Clap Clap Clap Little Fish Clap Your Hands!

[Horace:]
A little fish in a big pond has plenty of room to swim But swimming around are big fish all ready to pounce on him
Back to his little pond he starts to roam The little fish spreads his fins and begins to swim back home That's me, a little fish in a big pond, all wrong That's me, a little fish where a little fish don't belong A little man in a big town gets butterflies in his dome I'm ready to spread my fin and begin to swim back home To the little pond where a little fish and a little man belong

[Maizie:]
A little fish in a big pond has gotta have lots of heart For swimming around are big fish, but if he's the least bit smart Back to his little pond he doesn't go The little fish spreads his fins and begins to grow, grow, grow That's you, a little fish in a big pond, all right Me too, a little fish, but we gotta stand up and fight A little man in a big town don't have to get out and roam Stop taking it on the chin and begin to feel at home In the bigger pond where the bigger fish and the bigger men belong "Miss Liberty" Irving Berlin musical 1949

Watching The Watcher

Watching the watcher said...
You know, you may just be right. About everything. I am not sure you are going about things the right way, though. I also don't get what you hope to accomplish.
January 19, 2008 10:11 AM

Watching the watcher said...
You say "NASS," (New Bellevue Baptist Church Open Forum) it is about integrity of Church leadership", pointing back to Adrian Rogers. Yet the front page of your blog says "The intent of this blog is not to impugn the character or integrity of Dr Rogers".So which is it? Are your true colors showing through? Admit it, this is really all just about your personal dislike for Rogers, the rest is just blowing "spiritual" smoke, isn't it?
January 19, 2008 7:43 PM
I replied
No I am not angry with Dr Rogers, God is. I'm just his messenger and I know how angry God is.I did feel that there was a line I was stepping over in my post. Is there a correlation between one's theology and character? Can there be a connection to Dr Rogers' bad theology that would effect his priorities and cause him to be so busy in one area and neglect another? You tell me.
January 20, 2008 5:17 AM
Watching the watcher said...
I didn't say you were angry with Dr. Rogers. I said you dislike him and that personal dislike looks like a motive for what you are saying.Yes, there can be a connection between a person's theology and their character/integrety, but if that's what you believe is the case with Rogers you should remove the statement on the front page of your blog.
January 20, 2008 5:30 PM
I replied

I'm not angry nor do I dislike Dr Rogers. I said God is angry with Dr Rogers.Don't feel bad for misunderstanding me. A lot of folk misunderstand me.Sorry the statement stays!
January 20, 2008 5:42 PM

My intentions on this blog is not to impugn the character or integrity of Dr Rogers but his theology. At least that's what I thought I was doing until Watching the Watcher's comments.

To impugn even Dr Rogers' theology is a rarity. No one dares to do that but a few. His celebrity and legacy is tremendous. Perhaps it could be said that he was the best of men in so many ways.

Let's not forget that Jesus said that there are none good but one. Paul said, let God be found true and every man a liar and there is none righteous no not one. So Dr Rogers was not good. He was an unrighteous liar. So are we all!

We are all, without exception, either fools or knaves. The best of us fall short of pleasing God.Let us use this as our base and no one sits atop a pedestal. No one! Either we are foolishly lacking in judgement and prudence or we are tricky and deceitful.

We can't call anyone 'raca', stupid and worthless, utterly vilified. Yet neither can we call anyone good because only our Lord is good. God alone is true and we are liars.

I did not dislike Dr Rogers. However his celebrated status never impressed me one way or the other. I wasn't taught in all my upbringing to celebrate some one's status. Simple poor country people don't do that. That is a life that so few people seem to understand anymore. "Name droppers" were silly "city slickers" and "they best stay away from us"!

Perhaps it could be said of me that I did not like Dr Rogers. I went to a Wednesday night dinner at Bellevue with a friend and his family maybe six or seven years ago. Over dinner he ask me the difference between Baptist and Pentecostals and I struggled to give him a good answer.

Adrian Rogers spoke that evening about how Bellevue could be a bigger church. It was an emergent sermon on church growth. He said that Bellevue had baptized almost 900 people the last year.

A lady in the audience heard the number that had been baptized and she began clapping spontaneously. Her lone clapping was interrupted by Rogers who put up his palms in a gesture to stop. "Now you listen to what I was saying" he said to her. His point was that while Bellevue had baptized nearly 900 they could be baptizing even more! Astounding vision! However she was not following his train of thought. I was embarrassed for her and knew that she would go home that night feeling bad.
When I got in the car with my friend I immediately told him that Dr Rogers "goofed up tonight".

I told him that would not have happened in a Pentecostal church. I had been in hundreds of services that spontaneous applause interrupted the sermon and many times the sermon would not get finished. I knew that the least that Dr Rogers could have done for the lady was let her clap and pause for others to join her, but let her clap and not embarrass her.

My opinion was that his ego was in his sermon and her feelings mattered little to him. "Such is the price one pays for attending a big church." "Order must prevail."

If I didn't like him that would be the reason. Moses struck the rock rather than speak to it and it cost him the journey into the promise land. Is it right for one whole life to be measured by one isolated incidence? This incidence will not leave me. That lone clapper haunts me and I cry for the little people lost in the crowd. I mean it, I weep as I type.

Yes, If I didn't like him that would be the reason. But that is not the reason I have a blog and no I am not blowing spiritual smoke!

I have heard from God and He is angry with Adrian Rogers. His anger is not at all like human anger. His wrath is terrible and if you are going to be a minister you need to know what he thinks of your self-determination.

If Adrian Rogers was wrong while 99% of the people thought he was right, where do you think you stand with God, Mr Big Shot pastor? Live your celebrated status and enjoy it while it last but you too will face the angry God Dr Roger faces! Your theology has to be correct. It has to be Holy Spirit directed. He must get the credit for every convert and you stay in the shadows.

Watching the Watcher, the statement comes down. Dr Rogers was no fool, he was a deceiver and a liar.

I Am A Bold, Spirit-Filled, Evangelistic, 5 Point Calvinist

I believe I was Calvinist before I knew I was Calvinist. I was a Calvinistic Pentecostal! Embrace that! I was a Calvinist when Calvinism wasn't cool.


Born in 1946, I was raised a country boy in a small middle Tennessee town by poor farming parents who attended a mixture of Methodist and Baptist churches and attended one room schools in those same churches. My father was Free Methodist and my aunt led my parents into a Nazarene Church and later we became involved in a small Pentecostal church when I was one year old.


By culture and tradition I should have been Arminian. But in 1956 when I got saved and was baptized (trinitarian) I also was introduced to the working of the Holy Spirit in very unintellectual fashion. There was error all around though I did not know it.


The work of the Spirit was such that I knew that I was depraved even as a ten year old. Because of the attitude of the professing adults in church I knew I had to conceal my depravity. I accepted Christ and was baptized and knew I was a Christian but I never internalized any illusions to deny my depravity.


I lived a life of constant struggle. I clung to my young profession and never strayed far from the tarrying bench. It has not been just my belief that Christ saved me but that I was depraved.


I was a sinner saved by grace in a church that preached that there was no such thing. Internally I had the Spirit tell me over and over, "yes there is".



Without a doubt I am elected!

Hostile And Evil Blind Beggars With Swords

Adrian Rogers explains in a sermon: "Jesus is God’s Answer to Man’s Darkness: John 20:30": “Spiritual blindness makes beggars of us all. ... The blind need more than light in order to see. ... I used to think, as a young preacher, that what you had to do to get people saved is just to tell them how to be saved. Just turn on the light. But it doesn’t matter how much light there is, or the person is blind because he cannot see it. It takes more than light, it takes sight. And a person who is blind cannot see the light, no matter how strong the light is or how pure the light is. It takes more than preaching to get people saved. That’s the reason I frequently say to you, I can preach truth, but only the Holy Spirit can impart truth. That is the reason why we must be a praying church. That’s the reason you must be a spirit filled soul winner. That is the reason that we must have the anointing, because we are dependent upon God to open blinded eyes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It takes more than light, it takes takes sight. We need to understand that nobody can be argued into the kingdom of heaven. Nobody can be educated into the kingdom of heaven. I’m not against letting the light shine. You must let the let shine. You must preach. But remember, there is another dimension.”

Rogers drafted the statement : "Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfil the creative purpose of God" for the 2000 BF&M. When he says the Holy Spirit imparts truth, he means an illumination that prevents the sinful nature of man from hindering free choice. He insist that the Holy Spirit does a pre-supernatural work, modifying the depraved nature of the sinner, which if responded to affirmatively, leads to a supernatural regeneration. The new believer can testify to his acceptance and self effort of turning from sin to Christ. The esteem of the believer remains in tack and humankind is not offended!

In Christ's day a blind man had no usefulness other than to sit by the roadside begging for alms. A blind beggar has lost his self esteem and is not self hindered from being obnoxious in crowds, crying out for alms. Yet his daily survival depends on crying louder than the other beggars. If his cries are not heard he sleeps hungry that night, if he sleeps at all.

Rogers assumes that being a blind beggar illustrates the sinful condition. The blind beggar is hostile to anything to do with God. He is sociopathic in his anti-Christian nature. He is irredeemable and non-reformable. Common grace hedges him from destruction of self and others. Partial enablement nor pre-regenerative help will not help him. He needs immediate and total help if he is to be helped at all. Like Dr Frankenstein, if we try to short cut God's plan by capturing illumination and enablements we'll have a monster on our hands. Dr Rogers man will be a dead man who has sight. He can't nod his head, he can't raise his hand, he can't walk the isle he can't reason or deduct. He is a rotten corpse with good eyes! Scary!

Prevenient grace of Wesleyanism, illumination by some reformers, preemptive placement of the sinner by some moderate Calvinist and divine enablement of Dr Rogers' SBC; none of these are of any use to the sinner. He needs more than sight to see, he needs a new heart and become a new creation . He needs a work done to him that he can not boast nor glory in anything but the grace and mercy of God.

Adrian Rogers Was A Conflicted Arminian

James White said that Dr Rogers was an inconsistent Arminian. Anyone who embraces eternal security, claiming they believe in total depravity and perseverance of the saints according to Calvinism, and yet they adamantly deny unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace is greatly conflicted. That conflict is not merely a theological twist the honest thinking scholars argue endlessly (Patterson vs Mohler) but it manifest itself in the subjective heartfelt confusion of the average Joe who attempts to incorporate this conflict in daily life. (a la Paul Williams)

I was raised Wesleyan/holiness Pentecostal and I can say with all the subjective experiential mix of that system I have not encountered a deeper insecurity than I have seen in the last few years as I have found in the followers of Adrian Rogers. Wesleyanism, though very much anti-Calvinistic does not have the inconsistency of Adrian Rogers' theology.

You encounter this insecurity when you enter a discussion about Calvinism with a person who holds to eternal security and free will at the same time. They made a choice to receive Christ as their personal savior and their confidence is tied to this decision. They are certain of their decision. When they hear they didn't have a choice rather they were elected to salvation by God's sovereign choice, the fact of their choice suddenly become irrelevant and the bottom drops from their confidence.

With tears in her eyes a young lady, admirer of Adrian Rogers said to me: "if that is so then why should I keep going to church since God will decide if I am saved or not? Why should I bother to have more children if I may just bring into this world a child who is not elect?" Why should I pray or do anything?" Since I had not discussed Calvinism extensively with her I knew that what she was saying was not as a result of what I had said to her but what she had heard Dr. Rogers teach. He had infected her mind with emotive language against Calvinsm. He was successful in that endeavor. She will need deprogramming to get her back to the Bible instead of further into "Adrianisms."

However for me her tears affected me in a manner such as Isaiah had when the seraphim took a hot coal from off the altar with tongs and then he put the live coal in his own hand so that what burned Isaiah's lips burned the seraphim's hand and seared them both with the knowledge of the awful depravity of man. We are all people of unclean lips. Her tears burned in my heart the importance of understanding the sinful nature of man and that if we don't we have false assurance of salvation.

Adrian hadn't adequately taught her that she, her husband and all their children were all birthed in sin, corrupted beyond self effort toward redemption. Indeed she and her family were elected of God and their home bore evidence of that. Her foundation was unsound. She thought she had "decided to follow Jesus" when in truth the Lord "knows all that the Father gives Christ are his."

Dr. Rogers, What Were You Thinking?

Adrian Rogers, what were you thinking when you wrote: "did God predestine some people for heaven and predestine others for hell?" (P. 3 Predestined for Hell? Absolutely Not!)

Why would any Bible-believer think that God predestines some to hell when the Bible plainly says "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" Didn't you understand that all are destined to hell as the result of Adam's sin? Didn't you understand that no one was acceptable for heaven?

What were you trying so feebly to say? Were you assuming that your audience was so weak-minded that they would deduct that there are people who believe that God predestinates some to hell? (There are some - hyper Calvinist)

Did it occur to you that in order to make all Calvinist look like hyper-Calvinist you left the door open for yourself to be one who doesn't believe what the Bible says about depravity?

Calvinist believe that men are hell bound because they are depraved. Their depravity is insurmountable! All are hopelessly lost without any excuse!

Oh now you are going to say, "men go to hell because they reject Christ." But doesn't that assume that men do have redeemable value and they can make a choice? How can a man who has poisonous venom under his lips choose Christ? All he will do is spit venom even when he thinks he holds the truth. He is throughly unrighteous. When you wrote your little booklet were you spouting truth or venom?

I believe it was venom. I'll bet you now have a new edition forthcomming. The problem is that LWF won't print it for you.

Two Opinions From Two Doctors! Can We Get A Third?

Dr Rogers successor, Steve Gaines, at Bellevue preached his anti-Calvinism message (must be a contractual agreement to continue the legacy) and stated: "I am not knocking people (Calvinist) who are, but they know themselves that they got the idea of limited atonement from their own logical thinking, they didn't get it out of the Bible...."

Dr Rogers insist on logic inspite what the Bible teaches by stating "now use a little sense"

Which is it? Do we use a little sense and logic for the sake of missions and evangelism or do we not use a little sense and logic to avoid Calvinism?

Dr Rogers and Dr. Gaines, what does the Bible have to do with all this anyway? The Bible only provides proof texts for our interpretations. Our beliefs determine the meaning of scripture. Isn't that true?

Did Rogers And The Catholic Priest Anger God?

Adrian Rogers and the Catholics know that God can control the human will. They know that God can regenerate who and when he pleases. They know this to be true and yet they build upon a false sensible tradition that compromises God's attribute, sovereignty.

The Catholics believe that they are in succession to Peter and have the keys to officially build the Church. The Vatican with St Peter's Basilica in Rome is the Vicar of Christ's headquarters. They also believe God has shared his sovereignty in such a way to accommodate Rome's expansion. The problem for the Catholics is that the gates of hell have prevailed.

Like the Catholics Dr Rogers believes that God cooperates with the Church by setting aside part of His sovereignty in order to accommodate the sinner's free will in deciding to follow Christ. Rogers believes that if God is left to his own sovereignty He will be like a "madman" (p. 17 Predestined for Hell? Absolutely Not!) In order to build a case against the sovereignty of God in election Dr Rogers builds a straw man argument against Calvinism except it is not an argument against Calvinism but God's sovereignty.

"Now use a little sense" he argues. This is not a devised theology by a man who is ignorant of scripture but a man following the practicality of E. Y. Mullins departure from orthodoxy in favor of a more reasonable approach to church growth. Dr Rogers implies the arguments for God's election are not rational by human standards and if the gospel is going to appeal to modern scientific man it needs a rational and sensible approach.

Rogers writes in his booklet with a strong emotional appeal to God. You must let us have our free will! You can't deprive us of this!

"How can we build a big church and broadcast your message from nation to nation if we don't have free will? How can we win the nations if we don't have human will? We will build your church! "

The problem is that there is one "itty bitty" catch in Dr Rogers progress and his name is Paul Williams. God cannot be mocked.

So the tiresome reply to me by so many devoted followers of Dr Rogers is "why can't you let a dead man rest in peace?" "This is just your silly argument for Calvinism and you are using this Bellevue mess as a means to espouse your beliefs."

No, No, No, Rogers' argument wasn't against Calvinism it was against God. Now he faces that God and he says, "sit in this chair and watch your Bellevue be destroyed. You watch it crumble."

Do I have a vendetta against Dr Rogers? No. Does God have a vendetta against him? You decide!

Whose Deception Is Greater, Rogers Or The Priest?

The folks who form a line down the isle of the cathedral are told through dogma and are taught by the Catechism about the miraculous change in the host and so in sincerity they believe by faith they are receiving the actual body of Christ.

The sinners who walk the isle of the Church are not clearly told about the miraculous change that has already taken or will take place in their spiritual body. They will be partially modified so they can accept or reject Christ. They will have the disposition of their forefather Adam who freely chose to eat of the forbidden fruit.

Whose deception is greater?

Adrian Rogers Preached Transubstantiation! Can A SBC Preacher Do That?

Transubstantiate means to change into another substance. The Catholic dogma declares that the communion elements, bread and wine, are changed into the actual body and blood of Christ yet keeping the appearance of bread and wine. The belief is that the Catholic is actually receiving from the hand of the priest and consuming the body of Christ.

Adrian Rogers taught that the sinner like lifeless bread and grape juice are dead spiritually and cannot respond in faith to accept Christ. However when an unbeliever hears his altar call the Holy Spirit provides an enablement to properly respond. This "grace" is pre-conversion enablement and can be accepted or rejected. It is not clear when this enablement is actually given. While the Catholic believes the elements are changed into the body of Christ, Adrian Rogers believed that the dead unbeliver is changed back into Adam's moral state even though by outward appearance you cannot see it.

Dr. Rogers taught often that "where God leads, God enables." You cannot be dead and alive at the same time yet this pre-conversion grace is not new life but that which is sufficient to make a free choice without God's interference and thus if accepted spiritual regeneration takes place.

Unlike the Catholic tradition there is no tabernacle to maintain the sacred body of Christ not consumed. Of coarse the Priest usually consumes the remaining wine at the end of the ceremony.

The SBC scholars must have multitudes of explanations about the giving and duration of this supernatural enablement.

Was Adrian Rogers Leading Bellevue Baptist Back To Catholicism?

SECOND EDITION: CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

PART ONE: THE CELEBRATION THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY

SECTION TWO: THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER ONE: THE SACRAMENTS OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

Does all this sound like pre-conversion enablement that Adrian Rogers preached. Like a Catholic priest He would pronounce a consecration and invite sinners in a state of spiritual death and under the power of sin to "come to Jesus" and the unbeliever experiences a transubstantiation enabling them to be awakened sufficiently to exercise free choice. Instead of the elements changed into the body of Christ the believer is changed back into the body of Adam sufficiently that he too can exercise free choice.

The Catholics recrucify Christ and Adrian Rogers insulted God's sovereignty in election and insults the Spirit of Grace.

Of coarse, the reformation led us away from all that influence. We believe in orthodox Christianity in which the unbeliever is truly in a state of spiritual death, unable to respond to God. He is without power or desire to respond.

Rather are we not creeping away from orthodoxy and returning to Catholicism? Don't we see the same type of things around us that caused the reformers to rise up in protest?

Is This A Real Miracle?

Decide for yourself if this is a real miracle. Watch it till the end and you will see the god behind this video!

While this is an outrageous example of religion gone bad, the sad part is the god in this video is a well know god to American fundamentalism today.

NBBCOF's NASS Will Never Get It Right!

New BBC Open Forum (nass' copyrighted picture-excellent) This forum (her's) was created to provide a place where those who are seriously concerned about the issues facing Bellevue Baptist Church can come to comment and exchange ideas in a respectful, Christian spirit. The purpose of this blog is not to confront sins affecting us individually but sins that affect us congregationally.

She commented to John Harraman at 11:08 AM, January 19, 2008

"I don't know if you have children or grandchildren, but if you do, did it not bother you even a little that your pastor allowed a confessed pedophile and documented sexual predator to freely roam the halls of Bellevue Baptist Church for over six months after he knew about him? If you don't, do you not care about anyone else's children?"


She said: It's about the lack of integrity in our church leadership."

I don't want to stoop to the level of NBBCOF's impugning of Steve Gaines and his wife Donna however her statement leads me to comment on Dr Rogers lack of leadership during the years Paul Williams sodomized his own young son for 12-18 months. It was the zenith for Bellevue and the new Appling Structure. The national involvement in SBC convention leadership. Chairing the committee to present the 2000 BF&M.

Why he even drafted a family oriented program dealing with of all things "deadbeat dads"!

NASS, the problems were not with Paul Williams' conduct during the six months after Steve Gaines knew about him. He had to have been on his best behavior.

Any molestation that took place by him was under Dr Rogers' watch. GMMOMY herself states that she was not able to go to Rogers, even though she was able to confide in others. They knew themselves that Dr Rogers didn't need to know about this. He was just too busy.

Like praying, if you are too busy to pastor your church you are too busy. He was not so big that he could do both without sacrificing one at the expense of the other. Chris Williams paid a high price for Adrian's success!

NASS, it is about integrity of Church leadership. Who else beside Chris Williams paid a high price? It is not about Steve Gaines but Adrian Rogers. The cause is theological in nature.

Theology Based On The Fact Of Experience

Adrian Rogers' booklet, "Predestined for Hell? Absolutely Not!" has used John Rice and Robert Sumner of Sword of the Lord fame in Murfreesboro, Tennessee as resources.

April 18, 2006 at 4:45AM I noted in my journal Matthew 14: 28,29 'If it be thou bid me come unto thee on the water" Christ said "Come" I wrote, "Was this call for just Peter or for all who were in the boat? Is it a call for us today?"

Dr Robert L. Sumner, "An Examination of TULIP" said "... that theology (invitation to all in the boat) would soon prove destitute of supporting practical experience. All who believe thusly and based their doctrine on this invitation would sink the moment they attempted to walk on the waves. ... theology which disagrees with the FACT OF EXPERIENCE is suspect theology."

Dr. Rogers' invitation to come to Jesus meets the "experience" test. Stay in the boat and accept Christ. Your decision determines destiny and your journey toward salvation.

But are not all who are regenerated walking on water? Determine your own destiny and you will sink in the waves. But if your destiny has been decreed before the foundation of the earth you will be walking on water.

Try rowing your boat to heaven! "Row row row your boat gently down the stream, merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!" Now all those on the left side of the church start and we'll sing in rows... this will be fun.

How Great Is The Sin Of The Church?

A blogger on the "open forum" said...
"Anyone hear Chuck Swindoll this a.m.? He stood before his people broken hearted and humbled to the point of tears - not because of any personal sin but because of the sin of adultery of two of his staff members. It was obvious his heart was breaking over sin that broke the heart of God. He made it clear that both had been immediately released from their jobs, and he made no excuses for them nor sympathized with them. He then gave a powerful message to his people on the consequences of sin against a holy God, and he encouraged their hearts for the days ahead. The service was ended with both congregation and choir singing all 4 stanzas of Holy, Holy Holy. Sin was dealt with, God was glorified, and the people comforted and edified. Contrast that with the way the leadership handled the PW case.There is no comparison."

David Brown was raped by Paul Fredrick Haas, a Catholic priest, in 1961 and Christa Brown was raped by Tommy Gilmore, a SBC youth and children's leader when she was a young teen. Both are involved with SNAP. They give you a picture of what is going on in American Christianity today. It is not a pretty picture.

Bellevue's associate, Paul Williams, sodomized his own young son for 12-18 months while Bellevue was in their zenith under Adrian Rogers' celebrated leadership in Memphis as well as nationally in the SBC and "Love Worth Finding" media ministry. "Dr. Rogers was an adamant supporter of the pro-life movement, had stated that the institution of capital punishment is spiritually ordained, and supported a boycott of Disney because of the company's supposed promotion of homosexuality."

Now I have gotten in trouble for being too specific on the Bratton Report so I will try to tone it down so not to offend Mike. Romans 1:27 says Man (male) shall not lie with man (male) as Man (male) lies with woman ( female). A male ordained associate lay with his on young son (male) in the manner in which he should have been laying with his wife. By night he lay with his son and by day walked the halls of Bellevue Baptist as associate pastor friend of Dr Rogers.

In the context of Romans 1:27 God created women with a secretion of clear odorless lubrication and directed blood flow to allow for normal activity in a loving enjoyable manner. Williams' young son had no benefit of this natural process. Neither was his innocent psyche able to comprehend what was going on. Untold damage is done to such a child. Words should not be able to express the outrage by authorities and Bellevue membership.

Gmmomy said to me "Defend SG all you want....it doesn't matter. SG was still the one confessed to by the predator and SG was the one that made the decision to keep it a secret to everyone at BBC while PW continued to be a first responder for children who may have fallen or been hurt while at church....and PW continued to violate already wounded women.... fully protected by SG and the ones SG chose to tell. Any real leader or protector would have reported him to proper authorities and removed him from his position of power."

Gmmomy and 32years@BBC, Paul Williams is the perpetrator not Gaines. You are making assumptions about Steve Gaines' cover-up and that Rogers would have acted quickly.

All the outrage on all these blogs, except Bratton's, are directed toward Steve Gaines as though he is the perpetrator. There is very little outrage toward Paul Williams, supposedly to protect his son, as though more damage could be done to him.

Yet day after day they attack Steve Gaines, his wife and family. They call them names and make fun of their appearance. Then they go on tangents of emergent churches, styles of worship, female preachers on and on day after day. They turn on one another. Any preacher or pastor who comments will be short lived.

I tell them over and over Steve Gaines inherited the mess Adrian Rogers left them. So they moderate my comments.

Brood of vipers.

I Sympathize With Steve Gaines

Steve and Donna Gaines inherited a terrible mess that no new pastor would ever want to have to deal with. Perhaps in the history of American fundamentalism has a pastor had to carry the burden this man and his wife carry.

While I do not support nor attend Bellevue I sympathize with him and I'm sure he can get along without my sympathy. His theology is no different than Dr. Rogers, so I oppose both men's terrible theology. They have departed from healthy orthodoxy and embraced variations of Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism. They have followed in the path of Charles Finney's Pelagianism.

However many have been unfair to Steve and Donna by assailing his character and integrity.
They desire to "kick him out" of Bellevue and run him out of town. Others also have contributed and have successfully given them a hard time.

While Gaines made some miscalculated errors which could give him serious negligent criminal charges if Paul Williams were charged there need to be due consideration to the following:

1.) The concealment was probably what any man would have done in the same situation. They may not have left Williams in the same official functions as a counselor and certainly not near children. If Dr Rogers were still living he would have taken the same approach, contrary to what his devotees say. He would not have acted quickly. No one would have challenged Dr Rogers actions if he had done the same thing.

2.) Adrian Rogers left a delicate "china shop" in which he and only he could gracefully maneuver. Steve Gaines with a rugged and awkward personality different from Rogers was like a bull in that china shop. In my opinion there were many who were not comfortable with Dr Rogers' celebrity and quickly fell in love with Gaines bullheaded manliness.

3.) Adrian Rogers hand picked him and if he were still alive and at Bellevue as Pastor-emeritus, he would still be there supporting Gaines. All those presently opposed to Gaines would not be raising a fuss about any of the past two year events.

4.) If Dr Rogers were still here Paul Williams would still be on staff at Bellevue and Chris would be suffering in silence.

These are reasonable and common conclusions.

Ignore A Problem And It Will Go Away

The term "sticking your head in the sand" has come to mean that you choose to ignore a bad situation, and hope that it will go away on its own. The unfortunate reality is that most of us take that action (really, a lack of action) when faced with a challenge. Sticking your head in the proverbial sand also prevents you from finding out more information that might help resolve the issue.

Never in the history of American Christianity has a Church had the problem that Bellevue had (has). This was a criminal act that should never have taken place in the worst areas of America much less in the flagship of the SBC. Bellevue missed the best of opportunities to make a stand against the worst form of homosexuality. Reverend Williams' molestation of his own young son was an unspeakably deviant action that should have been met by an outrage at all levels of the Memphis society.

Reverend Williams should be rotting in a prison confined from the rest of the inmates who would love to do to him what he did to his own son. He should have been arrested and submitted to the same public condemnation that the worst of deviants experience.

Behind the scenes forces must have worked diligently to have kept the news to a bare minimum in all news media outlets. Bellevue has influence that reaches far and deep into Memphis politics.

Dr. Rogers' legacy was protected at the expense of the Church taking a scriptural stand that will leave the SBC impotent in regards to sexual deviancy.

The gates of hell have stood firm against the feeble assault of SBC's flagship, Bellevue Baptist.

The next time you hear Steve Gaines preach against homosexuality, listen to the mockery of those in the MidSouth area. He will have to consider this if he decides to preach against homosexuality.

What if the Holy Spirit impresses him to take a bold stand, Steve Gaines will have to resist.

Oh what a mess Adrian Rogers left for Steve Gaines!

Adrian Rogers And Free Choice

(This post was accidently deleted from an earlier time. I am reentering it here)

Dr. Richard Land said: "I lost a dear friend on November 15, 2005; so did the pro-life movement. Dr. Rogers spoke passionately against abortion. He called the date of the Roe v. Wade opinion, January 22, 1973, "one of the darkest days in American history, a day, in my estimation, like Pearl Harbor, a day that will live in infamy." You could tell when he preached on the issue he was burdened about it and grieved about its legalization." -National Right To Life News

How could Dr. Rogers be so right about pro life issues and yet so wrong about the New Birth? Dr. Rogers defended the right of the unborn to life. They have no choice and are subject to the choice of the mother. The mother has a legal right to choose abortion as an alternative.

The sinner is spiritually dead. Ephesians 2: 1-3 He has no inclination at all toward God and his sinfulness is insurmountable. However Adrian Rogers says this dead man has a choice of Christ as savior. He believed that the dead are given an enabling pre-conversion grace sufficient to make a choice. Orthodox believers believe that the dead sinner must be first quickened (Regenerated) then he exercises faith in Christ confessing and calling on the name of God for Salvation. Believers are elected and the elect like the unborn fetus has no choice.

Wine And Cheese Theology

As I have previously stated this blog is not for the purpose of attacking Adrian Rogers' character. His life was above reproach and he was a gentle man and good pastor. I am addressing his theology.


Perhaps Dr. Rogers was not more wrong than when he referred to Reform advocates as "wine and cheese" theologians. This analogy implies that people are bona fide epicurean gourmands. It makes you think of a snooty restaurant wine steward who looks down his nose at you because you have no ideal as to which wine to choose.


A multitude of choices is what separates the "haves" from the "have nots." The "haves" know the long list of choices that lay before them. Just drive on I-40 and see the large complex behind the three very large lighted crosses at the Appling exit. Such an impressive campus speaks volumes as to ministry choices that are not available to most of the world.

The problem is not so much tangible choices but theological choices. Dr. Rogers apparent Arminianism (falsely called Biblicism) creates a tradition that even God disallows. Choosing not to live as those common people who have no options they create a belief that makes choice possible.

In Luke 18:9-14 two men have much in common they both go to the temple to pray. They both stand to pray. They start with "God". But they are different in that one is proud in that he can compare himself to others less fortunate. He knows that he has perfectly fulfilled the rigid requirements of the law and that he is able to hold his head high in cooperation with a good God.

The other knew that he had no one to compare himself to. He was a sinner undeserving to even pray at a proper place. He stood a far way from the temple ashamed to even hold his head up.
There was nothing to cooperate with God for him. Mercy is all he stood to receive and mercy he received as Christ acknowledged his justification while ignoring the other proud pharisee.

Adrian Rogers' theology was the "wine and cheese" while the Calvinism he looked down his nose at was the answer to the man who realizes that he is utterly lost and his condition insurmountable. Election is not a choice.

Against God's Design - Restore Moral Ability

While spending a week in 1958 with my cousin in Woodbury, Tennessee, my aunt gave us enough money to go see a movie. My first movie was FRANKENSTEIN. Looking back it seems providential that I saw this movie.

(Wikipedia) Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus is a novel written by the British author Mary Shelley. Shelley wrote the novel when she was 19 years old. The title of the novel refers to a scientist who learns how to reanimate flesh and creates a being in the likeness of man out of body parts taken from the dead. In modern popular culture, people have tended to refer to the Creature as "Frankenstein" (especially in films since 1931).

Frankenstein is a novel infused with some elements of the Gothic novel and the Romantic movement. It was also a warning against the "over-reaching" of modern man and the Industrial Revolution, alluded to in the novel's subtitle, The Modern Prometheus. The story has had an influence across literature and popular culture and spawned a complete genre of horror stories and films. The novel raises many issues that can be linked to today's culture. These issues include the evolution of man and whether technical progress can be self-destructive.

Shelley wrote: "It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs."

Against the Reformers' view that man is dead and without any ability to turn to God, protesters argued that man must be free to exercise his will in choosing salvation. Modern day variations insist that though depraved man has to be able to exercise free will. Like Prometheus and Dr. Frankenstein, sincere in their intentions, there had to be a shortcut to salvation. If the Bible is correct about the sinfulness of man then there had to be a modification that allowed for God's sovereignty to be intact yet allow the integrity of human choice.

Adrian Rogers was an advocate for this view. He preached against the reformation doctrines of grace, even ridiculed and mocked their views.

Adrian Rogers owed Bill Clinton an Apology!

In a sermon: "Will God Impeach America?" Adrian Rogers chastised Bill Clinton for his immoral behaviour and said he hangs his head in shame when our president goes abroad to represent America. Now we bow our head in shame when we realize that Bellevue's own associate under Adrian Rogers sodomized his own son for 12-18 months over 17 years ago without Dr Rogers knowing about it.

Did God build a hedge around Dr Rogers so that he would not know about his associate and allow him to speak so eloquently about America's hedge being lifted? Did God lift the hedge from Bellevue when he took the unrepentant Rogers to heaven for his fiery test? Does Adrian Rogers observe the mess left to Steve Gaines to straighten out?

As I have repeatedly said this is not an attack against Rogers character. His character was impeccable and he was a prince of gentlemen, good husband, father and pastor. However a good man though fervent and effectual can err theologically in ways displeasing to God.

Listen to this sermon and see for yourself, Adrian Rogers' tears in heaven as he bows his head in shame, crying for Abraham to send someone to correct his error.

Abraham says: "They won't listen."