Calvinism. It has grown to be the biggest heterodox reaction in the United States of America to Calvinistic soteriology.
“God has done all He can do–the rest is up to you.”
“In salvation God does His part–you must do your part.”
The round figure of 1,000 LDS bishops in Southern Idaho alone would agree with these statements. The religion of the Intermountain West is the polar opposite to Calvinism. It has grown to be the biggest heterodox reaction in the United States of America to Calvinistic soteriology.
[Todd Wood] Ron, you are scaring me with these phrases. Don’t type anymore of them.Sorry to scare you Todd. The sad thing is that I’ve heard these very statements in IFB churches along with the “God has a vote, the Devil has a vote…now it’s up to you to vote.”
“God has done all He can do–the rest is up to you.”
“In salvation God does His part–you must do your part.”
The round figure of 1,000 LDS bishops in Southern Idaho alone would agree with these statements. The religion of the Intermountain West is the polar opposite to Calvinism. It has grown to be the biggest heterodox reaction in the United States of America to Calvinistic soteriology.
As I’ve said before, i believe that Calvinists and non-Calvinists can co-exist in fundamentalism. The anti-Calvinists concern me.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Jay C] @ All - As for the discussion on Girl Scout Cookies? I LOVE their shortbread ones…even if they are overpriced. :DTrue Fundamentalists only eat Samoas (Carmel deLites).
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[JohnBrian]True fundamentalists never eat “Graham” Crackers but they may adore “Rice” Crispies.[Jay C] @ All - As for the discussion on Girl Scout Cookies? I LOVE their shortbread ones…even if they are overpriced. :DTrue Fundamentalists only eat Samoas (Carmel deLites).
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Wouldn’t a true fundamentalist avoid the compromising, worldly associations of Girl Scout cookies entirely?
(Though I can envision some coming up with Girl Scout cookie alternatives… :D )
(Though I can envision some coming up with Girl Scout cookie alternatives… :D )
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Ron Bean][Todd Wood]What would a non-Calvinist be? A 4-point Calvinist? I don’t see how a believer in unconditional election and one in conditional election can really end up near each other in terms of ministry philosophy and evangelistic orientation. There are just different ideas of what’s going on in salvation.
As I’ve said before, i believe that Calvinists and non-Calvinists can co-exist in fundamentalism. The anti-Calvinists concern me.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Charlie,
I think a person can deny unconditional election and still preach a clear gospel of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. the reality is that whether or not one personally affirms unconditional election, they still participate in it.
I think a person can deny unconditional election and still preach a clear gospel of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. the reality is that whether or not one personally affirms unconditional election, they still participate in it.
[Larry] Charlie,I agree. But the differences in belief will lead them to quite dissimilar philosophies of ministry.
I think a person can deny unconditional election and still preach a clear gospel of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. the reality is that whether or not one personally affirms unconditional election, they still participate in it.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
It could. I would not say it inevitably will. A church like Mars Hill and a church like Willow Creek have a very different theology, and yet a very similar philosophy of ministry in many ways.
[Greg Linscott] Wouldn’t a true fundamentalist avoid the compromising, worldly associations of Girl Scout cookies entirely?
(Though I can envision some coming up with Girl Scout cookie alternatives… :D )
Uh, oh. Sounds like I just got thrown out of the club. Does that mean I have to give up my SI membership too?!?! :)
Dave Barnhart
Discussion