A second thought: every SBC pew-sitter needs to read Adrian Rogers’ “Predestined to Hell? Absolutely Not!” … actually, it should be required reading! The majority in the pew still don’t have a clue what’s heading in their direction.

If Meyer, McFadden, and Lister told Dr. Aguillard they were not Calvinists, then Yes that would be considered lying. Now, asked me if these three men were “liars”. I do not know them personally do I cannot say what their character is. I am merely placing the issue out there. If Dr. Aguillard asked them if they were Calvinists and they told him they were not, then we certainly have serious issues.

What an excellent article. It is amazing how Calvinists will lie about what they believe to be hired. I am do glad Louisiana Baptists are taking a stand against the infiltration of Calvinism into the SBC.

Your your reasoning would be more valid if we had a different President in the White House. Remember, he was the one that directed his Attorney General to overlook DOMA. Thus, regardless of the “Federal law” it is null if the states pass their own laws. The argument is not “hypothetical” it is a real argument because the states are looking at passing the laws in a way that will keep the feds out of their business. Here is the kicker. I did not know the NC Democratic party pulled their shenanigan until I began to research this article.

Back to the “real” argument instead of the “hypothetical” one you seem to purport. Everyone always argued that cannabis was not a fair comparison in the moderation argument. Well, no longer can that be argued. Why? You now have to separate whether Paul was speaking about Federal Government leaders or State Government leaders in Romans 13.