This is Ron Phillips, Sr.'s Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Ron Phillips, Sr.'s activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Ron Phillips, Sr.
Recent Activity
Peter, You raise some good points and equally good questions. I too have never heard of a denomination, which is made up of local churches, referred to as a para church organization. It certainly has not been uttered in SBC circles. Does not a para church organization fundamentally exist as a self governing and self sustaining (albeit through gifts from others) organization? Whereas the SBC entities as a whole and in part, exist at the behest and will (via Trustees and CP) of the local churches that make up the SBC? This seems to me to underscore that the SBC is diametrically opposite of a para church organization. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Thanks Peter, I have been busy... Byron, Tim makes an excellent point. There was always someone in "power" of the denominational structure of the SBC. Previously, it was held by liberals and moderates. The CR, with the vast majority of Southern Baptists supporting it, removed them and put in place conservatives. Peter is also correct in that what you and Tom are espousing is directly from the displaced moderates and liberals. I find it interesting to read their versions of what happened. Time and again, I have had pastors tell me that they are conservative, but opposed to the politics. Yet, over the years, I have seen their churches and their doctrine drift leftward. But please tell me how the SBC was to rid itself of liberal and moderate denominational employees and leadership without the CR? I think that everyone involved would have gladly followed an alternate solution that would have returned the SBC to Biblical fidelity. But no one could. Going back to the 1960's conservative voices were silenced and ignored within the Convention. The only way to bring us back to our Biblical moorings, was to 1) Leave the SBC and start a new denomination or 2) Stay in the SBC and bring her back to Biblical beliefs and practice. Why should conservatives, who made up the vast majority of the Churches leave? We didn't. We stayed. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Tom, Please forgive my ignorance, but can you explain: 1) What was great about professors who did not believe the Scriptures? 2) What was great about preachers coming out of seminary that did not believe that Jesus is the Divine Son of God? 3) What was great about Broadman's heretical publishing? The list goes on and on. It was not about power and control, it was about the Word of God and getting rid of those who did not hold to a high view of Christ and/or His Word. No doubt there were some who took political cover in the CR (some claiming to be inerantists, yet not really holding to Biblical theology or principles) but looking to keep or gain political power. But for the vast majority of the leaders and those of us following, it was solely about being faithful to God and His Word. By the way, did you even watch the clip with Drs. Vines and Stanley? Pretty interesting historical perspective of the CR from two of the leaders. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Tom, Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, with out any doubt, the answer is YES! Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Peter, Welcome back! You have been missed. Ron P.
Toggle Commented Mar 28, 2009 on Finally Back: by Peter Lumpkins at peterlumpkins.com
1 reply
Jim, No problem. When you thought I was yelling, I went back and looked at it and can see where bold face could lead someone to think so. I was getting ready to walk out the door and did not want to code the html for tabs into the comment. Italics and bold are quick and easy to type out, and I could not remember if Typepad allows non breaking spaces in the comment box. I'm old school, I like command line and actually prefer to use vi (or the newer vim) as a text editor. Unless you use UNIX and/or Linux, you probably never heard of those editors before. So, it was laziness and hurriedness on my part. For that I apologize. Hope your day is going well, Ron P.
1 reply
Jim, Pardon me, but I never once "yelled" at Wade. If one follows "chat/blog etiquette", yelling is using ALL CAPS TO MAKE YOUR POINT. That is an example of yelling. I used italics when quoting and bold type for emphasis. I could not get the five lines near the end to format as indented text when typing in the comment box, so I used bold to delineate it from the rest of the text, but only for emphasis. But I will admit, five lines is a lot of text to place in bold text for emphasis. I can assure you I never once lost my temper, nor did I get hotter and hotter under the collar. I was engaged with the text that Wade wrote and nothing more. I do grow weary of his incessant attacks and conspiracy theories, but decidedly vigilant in confronting his attacks on fellow believers, especially when he hypocritically accuses a brother of doing what he himself does on a regular basis. Finally, I do sincerely hope he and his family prospers. Even though I will at times passionately disagree with him and especially his tactics, I hold no personal animosity towards him. I will not compromise when I think that he is wrong. He chose to make himself the public patriarch of his war on the SBC. I have no problem with standing up against his attempts to move the Convention away from her historical Biblical Baptist ecclesiology and theology. As a Baptist I fully support his right to not believe as we Southern Baptists confess in the BFM. But as a Baptist, I will fight for our Convention, her entities, and her employees to be faithful to these biblical doctrines that we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Wade, Since you addressed me as well, I will respond. Unfortunately, you are infamously known for deleting comments on your blog that disagree with you. So I guess you too show great weakness for not allowing anyone to challenge you, unless it is a challenge that you want to engage in. You have done it to me personally, as well as many others. I would be careful about throwing those rocks around glass houses. Be careful, because Webster might want to put your picture next to hypocrite for bringing such an accusation here against Peter while you recreantly remove comments that disagree with you on your own site. You have incorrectly stated that I am a part time staff member at Birchman. I am not. I love my Church and will serve her in whatever capacity that the Church wants me to serve. But Birchman has never called me as a staff member. In order for anyone to serve on staff at my church, the congregation must call and vote on the person. Since I have been a member, we as a church have called four people to serve on staff. However, as I state on my blogger profile: I currently intern at my church working with Single Adults and coordinating Baptisms and video testimonies of baptismal candidates. There is a tremendous difference between serving in an intern position that assists the church staff and actually being on staff. I have had the privilege to serve on staff at other Churches, but not here. I realize that there are some Baptist pastors that would usurp the role of the congregation by hiring a staff member without bringing it before the Church, but I assure, you Birchman would not. I was making a subtle point about your book in my statement about reviewing it. Let me be more direct. Assuming your book follows the style of your blog, I do not want to put money in the pocket of a man for writing gossip and embellishment who has consistently attacked the integrity of many godly people. Grin back at you. Finally, I am not surprised that you have linked this as a grand conspiracy to Dr. Patterson. It has become your modis operandi. I am still waiting for you to produce a picture of him with a gun on the Grassy Knoll in Dallas at the time of the Kennedy assassination. Your obsession with conspiratorial links of everything to Dr. Patterson is untenable and is beginning to reach paranoia status. Though you personally were tertiary in my reasons for originally being semi anonymous in the Baptist blog world, you have shown why many people do not want to fully identify themselves. I actually wrote about this on my blog and outlined my reasons for doing so: Who is Ron P. That decision was made almost two years ago and you have proved the insight of several people to be uncannily correct. So Wade, congratulations, you have outdone yourself today: You hypocritically call someone weak for doing what you yourself do in secret. You see conspiracies orchestrated by Dr. Patterson around every corner. You have tried to impugn my pastor and Dr. Patterson because of what I have written. And/or You have tried to impugn what I write because Bob Pearle is my pastor and he was an IMB Trustee. And the icing on the cake, Dr. Patterson is a member of my church. Aha! The missing link. You truly are irenic unbelievable. I do hope that you have a good day too. But I also hope that you will get off of this "Whale Hunt", otherwise, you will become as monomaniacal as Captain Ahab. Blessings to you and your family, Ron P.
1 reply
S. Lyons, Peter is a pretty heavy lifter in the research department. He however is not omniscient. I think Peter's position is quite fair to all concerned. All parties to the email should have been made aware of it being posted here before it was posted. Since this is Peter's blog, and not Wade's, Peter should have also been privy to such consent. The burden for that rests with the person doing the posting, which was Wade. He failed to do that or cite that it was a document that the author already placed in public view. But it appears that Wade did not even know that Ross published it. Because he ran away from Ross' blog after being graciously and civilly corrected for his misinterpretation of Ross' view of Landmarkism. Ross even mentions the posting of it here and again graciously corrects Wade's mistake. Hopefully, Wade will correct the mistake in his book before it is actually sent to print. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Peter, Just thinking out loud... I am curious as to how Wade will amend his book once it is actually in print. He will not be able to surreptitiously revise it as he does so often with his blog. :) Thanks for posting this. Bob has done a good job on his blog to show that Wade has mutilated the Ross' view of Landmarkism. I have come to a point where I almost pity him. I believe his bitterness towards the IMB and especially Dr. Patterson, has caused him to lose all sense of perspective. Actually, I can not decide if he appears to be more fatuous or fallacious. I think he has deceived himself, which truly is sad. Since I have been reading the blogs, it seems that he believes everything in history is somehow an illustration of what is wrong with the SBC. I used to think that Ben was the one who was singularly obsessed. That is why every time he gets on his soapbox, I can not help but hear the words of Captain Ahab in "Moby Dick". If I happen to review his book (but someone will have to give me a copy - I will not purchase it) I think I will title the review: "Thar She Blows". Glad you are feeling better. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Larry, Bob Ross refuted Wade on his blog about the email. Wade, yet again, takes something out of context to try and twist it for his personal agenda. Bob states: Wade, I noticed on Peter's blog that you are trying to toss around the email I sent to you a few years back, as if it has some significance in relation to your views. Actually, Wade, if you like, you can short-cut this endeavor by simply referring people to the URL where that item has been posted for at least THREE YEARS: Select Writings of Bob Ross If you can find one word in that item which suggests that the IMB policy is "Landmarkism," by all means let us know. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid Larry. Ron P.
1 reply
Joe, Great reminder about Felix Manz to Benji. January was the 587th anniversary of his martyrdom and testimony for his obedience to the Great Commission and command of the Lord Jesus Christ. I wrote a piece about it last month, and stated that some Baptists have relegated his and others martyrdom for naught. Benji even commented there questioning Who is attacking believer's baptism amongst Southern Baptists? I answered in a follow up comment. I asked it then in the article, and I will ask it again: Would today's Baptist be willing to suffer horrendous torture and die a martyrs death to faithfully uphold believers baptism and it alone? I think most would not. Would today's Baptist be willing to accept some into their church as a member, who sincerely believed their infant baptism to be biblically justified? It is not the "BI" people who are changing the definition of Baptist. Enid is leading that etymological immolation. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Wade, You stated that: "...Malcolm does not believe you can call anyone a "Great Commission Christian" who has not been baptized in a Baptist Identity church." Please provide the quote where he states anything about being baptized in a Baptist Identity church. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Peter, You are most gracious for linking to my site. Thank you my brother. Ron Phillips, Sr. aka Ron P.
1 reply
Peter, I think I hear a bunch of crickets? ;) Ron P.
1 reply
Todd and Byroniac, I think Dr. Allen in the new article that Peter just posted fully answers your questions to me, much better than I could. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Byroniac, No, I have many friends (and relatives) who are five pointers. I would define a "Crusading Calvinist" as one who seeks to move the SBC towards doctrinal conformity to Dortian Calvinism as the only orthodox Baptist position. I would add those that are leveling unsubstantiated claims of systemic SBC anti-Calvinism. It seems to me, that many hard line Calvinists can not distinguish the difference between legitimate theological discussion and dissent without believing that it is a "movement" within the SBC to rid her of Calvinists. I do not believe that I am personally being attacked just because I am not a five pointer when discussing this issue. But the same does not always hold true for some of my Calvinist friends. They see it as a personal affront to them. I suppose that it is OK for hard line Calvinists to incessantly accuse non-Calvinists and non-five-pointers of unorthodoxy, angry Arminianism, or Pelagianism. But it is not OK, for someone to question any point of Calvinism (or anything Calvin did - even when wrong). Nor is it OK to write papers, preach sermons, hold conferences and such. For any of the above is an attack on SBC Calvinists. That is the message that I keep hearing. My point about Dr. White, is only that he is not in the SBC. The repeated allegations of systemic SBC attacks on SBC Calvinists are used with regards to J316 and Dr. Allen's reference to Dr. White. How could that be an attack on SBC Calvinists, since he is not one? Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Peter, The vehement responses to the J316 conference across blogtown the past few weeks continue to cement the belief that the "Crusading Calvinists" believe that any theological discussion that does not fully and unequivocally affirm Dortian Calvinism, is an affront to Baptist orthodoxy. It is interesting to read the Crusaders comments across various blogs that actually affirm Dr. Yarnell's first point: that their history is ideologically driven rather than factual. Also, as I wondered above, I have seen some of the Crusading Calvinists attack fellow Calvinists over the J316 conference and the ensuing discussions. The wailing and lamenting that Calvinists within the SBC are widely under attack by many within the SBC, her leaders and institutions is patently false. But the cries of such false claims are only getting louder. I guess that repeating this incessantly will get people to believe it is factual. However, I would like to state that what they call attacks, are legitimate doctrinal disagreement and discussion that does not constitute a personal attack on SBC Calvinists, much less Calvinism itself. And just a reminder, James White is not a Southern Baptist, and though there are a few anti-calvinists within the SBC, they are a small minority and clearly were not supported by the speakers at the J316 conference. Though I know non-Calvinists and non-five-point Calvinists welcome all on either side of this issue in the SBC, it is clear to me that our Crusading Calvinists would have no problem at all ridding the SBC of anyone who is not a full fledged Dortian Calvinist and changing our BFM to reflect said doctrine. At least that is the impression that I have been left with the past few weeks. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Peter, Thanks my brother. I think we all can agree that there are pockets of anti-calvinism within our Convention. Where I would disagree with my Calvinist brethren, is that the antagonism and contentiousness is mostly coming from Calvinists, especially those of the Dortian dogma. I would argue that to disagree theologically on Calvinism is not an attempt to silence or remove Calvinists. I have concluded that there are many Calvinists (bloggers in particular) in our Convention who believe that disagreement constitutes derision and equate such disagreement with a desire to dis-fellowship, where no such desire has been articulated. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Peter, This whole "mess" is illustrative of the concern many Southern Baptists have with the rabidness of some Calvinists. First the attacks on the J316 conference, Dr. Hunt, Dr. Vines, and the other participants. The attacks then ensue, because Dr. Allen used the verboten word: "hyper-Calvinist". Now, Dr. Yarnell is the subject of the attacks. I would agree that there are "anti-Calvinists" in the SBC. I believe the majority of those speaking at J316 would acknowledge such and speak out against it. Specifically, I have read and/or heard Drs. Allen, Patterson, and Yarnell all state such. The difference is that Calvinists in the SBC rarely speak out against the virulent forms of Calvinism that seek to turn the SBC into a "High" Calvinist convention. Where are their voices of dissent? Dr. Yarnell here brings up three valid points, yet does not seek to be anti-Calvinist. But he is attacked for daring to question the dogma of those who state that their purpose is to turn the SBC. 1. He is correct that many of the Founders group, do seem to have an ideologically based history. History must be as Joe Friday use to say: "Just the facts ma'am". Scripture itself does not scrub the truth of history in either testament. The Dortian Calvinist's would do well to do the same. 2. Dr. Yarnell's question regarding the practice of fellowship, is valid. He states it to Scott quite correctly that if you want to be a leader of a group within the SBC, seeking to lead the change of the SBC's historical view on orthodoxy, then the practices of your local church is a valid question. It is telling that Dr. Ascol refuses to answer it. 3. Dr. Yarnell is indeed a humble servant of all our SBC churches. However, that does not make him an employee of each church. This argument is akin to you telling a Police Officer not to give you a ticket because you pay his salary. Dr. Yarnell, and any other seminary professor, must be allowed to engage in debate of theological issues. Dr. Ascol's claim regarding the similarities of the liberal professors claim of the 80's and 90's is laughable because the liberal professors were not orthodox. That is unless Dr. Ascol is arguing that one is not an orthodox Christian unless one is a full fledged, five point Dortian Calvinist. I think it is clear, that it is the fury of "high" Calvinists within the SBC, seeking to turn the Convention into a Calvinist convention that has the most contempt for those who do not hold to their dogma. My only question, is how soon will they also start going after other "Low" or "Mid" Calvinists who do not hold to the entire Dortian dogma. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
To my calvinist brethren, You are welcome in the SBC! No one that I know of wants you to leave. As Southern Baptists, we have always had calvinists and non-calvinists, and we have and can continue to, come together to cooperate for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. However, the rancor of calvinists within the SBC is troubling. The response to the J316 conference (and the participants) in general, and to Dr. Allen's paper specifically, are illustrative of such. The fury and umbrage directed towards Dr. Allen, for illustrating and using a definition of hyper-calvinism, from a well known and respected calvinist, is telling. Since the conference, and especially for the last two days of this post, not a single calvinist has actually invalidated Dr. Allen's use of Phil Johnson's definition in his Primer. A definition that would allow one to conclude that Dr. White is a hyper-calvinist. If you do not want to use the Phil Johnson's Primer, fine. If you think Phil Johnson is wrong, fine. But Allen's use was justifiable and appropriate given what Phil Johnson has written and Dr. White has spoken. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Peter, It seems that Dr. White, in his post, nor anyone here, has answered Dr. Allen's reasoning that Phil Johnson's Primer would clearly lead one to believe that White, according to Johnson's definition, is a hyper-calvinist. Allen was clearly seeking to draw upon a calvinist's (Johnson) view of hyper-calvinism to address that a "denial of God's universal saving will is a component of hyper-Calvinism". In my view, Johnson will either need to affirm his definition in his Primer, and agree with Allen or be forced to change it. I would argue that Allen has correctly interpreted Johnson's work and applied it to White. Does White deny God's universal saving will? If so, does he not then fit Johnson's definition? That question, according to what I am reading, is the basis for Allen's assertion. No where do I see a personal attack by Dr. Allen, but rather a reasoned argument against denying "God's universal saving will". Clearly, Dr. White was used to illustrate the point Allen was making, not the focus of the point. But Allen is correct, that the main point in all this has been missed because of the use of the term hyper-calvinist. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply
Peter, Thank you for posting Dr. Allen's response. Just a few points that I would like to make: 1. Dr. Allen has demonstrated how and why he came to the conclusion that Dr. White is a hyper-Calvinist. He has provided the context and quotes that assures one that he has employed sound academic principles in his research. 2. Based on the provided verbatim text of his comments, I would agree that it does appear that several have embellished Dr. Allen's position as personal attacks on Dr. White. This is where you were correct about the need for accuracy in "live blogging". For example, I seem to remember seeing several who commented about Dr. Allen "attacking" Dr. White for being a hyper-calvinist while he was out evangelizing. 3. I think the uproar is partially to blame on ignorance. Most attribute a "hyper-calvinist" as one who does not believe in evangelism. That is paltry definition. Though hyper-calvinism logically and eventually leads to a flawed view of evangelism, it does not necessarily eradicate evangelism in and of itself. I think many might have been accusing Dr. Allen of saying Dr. White does not believe in evangelism, rather than actually letting Dr. Allen use the definitions of Phil Johnson's primer. 4. I would be interested in Phil Johnson's response to Dr. White's statements that Dr. Allen used to reach his conclusion. Would he not agree that Dr. Allen correctly understands his primer to teach that "denial of God's universal saving will is a component of hyper-Calvinism"? 5. One of the most important points is missed, because of the mis-characterization of Dr. Allen's arguments. It is that it is time for our calvinist brethren in the SBC to stand up and speak out against hyper-calvinism. Blessings, Ron P.
1 reply