How long can Ben Cole resist blogging?

Ben Cole, the Southern Baptist gadfly who squatted on SBC Outpost when the highly respected Marty Duren vacated the premises, announced July 11 that he was going to leave the Southern Baptist Convention and stop blogging. In one Southern Baptist tidal pool, there was wailing and gnashing of teeth, in another great rejoicing; in the great inland sea of Southern Baptist life, however, the overwhelming response was, "Ben who?"

In Mr. Cole's final post, entitled Exit Strategy, he confessed he had only the lowest opinion of pastoral ministry and had much of the time only grudgingly engaged in his holy duties. He admitted he had engaged in a "suspension of the ethical" to do battle with his nemesis, Paige Patterson, and said politicians were superior to pastors because politicians at least were intellectually honest. And Mr. Cole's comment groupies cheered.

I've expressed my opinion on that site about how Mr. Cole's revelations and his commenters' responses confirm what many have believed all along: that Mr. Cole's spiritual condition was no better than those he criticized. But there's one thing yet to be revealed: how long Mr. Cole can resist the temptation to blog. To date, he hasn't shown an ability to hold his tongue. And people who think they know it all -- God's gift to humanity -- usually can't keep from stepping in to set the rest of us straight.

Any interest in a pool on when Mr. Cole will come back to his blog?

Or perhaps no one cares.

Legalists are enemies of the faith

I was Web searching "legalism" and came across a conversation between Howard Hendricks and Chuck Swindoll in which Rev. Swindoll defined the problem with legalism like this:

"When we get into areas that are not set forth in Scripture, either in precept or even in principle. These may be such things as length of hair, tattoos and other body piercings, skirts or pants for women, makeup or no makeup. Those are not scriptural issues. Sometimes these issues are cultural, and you do have to address them when you are in that particular culture. But I think legalism begins when you do or refrain from doing what I want you to do or not do because it’s on my list and it’s something that I am uncomfortable with."

Then he gives some advice we all should take seriously:

"The problem with legalists is that not enough people have confronted them and told them to get lost. Those are strong words, but I don’t mess with legalism anymore. I’m 72 years old; what have I got to lose? Seriously, I used to kowtow to legalists, but they’re dangerous. They are grace-killers. They’ll drive off every new Christian you bring to church. They are enemies of the faith. Other than that, I don’t have any opinion! So, if I am trying to force my personal list of no-no’s on you and make you feel guilty if you don’t join me, then I’m out of line and I need to be told that."

You can read the entire interview on Ed Stetzer's blog here.

‘Why are so many discerning people so mean?’

I had Tim Challies pegged as one of those mean-spirited, legalistic pseudo-Christians.

I may have been wrong, if what he told Justin Taylor is any indication.

Read more here.

Purveyors of Yeast

I never cease to be amazed at the arrogant self-righteousness and presumptuous attitude of the legalists with whom I used to associate.

An excellent example of a false prophet who presumes to enlighten the rest of us, while understanding nothing himself, is the proprietor of alittleleaven.com. This fellow is so full of ... um, "understanding" that he cannot resist sharing it with us poor, darkened souls.

Catch, for starters, his rant about Mark Kelly, who has posted a very thought-provoking online book about the doctrines of eternal security and apostasy. He shows how both are based on Bible teachings and that the biblical teaching on each position is different from the common misunderstandings called "once saved, always saved" and "losing your salvation." He makes an excellent case that a person does not have to—indeed must not—choose between the teachings. Sanctification is as much a part of salvation as regeneration, and the consequences of abandoning the process of sanctification are serious indeed.

The luminaries at alittleleaven.com and ChristianResearchNutwork, however, prefer jumping to conclusions to actually reading the entire series of posts. They rant at Kelly for what one claims is "the very real contradiction that exists between the Reformed doctrine of Eternal Security and the biblical warnings regarding apostasy and its consequences." No matter that he clearly shows there is no contradiction, once a person understands what the Bible actually teaches on both subjects.

This guy wants to have his unleavened bread and eat it too. On the one hand, he criticizes Kelly for not believing in eternal security, then he minimizes that doctrine as merely a "Reformed" position, contrasted with the "biblical" teaching of apostasy. He tries to stir up the "once saved, always saved" crowd against Kelly, while all the time he does not believe in eternal security himself! The other pharisee presents himself as a Southern Baptist pastor; his accomplice's teaching appears to be closer to that of the Church of Christ.

And he understands so little that he actually chose the metaphor of leaven for his site's name—apparently clueless about the irony.

Quoting from Kelly's post on The apostasy of legalism:

"The most insidious legalism presents itself as a defender of orthodox doctrine. After all, the Church has always had to oppose false teachers who threatened to corrupt the Faith. What could be more honorable than identifying heresy to protect the faithful? As Paul reminded the Corinthians, “A little bit of yeast makes the whole batch of dough rise.” (1 Corinthians 5:6 TEV)

"When Jesus used the metaphor of yeast, he was warning people about the legalistic teachings of the Pharisees. (Matthew 16:6) And while Paul’s warning to the Corinthians about yeast related to immoral living, he used exactly the same words to warn the Galatians about the danger of legalism. (Galatians 5:9)

"It’s a subtle deception indeed that sneaks yeast into the dough while warning about the danger of yeast."

The Purveyor of Yeast rants:

"Mark Kelly’s two posts contradicted each other so badly that we have no idea what he actually believes on the matter."

Presumably these powerhouse intellects would be incensed at an atheist who selects isolated passages from the Bible and uses them as "proof" of a contradiction, all the while ignoring a context that proves there is no contradiction. Somehow it is acceptable for them to pick and choose selections from a series of postings and throw them up as "proof" of Kelly's "confusion." What they have in fact done is demonstrate their own confusion—and lack of integrity.

A little advice for the Lovelorn: If you read a selection and don't understand, read the whole thing—and for Heaven's sake, don't broadcast your confusion on the Internet. Don't waste everyone's time by complaining about what someone else believes that you don't understand because you are too lazy or dishonest to read what he has written; take a position and explain what you think the truth is.

A man of godly courage meets untruth with truth, not with carping and criticism.