Tom Ascol Joins to Discuss the Caner Situation

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602. Or toll free across the United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Tom Ascol Joins to Discuss the Caner Situation

Yeah, better get online quickly today, 877 -753 -3341, because we will be joined here in just a moment by the fellow who, you know, I sort of feel like Johnny Carson interviewing Jay Leno. You know, the guy who sort of wants to take over, because last time we had him on, we burned the phone lines up and we actually, I think right now, only have one line left open anyway.

So 877 -753 -3341. And the reason, of course, of the tremendous interest is because I am joined today by a man who is an expert in all things about fall foliage. And, you know, Tom, I knew about your expertise in Baptist history and stuff like that, but when did you pick up the expertise in fall foliage?

Well, James, since I've been living in southwest Florida, at least twice a year, we get to watch the green needles of our pine trees turn brown and the palm fronds. The palm fronds, yes. They take on a nice hue of brown before they fall.

Yes. So I've taken a great interest in fall foliage since then.

I was going to say, I've been to Florida, and as pretty as Florida can be, we have the same situation. You know, we've got the palms and the cacti and stuff like that, which don't do much as far as, you know, when it gets down to, what, 72 during the winter, that doesn't affect them a whole lot.

But at least we have mountains to look at. You don't even have those.

My children spent the first years of their life thinking it's overpasses on the highway with mountains.

That is pretty. Well, my daughter didn't see snow until she was 14. So that's just the desert. Anyway, sir, thank you very much for joining us today. Good to be here. I tell you, it's, you know, we actually haven't, you and I actually haven't spoken on the phone a whole lot during all of this.

We've done most of our communication in written form, and I suppose that's probably helped from us both experiencing blood pressure issues along the way because it's, honestly, and I said this to you in email, I would like to start off by publicly apologizing for ever having dragged you into the midst of all this.

I just honestly have never experienced a situation like what we've gone through here. I have done, this would have been my 60th moderated public debate, and I've debated, I mean, the list, Jesus Seminar scholars like John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg and Roman Catholic apologists from Jerry Matatix, Robert St. Genes, Patrick Madrid, Father Pierce Trevinskas, Mitchell Pacwa, Mormons in Salt Lake City.

I mean, Jehovah's Witnesses in Tampa, for crying out loud. And I just had never experienced anything like this in 16 years, and so I never, ever, ever, I don't have anything out for you, Tom, really, honestly.

Well, James, I feel like I'm the one to blame then, because until you invited me to join you, you've had smooth sailing getting the base set up and taking place.

Well, honestly, the only time any progress took place is when I let you take the lead anyways, so we can go back and forth on this, but I know for you, I'm hoping that this will not be something where you never, ever, ever even give consideration to doing a debate ever again.

I kind of compare it to my foray into the stock market. I'm great at timing investments right before the bubble bursts.

There you go. Yeah, that's sort of, I don't even go there. I don't have anything to send there anyways. What does it matter? Well, it has been an experience. I obviously hope on the serious level that some good is coming out of all this, and I think that there will be some good coming out of all this, even though, and I haven't listened to it today, maybe you have had an opportunity to.

I was going to try to get it queued up before the program, but I just was too busy with other things. My understanding is that there was a sermon preached Sunday evening at Woodstock on Calvinism again.

Have you had a chance to hear that yet? I've got it queued up finally to the place where Dr. Vines is starting to speak, but I didn't get to listen to it yet either.

Yeah, I want to take an opportunity to listen to that, and it's not like this is going away, and given what you do, I mean, for me, right now, a lot of my focus is on the subject of Islam and things like that, and so it's not absolutely central to me, but being the head of the Founders' Organization, this is what you deal with all the time.

This is unfortunately part and parcel of a daily grind. How do you respond when one side will preach against the other, but when you try to get meaningful dialogue going, it seems to be next to impossible to do?

Well, it is very frustrating, because I would love to have meaningful dialogue. One of the good things that we have going for us, however, is that the fact that one side refuses to participate in that doesn't shut down the flow of information, because we have so many outlets today for people to get information who want to know.

So anyone who wants to know about our heritage, about history, about theological issues, there's information readily at hand. I tell you, the biggest challenge I face is fighting cynicism in my own heart, because these types of things happen, and just all kinds of sinful thoughts and attitudes come out of me, and someone else's sin is never a justification for my own, and so that's my biggest battle right now, is trying to respond to these types of things in a firm, loving way without giving vent to sinful attitudes.

Yeah. Well, I don't claim to have perfectly survived that labyrinth myself. I mean, you cannot help when you're falsely identified as a hyper-Calvinist. In my situation, as you know, I attempted repeatedly to offer free of charge examples of theological debate to the canners, to say, look, this is what we're talking about doing.

Notice how these debates take place. Notice how, you know, your focus is not upon speaking 350 to 400 words per minute. Your focus is upon edifying the audience, bringing them along, interaction so that the people can hear and judge for themselves.

I would think that Baptists especially would want that kind of opportunity for individuals that we believe are going to be responsible before God for what they believe to have the opportunity of hearing that kind of thing.

And so it's been very, very frustrating to be turned down at every turn and then to have this final nail in the coffin, shall we say. But let me ask you this question, and I think this is important. This term hyper-Calvinist is being thrown about with a tremendous regularity that is extremely bothersome to me.

I mean, you know, I have to think twice before I call someone a Pelagian because I know that that word has a historical meaning that may or may not be correct. And I figure my credibility is damaged if I very seriously identify someone as a Pelagian when in point of fact they are not.

And yet it seems that the other side doesn't have any problem using this as a general overall club to beat anybody up with. And so let's talk a little bit about hyper-Calvinism and try to help folks understand that the Founders Movement, my books, the vast majority of the people that I know of who are speaking and writing today are in no way, shape, or form hyper-Calvinist.

So how would you initially, if someone walked up to you at a Founders meeting and said, hey, such and so said that you all are promoting hyper-Calvinism in the convention, what would be your first response to them?

Right.

And then they wouldn't be able to answer 99 times out of 100. And the answer that they would give would be pretty convoluted, and I'd try to go from there. I do the same thing when people ask me, are you a Calvinist?

I ask, what do you mean by that? And inevitably, more times than not at least, I get responses far away from what Calvinism is. The thing that frustrates me most, James, I know it does you as well in this whole thing, is we are talking about scholars.

We're talking about men who ought to know better. If they don't know better, then they ought to be ashamed, because hyper-Calvinism is not some kind of indefinable nebulous concept. It's been defined historically, theologically.

There are very technical issues involved in it. And if someone is going to throw that label around as a pejorative accusation against someone, they need to know what it means. And hyper-Calvinism has been, can be defined.

And it grieves me when men who ought to know better misuse it the way that it has been misused in the exchanges that have gone back and forth regarding this debate and elsewhere. I mean, as you know, but just for the sake of those who may not that are listening, hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism have the same philosophical foundation.

They just go in opposite directions from their faulty presuppositions. And the presupposition is this, that man's ability is coextensive with his responsibility. So he can be no more responsible than he is able.

And the hyper-Calvinist says that's true. We know that man has no ability spiritually and morally. We read the scriptures that talk about that. Therefore, he's not responsible. And the Arminian looks at the presupposition and says, yes, we know that's true.

And we know that man is very responsible because the Bible talks about his responsibility. Therefore, he must be able. And it's the Calvinist who says, hey, both you guys are wrong. Your starting part's wrong.

We have no spiritual ability, but that does not lessen our responsibility. And we must live with that biblical tension because that's the reality.

And it's fascinating to me that part and parcel of recognizing that biblical balance is to recognize the nature of sin and our relationship to Adam. And I don't know about you, but I have a hard time believing that a lot of folks today in mainstream evangelical churches actually really still believe in the doctrine of original sin.

I mean, it seems it's fallen on hard times. It seems to me that most people accept the concept that there actually are innocent people and that we are not guilty before God through our relationship with Adam.

It has to be this idea of, well, no, unless I have X amount of information, I've done X, Y, or Z, that I'm somehow this innocent person. And so that feeds into it, interestingly enough, is in listening to Ergin Kanner's sermon earlier this year.

That was one of the issues that came up was I honestly had to question, what does this mean in regards to the doctrine of original sin? Is it even being taught anymore in most churches? Systematic theology, extremely important.

It all fits together. And unfortunately, hyper-Calvinism is a term that comes from systematic theology. But if you don't have a systematic theological root upon which to base it or to define it, it really becomes nothing but an insult that doesn't really communicate anything about anyone else at all.

It doesn't help move the dialogue forward. But in my opinion, that's why it's being used, is it stops the dialogue. It freezes it in place.

It's an emotional term. Yeah, you're exactly right. And what you said earlier about being careful about using the term Pelagian, it ought to be true of anyone who would use hyper-Calvinist because they discredit themselves in the minds and eyes of thinking people or people who are willing to go do a little research.

Because they will be disproven every time when they've thrown that term around. And so they're just hurting their own credibility. And I'd hate to see that happen for their sake if you hope that they would come to terms with what is true and accurate in this whole field.

Well, you and I both know that there are plenty of people at Liberty University who know what a hyper-Calvinist is. And they know that we ain't that. They know that we are involved in evangelism. I mean, you know, I've written against hyper-Calvinists.

You know, it's sort of like Spurgeon wrote against hyper-Calvinists. And it would be like turning around and calling Spurgeon a hyper-Calvinist. Even though my understanding is that students in some classes at Liberty are told that Spurgeon denied particular redemption.

It's sort of hard to do in light of his sermons. But anyway, as it may, that seems to be the assertion that is being made there. I have written against hyper-Calvinists. And you and I both know no hyper-Calvinist who respects himself would ever be caught dead passing out tracks outside the temple in Salt Lake City, sharing the gospel with the crowds during General Conference, as I have done I don't know how many times.

I lost count somewhere in the 30s. They would never be caught dead doing what Rich and I did back during the papal visit up in Colorado, standing amongst the thousands and thousands gathered for the papal visit during World Youth Day, or standing along the trail in Cherry Creek State Park as the pilgrims are going to mass.

And there we are passing out tracks and literature to all these Catholics as they're going by. Hyper-Calvinists don't do things like that. The whole idea is beyond conception. And we affirm God's common grace.

We affirm the command to share the gospel, not just, I hate that term, share, to proclaim the gospel that all men everywhere are commanded by God to repent. I don't know who the elect are. And that's why, ironically, it was us that were up in Salt Lake City.

A lot of the Armenians didn't bother because they figured those folks were too hard anyways. They were too hardened in their false religion. We were the ones that were up there because that belief on our part that God commands men everywhere to repent and that there is no power in heaven and earth that can stop the Holy Spirit of God from drawing his people into himself means that we'll go and proclaim the gospel to the Moonies and the Mormons and outside the district conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses and in all those places because there's no power that can stop God's spirit.

And you can't assume that those people have ever heard the gospel. They've heard a false gospel, but you can't assume they've ever heard the true gospel. And so we go to them. That in and of itself, all other issues aside, I mean there's all sorts of other issues that go into the subject of hyper-Calvinism, but that in and of itself absolutely destroys the accusation of hyper-Calvinism.

So to see it as the first statement, and by the way, did you notice that you were spared that in the first? I'm the big baddie here. I suppose that's a good thing.

I know. I'm a gentler, kinder form of hyper-Calvinism. Yeah, there you go. I'm reminded of what Martin Lloyd-Jones said one time in a sermon. He said, the ignorant Arminian does not understand the difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.

Sadly, he's been proven true time and again.

Sadly, and that's the situation here, but I just don't know how. It's got to be a work of God's spirit. It is interesting to me. It's so easy in my flesh to become frustrated and to go, well look, we've got to tell people the truth about this, as if it's somehow up to me to make this happen and to do this.

I have to recognize, you know what? The same word of God that God used to humble my heart and to cause me to love his sovereignty and to love his grace and to recognize his holiness. As long as that word is still on this earth and the spirit of God is there, his truth is going to continue.

Whether it's extremely popular or not extremely popular, his word is going to continue. That's his work. That's his glory. I just get to be used as an instrument. We've got to be very careful. I have to be very careful to recognize I'm just an instrument.

If I fall off South Mountain sometime this week when I'm riding down about 32 miles per hour, God's kingdom is going to keep right on going. That's just the way it is. It does help to give some joy in the midst of, I think, very recognizable and understandable frustration, but at the same time there's got to be a balance, or you can become, as you said, somewhat skeptical and cynical about the whole thing.

That's right, and we actually deny our theology whenever we start getting angry and embittered toward those who disagree with us. I'm reminded of a story by John Newton when he said that Calvinists who go around trying to bang people over the head to convince them of Calvinism would be like blind Bartimaeus who went around with his cane after he was given sight hitting other blind men for being blind, beating them up.

We can't do that.

That's an excellent, I hadn't even thought of it along those lines, but that's right. We cannot force feed grace. You cannot force someone to see the grace of God. That is a gracious act of God himself, and so we have to be careful.

I tried to provide what I hope are some words of wisdom on your blog in the comments section to the Liberty University students and to try to encourage them. I do feel very badly about those who were looking forward to that and were looking forward to meeting us and talking with us.

I wanted to be an encouragement to them, and I think at least there is a possibility that some of the contacts will eventually lead to some opportunities in that area. Certainly you've had the founders meeting in Lynchburg in the past.

What year was that? Do you remember?

I was three or four years running, but I forget.

Oh, was it? Okay, because I spoke there with Mark Dever and Bruce Ware. I think that was last year. Was it? Okay. You have heard the story about my introduction there, didn't you? I don't know that I did.

Oh, my goodness. It was the single most unusual introduction before I spoke that I've ever experienced in the entirety of my adult life. Bruce Ware buried his head in his hands. I get there. The pastor gets up, and if you recall, on my bio page, it started off with all these nasty things that had been said about me by Roman Catholics, Mormons, King James Only advocates.

It had Gail Ripplinger's, I'm a serial soul killer and a rude, crude heretic, and just this nasty stuff, and then it would transition into some sort of nice stuff, and then it went into the bio part. Well, the pastor gets up, and he starts reading that, and that's not the first time that that happened.

It's on your website, so it's going to get used, but what he did is he just went down to the last nasty thing, stopped, and said, here's James White, and it was just silence. The whole place was like, you're kidding, and he leaves the pulpit.

I've got to get up there and start speaking, and I don't think I ever regained balance. It was just like, whoa, okay. So I guess I have you to blame for that, right? Why not? Well, yeah, go ahead. Just stand in line.

That's right. We're all ready for it. Well, anyway, folks, if you have wanted to talk with, well, everybody gets an opportunity to talk with me. That's why they all wait until you're on, because I'm boring.

But if you want to talk with the world-famous Tom Askell, please try not to ask any stumping questions about true eastern seaboard foliage, because I don't get the feeling he's actually been doing quite the level of study in that area that he does in others.

But 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number to join us on the program today. I see a line open, so some of you are just fascinated by our witty repartee here. So let's go ahead and start taking some of our phone calls.

A Call About the Debate and Tone of the Controversy

Let's talk with Shane. Hi, Shane. How are you doing?

Hey, James. I'm doing great. The one Tom referred to the last time is the back end.

We've got to quit talking like this. Well, Shane, I just want you to know that I'm doing a debate on baptism on this Thursday, so your restoration is at hand.

I'm praying for yours. I met you down at Good Shepherd, Nashville, a few years ago when you preached there with David Philson. Right.

Who is a Presbyterian who allowed me to preach. I just wanted to make sure that everybody caught that. That's right, man.

I do want to thank you all for all you're doing in this. And I think what's been most discouraging for me is just to really see from beginning to end, more than anything, the result of this. This is how you do a debate.

And for him to quote Dave Hunt proves that he's probably not very well. Being called a hypercalvinist, I'm like, yeah, he really doesn't know what he's talking about. And I guess for me, I'm kind of like what you're saying is that I kind of have to keep my temper down, too, because Tom said.

But, I mean, do you think that if he were to call you back, you would go ahead and try to schedule another debate if it is in a neutral setting?

Well, remember, I need to make this clear. Dr. Kanner has, I think Michael Fallon has mentioned five challenges, invitations to Dr. Kanner. He has one right now that, to my knowledge, he is simply refusing to respond to.

We know he's responding to e-mails because lots and lots of folks have gotten lots and lots of e-mails. But Mike came to me and said, okay, look, obviously, there's a trust issue here. This has fallen apart.

Look, I have already, for our conference, the public crimes conference in Orlando, I already have a room. And we already have the space. We already have the location. You already have the cameras and everything there for the Spong debate.

It's all set up. This is perfect. All Ergon Kanner has to do is come to Orlando, and you can have the debate, and it can be videotaped, and it's just the two of you, and that way it's easier. I mean, Tom's going to be there too, but we wouldn't go two on one or something like that.

It would just be Ergon and myself, and you can have the debate on the subject, and it can be videotaped. He'll be given the videotape. He can give it the liberty to distribute, as they wish, the whole nine yards.

And so far there has been no response to that, and included in that invitation has been the possibility of doing it next, I believe, October for our 2007 cruise up in the Seattle area. And so I remain open because I think this is a vital issue.

I continue to believe that when you sit down in front of an audience and you have two people who will go to the word of God and interact in a meaningful fashion, that the doctrines of grace will shine forth with clarity because it is the only consistent way of reading all of the inspired word.

And if we honor God's word as being a total revelation that God has revealed himself in his word, if we are willing to look at everything that it has to say, I am firmly convinced that if we were to sit down with John 6 and John 10 and Romans 8 and 9 and we were to look at the things that Ergon Kanner has said, that the results would be very, very, very, very clear.

And we continue to make available to him an opportunity to prove me wrong. One side has all the documented evidence in the world that we can treat people fairly, that we will not change the rules in the last second or in the last two weeks.

And I can point you to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Roman Catholics and Muslims and Jesus Seminar scholars who will testify that they were treated fairly, that they were provided with what they were told they were provided with, that there were no changes, there was no playing around with stuff.

And the other side can't provide that kind of documentation in regards to the particular situation that just took place.

Well, excuse me for interrupting, but what I don't understand, and maybe there is some underlying thing, what I can't seem to understand is why they would go to such great lengths to put on a debate. It doesn't even look like they feel comfortable they can do unless it's set up and tailor-made to them and they can change on a dime what they wanted to do.

I mean, it almost has looked as though I mean, because from watching him in the past, when he's preached sermons, he gets people hyped up, he likes to yell, he likes to stomp, he likes to get political in the pulpit, he likes to make cute remarks.

And I think do you think that it might be a situation where he would be roped in on a one-on-one debate? He can't do that and get out of it.

It's hard to say. One thing is for certain, and I point this out in my last blog article. One of the problems we have here is that we had two fundamentally different views of what debate is supposed to be and why you even do theological debate.

And listening to the descriptions of scholastic debate, talking 350 to 400 words per minute, Tom, I'm sorry, brother, but if you ever try that, you're doomed. Is Tom still there? Yeah, I'm here. Okay, I lost you there.

I was just going to say, if fast talking is the standard, brother, don't go that direction. It ain't going to work. No, it ain't going to happen. Honestly, if what they were thinking initially was that you could keep it short enough and keep the comments short enough that we couldn't do much in the way of damage as to actually saying a whole lot, and the other side could just do the emotional soundbite type thing.

See, that's why we were pushing for cross-examination. Cross-examination, if it's done properly, brings these issues out. You can't soundbite a direct question. You can dodge it, but the other guy now has the opportunity of redirecting it.

And so, you know, honestly, if you're confident that what you believe is true, I don't see any reason why you would ever avoid that kind of a meaningful interaction, and that's what we've been seeking, that's what we continue to seek.

As to what their motivations were, look, honestly, we can't second-guess that kind of thing. There's all sorts of speculation going on. I don't know that it's overly useful, unless, of course, you're someone who's associated with Liberty, and you're very concerned that the president of your seminary is not exactly encouraging people to think that at the seminary there is going to be an encouragement to think with clarity, with accuracy, to represent other positions fairly.

You know, the people at the top have to represent the at any seminary, you have a spectrum of people teaching under you. There's no seminary that I know of that's absolutely lockstep, and everybody believes exactly the same thing.

It's just not the way it is, and the president has the difficulty, which is why I never want to be one, of representing that spectrum. And it just doesn't seem to me that Ergon Kanner wants to represent that spectrum and allow for any kind of variation in perspective, and that's not overly encouraging.

So, I don't know.

Well, I'm just very upset because I'm not going to get my books signed now. Well, which book did you want signed?

I've got all of them. Oh, well, you have all of Tom's books. I'm sure Tom will sign them anytime he wants to.

I don't know about Tom Askew, but I've got some JW, and I don't mean Jehovah's Witnesses on this show. But, hey, I just and one quick thing, real quick. I did email Ergon and let him know not to get upset.

Nobody is really taking him seriously anyway. Ouch. Well, okay. But that's my one jab, and I'm sorry. But, James, we do pray for you, and Tom, thanks for your involvement with the founders and everything, because, like I said, I did grow up SBC and very proud of my Baptist heritage.

They'll disagree on that one issue now.

Actually, it's two. Let's not forget the church government issue. That sort of comes up, too.

Well, they can be forgiven for that. Hey, thank you, guys. God bless you.

God bless. Bye-bye. All right. There's Shane. And like I said, hey, this coming Tuesday, it's interesting because this is something that you would have a lot of interest in as well, Tom, the debate on baptism between myself and Bill Shishko, because Bill has read, for example, Fred Malone and Sam Waldron and issues of the RBTR and, of course, Jewett and all the books that are part and parcel of the baptism debate.

So he is well aware of the argumentation, and I'm certainly familiar with their side and have listened very carefully to Bill's presentations as well. And that's what makes for a good debate. Yeah, I think that would be great.

Yeah, and I'm looking forward to it. And yet here, the irony is, though, let's be honest, there is an irony here. It is going to be strongly emphasized, and I was listening to the debate that took place between Fred Malone and Dr. Strimple.

Did you hear that one at Westminster a few years ago? No, I did not hear that. I talked to Fred about it afterwards. Very good debate. It took place at Westminster in Escondido, and I, in fact, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, had debated Dr. Strimple on the same subject.

In fact, he made reference to that debate in the debate he had with Fred Malone. And so he's done the debate a number of times, but both sides emphasized very strongly the intercollegiate, intramural nature of that debate.

They accept each other as brothers in Christ. We come to a common Lord and a common desire to honor his word. And that's what we're going to be doing a week from Thursday between myself and Bill Shishko.

So Bill, if you're not familiar with him, a major name in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and he has moderated the last four or five debates we've done on Long Island in the Great Debate Series. And I can guarantee you, if you want strict time considerations, the last debate we did with Bill Shishko as the moderator was supposed to finish at 11 o 'clock, and it finished at 10 .59 .52.

So when you can wrap an entire debate up within eight seconds of your assigned time, he rules with an iron hand. So I know that I'm not going to be able to go one second past my time frames. But here's going to be an example where there is more, you would think, on one level that separates Bill and I, than should separate myself and Ergin Kanner.

And yet, in reality, Bill's going to call me his brother, and Ergin wouldn't, and there's no rancor between Bill and I, and we're both going to say we confess the same Lord and the same gospel, and we're united in our opposition to all these things, and we're going to go the word of God.

And yet, when I try to have that kind of a conversation in this context, it doesn't happen. And that is part of what is exceptionally frustrating. It just shouldn't be that way.

I agree with you. I think it is reflective of the real mess that we are in, in our day, in broader evangelicalism, certainly within the broader Baptist life or Southern Baptist life. I've said for years, and I think I'm not accusing anyone here of not being Christian.

I want to be very careful in the way I say this. But I think what we've seen here is further evidence of the very concerns that I've been harping on. Our problem is not that we have lost Calvinism and Arminianism is predominant.

Our problem is that we've lost biblical Christianity, and we don't know what it means to be Christian anymore. And that's true not just doctrinally. It is true ecclesiologically in our churches. It's also true ethically in the way we conduct ourselves.

And there are just a lot of things going on today in the name of Christianity that have nothing to do with the biblical Christ, and they do not honor him. And it's time for us to stand up and say that.

Well, and you tried to say that, especially on an issue that I know is dear to your heart, but it flows from exactly what we just said. You tried to say that in the convention as far as the necessity, the biblical necessity.

You can't look at the New Testament and think that there is not such a thing as discipline in the church of Christ, in the body of Christ. It's there. You've got to rip entire sections of 2 Corinthians out, and 1 John 2 doesn't make any sense when it says they went out from us, so it might be demonstrated they're not truly of us.

There's got to be some in and out in those types of situations. And yet, in our churches today, in many churches, I'll have to say not in my church, but in many churches, there is no concern for holiness.

There is no concern for discipline. And you tried to raise that issue and didn't quite get as far as you had hoped.

No, I didn't. That's a kind way to put that. I got shot down rather quickly. But at least it got some dialogue started, and God willing, that dialogue will continue. In fact, I know of at least one, maybe two, state conventions where that resolution or form of it is being introduced this fall.

And I think we'll certainly hear more about it. I plan to introduce it again next year if nobody else does. Well, yeah, keep at it.

There's no way to. But you see, honestly, there is far more in the New Testament about God's freedom in salvation and his self-glorifying in salvation than there is about church discipline. And if we can't get folks to dialogue about what's so central in so many books in a didactic way, that is related to why it's next to impossible to get people to dialogue about these other issues.

And it all goes together. Practice and theology, you cannot separate them from one another. And if you've got a shallow theology, a very simplistic theology, that doesn't give you enough of a foundation to have a meaningful church life.

It's not there.

Exactly. And that's where my great concern is. I think that we have lost the gospel and that we are in danger of losing biblical Christianity in the name of a lot that goes on under the flag of evangelicalism.