Very reliable sources indicate that NONE of the six SBC seminaries will hire an Arminian. Those not holding to eternal security have reportedly been denied employment by the narrow, exclusivist, fundamentalist, arrogant, unintelligent, Landmark, lice-infested, inbred, dog-hating, Satan-worshipping, Nixon-loving cretins now in control of the SBC (all of whom I love so much that I'd like to have them come perform my daughter's wedding someday).
53 comments:
Bart,
You wrote:
Those not holding to eternal security have reportedly been denied employment by the narrow, exclusivist, fundamentalist, arrogant, unintelligent, Landmark, lice-infested, inbred, dog-hating, Satan-worshipping, Nixon-loving cretins now in control of the SBC.
Bart, where I learned math, to get just 4 out of 12 correct is a flunking grade.
You get an F on the description of SBC leadership.
Had you simply said, "Narrow think about the IMB policies that exceed the BFM 2000), Exclusivist (think disfellowship and the removal from service and ministry of those who disagree such as our missionaries and now churches), Fundamentalist (granted, this term is relative, but when independent, separatist Fundamental Baptist churches now JOIN the SBC because the SBC now reflects their core values, then there is reason to argue we are moving into Fundamentalism), and Landmark (can't be any denial here when your President has sat on the board of an avowed Landmarkist school and the former IMB Chairman tells me, "I am Landmarker and proud of it").
So, in my description, I bat a thousand percent - 4 for 4.
I always liked A's better than F's.
:)
So, with the proper description of current SBC leadership, the more important question would be:
Has one of our seminaries determined that there will never be room on faculty for anyone who holds to classic five point Calvinism?
I hope not - and so it seems do others.
Blessings,
Wade
Wade,
Thanks for stopping by. One of the great things about the Internet is the forum that it provides for opposites to interact—for liberals and conservatives to come together for productive dialogue.
Now, what time was that faculty meeting about which you wrote earlier in the week? Which Calvinist professor in the philosophy department was questioned harshly about his Calvinism?
Bart,
You seem to be misquoting my post. I actually said " Paige Patterson met with professors in the theology school at SWBTS."
Allow me, if you will, to post one of my comments from earlier today in response to a sincere question about whether or not I had been "misinformed." I wrote . . .
"Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, with current administrative leadership, was attempting to remove avowed Calvinist who believe in Particular Redemption. It was being done quietly, and not everyone was involved in the process, but it was being done.
Most of the conversations were small, and they consisted of Dr. Patterson and professors. On a couple of occasions there were a handful of faculty in the room and other administrators, and it was never "one" meeting, but several meetings. There was never any offical "faculty" meeting, and not everyone knew of the intentions to make Southwestern the anti-Southern by removing Calvinists, but it was happening.
I not only know my sources, I trust them. They are not passing on second hand information, it is first hand. SWBTS leaders wanted to remove their "Calvinists" - period.
What is so surprising to me is the outrage over this attempt. I have never called Dr. Patterson corrupt. I have never said he was deceitful. I have never questioned his character.
Frankly. I admire the man. He is a Landmark, independent Fundamentalist Baptist of the ana-Baptist persuasion who has affiliated himself over the years with the Southern Baptist Convention. The problem with his mentality is that he thinks everyone should be like him, and he removes those who don't think like him.
It has happened to the charismatics (i.e. private prayer language). It has happened to the women (i.e. Dr. Klouda and others), and it is now happening to the "Calvinists."
All the man is doing is being consistent with the core of his being.
I admire that.
But he shouldn't be calling the shots, nor people like him, in the SBC. They will destroy the cooperative nature of our Convention.
Being attacked for speaking the truth comes with the territory. I can handle it, and I'm not offended. I just keep plugging away."
Hope that helps! And, of course, I will not give you any names because if I receive the treatment I have received for telling the truth, I don't expect the people involved would continue being employeed for long.
Blessings,
Wade
I am out for the day for ministry and golf. I will be unable to respond to any further questions.
Blessings to all,
Wade
This post was hilarious.
The comments, however, changed the tone of things quickly.
behold, the joys of SBC blogs' comment sections.
What is this? A press conference?
No more questions please.
Wade, after I left the Sacred Harp singing at Cowden Hall at SWBTS on Saturday (the 31st), I intended to do some researching in the A. Webb Roberts Library. Unfortunately, I found that it was closed.
When you get through ministering and golfing perhaps you could check and see if there was some conspiracy to keep a semi-Landmark, semi-hardshell Baptist from researching the subject of foot washing. Or maybe they were using that building to axe the Calvinists. Just let me know. Thanks.
I'm sorry. Saying this seems to get everyone mad at me. But this junk needs to stop.
I think we can do better than this!
Better than accusations from anonymous sources and better than bitter name-calling.
Wow, Bart! This info needs to get out there to all the Arminians, semi-Pelagians, and Pelagians that exist in the SBC and stop this madness!
:)
David
David and Bart:
Which ones of these are y'all:"the narrow, exclusivist, fundamentalist, arrogant, unintelligent, Landmark, lice-infested, inbred, dog-hating, Satan-worshipping, Nixon-loving cretins."
Dave,
First, this is a spoof. Laugh.
Secondly, all name-calling is not necessarily bitter.
Thirdly, all name-calling is not necessarily morally unjustified. There very well could be truthful names.
With that, I am...
Peter
Peter:
Why is your Blog closed?
Tom,
Because it's Peter's blog, and he wants it closed.
Next question.
David
Peter,
Even if a name is justified, I question whether it is productive. It does not build up believers or advance the kingdom.
I know, I'm sounding like a broken record.
Volfan:
I believe my question was addressed to Peter. My next question is would you please mind your own business?
If I have a question of you I will ask you, otherwise but out!!
Tom Parker,
Just wondering when you did not respond to what you would do if there was no Wade Burleson.
Would you seek another idol to fawn over and do tricks for?
Or would you just get out that old Velvet Elvis, hang it over the fireplace and light up another candle?
Brother CB,
Now, I will draw swords over Velvet Elvis. Lay off of that stuff Elvis has left the building.
Blessings,
Tim
:>)
Tim,
In NC there are conservatives (You and others) and liberals (Tom and others) but you all seem to love Elvis equally. Why is that?
:-)
cb
Wade,
What do you call misleading someone? Are you insinuating that Bart did not read your original post correctly? Or are you trying to change your story? Your original post (prior to you going back and editing it) said:
Yesterday Dr. Paige Patterson met with professors in the theology school at SWBTS and said that the seminary would be letting go the five point Calvinist professors from the seminary, claiming that the lack of funds and the need to reduce faculty as the rationale for the impending releases. Odd, however, was the chosen method of reduction.
It was not years of service, nor even the performance of the professors, but rather, administration sought to ascertain just who on the faculty were avowed “tulip” men, and those are the ones being let go. Some of the professors present at the meeting included men who specifically informed administration of their beliefs at the time of their hiring, and they were told at the time their beliefs were not a problem
You play the saint, bro. But this is not right. Welty nailed you on your wrong information (which sounds like it came from a student and not someone who was interviewed). But instead of owning up to the wrong information you quoted, in essence the rumor or gossip, you simply went back and changed your post.
If you would like to see what you originally wrote, it is here: http://apprising.org/2009/02/are-calvinists-to-be-let-go-at-southwestern-baptist-theological-seminary/
Bart,
Your definition of an Arminian is of the 'strictest' sense. (The SBC seminaries are full of Arminian professors that believe in eternal security!) ;)
How many SBC seminary professors believe in "Decisional Regeneration"?
How many professors believe that: "God has done all He can do!!!! Now the rest is up to you?"
chadwick
Notice the bully Volfann is. If anyone challenges him he goes quietly in the night or others have to answer for him. One word--pitiful.
You WB haters ought to get a life.
And I will ask, Peter why did you close your blog. Please fellas, let Peter answer.
Mr. Anonymous,
Why fear signing your name? Your question is a good one, and you deserve an answer.
When I originally posted about the conversations at SWBTS between Paige Patterson and some professors, a handful of whom felt that Patterson's soteriological ideology was causing him to move toward imminently releasing only professors who were classical five point Calvinists, I wrote to protect jobs.
But I also desired to write the truth accurately. Since there were multiple meetings that occurred during the week in question, most one on one, with just a couple having several professors present (but by no means was evey faculty involved), any wording that implied there was just one meeting needed to change. The word "yesterday," though true, implied that there was only one meeting where Patterson sought to learn the specific soteriology of his professors and inform them that classical five-point Calvinists were in danger of losing their jobs. There were multiple meetings, so the word "yesterday" was removed to not to imply there was just one meeting.
And, you are correct. There is a difference between "said" and "implied." I felt if I used the word said that I needed to be specific with what was said, how it was said, etc . . . Implied does not require such specifics. My sources told me specifically what was asked ("What church are you attending at present?" "How many points of Calvinism do you believe?") but to give the precise sentence on what was stated as the reasons for such questions from the President, I did not wish to be as specific.
Not anymore. I will now only use the word "said" and not "implied" because I know specifically how Dr. Patterson states his ideological reasons for purging Calvinists from SWBTS. I heard it with my own ears. He said, "Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins."
This, of course, would cause any classical Calvinist theologian a terrible dilemma. As Dr. Tom Nettles has eloquently pointed out in his book By His Grace and for His Glory Southern Baptists have disagreed over this fine point of the atonement since our inception as a Conventin (i.e. "Did Christ die for every human person, even those who are in hell?" or "Did Christ die only for the elect?")
I am not advocating one position over the other. More importantly, I am not even challenging Dr. Patterson's character or leadership. As I stated above, I admire Patterson's ability to be consistent with his core convictions.
I am simply observing that the Southern Baptist Convention is built on the principle of cooperating with people who hold to different interpretations of finer points of doctrine, like the extent of the atonement, and challenging our leaders not to purge people who disagree with them.
So, Mr. Anonymous, there is your answer. I continue to stand by the truth of my posts. There is an ideological purge taking place in our Convention by those who hold to a set of doctrinal values that far exceed the BFM 2000, and these ideological leaders wish to rid from service and ministry all those who do not agree with them.
Like missionaries who pray in private in glossalalia.
Like women, trained at our own seminaries, from teaching Hebrew and history to men.
Like people who aren't able to trace their baptism to the hands of duly commissioned "baptist" church that believes in eternal security (i.e. Landmarkism)
Like Calvinists.
Blessings to you all,
Wade Burleson
To the SBC Today Group:
Why close your blogs down and go strangely silent? Lots of people are waiting for a response and the longer we wait the lest credible your response will appear.
Confession is good for the soul.
Unlike most of you, I was "privileged" to sit in on many of the scret meetings of the CR during the beginning and early years--and most of the time, with Paige Patterson. If you knew the truth you would be moritifed at those whom you champion. His oppulent lifestyle at Southwestern is just the tip of the iceberg.
Hopefully someone will someday write a book and tell the truth about what went on behind closed doors. It would be a best seller.
By the way, the personal attacks and sniping on here is sad indeed. We expect more from you.
Mr. Burleson,
My name is Katie. I am an IMB missionary. Since you are here, explaining your actions, please explain this:
From Grace and Truth to You, October 23, 2007
“Disagreement is not a Sign of Corrupt Character”
1st Comment:
Wade,
On behalf of the over 5,000 International Mission Board missionaries who serve around the world, please let me express our gratitude for you.
We feel your support. We hear your passion. We love your courage…
pacrim church planter
Later in the comment stream:
To Comment #1 (Pacrim church planter):
Please do not assume that you speak for all IMB missionaries. There is at least one (myself) who disagrees with you.
I have read this blog for over a year and am frequently dismayed at the way the IMB BoT is portrayed. I have written to Wade about this, but my concerns have fallen on deaf ears…
-Eastern Europe M
24 October, 2007 05:42
The very next comment in the thread:
Anonymous Eastern Europe M,
I live near you. I know you. You definitely do not speak for even those of us fellow missionaries in your region. I can guarantee you that you in the 1% or less range of IMB missionaries. I would encourage you to listen to your husband and your regional coworkers and not a couple of your friends back in the states. (See, I know what I'm talking about.)
Anonymous M
24 October, 2007 09:45
Immediately following this comment, Wade Burleson posted this comment:
I think the battle of anonymous M's is a little silly myself.
My secretary files and catologues letters and emails from missionaries around the world. I have a minor in business statistics. I have two letters from missionaries who have identified themselves to me that are critical of me (while very respectful)and one thousand eight hundred and forty two (and counting) letters or emails from missionaries who have identified themselves to me and are very supportive of the IMB and myself. I respect the words of every missionary who writes to me, including the anonymous missionary from Eastern Europe. The second anonymous missionary from Eastern Europe below sent me the comment in an email - knowing that I would not allow it to stand without verification. I appreciate his thoughtfulness. I personally not a fan of anonymous comments, particular since I have redhanded caught 'flamers' lying about their identity. However, I give allowances for missionaries because of security.
If you notice the comments in this string, the missionaries who have personally identified themselves have either retired or gone into the pastorate.
24 October, 2007 09:54
I am the IMB missionary serving in Eastern Europe who posted the second comment above. As soon as I read the anonymous comment following mine, my suspicions were raised. I’m not sure how it is in your world, but IMB missionaries do not talk to each other that way. When you have sold or given away almost all of your worldly belongings, uprooted your family and moved to what most of your friends would call the ghetto; when you’ve gone through culture shock and had all your pride stripped away from you; and you realize that everyone of your colleagues has done the same, you don’t talk that way to one another.
When I emailed you, Mr. Burleson, questioning this post from the anonymous missionary who responded to my comment, you said,
“Absolutely I will ask this missionary to contact you personally. I already have. He says that you are arrogant and should know better than to send out anonymous commentary from the field. However, he may be lying as well about who he is. I don't know either of you personally.”
But, in your comment on the blog you said, “The second anonymous missionary from Eastern Europe below sent me the comment in an email - knowing that I would not allow it to stand without verification. I appreciate his thoughtfulness.”
Soon after this both comments were mysteriously deleted.
Mr. Burleson, what do you have to say about this? It appears that you either
1. lied to your readers in saying you had communicated with and verified the identity of the anonymous missionary in the thread who claimed to know me, or
2. you lied to me when you told me that you could not be sure of the identity of my anonymous colleague.
Which one is it?
Tom,
I was at a high school basketball game last night, and I was spending time with my family. I dont live on my computer.
David
David:
That comes as a suprise to me. I thought you lived on your computer fighting the evils of the SBC. What is your take on why the Blogs were shut down by your friends? There is a strange silence out their in the blog world--including yours.
Bart,
The deceit continues from Wade Burleson (for purposes of this post, "Slick"). He feels the need to justify his private changing of his post but only after someone publicly points out the change.
Slick alleges it's only "more accurate" to the "truthfulness" of his intent. He fails to mention, however, that it also relieves him of the main tension from Greg Welty's specific confrontation:
"There was no group meeting of faculty yesterday, in which we were all told we were fired, for our Calvinism or otherwise. That is a lie...You talk about "professors present at the meeting". There was no such meeting yesterday. Or the day before. Or the day before...And what is this claim that, at this alleged group meeting of faculty yesterday... and again, there was no meeting yesterday..." Greg Welty (Tue Feb 03, 04:15:00 AM 2009, bold added).
On four occasions Dr. Welty insisted there was no meeting "yesterday." For him as well as others, that constituted a significant part of the deception Slick gave--a specific meeting (with Dr. Patterson) on a specific day (Monday) for a specific purpose (fire the Calvinists--"tulip men").
Slick wants us now to think he changed it for accuracy's purpose. Interesting suggestion.
A great concession to Dr. Welty at the time (since Welty obviously had "yesterday" on his mind) would have been to say, "Dr. Welty. You are correct. 'Yesterday' is too specific. I should have said over many days instead. Yet my larger point stands..." Slick did not.
Nor did he later correct "Phil" in a comment about "yesterday."
"Phil" wrote in response to Dr. Welty: "If...Patterson backs down from what he told certain faculty members yesterday... (Phil, Tue Feb 03, 06:04:00 PM 2009, bold added).
According to the timestamp (if you want to see them, better look quickly!), Welty posted his response approximately 6 hours before Wade's comment back to him (Tue Feb 03, 04:15:00 AM 2009 & Tue Feb 03, 10:29:00 AM 2009, respectively).
"Phil" posted his "Patterson-told-certain-faculty-yesterday" 7+ hours after Slick's response to Dr. Welty.
Bear with me...
Slick's next noteworthy comment was a response to CB: "CB, There is no retraction forthcoming, nor should there be. As always, I stand by every word I have written.... (Tue Feb 03, 07:21:00 PM 2009, bold added).
Less than an hour and a half after "Phil's" post, Slick says he stood by " every word I have written".
If Slick stood by his words--every word--why would he change? And, why especially change the words significantly enough to bleed out much of the core of Dr. Welty's initial point? This is the tomfoolery slight-of-hand that is going on in this sorry debacle.
Note further, that Slick attempts to answer why he changed "said that" to "implied."
Actually, Slick changed even more than has been noted thus far. Note below the ORIGINAL and compare it to the exposed DOCTORED version (words changed are CAPS and words deleted are blanks):
ORIGINAL VERSION
"YESTERDAY Dr. Paige Patterson met with professors in the theology school at SWBTS and SAID THAT the seminary would be letting go the FIVE POINT Calvinist professors from the seminary, claiming that the lack of funds and the need to reduce faculty as the rationale for the impending releases."
DOCTORED VERSION
"______________Dr. Paige Patterson met with professors in the theology school at SWBTS and IMPLIED _____ the seminary would be letting go the _____ _____ Calvinist professors from the seminary, claiming that the lack of funds and the need to reduce faculty as the rationale for the impending releases."
Obviously, Slick forgot that not only timestamps matter, but so do comments.
In addition, I googled at least 8 blogs who has the ORIGINAL VERSION of Slick's post, another reason he should have made his change public. Those guys made commentary on the ORIGINAL VERSION, not the DOCTORED VERSION. That is incredibly unfair to them.
One final point about Slick's flung dung.
On one site, E. Calvin Beisner made this comment I thought was very interesting and I think a point not made thus far.
Professor Beisner wrote:
"I just asked a friend on the SWBTS board, and he checked with the appropriate administration members. He was told that there was no faculty meeting on Monday (Dr. Patterson was out of town), and no Calvinists were released whatsoever" (E. Calvin Beisner, on February 5th, 2009 at 1:19 am Said" emphasis mine).
Note not just the commentary was based on the ORIGINAL VERSION about "yesterday" but also that the information given was that Dr. Patterson was not even in town on Monday--the Monday of which is Slick's strangely missing "yesterday."
Now, I don't know if the info is right about Dr. Patterson being out of town "yesterday." However, Professor Beisner needs to be corrected if he was not in town "yesterday."
On the other hand, if Dr. Beisner's info is valid, we now have an alternate theory why Slick would drop the "yesterday."
After all, it would have been extremely difficult for Dr. Patterson to say that (ORIGINAL VERSION) or imply (DOCTORED VERSION) anything of real note to the faculty at an alleged meeting he could not attend.
Desperate circumstances cause the best of men to attempt to cover their tracks. Slick had so many tracks to cover, covering only some inevitably meant others would be found.
The truth shall set you free!
With that, I am...
Peter
W,
You said:
"Unlike most of you, I was "privileged" to sit in on many of the scret meetings of the CR during the beginning and early years--and most of the time, with Paige Patterson. If you knew the truth you would be moritifed at those whom you champion."
I am sure I was in far more of those meetings than were you. I also use my real name. Now unless you are the former president of the United States (he was never in one meeting) I greatly question the truthfulness of what you say.
These guys are not making an effort to champion every person who ever met back in those days.
It is a fact that some of us said some things that mortified a lot of people. I was chastised more than once by some of the very people whom these guys are defending. And for good reason.
Back in the CR days Patterson and Pressler were always gracious. Judge Pressler cautioned me more than once to be courteous in trustee meetings. So did Dr. Rogers, Ed Young, Bobby Welch and Jodie Chapman.
I really wish people would be truthful about the past. Better yet, I wish they would not claim to know what they do not.
See, W, their caution has helped my disposition in these latter days. Not once in this comment did I call you a bare-faced liar. As I said; "I greatly question the truthfulness of what you say."
Therefore, please respond to my courteous comment with a proper revision of your own.
cb
CB, that was amazingly courteous. You going soft, dude?
Wade,
Thank you for your response. And, please, why am I anonymous? For the exact same reason your source is anonymous.
I am sorry, but your response, though noteworthy, is unacceptable given the way you and yours treated Dr. Welty. His comment was entirely truthful, and it is proven by your change. Moreover, you insinuated above (to Bart) that you originally wrote accurate information.
Calvin said, "Hypocrisy is so stupid that while it flees from the disgrace of the world, it is careless about the judgment of God." Let us, you and me, not be careless.
Dave,
I have a head cold. Plus, the rearing of female children in my old age may be making me a sissy. Especially since I have been reading Pollyanna, by Eleanor H. Parker to them at night and other little girl books.
I am so glad Pollyanna got the use of her legs back.
cb
Peter,
This reminds me of Dan Rather's "source" about George W. Bush's National Guard service and the fake documents produced. Rather continued to to insist that the story was true, even though the facts were falsified.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Sorry for the double post, but I find it sad to read Wade's continual insistence that he never "intentionally" lies. Especially since he has been confronted before on it. For example he, um... intentionally made two statements that can not be reconciled with each other.
On March 30, 2008, in the comment stream on his own blog Wade wrote regarding the Baptist Faith and Message 2000:
I have chosen to remain Southern Baptist - and that is why I accept the confessional prohibitions even though I voted against the proposal 8 years ago. (emphasis mine).
Just two days later on April 1, 2008, in the main article that he posted, Wade writes: Nevertheless, when it came time to vote for the 2000 BFM I voted for its adoption, believing that the prohibition statement was really not that big of a deal. (emphasis mine).
Tim Rogers pointed this out on his blog and I noted then that:
Wade has now been directly caught telling a mis-truth. Either he did or did not vote for the BFM2K - one of his statements is false . This is troubling because he has made a practice of making insinuations and outright accusations against others regarding lying on several occasions. Though he does not give such grace to others, normally, I might grant that maybe he remembered incorrectly, or mistyped - but the context of what he wrote, clearly shows that it was not a typo in either case. Therefore, one of his statements is completely and utterly false. You know what they say about those who live in glass houses… (emphasis original).
Both statements by Wade were vehement in his defense of both voting for and against the BFM2000. I get the impression that he is willing to say anything to make his point.
The dichotomous quotes can be found here:
Wade Voted Against BFM2000
Wade Voted For BFM2000
NOTE: As of Feb 7, 2009, 3:20 PM, the above links have not been excised or altered.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Ron,
Exactly,my brother. Nor miss Katie's devastating contribution above.
Slick has much too many paint-overs untouched to hide all the cracks. He simply cannot keep up.
Yet, his faithful readership community simply will not accept such literary flaws.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
Tom,
You want to know the reason?
Read Titus 3:10-11
David
Peter,
If I remember correctly (and I do) you were to come to Birmingham in January to buy me coffee.
Well, here it is February and I am still UN-coffeed.
cb
Volfan:
You said to me:
"Tom,
You want to know the reason?
Read Titus 3:10-11"
David
You always use the Bible in a way that benefits YOU. How sad!!!!!!!!
I believe you guys got egg on your face and are not men enough to admit it. And you are a pastor???
Please keep in mind that God sees all that we do.
CB,
My deepest apologies. You are in every way correct. I will get with you soon. Promise.
With that, I am...
Peter
David,
It is absolutely futile arguing with those who fundamentally agree with Slick. For them, he cannot not be right in all he says and actions he takes against SBC leaders.
At least, that's the impression I sense so many of them leave with the level of comments they make in defense of him.
With that, I am...
Peter
Peter:
Why did you shut down your blog?
Tom,
Peter gave this explanation as the last comment on his previous blog post:
All,
I am through. I have no interest in continuing to morally argue the sky is blue.
And to those who think I'm quitting on this one after I "denigrated" and "slandered" a man's "integrity," my encouragement to you is to keep right on thinking exactly as you wish. When pointing out a person's immoral action becomes classed as sub-Christian, by so many in the Christian community itself, it's time to go do something else.
To many of my readers here, thank you for your kind words. You did not have to say them. That you did means much to me. I am humbled by them. I am especially encouraged by Katie's comment, an M on the field. May our Lord grace your ministry further still!
To other regular readers who actually attempted to defend untruths, I am embarrassed for you.
And, finally, to those praying for me. Thank you. I very much need your prayers.
With that, I am...
Peter
P.S. Shop is closed until further notice...
Tom,
I feel sorry for you. But, just keep drinking the kool aid.
Peter,
You're right.
David
Tom Parker,
Did you actually say this?
"David
You always use the Bible in a way that benefits YOU. How sad!!!!!!!!
I believe you guys got egg on your face and are not men enough to admit it. And you are a pastor???"
Tom, is it possible you are related to Pancho and Lefty Rica?
Did you once take part in the effort of stealing a prize bull from the farm of a county sheriff at the exact same time he was throwing a B-B-Q at his place and most all federal, state, county and municipal law enforcement within a hundred miles were on his place?
Did you once help Pancho and Lefty rig a rooster fight by feeding the roosters what you thought were uppers to help them fight better?
Only later you found out what you thought were uppers to be C-4 BBs used to blow locks?
And when the roosters were pitted and began to fight they blew up and feathers and chicken entrails covered about 75 rooster fighters, gamblers and assorted low-lifes and they chased you, Pancho, and Lefty all the way to the Canadian Border?
Was that you, Tom? Are you the long lost cousin I have heard so much about from Villa Rica over High-test coffee in the Local Cafe owned by Merle in Blogtown?
WOW, the world is such a small place.
cb
This is not productive.
Louis
Does anyone else sometimes get the idea that CB lives in his own little world.
Pancho and Villa Rica?
I am going to google that, sir. If it doesn't come up somewhere, I am going to expect a fuller explanation of that story.
Sorry, Pancho and lefty Rico
Dave,
Be very, very careful when dealing with the Rica brothers. They tried to come after me one time. But, my dawgs and my ole shotgun and my kinfolk scared them away. I have lots of kin from the hills who look after me.
David
My google research tells me it might be based on a country song, which explains why I do not have any idea what is going on.
Dave's Doctrine:
Those who know Christ go to heaven when they die.
Those who do not are forced to listen to country music for eternity!
Louis,
What is not productive about finding out about those who live among us here in Blogtown?
If Tom is not related to the Rica brothers, well we will still love him. If it is true that he is their cousin; it becomes easier to understand him.
Vol,
Now that you mention it I recall your run in with the Rica brothers. That was back in 2007 if I am not mistaken?
Do you think maybe that is why Tom gets so exhausted with you sometimes?
He may still hold a grudge about you and your kin giving his cousins such a thrashing when they came to creep your house.
cb
Ladies and Gentlemen (on both sides),
I have not enjoyed reading various SBC-related blogs this past week. I hope and pray that many of you feel the same way. We should not enjoy attacks on individuals, whether we feel like those people deserve it or not.
The blogosphere is a wonderful place to discuss issues if we can maintain civility. We can learn from each other during civil debates on substantive issues. I think that sometimes we believe that if we embarrass someone on the other side, our side wins. Even if we succeed in embarrassing someone, however, the idea that we oppose is not necessarily defeated. The issues with which we are concerned on SBC-related blogs should be related to the exegesis of Scripture. When we leave exegesis behind, we enter an arena that is not our strength. We should exegete Scriptural issues, not other Christians. I am not innocent in this regard; I’ve made my share of mistakes. If we reach the point where we can no longer have a civil discussion with those people with whom we disagree, then we are indeed to be pitied.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound... selahV
Post a Comment