Why Dr. Mohler won the recent debate (without Jim Wallis noticing).
Recently, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary debated Jim Wallis, President of Sojourners. The topic for the debate, which can be heard on-line HERE, was, "Is Social Justice an Essential Part of the Mission of the Church?" Wallis answered "yes," and Dr. Mohler (somewhat reluctantly, due to the way the question was framed) answered "no." Wallis stated that care for the poor is "integral" to the gospel: basically, he wanted to argue that care for the poor is an essential part of the gospel message itself. Dr. Mohler stated that care for the poor is a necessary consequence of gospel work in someone's life, but the gospel message is distinct from a message about caring for the poor.
Dr. Mohler said that he was concerned that the way Wallis framed the issue would lead to a loss of the gospel message. Wallis conceded that this was a valid concern, but that he worked to make sure that personal salvation is central to the gospel proclamation at Sojourners.
When Wallis conceded that the possibility of losing the gospel was a valid concern, after having earlier stated that doctrines such as substitutionary atonement and the bodily resurrection were also essential to the gospel, he automatically lost the debate without knowing it. Because earlier in the debate, when listing his heroes (in terms of those whom he felt got it right in terms of preaching that social justice is integral to the gospel) he kept mentioning people like Charles Finney and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The reason that the mention of these men is such a problem is that Finney was a hyper-Pelagian arch-heretic and Dr. King, for all his admirable qualities, denied the resurrection. If Wallis, who attended Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and should know better, is so enamored with "social justice" that he cannot discern when his heroes are those who abandoned the biblical gospel, then there is something drastically wrong with the way he wishes to frame the argument.
Dr. Mohler said that he was concerned that the way Wallis framed the issue would lead to a loss of the gospel message. Wallis conceded that this was a valid concern, but that he worked to make sure that personal salvation is central to the gospel proclamation at Sojourners.
When Wallis conceded that the possibility of losing the gospel was a valid concern, after having earlier stated that doctrines such as substitutionary atonement and the bodily resurrection were also essential to the gospel, he automatically lost the debate without knowing it. Because earlier in the debate, when listing his heroes (in terms of those whom he felt got it right in terms of preaching that social justice is integral to the gospel) he kept mentioning people like Charles Finney and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The reason that the mention of these men is such a problem is that Finney was a hyper-Pelagian arch-heretic and Dr. King, for all his admirable qualities, denied the resurrection. If Wallis, who attended Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and should know better, is so enamored with "social justice" that he cannot discern when his heroes are those who abandoned the biblical gospel, then there is something drastically wrong with the way he wishes to frame the argument.
Labels: apologetics
posted by Andrew Lindsey | 3:34 PM
3 Comments:
Bingo. Well said.
Amen- sometime you CAN judge someone by the 'company they keep'- in this case Wallis' company seems to be rank heretics!
It was after reading the first few posts of the original "Pyromaniac" blog that I decided to start blogging, so encouragement from Mr. Johnson is especially meaningful.
Post a Comment
<< Home