Excellent point Peter. They should just be quiet about it. Bart's vote was his. My vote was mine. And so on.

Peter, exactly right. If I did that I should expect to be fired. Not good. Seems to me that most of what he should be doing should be based on what messengers have taken positions on, such as abortion, etc. But you're right. In this election he crossed the line and that in only one direction. To call out members who disagreed with him on a debatable issue is not good. Now he probably thinks his pronouncements about Trump were based on clear biblical teaching. But THAT is debatable at best and wrong IMO. God bless.

Peter, good article. Here's my question: given that this position does exist, from where does Moore get the "ethical positions of the Southern Baptist Convention?" I'm asking because I don't know. Does the annual convention vote and take various positions on ethical matters and these become his charge? Thanks.

Right Lydia. We agree. Isn't that nice.

"Who was convicting? The public will always discuss what is in the news. Good luck on the shaming." Who said people WERE convicting? 1) No such thing as luck and 2) who is shaming? What in the world are you accusing me of doing?

Lydia, we don't disagree. You said, "We don't get to decide what is credible to investigate." I agree. Investigate. But let's not convict in the court of public opinion simply because an allegation is made. Again, for high profile example, see Duke.

Lydia, "This thinking, found mainly in church circles, is one reason why "individual" victims rarely come forward. And because they dont, that gives time for multiple victims. The key is to investigate every accusation. Molestation and sexual perversion is rampant. Especially in church situations were perps know people are more trusting and often believe in cheap grace. Call the authorities. Pastors, elders, etc make the biggest mistake when they think they have the authority to decide what is credible and what isn't." We don't disagree. And I'm sure you agree that an accusation of this or any sort is not always automatically "guilty!" Ask the Duke boys.

Yes Peter, I think you struck the right chord on this reporting. Multiple allegations independent of each other while not proof, certainly is compelling that there's something there. And Reformed or not, those in whatever "camp" do no one any good by seeming to sweep this under the rug. Sadly this kind of thing happens. In the Reformed community. We need to call it out where it does happen. Children are more important than image.

Lydia, I cannot see anything confusing about the part of what Peter wrote that seems to confuse you. It's standard Christian theology.

Peter, I just found online a news report about this. Looks like he was charged back in November. Question: Is there anything recent? Has he admitted anything? I'm only asking, need I say not to defend Tom or any child abuser, because as we all know, anyone can make a claim. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that these could be false accusations. I'm not saying they are false. It seems likely to be true though. As I was typing this, I re-read the article. Looks like 5 different children have come forward. Anyway, have you seen anything since that Nov. 26 news?

Another sad and horrible case of ministerial failure, with devastating consequences for his victims.

"...do not possess the moral fortitude to "call out" John MacArthur for his Trump vote." Oh I think that dare not. These people "blasting away at evangelicals" couldn't carry JM's athletic supporter" were they pressed into such service. In their moral superiority, they err on the wrong side of this, IMHO.

Thanks for this article. I think it was Lydia who asked on a different post somewhere 9correct me if I'm mistaken Lydia) what's up with all these new-Cals and their issue with Christians voting for Trump. I think that was the intent of the comment/question. In any case, I have noticed on this and the other two SBC blogs I follow that thinks seem to line up mostly with Tradiitionalists types willing and planning to vote Trump and Cal's and #nevertrads rebuking anyone who even thinks about voting for Trump. I've been on the receiving of that incredulity. Well, as you all know, I'm fully Reformed and plan to vote for Trump. I know many, many Reformed brethren planning to vote for Trump. My colleague in the PCA (Reformed of course) in Florida has written well how I feel about this. A quote: "Many of these Never Trump evangelicals will patiently bear with individuals who are struggling with same-sex attraction because of their commitment to being gracious and open; they will readily give an audience to those who offer vicious rants against “the Church” on the grounds that the former have a right to “be heard.” But their Trump-supporting brethren can’t gain a fair hearing because they are heartless, greedy, ease-worshiping cultural Neanderthals who have made the Constitution the third testament and could not possibly have any understanding of the Gospel. They apparently don’t even qualify for Gospel pity—only open contempt. Who could have ever known that the unforgivable sin was supporting Donald Trump? Others have written more capably and convincingly on this subject, but it seems incontrovertible that, in a fallen world, every vote is ultimately a management of how much sin we are willing to tolerate in a given candidate. There are no sinless people running for any office, at any level, anywhere. Period. I can find nothing in Scripture that insists that my support of a candidate is a necessary endorsement of that candidate’s morality (or lack thereof). If it is, how can Paul command us in Romans 13 to honor the King—especially when the “King” Paul had in view was Nero?" The rest is worthy of a read. https://roblooper.wordpress.com/2016/11/04/trump-vs-jesus/?fb_action_ids=10211101362268836&fb_action_types=news.publishes So it looks like on this election, I agree more with you guys than those other guys. :)

Mary, sounds like you had it rough growing up in that area. I know there have been and sometimes are some bad cops. But my experience is way the majority of cops are good guys and try to do the right thing. They have dangerous and difficult jobs. My nephew in Birmingham is entering the force down there later this month. I so admire him.

Mary I live in Ballwin about 2 miles from the shooting. My daughter works with the officer's sister. Very sad days, especially with the Ballwin shooting piled onto all the other tragic events this last week. Scott, I agree that Moore et al just need to be quiet. This incessant drumbeat about #blacklivesmatter and cops are racists is making things like Dallas and maybe Ballwin happen. See my latest FB post if anyone thinks I'm a racist. It's public so you can see it.

"Les, you are a very important man in your bubble and I know that is very important to you." Maybe I was in error in my earlier statements. Maybe your self perceived ability to know people's hearts (what is important to them) exceeds even your other abilities. "So when you, in particular, tell me I misuse scripture it only tells me that I am on the right track." If that thought gives you comfort...

"Tell us Les, please, in what way did God need to be Reformed?" When you understand what I said in the fuller context ("I didn't say the systemization of RT has been around since Genesis. Read more carefully. But if RT is true, and it is, then it is evidenced beginning in Genesis 1:1"), come on back and we can talk.

Lydia, your ability to misuse and misinterpret scripture exceeds your ability to invoke Mahaney more times than Doan's has back pills. "You might want to check out some Jesus. He contradicts that pitiful translation of Hebrews from the state church mentality you crave." So few words and so many errors on your part. "You might want to check out some Jesus." Have. "He contradicts that pitiful translation of Hebrews..." Not. "...from the state church mentality..." Another swing and miss. "...you crave." And you know my heart cravings exactly how? Every word of the above two sentences is wrong. "We should never obey arrogant hypocrites with lofty man conferred titles, either... unless you are in a cult and don't know better." Agree. We should never do that. And if I run into any characters like that, which I haven't, I'll be sure to steer clear.

"Do ruling elders have higher level human shepherds to guide them?" Humanly, we have each other. Next we have two higher levels of oversight. Over all that we are under the authority of the Great Shepherd. And we will give an account for our service. "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Lydia, of course pastors (elders) should model. Should I as an elder modeling for pastors? Pastors ARE elders. But yes, we should be modeling for each other. We all as Christians should. And no it's not a lofty title for egos. It's just a biblical title. We could have chosen something like a Submit to Elder, but that seems awkward to say. The truth is in that title, just awkward. Ya know, pastors/elders/shepherds have sheep to care for. Sheep need shepherds to lead and guide them. Sheep don't dictate to their shepherds where to go and what to do. It's the other way around. :)

Johnathan, I think we are getting each other. You "Just believe that the DP view espoused in this construct still necessarily entails otherwise and there is no convincing arguments to the contrary regardless of what y'all say you believe." So you are entitled to said belief. Doesn't make you right, even if Sproul or I attempt and actually make a good argument. You won't be convinced. Way smarter men and theologians than I have debated these matters for a long time and way smarter men and theologians remain unconvinced. Good arguments have been made. But good men still remain unconvinced. This thing about what our theology entails...I have thought for a long time, 30 plus years, that the universal atonement espoused by many around these parts (perhaps you too) necessarily entails everyone in heaven or totally forgiven people in hell. Now I know these good Christian brothers and sisters don't believe those two entailments. But no one has, in my view, convincingly argued otherwise. But ok. It doesn't really appeal to me to jump all over the place trying to correct all these misguided people (misguided IMO). Their view, if followed out to these logical entailments, is heresy. But I will not use that word on them. They are not even accidental heretics. They are just wrong. It is not heresy as I understand the usage of the word. Anyway, back to my yard work.

Lydia, "A higher standard for the non ruling elders?" Why I have no idea what you mean. I am still a ruling elder. But whether a ruling elder, teaching elder, pastor (since some don't prefer elder), or a congregant. The standard is the same. So I'm confused when you said I was being my "typical" pastoral self. Do you think pastors/elders are held to a higher standard than you are?

"Debate and discussion is required to demonstrate it. I am happy to do so. You are not." Correct. Not now. I have no need to prove to you that RT is true. I'm not really concerned to see you converted to RT. You seem to be having a very fine ministry in your current position and with your views. I'm confident God is building His kingdom through your ministry. At the beginning of this discussion, I really just wondered if you were referring to DP from the positive/positive or positive/negative schema, and thus trying to refute or call heretical something Sproul doesn't espouse. You were. No biggie. Others have made the same mistake before. In fact it happens a lot from non Reformed folks. And yes, that's it. I just really don't want to debate YOU. Fear has gripped me. :)

Yes, people will indeed always believe in error, as evidenced by non Reformed people everywhere. Way the majority. I didn't say the systemization of RT has been around since Genesis. Read more carefully. But if RT is true, and it is, then it is evidenced beginning in Genesis 1:1. "Anyone who affirms compatiblism and meticulous decree collapses into it." Nice statement of your opinion. Still not proven, just as your predecessors were unable to prove their claims. I'm sure you are game. When one is focused on refuting another theological view, one is always itching for a debate. Not interested. I've got the t shirt already.