« Home | Genocide or Jackson: An Idiotic Media » | London: A Tale of Two Days » | Cruise in for a Bruisin' » | SBC Observations » | Revenge of the Emergent » | Holiness -- The Exception to the Rule of Hell » | The Holy Spirit and the Exclusivity of the Gospel » | Holiness and Authenticity » | Holiness II -- Bishop Spong and The OT » | Tony Jones and Emergent » 

Tuesday, August 09, 2005 

Bruce Prescott: A Lesson In Irresponsible Blogging

After a long absence I am finally back. Sorry to all my regular readers. My wife and I are in transition these days as she will be starting school and I will be starting a new job. Please pray for us that God provides and helps us through this time.

Until my recent absence from the blogging scene I was reading somewhere around 30 blogs a day and keeping up with at least 20 others sporadically. I think that the blogosphere offers a great opportunity for people to connect and interact with others and to ingest large amounts of diverse information. However, it is also a dangerous place where many false prophets and charlatans lie in wait to deceive and to mislead. Unfortunately, the next set of civil lawsuits will probably be against bloggers. Many newspapers around the country are either prohibiting or policing their reporters' and columnists' blogsites. And as I have found there are a number of blogs that have popped up that exist solely for the purpose of pushing an agenda, whether truthfully or not.

One blogger that I have been cautiously reading for sometime now is Dr. Bruce Prescott. His blog can be accessed at http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com. This is a guy who definitely has an agenda. He is director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. As a former Southern Baptist, he is now very active with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a moderate to liberal separatist group that in recent years severed itself from the SBC due to theological differences (though there are many churches who consider themselves to be dually-aligned with both the SBC and CBF). Politically he is far to the left, supporting everything from abortion and embryonic stem cell research to gay marriage. He calls himself a "mainstream" or "traditionalist" Baptist and maintains that inerrancy is foolish as well as many other historic Baptist positions such as the belief in the absolute sovereignty of God and the rejection of evolution as a realistic understanding of the Biblical texts. And it is this last position that is the reason for my post today.

You see, Bruce and I have clashed many times over many issues ranging from the economy to Dr. Albert Mohler's position on voluntary childlessness of married couples. And in the past there have been times when he has deleted my comments charging that I have personally attacked him, all the while allowing himself to misrepresent the positions of others like Dr. Mohler and Dr. Russell Moore, both of Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY (where I currently reside). But it was during this recent "discussion" on Intelligent Design Theory, a viable alternative to evolution that I felt I should call attention to his behavior.

Now, first before I go into this, let me offer a short polemic for why I am writing about this man. After all we are supposed to be brothers in Christ and we should not judge our fellow believers, right? Well, not necessarily. You see the Bible teaches in various places that we are to correct and reprove our neighbors at times when it is appropriate. Jesus spends quite a while teaching on what to do when our brother sins against us in Matthew 18. Paul mentions discipline in regards to the church in several places and seems to indicate that reproof is not only Scriptural, but essential to the Body of Christ. Thus I feel that because I have been silenced by this man repeatedly for trying to show his own error to him that I should point this out in the midst of many witnesses and let the record speak for itself. If I am wrong, then let me know. I welcome your comments and ask that you pray that this matter would bring about glory for God. I invite Bruce to come and defend himself and his action on this blog and I promise to not delete any comment he makes as long as he does not use profanity (a courtesy that he has not provided to me).

Now, what exactly is going on here. Well, this is the first article that I commented on that Bruce published on his weblog concerning Intelligent Design. In it he links other articles that seem to indicate that he believes ID is non-scientific and only has to do with the legal debate concerning teaching creationism in schools. Here is my un-edited response:
Bruce,Not suprisingly, after reading all of your articles on Intellegent Design I am completely floored by your lack of serious discussion on the subject. You treat it flippantly as if evolution is a not a theory, but a law. Just in case you didn't know, it's not. It is only one means of explaining the universe. The other means is that an intellegent being created it. Those are the only two theories that make sense. Hence, both should be given air time in our schools. I found one statement you made quite interesting. You said, "The easiest way to discover this [that ID is just trying to teach creationism] is to ask the proponents of "Intelligent Design" to explain how their "theory" can be tested to prove its veracity or falsity and how the theory expands our understanding of nature." I find your "test" interesting since evolutionists cannot test evolutionary theory. What Darwin discovered was adaptation, but not macro-evolution. No scientist has ever caused or observed a change in the structure of DNA such that would bring about the evolution of a monkey into a man. Nothing even close has been observed or repeated. Hence, your test is not comprehensive because even evolutionists cannot do such a thing. That is why it is still called a "theory" -- because it is not repeatable like say the Law of Gravity. Thus ID taking evolutionary arguments and showing serious flaws is a legitimate concern. It is science to show such propositions to students such as the theory of Irreducable Complexity set forth by Michael Behe a respected and leading ID scholar. So in essence you has silenced free speech by denying the right that the Scopes Monkey Trial provided, which was to legally allow both sides to be taught in the public schools. Creationism or not, there are serious flaws in evolution that students have the right to know about.
I went on to post the link to Stephen Meyer's response to a similar question that Bruce had regarding a "test". It can be accessed here. I felt it more than adequately answered his objection. Still he continued to show his lack of understanding of ID by suggesting it had nothing to do with science, despite the fact that I pointed him to Michael Behe's book. He did not and still does not indicate he has read anything by any proponent of ID. What followed next was what I would consider irresponsible. After we wrangled a bit about what exactly ID was and how it did or did not have anything to do with science, I posted the quote that I felt best answered Bruce's objection, but he deleted it and then said this: "You're [sic] posts have become the equivalent of electronic graffitti [sic]. I'm removing them from now on. Troll on someone else's blog."

To me this is irresponsible blogging. First, Bruce suggests to his readers (who by the way may not know anything about ID -- which he is fully aware of), that ID has nothing to do with scientific research. Then, when it is pointed out to him that ID scholars are indeed scientists and do take on evolution from a scientific perspective, he continues to belligerently maintain his erroneous position. When he is shown his objection has been answered, he doesn't try to interact with it, but simply denies it is there. Then when I post the answer, he removes it. Absolutely irresponsible!

And if that is where the story ends, that would be enough for me to prove he that he was irresponsible with his handling of this topic. But, he continued to post on the subject. Here is another post he wrote just days following. Basically, he found someone to agree with him and thus felt that was enough to prove his point. Only problem is that the guy who wrote the article is just as uniformed as Bruce is about ID. He's not even a scientist, but rather a news editor. At least get some credible source to support you. Here's an article by another blogger regarding Eric Baerren's rather poorly researched commentary on ID. When I commented regarding this post, Bruce once again went back to his same ole' tired argument, even stating rather ignorantly that "exceedingly few scientists ascribe any credibility to ID theory." This is a completely false statement and when I challenged him on this and basically said he still had not proven that ID had nothing to do with science, he deleted my comment and offered this interjection: "Discussions with you are ended. Your arrogance is insufferable." Arrogance! Now that is quite a charge. Here I am trying to set the record straight and Brucey charges me with arrogance. I told him in no uncertain terms how unprofessional that was.

You see, as bloggers we have a responsibility to tell the truth and to admit when we are wrong. We are a part of the media as well. Though we might not get paid and we may not have the credentials or the degrees, we must be careful to teach our readers and inform them on the issues. We cannot settle for strawmen arguments and deleting comments we don't like because someone disagrees with us. We must debate our critics and stop speaking when we are ignorant of the real facts at hand. I know I am not perfect in this regard, but we must strive for perfection. Propaganda and censorship just will not do in this media reformation. Hopefully soon I will publish more on Intelligent Design and let people know the real story behind its scientific foundation and Evolution's glaring flaws.

Daniel,
I too ran across Prescott's blog via Howie, and was also unimpressed...especially with his claim to be "mainstream."

I would challenge anyone who thinks that ID is unscientific to read William Dembski. The real problem for skeptics is that it is too scientific. Dembski's theory of information transmission is shattering to randomness. Interesting artcile in this week's Time mag as well. The blurb on how the eye could have evolved is a masterpiece in misleading the public.

I have been reading Prescott's site for some time and I really appreciated your posts there. It is evident that you have the information and Bruce has the bias. He seems to always run away from answering questions and when cornered, starts deleting posts and leaving any readers to come to erroneous conclusions. He will imply that accusations and posts were hateful or something that the reader can not judge, because the post was deleted. You did a good job of defining issues for him and I enjoyed reading your responses.

DR--

After perusing Prescott's blog, I can't help but come away with the impression that he is an unhappy, bitter old man. Dialogue with such people is generally unproductive and always frustrating. You have a lot more patience than do I and I commend you for attempting to interact with him. Perhaps I'm being ungenerous here (no, let me correct that: I am being ungenerous here), but based on his professed beliefs and convictions, I do ot consider him to be a brother at all. And yet the Bible tells us, "As far as is possible, live in peace with all." Living at peace with this person may just require ignoring his antics. I think of Proverbs 9.7-8: "He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. Do not reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you, Reprove a wise man, and he will love you."

D.R.

Welcome back. Your blogs are eye-opening.

Marty,
yeah, the "mainstream" position is crap. He is pretty far left of center at best. I don't tend to bring up Dembski because he is so smart and people can't generally get him. I get irreducible complexity, but his math stuff is too much for me. I will have to check out the TIME article

Anonymous, Sorry I didn't want to talk about it before (if you are BUBBA), but know I have had enough and think I should call him out. Thanks for the observations.

Kelly, you are right to an extent, but this man considers himself a Christian and I think that requires us to exercise some discipline since his words do affect how others view Southern Baptists and Christians in general. I think we have a reponsiblity because he is a public figure. As Don Elbourne said about his blog (http://elbourne.org/archives/2005/08/04/johnny-hunt-election-and-mathew-18/ ) on Johnny Hunt's tirade against election, a public figure speaking a public message in a public arena deserves a public response. And I think that is Biblical. But thanks for the insights and keep posting. I will give you a call today or tomorrow.

Josh Goza,
Welcome Brother! I heard you just got the BCM position in MO. Is that right? Tell your wife I said hey. Hope things are well with your bad self. Maybe I will get to see you at John's wedding. Keep checking in.

In that case, more power to you, D.R. With his deleting comments, etc., it just sounds like he wants his blog to be more a fanclub than a debate forum. I guess someone has to debunk the junk...I'm just glad it doesn't have to be me. It's sad that it is even possible (and it is) that one can have friendlier, more productive exchanges with non-believers than with some "brothers" in Christ.

By the bye, have you read Milton's _Shattering the Myths of Darwinism_? He debunks its central claims and many peripheral ones from a non-theistic (or at least an apparently non-theistic) framework, and certainly from a non-"fundamentalist" one.

Thanks for your post. I have experiences similar dealings in the blog world. There was a man who maid a very rude comment and I confronted him on it and he did similar things that it seems you've experienced. He even went so far as to start labeling me with words that are so far from describing who I am.

I'm glad you're back. I enjoy reading your blog. Hope you have a great day!!!

I'm a little veklempt... talks amongst yourselves... I'll give you a topic: The Mainstream Baptist is neither mainstream nor a Bpatist - discuss.

Hi, thanks for linking to my column.

A couple of things -- evolutionary biologists admit that evolution is indeed a theory, but they're no longer debating whether it's happening. Instead, what they're debating is how it works. You can point out all the flaws in it you'd like. Biologists don't see this as a reason for quivering lips. Instead, they see it as job security, since when they have all the answers, the research grants will all dry up.

As for Intelligent Design -- seen the Wedge Document? The Discovery Institute has it on its Web site somewhere. Despite the four or five pages of disclaimer to the contrary, it pretty clearly says that they want to align science with Christian philosophy. It has no scientific foundation. If you check out Michael Behe's comments in this week's Time Magazine, he says himself that he assumes the creator is God. So, their claim that Intelligent Design has no Christian foundation is pure, unadulterated crap.

As for irreducable complexity ... to say that the complex can't assemble itself either leads you to one single Creator (God), or to a paradox -- only the complex could create complexity, but what created the complex creator?

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Some quotations from Mr. Baerren's article: "Intelligent Design pushed by anti-science extremists...warmed-over creationism...Intelligent Design can't be tested in the lab, so it's not even a hypothesis...If the president really thinks Intelligent Design is science, however, he's a buffoon...." My favorite aspects of this instance of responsible reporting are its obvious neutrality, its lack of bias, and its respectful tone.

For those who wish a second opinion as to the merits of Darwinian uniformitarianism, I highly recommend, again, the Milton book. Grab it here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892818840/qid=1123769013/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_sbs_1/103-1307488-0158261?v=glance&s=books&n=507846. On the other side of the fence, check out a rather vitriolic review of Milton's book here: http://www.2think.org/darwinism.shtml. The Milton book is certainly not without some problems, but it's certainly worth a read.

A final quotation from Baerren's recent post above: "...evolutionary biologists admit that evolution is indeed a theory, but they're no longer debating whether it's happening." Are we to infer that they no longer debate "whether it's happening" (presently) because it patently is NOT happening in anything resembling the way that evolutionists claim it must have in the past? If such is the case, kudos to the evolutionary biologists. I rather suppose such is not what Baerren had in mind, but his choice of words is interesting to say the least.

It appears that Baerren assumes the evolutionary biologists have already proven that evolution IS happening (the present tense was his choice of expression), and now all that remains is to answer how it actually works.

The former claim is so far from being self-evident and so under-represented in the current literature that it's difficult to guess from whence exactly Baerren's proof that evolution is happening right now might come.

And I suppose the research grants will never dry up if they are dependent upon discovering and documenting the mechanism by which the evolutionary process that isn't happening right now might be getting the job done.

Or maybe Baerren really meant that the debate about the fact of present-day evolution has stopped because for some yet-to-be-discovered reason, it really has. In which case, the evolutionary biologists have a much bigger issue on their hands: Why on earth has evolution rather recently stopped?

Eric,

Thanks for your contribution. Let me try to respond to some of your comments.

1) Evolutionary theory not only needs to be confirmed by biologists, but by paleontologists, geologists, cosmologists, and even psychologists. There is just much more to this theory than a biological explanation. Still, just because evolutionists are convinced does not mean they are right. They are working from the presupposition that it is correct. Take away the presupposition and their work is meaningless. Maybe if they put in more effort to determining whether the presupposition they are working from is legitimate, then they would be more successful in understanding the many problems they have in determining how organisms have adapted, but not evolved. You see it is a problem that they cannot agree on how evolution works. If they did, then you might have a case here, but even they have to admit they don't have all the answers.

2) I never said that ID had nothing to do with religious concerns. I simply stated that ID scholars do not come empty-handed to the table of science, as your article suggests. You seemed to indicate that ID folks do not engage in any type of scientific research, when in fact they do. In fact, the leading proponents of ID are biologists, physicists, geologist, and even mathematicians. Their work is scientific in nature, not specifically religious. Now, having said that many do begin to question evolution based on religious concerns. However, they do not reject it solely on those criteria. They put time into research and into understanding the problems associated with evolutionary theory and a few have even postulated alternatives based upon a designer mentality. So science plays a huge role in ID, which was not reflected in your article, or in Prescott's blog.

3) Based on your statement I do not think you know what irreducible complexity is. It is the theory set forth by Michael Behe, a leading ID scholar, which states that organisms cannot both progress and recede in evolution. Thus our human eye could not have developed from the much more complex eye of the fly. It would have to have reduced while the remained of the organism progressed. This to Darwinian theory is quite a critique. I encourage you to read much more about this here: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm.

However, as to your point about the complex assembling itself, you are correct that it leads to one single creator. However, it is not a paradox to say that the one creator was not created. That is because the Creator would be fundamentally different from His creation. Thomas Aquinas explains this better than I, but basically, if everything that we can know about is temporal in nature and in fact made up of matter, then in order for the universe to have come about you would either have to have an eternal string of temporal matter existing backwards in time or you must have something that is eternal from which all that is temporal originate from. In this case, we believe that the Eternal One is God. As a Christian, I believe that God is the Eternal Lord of the Universe who sent His Son, Jesus Christ into the midst of humanity to redeem it. Thus, it is logically consistent to believe in an Eternal God and for me a tremendous and beautiful mystery that explains much more than biology ever could. It gives meaning to that biology and explains away its inconsistencies.

I hope you will see that ID is not something that can be easily dismissed. Literally thousands of scientists in the past 10 years have crossed over due to the scientific evidences against evolutionary theory. I encourage you to read some more ID scholars on their positions before writing anything further against ID. Thanks you again for your time and may God bless your seeking.

Daniel, As another who has tried to dialogue with Prescott, (like you, I have experienced his "side-stepping" lawyer-maneuvers)let me echo the sentiments of others to just give it up. Your abilities should not be wasted on a bitter old man who simply wants to whine about "Fundamentalists."
I think your efforts would be more effective by simply taking aim at Americans United in general and in doing so reveal their ilk to your readers, instead of trying to dialogue with someone who obviously has his uninformed, inconsistent and narrow-mind made up. I for one am finished with trying to reason with the man.
And while I appreciate your concern for discipline of a "brother," I honestly don't see how this one can be considered a follower of Jesus Christ, given his overt and brash denials of cardinal doctrines of the faith and his corrollary personal attacks on those who defend that same faith (i.e. Al Mohler, Russ Moore and others).
My friend, shake the dust from your feet and move on. But do keep on blogging. I enjoy your posts!

Daniel, I agree with Joel. I, and another of my loved ones have tried to dialogue with Bruce and I said the same thing, "shake the dust from our feet". Keep writing and sharing here. I enjoy.

d.r.

A quick comment about biblical discipline as it relates to Prescott himself. You know I agree with you completely, in principle. And from our phone conversation, I do see the merit in commenting on Prescott's illegitimate claims. Here's the rub, though: I'm not sure how you would go about justifying your (or my) authority to correct Prescott. Surely, Jesus was talking about correcting the sins of brethren in a local "church" setting in Matthew 18. Or, at least, that seems to be the most natural way to view the passage. I'm not sure how to relate that passage to the issue of biblical correction on the web. I'm not saying it cannot be done. I'm just saying that it seems to need a more detailed justification. Where to draw the line? I don't know. Maybe it would be wise to address his claims, point out their unbiblical status, their illogicalities, etc., and in that way "correct" his claims while leaving the man himself alone. Anyway, just a thought.

I've been reading Prescott's blog for some time but have never commented. I just read blogs. I came here because you said you were going to post about him. John 3:16 tells me that WHOSOEVER believes in Jesus will be saved and have everlasting life. I think you all are treading on dangerous ground here calling the man's salvation into question. He may accuse certain people of not being Baptist, but that is not the same thing as what you people are doing here...ReaLea Michaels

RaeLea,
Thanks for your post, as it may allow me to clarify my position. (I assume your comments are directed at my suggestion that Prescott may not be a believer) I agree that no human being can ever make a definitive judgement call concerning someone's salvation, and that is not what I was doing. However, the Scriptures do call us to judge beliefs as well as behaviors, and Prescott's beliefs (principally the exclusivity of Christ, which, whether Prescott realizes it or not, has a secondary tie to His deity, and I would call that a 'cardinal' doctrine that one must believe in order to be saved), and his behaviors (misrepresenting conservatives, dishontestly deleting comments like Daniel's from his blog simply because another showed the flaws in his argument, and generally operating with an extremely critical spirit) are not reflective of the beliefs and behaviors 1 John tells me are part of the regular life of one who follows Christ.
In addition, MAtthew 18 instructs us, in the final stages off disciplinary action to "treat that person as a Gentile [unbeliever]" If you are going to treat someone as an unbeliever, you are by default makng a judgement call concerning their belief and behavior. In short, SCripture doesn't condemn all judging, and in fact, commends it in many areas.
As for John 3:16, I believe it as you do, although the word translated "believe" carries much more weight in its first century context than its English equivalent does today in our culture. "Belief" here isn't just speaking about cognitive recognition and approval, and honestly, even if that were all it meant, Prescott still wouldn't pass the test, according to 1 John.
You are right that judgement should never be made lightly, or on the basis of personal feeling, and I thank you for that reminder as it keeps us from degrading conversation of this nature into personal attacks. My point is simply that Scripture does commend appropriate judgement calls to be made by those within the church.

It is God, Mr. Rainey, who searches and knows the heart. I am so very thankful that it is He who makes those judgement calls and not mere humans.
RaeLea

RaeLea, I don't know how long you have been reading Prescott's site, but I am wondering if you have applied the same reasoning to Bruce's attitude toward conservatives and the SBC. I have read some pretty bitter comments there and my rose colored glasses did not cover up Bruce's critical opinions of us. I pray for him to be able to love us as much as he seems to love and agree with liberals.

RaeLea, I agree completely that God alone knows and searches the heart, and with all due respect, I think you have missed my point in the above post. There is a difference between judging the heart of a person (something only God can do) and judging their beliefs and actions (something we in the church are actually commanded to do). In short, it is one thing for me to say "That person isn't a believerr" (a definitive statement, which would be wrong), and to say "I don't see how that person could be a believer, given their beliefs and/or behavior." I hope you can see the difference here. It is a crucial difference, and neccesary to distinguish the two if we are to be wholly obedient to the Scriptures.

Mr. Rainey,

I guess you've managed to remove the log from your own eye to be able to see so clearly everyone else's. You are truly blessed. RaeLea

RaeLea, so are you telling me that we should NEVER, under ANY circumstance, make statements about someone's aberrant doctrine or behavior? If so, your argument seems self-referentially absurd, because you are certainly making judgements about MY actions.
I appreciate the reference to the "log" in my own eye, and admit that I often must judge myself (as any believer should do) But you are leaving off the rest of the passage. The reason we take the log out of our own, is so that we can see clearly to remove the speck from our brother's eye. I sincerely would like to know why you are opposed to ANY kind of judging (a position that, given your comments about me, at least don't seem practically sustainable) when the Scriptures seem to speak pretty clearly to this issue. I am open to being shown that I am wrong, but you will have to convince me from the text.
By the way, if you respond, please call me Joel. "Mr. Rainey" is my father. :)

RaeLea,

I understand your desire to suggest that no one should judge another's salvation. And honestly, I don't think any of us really wants to believe that someone who calls themselves a Christian really is not. However, the Bible is explicit in this area as to how we should believe and act. John wrote his first epistle to make sure people who called themselves Christians actually were. He proposed three tests: moral, social, and theological. Paul literally called men in the church "enemies of the cross" and once prayed for a man that Satan would destroy his flesh that he might be saved in the end.

And he exhorted both Timothy and Titus to rebuke and correct. And he called for us to test ourselves to see if we are indeed in the faith. He even told us to judge those in the church. Peter told us to make our calling and election sure. Hence, we must be careful that we actually are what we say we are. And we have a responsibility to our brothers and sisters to sharpen them and hold them accountable. Jesus offers all sorts of tests of faith to his disciples (ex. Luke 14). Thus in order to do justice to Biblical Christianity, we must help hold others accountable as well as watching ourselves.

On a personal note God brought me out of a lot of sin through a friend who challenged my salvation. This guy even told me that I should consider not going into the ministry, a calling I was sure of. I was angry at him at first and still to this day harbor animosity towards his approach. But you know what? God used it to bring me to repentance. It hurt deeply. Still, in the end God used it to convict me of sin and to restore me. Thus I believe in this system of discipline and don't think we should shun our God-given responsibility.

I realize that this might be new to you and that you are dismissing it because of that and because it seems judgemental. But I ask you to suspend your own judgement on it and really go back and read those texts Joel quoted and the ones I referred to and to pray about this. Also I suggest reading John MacArthur's book, "The Gospel According to Jesus" in order to get a perspective on what is commonly known as Lordship Salvation. I pray that God will impart upon you all wisdom in this matter whether you agree with me in the end or not.

Thanks again for your contribution to my blog. I hope you will always feel welcome and free to express your views here.

Joel & D.R.

Both of you are very young and wishing to please the Lord with your whole heart and soul. Both recent graduates of seminary? By recent I would guess within the last 5 years or so? You will grow more mature in your faith as the years go by, there will be even those dry seasons of unbelief and perhaps one day in the future you will understand what I am telling you. Shalom and good night...RaeLea.

RaeLea, I am not so young, and these young men are showing more maturity in their faith and understanding of the scriptures than Bruce seems to in his posts and evaluations. I hope and pray that everyone who reads Bruce's site will have discernment from the Lord, so that they will not arrive at judgemental attitudes of other Christians. Something different here is also that your post is welcome.

Anonymous, I am very old. Yet, I am still growing in my faith. I even experience those dry seasons, not as much, but they are still a part of me. Prescott is judging "fundamentalists" actions and beliefs based on his understanding of the Scriptures and Baptists in particular. I am not a Baptist, but I am a follower of Christ. I understand your Baptist infighting is quite fierce. Joel, D.R. and others that I've read are judging Prescott and "liberals" exactly in the same manner. The danger comes when a person's salvation is called into question. I believe that is God's territory, for that is a heart matter. I have not seen Prescott question a person's salvation, not since I've been reading his posts anyway...RaeLea

RaeLea, Since you say you are not a Baptist, may I assume that your views of the "infighting" might be second, third or somewhere in that degree of source and therefore, should not be used as fact. These young men here have given lots of sources for their views and are not trying to cram them down anyone's throat and are KIND. I have trouble finding much kindness over on Prescott's site. I have noticed that a number of Prescott's relatives are posters on his site. Is there some relationship with you?

RaeLea,
I am truly sorry that we disagree here. I appreciate your appeal to experience, and admit that sometimes in one's youth, the lack of such experience can cause an overly critical attitude, especially in ministry.
As one who has been in ministry for 13 years now, I can attest to that fact. However, I would contend that this is not true for Daniel. I have not seen arrogance, but rather, the humble desire to be faithful to the truth in his posts. Further still, while my experiences have taught me much, they must always be interpreted in light of the clear teaching of Scripture. Honestly, though I am always open to correction, I am unable to come to your stand here because I cannot see your argument appearing in the text.
Nevertheless, I appreciate your call to be cautious when it comes to the judgement of others, and hope you continue reading and contributing. Blessings!
Joel

No relation whatever. I don't know, maybe I just understand the guy and his passion, right or wrong. These are all good people. I wish no ill will. Reading all these blogs passes the time of day for me. This is the first time I've ever commented..it can get addicting! ..ReaLea

Joel,

Good morning. The text for my belief comes from the red letters in the Bible. Have you ever just read the red letters? I've been quite partial to them all my life. When I was a very little girl my Baptist momma would read the Bible to me every night. I always knew when she was reading the black letters. "Momma", I'd say, "I want you to read the red letters".

On Judging---
I am not suggesting that Paul is wrong or that John is wrong, but...
If you see what Jesus said about the final judgement in Matt's gospel he seems to focus on relating to others rather than doctrine. So does James. Just giving equal time here.

I don't want to be a goat. No, no, no, no! I just want to be a sheep. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!

A couple of things and then I am going to move on because I think we are just going in circles in this discussion and really it's a bit off topic.

RaeLea,
I get the impression from your collective comments that you feel that Joel and I are a bit green, immature in the faith, and lack existential wisdom. I also get the feeling that you pit experience against Biblical knowledge. Both of these I think can be dangerous.

First, Joel and I don't live in a bubble. I don't have quite the experience he does, but I have several years of doing ministry nonetheless. Also, those who we have learned from gleen similar things from Scripture and actually apply them much like we are saying. The author of the book I spoke to you about has written other things on discipline and he is one the most well respected pastors in the country, having served at his church of over 5000 for at least 2 decades. I have served under pastors who are in their 70's and have been mentored by guys who have been in the pastorate for many, many years. I would assume that Joel has had many of those same types of mentors himself. So I don't think that the experience thing is really a charge against what we are saying.

Also, while I think that is wonderful that your mother read to you from the Bible and that you could share that bond with her and have such an awesome memory of doing that together, I think that you miss much of Jesus' message by not knowing the OT. Jesus also did not live in a bubble, but rather in a context that is best understood in light of the whole of Scripture. He clearly pointed out that He didn't reveal everything we needed to know while He was on earth, but He sent the Holy Spirit that we might know those things. Those things were passed down to us through the apostles who wrote not only His words, but expounded on His teachings. Paul, himself, was taught directly by the Holy Spirit, Himself, who according to Jesus speaks only what Jesus tells Him to. Thus to only read "the red letters" is to understand only part of what Jesus wanted us to know. And that is not commendable or helpful to the building up of His church. So while it is great that you get much of your theology from Jesus, it is not enough to stop there. We must examine Scipture as a whole, placing Jesus first, but not alone.

And I thank you for being a part of this discussion, but I would ask that you evaluate us not based on our age or supposed maturity level, but rather on how well we stick to the Scriptures. That is the only objective, tangible judge that we have as Christians.

Howie,

I agree that Jesus in Matthew 25 Jesus is speaking about the judgement and in doing so separates the Godly from the unGodly based upon how they have treated Him via how they treated "the least of these". However, in Matthew 12, Jesus speaks about judgment in regards to men's own actions toward God and makes the difference repentence of sinful acts (in the case of Ninevah, it was idolatry). In Luke 10 judgment is doled out on those who reject Jesus, thus rejecting the Father.

So what can we make of this?
1) Jesus' theology about anything can't be summed up in one passage
-and-
2) Jesus likely presented different pieces of the puzzle to different groups based upon what they needed to hear (at the moment) and not on a need to set forth a theological treatise.

In regard to Paul's and John's theology, I find it interesting that one can trust the words of Jesus to be recorded correctly by the disciples and thus place higher emphasis upon them, yet not trust those same apostles to hear the words of the Holy Spirit and record them correctly. Can you trust the Holy Spirit to insure the correct (and best) words of Jesus are recorded (after all John did say that if all of Jesus' words were recorded he supposed they would fill all the books in all the world) and yet not trust Him to inspire the words God wanted to be recorded in the NT through those same apostles He previously used to recall the words of Jesus and write them down (in a different language nonetheless)?

See, the way I see it, God planned the Bible as a progressive revelation (thus the applications of certain texts must reside while the specific commands pass away or are brought to fulfillment) of the whole of His instructions for His people. Beginning from Genesis and ending in Revelation, God used men and the Holy Spirit to bring about the totality of His objective word to us. The inference that most conservatives make from this is that the Bible would thus be inerrant and infallible. The problem is that in order for the connection to be perfect, you need a perfect receptor, which would require us to be perfect, but we are not. Thus, we need the Holy Spirit to open up to us His Word using our God-given reason (the Imagio Deo).

Sorry, I am sure you didn't want all that, but I got on a roll and your comment gave me an inroad to talk about some things I have had on my mind. I hope though that I did make sense.

Heavens to mergatroy D.R. that's what I call Indoctrination Extraordinare. I'm retiring early for the night so I can go to my church in the morning. Thank God it isn't Southern Baptist. Just by virture of my advancing age, my days here are coming to an end. Perhaps I'll see you on the other side. Until then. Shalom.

I think there is something "fishy" about a couple of posters here. No aged person I have ever known talks like the last one I read. Imposters can appear in different forms.

I came here tonight to see what had transpired since I posted yesterday morning. Anonymous, you are right. That last post was not me. I thank Joel and D.R. for your insights. I do read all of Scripture, but the red letters are primary for me. I'll be praying for you both in your service to the Lord. Shalom

Young men, please remember, be careful how you judge.

RaeLea,
Thanks for your exhortation and your encouragement. I don't normally delete comments because of a desire to show integrity where others will not. But I definately will note that the previous aforementioned comment was not yours and may I say that it is ridiculous and opportunistic for someone to use your name as a pseudonym (and further it shows great cowardice).

Again, thanks for clearing that up.

Dr. Bruce Prescott is not old in years. He certainly is more mature in spiritual matters than most of your bloggers.

I can only pray that your grow up in maturity. You put God in such a small box that he couldn't possibly be trusted with you infants.

And yes I related.

grandma,

I have to disagree with you. Dr. Prescott shows no spiritual maturity in silencing others who disagree with him and with continuing to bash Southern Baptists by labeling them "ignorant" and "discriminating." He has written substantially more blogs directed towards speaking negatively towards groups or individuals than he has positively towards any issue, person, or group. That says a lot about his attitude. Additionally, his treatment of people who disagree with him is reprehensible and very unChristlike.

I am glad you stopped by. I wouldn't expect you to do anything but defend him, being that you are related. However, you have done just as he by attacking the characters of my commenters, as well as mine in doing so.

And if you want to get into a theological discussion about whose God is smaller, just look at what we disagreed about. My God is able to create ex nihilo without using evolution as a means. His view is more like that of a Deist. I believe in a sovereign God who directs all the events of the universe to insure that everything works together for the good of His people and for the highest amount of His own glory to be shown.

THAT IS NO SMALL GOD!

Amen! D.R. A well written and Christlike reply. I enjoy the fruit of the Spirit that abides in you. May God Bless you!
Oh, by the way, Grandma1 is Bruce's mother.

I see Bruce is still up to his old tricks. He or his brother, the Greek shadow write negative, accusing things about Southern Baptists and then deletes opposing posts. I just was over checking out things and saw that he had deleted a post related to his bashing of South West Baptist Seminary. If he can't take the heat, I don't why he wants to blog.

D.R., I just left Prescott's site. I think there is a verse in Prov. that probably applies to them. I hate to think it is hopeless, but something has hardened hearts and we can't open them, it appears. God help us is my prayer. With church planters that refuse to believe the Bible is inerrent, what kind of churches will be grown from that seed?

I know that it's been quite a while since this post was started, but I just wanted to say that I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who finds Bruce's blog disconcerting.

Truly, it's not only the positions that he holds, it's the principles that seem to undergird those positions. On the issue of abortion, Bruce seems convinced that the only reason not to end the life of another human being is that that human is morally culpable and has a fully developed personality. I'm hard pressed to see what distinguishes that belief from the truly evil position held by Peter Singer, who believes that infanticide is ethically permissible.

On the question of Biblical inerrancy, Bruce has written that inerrancy is a dead metaphor. I'm not quite sure what that means, but does that preclude the possibility that Christ is both perfect and still alive? And if Bruce cites Scripture to back up his claim that God's word is living, just what makes him think that those particular passages are trustworthy if he denies inerrancy?


But it's more than just his positions and his principles. It's also his rhetoric. In a speech he gave from the pulpit less than a month from the '04 election, he suggested that Christian conservatives were a greater threat than the militant Islamists behind 9/11. And just recently, he used a vile flood metaphor while bodies were still being counted in Louisiana.

It's also his treatment of those of us who disagree with him: his refusal to engage us in a good-faith discussion, and his detestable habit of deleting comments he doesn't like.

And, more than anything else, it's the rank hypocrisy. From avoiding the issue to rhetorical overkill, he has been guilty of precisely the sorts of things that he accuses others of doing. No insult is low enough if he's the one hurling it; no criticism is even-handed enough if he's the object of it.


I've tried in vain, time and again, to rouse Bruce from whatever it is that keeps him from seeing all this. And while I have posted a single critical comment in his blog this morning, I have no plans of trying to act as if a reasonable discussion is possible.

I'm just very, very glad to see that I'm not alone in my frustration.

I think I need to correct something I posted. The church planter and the one who seems not to value the whole scriptures are not the same person. I felt the church planter was a fan of Prescott's site and got him intertwined with the other man.

The inerrancy of scriptures seems to be a sticking point with fans of the site, in that I believe that was the main reason they left the SBC.

Mom2,

I see the pain in your writing regarding this guy. It is hard for many of us to understand how he writes against us the way he does and yet calls us the problem in America. As many have suggested on here, it may just be too much for you and you may have to quit reading for a while. I had to. I continue to post and read in hopes that some who read him will wake up to his hypocricy and quit reading. I hope some see his arguments as very bad and turn from darkness to light. He is a hard-hearted guy who has been hurt deeply and it shows. As Kelly reminded me today, it maybe that we should just quit reading and just continue to pray. As for the inerrancy problem, yes I agree that is many moderates and liberals starting points for leaving the "faith once handed down to the saints". I argued in a paper in my Intro to the Philosophy of Religion in seminary that the single biggest problem for Christianity in the future would be the rejection of the authority and infallablility of Scripture. Sadly, I think that is coming true.

Bubba,

As a (in)famous Bubba once said, "I feel your pain." You made some great points. I would like to know more about this sermon Bruce preached and his words about the flood, but I realize that you don't want to post anything outright slanderous and I wouldn't want you to. I think in assessment of what you said our only discourse may be to pray as Paul did that he might be given over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh for the purpose of saving his soul. That may sound extreme and unloving, but I honestly am worried now that the guy may not be a believer. And though I have tried not to view him as such or to judge his motives in any way, the way he has acted over the past few weeks have just been over the top. If he is truly justified maybe he will come to repentance of his acts, and if he is not justified maybe God will be pleased to bring him to repentance and faith. Either way, the right thing to do is pray. Thanks for continuing to comment Bubba -- I hope you will be able to contribute more here that is positive in the future.

Thanks for your comments D.R. I agree with your assessment.
I do pray for Bruce and the whole family. I also pray for myself, that God will help me to have a right Spirit toward them. I do notice that I am not as angry about the things I read at the site as I was at first, but it hurts me to see our denomination portrayed in such a bad light. I know that we all have our share of faults and must always look inward and keep our hearts right with God; I just find it such a waste of time for His children to spend so much time attacking anothers work, when we are living in times of great need for winning the lost. The world does enough to paint Christianity as something "ugly", without supposed fellow believers entering the fray.

Daniel,

I first began conversing with Bruce back in April, and one of the first questions I asked by email was, how in the world does he consider himself "mainstream"?

In response, he referred me to the text of two speeches he gave, including this speech, given in a Methodist church in Norman, Oklahoma, on Sunday, October 10, 2004.

The entire thing is worth reading (because of the unhinged premises, not for any dramatic insight into the world), but let me quote the comment I was referring to, in a section where Bruce asserted that politicizing churches is bad for the church. Here is what he said after describing how politicians are wooing votes and paying off critics through faith-based initiatives:

(Emphasis is mine.)

"What I am saying ought to strike fear in the heart of people of sincere faith more than the threat of harm that any terrorist can do. Our nation can survive attacks like the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building and 9/11. We can clear away the ruble, bury the dead, bandage the wounded, grieve for our losses and rebuild again with a stronger sense of community and a greater commitment to justice.

"I am not sure society will survive for long without the vital prophetic voices that rise up against social injustice and call on society to do a better job of feeding the poor, caring for the sick, providing for the elderly and disabled, and lifting up the downcast. Nearly all the social advances in this country have been led by a small group of men and women whose faith gave them the courage and the credibility to stand up and speak out against injustice and to ultimately prevail.

"To trivialize faith, to undermine its integrity and destroy its credibility by subjecting it to the machinations of money and the manipulations of secular politics threatens more than physical well-being of a few, it threatens the heart and soul of our entire society."


Never mind the sheer hypocrisy that Bruce exhibits here, politicizing the pulpit while criticizing others for doing the exact same thing, all the while praising the "vital prophetic voices" who (presumably) work to change the government to fit his agenda.

Bruce Prescott apparently believes that faith-based initiatives are a GREATER threat than ANYTHING terrorists can do. We can, after all, "clear away the ruble, bury the dead, [and] bandage the wounded," but faith-based initiatives threaten the "the heart and soul of our entire society."

I'm not slandering Bruce; I'm quoting him. He destroys his own credibility by saying such things.

About Katrina and the flood, I was referring primarily to this post, "SBC Suffers Under Toxic Flood of Fundamentalism."

(It's the same post where, in the comments, you questioned Bruce's spin on declining growth rates in certain regions and his assertion that Southern Baptists have a terrible image problem. As Bruce proclaimed himself, the post was republished as a column at EthicsDaily.com.)

(Funny how an entry in his "personal" blog can so easily become a published column.)

There were quite a few comments about what he wrote, but I'm surprised no one noticed how he wrote it:

"Now, twenty-six years after a surge of 'conservatism' began breeching the levees of evangelical moderation at a SBC convention meeting in New Orleans, the toxicity of the fundamentalist flood waters that swept over the SBC are being clearly documented."

It's tasteless (at the very least) to compare Christian conservatives to toxic floodwaters while the dead were still being counted. But in case a mere metaphor wasn't enough, he ended the entry this way:

"The sad truth is that resurgence of fundamentalism in the SBC is as toxic as the flood waters that Hurricane Katrina left on the streets of New Orleans."

So, "fundamentalism" in the Southern Baptist Convention is "as toxic" as deadly, infested floodwaters in what is probably the worst natural disaster in our nation's history... just as faith-based initiatives are a greater threat than al Queda.

It's dispicable rhetoric.

(I apologize for the multiple comments, but...)

As bad as Bruce's rhetoric is, it would be one thing if he tolerated similar rhetoric from other camps, but that's clearly not the case.

Consider his response to Russell Moore's essay, "Why I'm Raising Violent 4 Year-Olds."

"Moore's description of the Bible caught my attention. He reads 'the Holy Scriptures' to his boys because it is 'the most blessedly violent bedtime stories they hear every day.'

"I wonder what a person of any other faith living across the street from Southern Seminary thinks when they read an essay like this. Would they find the gospel attractive or threatening?"


Has he ever asked the same question about his own rhetoric? Not that I've ever seen.


Daniel, it's not just that his behavior hardly even begins to conform to Christ's standards, I don't think they even meet the basic standards for civilized discourse.

Any rational adult -- Christian or atheist, conservative or liberal -- would be ashamed to find himself guilty of the hypocrisy, the unhinged rage, and the complete intolerance of dissent that Prescott exhibits.


...but I digress. :)

Between work, school, church, my beloved girlfriend, and college football, I keep busy, but I'll certainly make visiting your blog a regular habit, and I'll comment when I can.

Thanks, all, for letting me rant.

It's getting worse, by the way.

As of this morning, Bruce has used his last three posts to take the opportunity to call Southern Baptists idolators and to compare Christian conservatives to Nazi collaborators, not once, but twice, in posts that implicitly compare George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler.

I would say something in his own blog about this, but he deletes my comments immediately and without even acknowledging them.

His vicious hatred of people who are to the right to him politically is staggering. For his own sake, someone should talk some sense to him, but I don't know who could -- or whether any good can be done.

Bubba, thanks for the clarification on the toxic flood post and on the sermon to which you were referring. I find it interesting that Bruce harassed James Dobson for comparing the use of fetal stem cell research to the Nazi practice of human experimentation while at the same he compared Southern Baptists to terrorists in that sermon. That is hypocricy!

I think of lot of his views politically come from his misundertanding of the SBC conservative resurgence and his mistaken assumption that it can be compared to anything that is happening with conservatives in politics. I need to write someone on the conservative resurgence. If I had my own full website I would post a paper I wrote on this subject in Seminary. I find that the losers in this are actually writing the history, as opposed to the old adage that the winners always write the histories.

One thing I think is true on this -- that his work is doomed to fail. CBF churches are not growing and the religious left is continuing to decline. Without the righteousness that comes from faith, there is no reason for younger men and women to care anything about the Church. The only worry I have is that the Emerging Churches will be influenced by this junk. But there are signs of hope that many in those camps are backing off that route.

http://www.peopleforlife.org/francis.html
Here is a really good article. Several things contained in this seem to fit Bruce Prescott. Good reading!

D.R., cks may be buying you dinner soon.
I had one deleted yesterday or maybe didn't even get up, I don't know which , it happened so quickly.
That is a one way street over there. Only back slappers are desired.

D.R., the addition of your picture is a pleasant feature. Another site I visit could use a smiling face. It might make his comments easier to digest if he could just look happy. :-)

I think I have learned a few things from reading and responding over on the mainstream site.
It appears that the Bible can be interpreted just about any "ole" way. If one is not happy with what it says, go to outside source and then by all means, lean on your own understanding. I am of course, being sarcastic.

You must have got the best of Bruce. I checked out the site and no comments are being allowed. He has done this before when he gets outwitted so badly that he has to recover. I read your very good reply to the women in ministry debate this morning and before I could go back to the home site, the article disappeared.

Anon,

Yeah, I think it was Kelly (cks) who got to him this morning. He really backed him into a corner on the whole slavery/women in ministry thing. He wants to just say things and then act as if they are true without giving any evidence to back them up. CKS nailed him on it and I don't think he could take it any more. He had to save face on that one (along with the Beth Moore thing). BTW have you seen his post on difficult bosses. CKS and I believe we should start a "7 Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game called "7 Degrees of the Conservative Baptist Resurgence". Bruce would be grand champion. At least he would finally win an intellectual contest! We will see how long he keeps his comments off. He needs the encouragement he gets from his cronies.

You are right about his need for the encouragement of his cronies. I think his site is just meant to dig at and aggravate anyone who sees things differently than he does. His disdain for what he sees as intolerance in others completely blinds him to his own intolerance.

Oh, by the way, have you written any good "parables" lately? You know what I mean, I'm sure. That was pretty juvenile. Bruce and Marty enjoyed it though, so "joy" to them.

I was just reading over at the Mainstream site that Bruce will be participating in a "Talk to Action" something or other that has been launched. Strikes me as odd, since he will not allow comments on his own site and that came about because too many opinions were conflicting with his.

I just went to Bruce's site to see what was on his mind and it is unbelievable. He has an article up entitled "Indoctrination Part IV" and I am sure from reading his posts in that past that he thinks he is describing people that are on the opposing side to him. What is so unbelievable is that he describes himself to a "T". You will have to read it to see what I mean.

Yeah, anon, I saw that trash and thought the same thing as you did. Sometimes I really think Bruce is crazy -- mentally unstable -- in order to write some of what he writes and then accuse others of the things that he does. He is one of the most seriously deluded people I have ever come across.

I am so glad to have found this article!

I started out doing a bit of research for an article I am considering writing regarding Dr. James Dobson and some of his critics, who, it seems come in a variety of flavors, including fundamental Christians (of which I am one) seething because Dr. Dobson writes about self-esteem as if that qualifies him for heretic-of-the-week.

Anyway, it wasn't long before I stumbled onto the flamethrower Prescott calls a Mainstream Baptist Blog where he has numerous derogatory references to Dr. Dobson.

Before looking too much further into that, though, I was derailed by some of his other posts and began to wonder what he had to do with Baptists, because I had never heard one sound like he does, before.

I'd say he is about as Baptist as the 'Westboro Baptist Church' and just as loving, but at the other end of the spectrum.

I left a few comments there and kicked the dust off my sandals...I'm sure I can find more reputable Dobson critics to study out in cyberspace.

Thanks again for the article and thanks for letting me vent.

I feel better now! :-)

IHS,

Bruce
Christian Soldiers' Online Ministries

Christian Soldiers' Newsletter Blog

Bruce,

Yes, Prescott has a way with words - unforutnately that doesn't include using logic with them. I really don't keep up with him anymore, but I am sure it is still all the "Fundamentalists" fault for the entire world going to "hell in a handbasket."

I am sure of one thing - one day Prescott will stand before the Lord to give an account. I wouldn't want to be him on that day.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Sorry guys, but I am not interested in debating a subject I wrote about FIVE YEARS AGO! Your buddy ERV could have found a much better example than mine of folks who have problems with Bruce Prescott.

I have no desire to debate the issue of evolution with you guys either. I don't believe in Macroevolution, though as of now I am an old-earth creationist who does believe in micro-evolution. I simply don't see any facts for cross-species development and evolutionists can't prove it. My belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and my faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the World are much more important to me. My hope is that God would open your eyes to see the beauty of Jesus Christ and that you would be given the faith to believe.

"I simply don't see any facts for cross-species development and evolutionists can't prove it."

Because you don't care to look or care simply won't accept them:

ERVs: proof of common ancestry of humans with the great apes of today

Fused Chromosome #2: proof of common ancestry of humans with the great apes of today

Two independant verifications right there for the evolution of man.

If that wasn't enough BDVs are proof of common ancestry of humans with not only the great apes of today, but also with many other mammals, including, but not limited to elephants, guinea pigs, macaques, and squirrels.

You don't "see" any because that would shatter your fragile little world, which is why you removed comments on a post which, as you put it, something you wrote 5 years ago.

If these FACTS didn't scare you, you wouldn't worry about leaving them there.

-Kemanorel

"Sorry guys, but I am not interested in debating a subject I wrote about FIVE YEARS AGO!"

Then you should delete the entire post. If it's open for reading and open for comment, it shouldn't matter how long ago it was written. It's still a incorrect pile of spew that can still be looked up and used to spread lies about what we know are FACTS about biology and evolution.

The fact that you deleted our posts only crystalizes the fact that you're afraid of the information that is out there, and what it would do to the beliefs of theists if they read about them and really understood that this isn't speculation or debate. It's fact that contradicts your holy books.

-Kemanorel

Kemanorel,

Thanks for stopping by again, but as I said before, I don't care to debate the subject with you or anyone else.

Should you desire to debate, a quick Google search will turn up hundreds of links to arguments that debunk the Fused Chromosome hypothesis and many more claims for evolution. And many of these arguments are made those who hold Ph.D's in science.

If you are really looking to "prove" evolution, then debating those guys would likely be more beneficial than going after "lil-ole" me.

I learned a long time ago what's important and what's not. Spending time debating this subject isn't on my radar. I would much rather debate theology and make a difference in the lives of those in my congregation.

You can believe whatever you want regarding me. I don't feel a need to defend myself. I don't need to debate this subject to prove my faith. As a Reformed Christian, I stand on the truth of the Word of God and can only pray that God would open your eyes to behold His glory. If you would like more information about how your guilt can be taken away and you can find freedom in Christ - forever to dwell in His presence praising and glorifying Him, then email me. I would love to discuss that.

Otherwise, I will take your advice and close the comments here.

May God bless your search for truth and grant you to have faith in Jesus Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria,

D.R. Randle

Links to this post

Create a Link

About me

Paul was not interested merely in the ethical principles of religion or of ethics. On the contrary, he was interested in the redeeming work of Christ and its effect upon us. His primary interest was in Christian doctrine, and Christian doctrine not merely in its presuppositions but at its centre. -- J. Greshem Machen.

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates