I would love to hear an answer to the legitimate concerns raised in this blog post — espeically from a couple of very highly esteemed (by me) SBC conservatives named therein. Is there a “second” on that anyone?
|
|
||
Hoping for an explanation3 comments to Hoping for an explanation |
 
|
|
|
Copyright © 2010 Gratia et Veritas - All Rights Reserved |
||
I’ll second that motion, AJ. It was the prominent influence of liberals like Duke McCall and the tolerance of conservatives that drove me out of the SBC in 1981. By honoring an unbeliever in that way, the conservatives are not acting consistently with the Gospel they are preaching. To some degree, they seem to be undoing what they have worked so hard to accomplish.
Thanks, Tim. And just to clarify my post, I don’t think that Mohler or Dever owe me an explanation. I have the highest regard for both of them and would love to hear an explanation that vindicates them of the charge of being soft on liberals. From the outside (at least from reading Doran’s post) the situation certainly looked inconsistent. But even if they were being inconsistent, couldn’t we simply conclude that these are men with feet of clay who sometimes err in their judgments? What do you think? I would hate to see them demonized by fundys in a way that would hurt their public testimony and minimize their legacy for being strong (rather than soft) on doctrine.
I agree with you. I highly regard these men, too, and hope this won’t turn into a major controversy. I acknowledge what the Lord has done through them in the Convention and at SBTS. Such a recovery seemed impossible thirty years ago, and I thank God that I was wrong about the SBC’s continued doctrinal decline. Though no longer in the Convention, I pray for these men and others like them that their usefulness to the kingdom of God will increase, along with, perhaps, their discernment.