The SBC Founders Find the Road to not just Loserdom but Functional Apostasy (I)

https://www.theblaze.com/abide/meek-not-weak-the-era-of-christian-loserdom-is-over

https://founders.org/podcasts/tstt-must-christians-lose-down-here/

The Founders here refers not to the American Founders but a movement within the Southern Baptist Convention to recover its Calvinist roots from the time of the antebellum split in American Christianity. I remember hearing about this movement back in the 1990's and it was spoken of with great approval and hope. Today, Tom Ascol is the leader of the Founders. I'm not entirely sure if he's cut from the same cloth as earlier men like Ernest Reisinger who got the movement going. There's no doubt that the Founders have played a significant role in the genesis of New Calvinism.

Desiring to be Teachers of the Law (II)

The Great Commission of Matthew 28 is repeatedly invoked but with a Dominionist overlay that re-casts the passage in terms of a Christianisation that does not exist, that has no premise in the New Testament, is refuted by the New Testament, and in no way reflects Christ's imperative in the passage. He was exhorting His followers to make disciples of the nations – in other words the gospel message is not restricted to the Jewish nation but now goes out into the world and is open and available to all people – a point reiterated and reinforced by Pentecost and the Book of Acts. That offer did not include the Mosaic Law as Acts 15 makes clear.

Desiring to be Teachers of the Law (I)

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10922121435868

This podcast typifies the kind of confusion that seems to reign at the moment in Reformed and Dominionist circles. There is a Theonomic overlay to the conversation and yet the roundtable discussion is in the end rendered as something of the absurd – all but pointless. The assumptions of Theonomy are effectively invoked and yet the overriding ethos of the participants is that of Libertarianism. The fact that these two approaches are not only incompatible but antithetical seems to escape them. The topic in question is whether or not the government has the right or should be able to impose a regime of licenses and permits. In every case their impulses are effectively libertarian in their rejection of all such mechanisms – a point we will return to below. But there are other preliminary issues that must be considered first.