Albert Mohler: "We should not be surprised that the secular world confuses sinners and sociopaths, prison and hell"

I definitely appreciated Mohler’s comments as they sum up the human condition and inadequacies of human justice.

“We should not be surprised that the secular world confuses sinners and sociopaths, prison and hell. Christians, however, must understand the differences. One need not be a monster, by human definition, to go to hell. The sinfulness of “normal” humanity is quite enough for that.”

That being said, I think we can safely reject everything Mohler says because of his comments on the Travyon Martin case. I suspect an ulterior motive in this article…perhaps some influences of the liberal media?

that Castro just thinks he’s sick.

While “sociopath” crystallizes the secular definition of what he is, what would we say scripturally? His conscience is deadened due to the extent of his sin. He is extremely self-deceived into believing what he did was somehow OK in his world. Probably a lot more!

Mohler’s article about Castro is good. He says the right words and his article is compelling. Similarly, he posted a great article about Sandusky/Paterno in 2011 and discussed church’s responsibility in handling abuse cases. But he is easily confused or in great denial or is in sin.

He says: “By definition, a sociopath is an individual who lacks a moral understanding of his or her own moral actions.”

He went on the record publicly against Sandusky/Paterno and the Penn State scandal before the case went to trial. Yet he says he couldn’t say a word about his good friend CJ Mahaney and the Sovereign Grace Ministries lawsuit which dwarfs the Penn State case in numbers of victims and perpetrators involved. Sandusky was a coach for crying out loud. He was not caring for people’s souls. The church/school leaders in the SGM case were supposed to be shepherds under the watchful care of Mahaney. Not only were children sexually violated by perpetrators (some now convicted), but some of them were allegedly violated sexually and spiritually by “shepherds” of people’s souls, leaders/teachers within SGM.

Mohler really needs to keep quiet about these kinds of things until he can hold his personal friend to the same standards he holds unbelievers. Church leaders in positions of authority should be held to a higher moral standard and Mohler has failed. He still refuses to admit it because of a court technicality. I find that shameful and lacking moral and spiritual integrity.

If you are a pastor who has never dealt with a survivor of sex abuse and spiritual abuse by a church leader, or walked with that person as they go through many years of questioning where was God when this kind of atrocity happened, and you defend Mohler, I will have a hard time reading your words. I’m so tired of people defending Mohler. Mohler talks about Castro as if he is an expert on these kinds of things. I find it appalling.

I have documentation on what I describe above here with links to prove my point.

Julie Ann, I agree with you. But unfortunately we must accept that even religious institutions have been compromised by evil people. Much in the same way that politicians can commit crimes and get away with it, or have their crimes swept under a rug, or merely get moved to another government position, so it happens in Churches or religious organizations. It’s like being part of a club. Once you reach a certain level in the organization, you are treated differently; you can get away with much, when you have peers willing to protect you.

Here is an interesting article about Mohler.

http://www.thewatchmanwakes.com/John-Macarthur-Al-Mohler-Dever-UN-chang…

[christian cerna]

Here is an interesting article about Mohler.

http://www.thewatchmanwakes.com/John-Macarthur-Al-Mohler-Dever-UN-chang…

I have some issues with Mohler, but you have to be careful about your sources. When I went to the home page of the site you linked, this was the lead article:

The Demonic Power of the Small Group

“The power of the ‘small group’ was addressed by a comrade of Maslow, Dr. Carl Rogers, as he saw that moving from traditional religion to the small fellowshipping groups would culminate in ‘God will be dead and buried.’”

Why is your pastor ushering you into a small group? In order to understand what’s happening in your church then read What is the Church Growth Movement?

This kind of kookiness is epidemic among right wing, IFB types, and they are not trustworthy sources of critique on anyone. This guy has determined that both Mohler and MacArthur are unsaved, false teachers. While I may not be in complete agreement with these men, I would hardly consider them false teachers. That kind of stuff is ridiculous.

[christian cerna]

Here is an interesting article about Mohler.

http://www.thewatchmanwakes.com/John-Macarthur-Al-Mohler-Dever-UN-chang…

Christian, this article is conspiracy theorist drivel with a heavy dose of right-wing narcissism. I hope that you do not take is as serious scholarship.

How is it drivel if it has facts that you can verify yourself?

[christian cerna]

How is it drivel if it has facts that you can verify yourself?

The following are some quotes from the “article.” The author cobbles together some random information and then makes a conclusion that isn’t even logically supported by that information. The information that he accessing occasionally touches reality, but his peculiar notions of theology have derived unwarranted applications from that information.

Since John Macarthur invites Dr. Mohler to speak at his church, most Christians would assume he’s a true Christian.

I’m guessing that he doesn’t think Mohler is a true Christian. It is ridiculous to make that claim. It is contrary to Scripture to make that claim..especially on the basis on which the author develops his conclusions.

Widely sought as a columnist and commentator, Dr. Mohler has been quoted by the N.Y. Times, The Wall St. Journal, USA Today and the Washington Post, among others. He’s appeared on many national news programs such as the “Today Show”, “Dateline NBC” and “The News Hour with Jim Leher.” Clearly, he has a close relationship with the Satanic press. Dr. Mohler also spoke at the 1998 EMNR (EVANGELICAL MINISTRIES TO NEW RELIGIONS) conference. Go here to learn about the evil of EMNR.

I don’t know about you, but this reeks of several types of crazy to me. The press is not satanic. It is human. It is secular. Mohler is castigated because of the author’s warped understanding of the media. A statement like this indicates to me that the author is playing with a less than complete deck.

Since all NGO’s must be in agreement with the UN agenda, and since that agenda includes the destruction of biblical Christianity and the creation of Satan’s one-world government with the emergence of the anti-Christ, one wouldn’t expect to find any church denominations with NGO status. But expectations can be wrong. The amazing fact is that many, if not all, of the major church denominations have been granted NGO status by the UN, and therefore, are all on board with the UN anti-Christ agenda. To give one example of this, years ago, I was urged to “trick or treat for UNICEF” (United Nations Children’s Fund) by the local United Methodist Church. The UMC serves the UN agenda as an NGO. This church/NGO encouraged “trick or treating” because it helped finance UNICEF.

See my above comments. The United Nations is not the anti-Christ. The fact that the ERLC of the SBC is an NGO of the UN is mind-numblingly unimportant. To paraphrase one of my favorite movies, “Truly, this man has a dizzying intellect.” To which he responds “I’m just getting started!” He summarizes by stating that most of the churches are actually ushering in the anti-Christ! And all of this is being accomplished by by 8 year-olds dressed up as Luke Skywalker with plastic jack-o-lanterns full of candy. Like I said…all kinds of crazy going on here.

Dr. Land wants Christians to be “radical change agents committed to the common good.” This is clearly the language of Communitarianism and the dialectic process. A change agent’s purpose is to get others to compromise their Biblically-held truths for the “common good.” Like Tom Patton, the former Guild pastor, Dr. Land also “boldly casts” this “vision.”

Just to be clear, the author of this article believes that Christians should not be agents of change for the benefit of others….James 1:27…nuff said. This is a clue to me that the author does not have an understanding at all of what a Christ-transformed life should look like as it interacts with other believers and in the world.

Now I’ll summarize some of inanities for sake of space. Dr. Land is the president of a committe on which Mohler serves. That committee has friendly relations with other ministries that may or may not be as Gospel focused as we would like, thus, Land is a reprobate. Mohler continues to serve on that committe…thus Mohler is a reprobate. MacArthur lets Mohler preach at his church…thus MacArthur is a reprobate. The author of this “article” is taking a very strong stand on 5th degree separation. What’s scary to me is that that whole connection apparently makes sense to the author…but wait, there’s more…

This very disturbing fact hasn’t prevented John Macarthur from inviting Richard Land’s close associate and subordinate, Al Mohler, into his church every year. Recall that John Todd stated that all members of the CFR believe that Lucifer is god supreme.

I don’t know who “John Todd” is…but I doubt that he is qualified to speak on the personal religious opinions of everyone in the CFR. Again, that phrase “believe that Lucifer is god supreme” sounds like the bats are a little loose in the belfry. I’m guessing John Todd is this guy (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Rock-n-Roll/john_to…). If so, I’m even less enthusiastic about his opinions.

It appears that John Macarthur has also now found common ground with Christ’s enemies.

Huh?

Those who cite Dr. Mohler’s firing of liberals at Southern Seminary as evidence that he must be a “true brother in Christ” fail to understand that in creating a “conservative renaissance at the SBC,” they have created a successful “front” organization; for a successful front organization will have a label or an appearance that is to the far extreme of what the organization really does. This is why Communist front organizations are called “People for the American Way” or “Students for a Democratic Society.” If the SBC had a “left-wing” label or appearance, then it couldn’t draw the Christian, right-wing community into globalism.

This little nugget explicitly states that the revival of the SBC is actually an intentional and organized attempt to deceive Christians into thinking the SBC is conservative. Then, the SBC will drag them down and make them…… democrats, communists, and liberals…eagerly anticpating the antichrist. I find it to be high form of blasphemy to say that God’s work in the affairs of our world is actually the work of Satan. I can only remember one time in Scripture in which Jesus addressed that willful blindness to God’s work…and Jesus wasn’t in favor of it.

At its very core, the “article’ is a string of third degree connections. The “facts” that he uses as his foundation do not prove what he’s seeking to prove…that’s why its drivel. His conclusions are for the most part non-sequiturs. For instance:

The CHBC website states that the CHBC is “A Southern Baptist church since its founding… CHBC is in friendly cooperation with the causes of the SBC.” The symbol for CHBC includes a “shield cross.” The “shield cross” is a Masonic symbol.

What is the point of his statement? That Capitol Hill Baptist Church is affiliated with the Masons? No intelligent person would accept that line of reasoning. It is possible that it is merely a completely random statement that’s not intended to prove anything.

“Dr. Dever has written a book entitled “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church.” Though I have not read this book, I have read an article written by Dr. Dever on his website entitled “How to change your church.” The first sentence of this article states, “Change is necessary.” This statement is a declared paradigm shift and basically a declaration of war against God.”

Change is not a “declaration of war against God.” Change of itself is due to the fact that we are finite beings in a fallen world. The church has been changing from the very beginning. That’s why the Jerusalem church looks different than the blended churches of 64 A.D.

So, in short, yes. This article is drivel. It is puerile, simpering, obscurantist, ignorant drivel. It is the deranged ramblings of a man who is out of touch with Scripture and its connection to the world that we live in. The author fails to logically develop his points while at the same time failing to arrive at rational conclusions.

Todd obviously read further than I did, have covered some of the material about Dever. I can say, I have read 9 Marks of a Healthy Church. I have passed it out to friends. I have taught it in Sunday school. I have (and do) fully endorse the biblical content it contains. I am sitting here looking at my copy of the book. Here are the nine marks (changes) Dever advocates churches adopt (change to): expositional preaching; biblical theology; the Gospel; biblical understanding of conversion, biblical understanding of evangelism; biblical understanding of church membership; biblical church discipline; concern for discipleship and growth; biblical church leadership. I cannot find the nefarious influence lurking there - I agree that churches all across the land would be wise to return to these core values. Anyway, not piling on you personally Christian, just passing along some added information. I think Todd has been kind to identify the article as drivel - that seems a little benign to me.

Now, going back to Julie’s point that led down this rabbit trail. I have to agree. I respect much of Dr. Mohler’s work, however, I do not understand why he is so willing to take these strong (and I believe biblical) stands in respect to worldings like Sandusky and Castro and refuse to take the same stand with a professing Christian who claims to be a leader in the church. “It is time for judgment to begin at the household of God” (1 Peter 4:17).

“Here are the nine marks (changes) Dever advocates churches adopt (change to): expositional preaching; biblical theology; the Gospel; biblical understanding of conversion, biblical understanding of evangelism; biblical understanding of church membership; biblical church discipline; concern for discipleship and growth; biblical church leadership.I cannot find the nefarious influence lurking there - I agree that churches all across the land would be wise to return to these core values.”

I’ve read some of the 9Marks writings and some of these ideas are troublesome to me. I am concerned that while the basic principles may seem to work as a guideline for good and decent shepherds, they also may give license to those pastors who are heavy-handed in authority and ruling over their congregants. We need to be wise in turning to core values in the Bible, not core values of Dever and 9Marks - just sayin’.

Julie,

I’m sure you didn’t intend to post a hit and run, but that is what you have done. Which of the 9 marks of a healthy church, as espoused by Mark Dever, do you find to be unbiblical?

I think who a person chooses to associate with does indeed affect their ability to present the Gospel. For example, if I were a minister, and I was part of a religious group of which Obama was a member, I think many Christians would see that as suspect. After all, Obama is openly in favor of homosexuality and abortion.

So how is it different if a well known minister is associated with a group that is part of the UN- which functions with a questionable agenda? It certainly isn’t a Christian agenda.

[christian cerna]

I think who a person chooses to associate with does indeed affect their ability to present the Gospel. For example, if I were a minister, and I was part of a religious group of which Obama was a member, I think many Christians would see that as suspect. After all, Obama is openly in favor of homosexuality and abortion.

So how is it different if a well known minister is associated with a group that is part of the UN- which functions with a questionable agenda? It certainly isn’t a Christian agenda.

Christian, do you actually have any idea what the ERLC is?
http://erlc.com/

The ERLC advocates for religious liberty around the world. They actively work to oppose resolutions that limit religious liberty:

http://erlc.com/article/erlc-100-plus-groups-oppose-united-nations-defa…

http://erlc.com/article/critics-blast-u.n.-panel-religious-vote/

The ERLC refuses to participate in projects that compromise their religious identity as Baptists and Evangelicals:

http://erlc.com/article/land-cut-u.s.-funding-to-uns-population-fund/

Coincidentally, the “evil” Dr. Land spearheaded that opposition and “bragged” about it on the webpage.

Furthermore, the ERLC recommended that the US refuse to ratify a UN Ruling unless an appropriate amendment was made to explicitly exclude abortions.
http://erlc.com/article/ltr-to-rubio-and-sen-re-disabilities

Similarly, the ERLC condemned the UN ruling that limited parental righted and expanded governmental rights. At that time, only the US and Somalia had refused to ratify that ruling….the ERLC was strongly advocating that the US refuse to ratify that ruling.

http://erlc.com/article/erlc-treaty-threatens-parental-rights


The ERLC is not a puppet of the UN. The author of the “article” has taken part of a truth (that the ERLC is recognized as a legitimate lobbyist/charity by the UN), and twisted it into something that it does not mean. The ERLC has consistently stood for biblical values…even in the face of opposition by the UN. The author of the “article” has manufactured lies. He is has manipulated facts to arrive at unjustified conclusions.