Let me first come out and say that I have signed the Great Commission Resurgence. Maybe, I need to clarify even more, I signed the GCR without “caveats.” At the same time, if there were indeed some document stating a renewed emphasis on our Baptist distinctives I would sign that as well. I caught myself yesterday thinking, “Well shoot, I like Bart Barber and Timmy Brister. I like being Baptist and I like the Great Commission.” Then I started to contemplate the supposed “competing” views within the Southern Baptist Convention, the GCR and Baptist Identity. Soon after I started thinking about the “competing views” I ran into a comment by my friend and fellow blogger Trevin Wax,
On another note, I am not convinced that the Baptist Identity and Great Commission Resurgence movements are “competing.” Could we not choose to see these, at least at some level, as complementary? I don’t know of any GCR guys who want to do away with Baptist distinctives. Nor do I know of any BI guys who are against the Great Commission.
All I am saying is… theologically, I find too much in common between someone like Bart Barber and Danny Akin to label them as “competing” in some way.
Do these camps disagree at times? Yes. But I believe there are plenty of us who want to see a Great Commission Resurgence of a distinctly Baptist flavor, and do not like being forced neatly into political camps within the SBC.
I think Trevin is right. Theologically, I do not think they are really in “competition.” Timmy Brister responded, “Regarding competition and political camps, I do not like to see the division, but it is what it is.” My response to Timmy is, “Isn’t it what you make it?” There certainly seems to be some “competing” going on and yet, theologically, I do not think the BI and GCR have very much that they don’t agree on. So what is the competition? It saddens me to say that it isn’t the theological camps themselves, but rather the only thing “competing” is the people within those camps. It is a power struggle.
No one in the BI group doesn’t want a Great Commission Resurgence. I also don’t know of anyone in the GCR camp that wants to lose all of our Baptist distinctives, as Trevin pointed out. Therefore, the only conclusion seems to show that it isn’t the camps themselves that are in competition, but rather the leaders. This greatly saddens me because, in my opinion, it shows a lack of humility and willingness to work with the other camp. What has happened is some on the GCR seem to have the attitude and demeanor, that if you don’t sign the GCR you are somehow just being a ‘dissenter’ that wants to hold the power(veiled under the head line of Baptist Identity). Any time this sort of thing happens the other side(BI) are not going to get enthusiastic about joining the ‘Resurgence.’
What I am saying is this: pride is again, the problem. I encourage my BI friends to sign the GCR because I do think it is a positive direction for the SBC. I also encourage my GCR friends to put the guns down and stop shooting at the BI guys as if they are enemies of the Great Commission. What we need is a unified vision for the SBC. Some say, “We are Baptists, impossible.” When pride is in the way, I agree. When we humble ourselves and understand that our vision alone might not be the best for the SBC, but rather if we draw the strengths from our vision and join them with the strengths of competing visions we might actually get somewhere.
Seriously, do we not need a a Great Commission Resurgence built on our Baptist principles? We are Baptist for a reason. We also believe in reaching the nations for Christ. Theologically, there isn’t and shouldn’t be competition. This leaves only one thing to cause division, if not theology, it must be people. I am an Identified Baptist that has signed and believes in a Great Commission Resurgence. I support Hunt as our current president and a couple of months ago I already stated who I think will be the best next president. While I endorse, Hunt for now and Akin for later, I will not be upset if someone else gets elected, as long as they are distinctively Baptist and have a passion for the Great Commission. When the theology is there on both sides we do not need to fight over which camp “has the power.”
I encourage everyone to quit using “competing” language between the two camps. I encourage the leaders of both camps to quit caring “who has the power” and enjoy the fact that the SBC wants both Baptist distinctives and a Great Commission Resurgence. We are in a good place. It isn’t to long ago that we had to fight for theology, now we are merely fighting over who leads. Leaders are important, but when all the suspected leaders are similar theologically we ought to be encouraged of where we are as a convention.
Dave Miller (75)
Debbie Kaufman (63)
Rick Patrick (41)
Chris Roberts (37)
Bob Hadley (33)
Frank (33)
Greg Harvey (31)
Bart Barber (30)
dr. james willingham (30)
cb scott (29)
Matt, those are good thoughts. It is not necessarily about theological disagreement, but about the process of how we get “there”. How do we work it all out?
I think of the Dead Poets Society when the students were honoring Robin Williams as he left. They stood up on their chairs and said O Captain! My Captain!.
SBCers seem to have a habit of saying similarly Oh Convention! My Convention! when we should be saying Oh Jesus! My Jesus!
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Who Is Watching Your Life? =-.
Matt,
You reported that Trevin Wax wrote: ” believe there are plenty of us who want to see a Great Commission Resurgence of a distinctly Baptist flavor”. (emphasis mine)
That’s all well and good but I prefer to see a Great Commission Resurgence of a distinctly biblical flavor. If that happens to be baptist, then great.
Les
.-= Les Puryear´s last blog ..2009 VBS =-.
Bro. Les,
It’s funny how we use words. I am with you in that I too want a distinctly biblical GCR. However, since I believe that credo-baptism is the biblical position on baptism I certainly favor a baptist position.
Side note: I met some new neighbors last night. They didn’t want to come to our “baptist” church at first because they wanted a non-denominational church. I then explained that non-denom doesn’t mean non-baptist. Most non-denom’s are credo-baptist. Once I explained that they understood and now plan to visit us. (Sorry, this just seemed like the right place for this story since it just happened, etc.)
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Who Is Watching Your Life? =-.
Mark,
Good thoughts.
Les,
Aren’t you Baptist because it is Biblical?
Matt, I’m a Biblically Identified Baptized Believer in Jesus Christ whose primary goal in life is to submit to His leadership and grow in His grace. That includes following His command to “go, teach and observe all things” whatsoever He has commanded me to do.
I don’t remember signing anything to become His child. I didn’t even sign anything to become an American citizen. I believe in the Great Commission. And I will support anyone else who believes in this also. But sign? I just don’t get it. with or without caveats. Just do it. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..WHY JESUS CHANGES WATER… =-.
There’s something abt the “line in the sand”, whether it be GCR, BI, BFM2000, or whatever. It’s existence, by its nature, begs the question… “Am I on-board”, “Do I agree”… and all the political and relational posturing begins.
Just my thought but… the only document I don’t feel the need to “register” my concurrence or disagreement with is this calf-skin book I was trying to read before your tweet drew me irresistibly…
“I stand with millions on the word of God, the B-I-B-L-E.”
I don’t think the conflict is over whether we need a GCR while remaining Baptist, but over what exactly it means to be Baptist.
If being Baptist means autonomous credobaptist churches with congregational polity then I don’ think anyone is going to argue.
If being Baptist means all of the above plus teetotaling, non-Calvinistic, anti-charismatic, landmarkish with the most extreme form of complementarianism, then we have a problem.
A church can be Baptist and any of those other things listed, but if being Baptist necessarily includes those other things, then that is where at least part of the conflict lies.
selahV,
Obviously, you don’t have to sign anything to be obedient to the Great Commission. The GCR, IMO, is merely a document that is trying to unite Southern Baptists in coming together, as we should have been all along, to fulfill the Great Commission. It seems we, as Southern Baptists, have lost our focus on the Great Commission and this is an attempt to refocus ourselves on what’s important.
“If being Baptist means all of the above plus teetotaling, non-Calvinistic, anti-charismatic, landmarkish with the most extreme form of complementarianism, then we have a problem.”
I don’t think it does include these things. I know one BI guy who only fits one of those. Of course, there are some who fit the above, but it is certainly not the majority.
Selah,
I’m not sure of anyone who says that you must sign the GCR. Why not just say – I don’t feel I need to sign it, but I support it.
The issue became an issue when people were against it or had caveats in one way or another.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Who Is Watching Your Life? =-.
Matt: I don’t either, and our confession of faith doesn’t include these things. I don’t have a problem with any Baptist who is any or all of the things I included. My fear is of any SBC vision that includes any of those things by necessity.
Bobby, Wow! What a cool website you have! I want one of those that says what the Lord requires: “to walk humbly…etc.” That is so neat! selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..WHY JESUS CHANGES WATER… =-.
Matt, I agree that “some” Baptists have lost their focus. But not “all”. And I think this is a good thing for the “some” who have lost their focus. Most folks I eat fried chicken with, haven’t and would wonder what it is all about. That’s all I’m saying. As a matter of fact, 99.9 % of the folks I know wouldn’t even know what the GCR, BI, CI, IB or any other initials stood for except the B-I-B-L-E. So, if this makes everyone happy and focused on the Bible and Jesus, then go for it. I’m already happy as a bee in the sunshine of a blooming meadow of daisies. God is good. Jesus is Great. And the devil is doomed. Hip Hip hooray! selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..WHY JESUS CHANGES WATER… =-.
Mark, don’t know that it matters to anyone what I say or for that matter sign. Just saying…that it now seems that there’s more discussion about why we should or should not, have or have not, will or will not and less about the Great Commission in itself. That’s all. Sometimes I think these GCR’s and Amendments, and other things take us totally off course of what they intend to do. It becomes all about whose name is on it and whose name isn’t and whether they are for something or against something. I love you guys. All of you. Don’t matter to me if you sign it or don’t. I think in your own way, God is using each of you to accomplish His plan. And I am happy to know all of ya. Cause in the final analysis, it seems to me as I read through some of your blogs, that you all have quirks (just as I do), but you all love Jesus just as much as I do. And you all want to see the lost saved and the saved living for Jesus. That’s how I see it all. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..WHY JESUS CHANGES WATER… =-.
Selah,
First of all, I don’t have quirks! I am a quirk!
Things like the GCR can take us off course which is the very thing they are written to combat. This is true of anything we do as Christians as we try to best further the Gospel in our lives.
Whatever route we are personally convicted of we certainly will succeed in spite of ourselves because He has already succeeded.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Who Is Watching Your Life? =-.
That’s all well and good but I prefer to see a Great Commission Resurgence of a distinctly biblical flavor. If that happens to be baptist, then great.
I agree with this statement. And no I am not Baptist because it is Biblical. That is a statement of pride that needs to be done away with. I am Baptist because in the area of the essentials such as who Christ is and salvation, baptism, we believe as the Bible teaches. Frankly we as Baptists have gotten further and further away from the Bible or we wouldn’t have to have resolutions such as Dwight McKissic is proposing and one I support or a Great Commision Resurgence and we wouldn’t be fighting all the time, a trait we are known worldwide for instead of our mission efforts.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..Give Me That Old Time Religion…Is It Good Enough For Me? =-.
Debbie,
“And no I am not Baptist because it is Biblical. That is a statement of pride that needs to be done away with.”
How is it prideful to think credo-baptism is biblical? Or any other Baptist distinctives? Just because we believe the Bible teaches something specific does not make us prideful.
Debbie,
You said the above. Then, you said..
So, is the statement directly above biblical? I’m confused by your two statements.
Also, we don’t have to have resolutions like McKissic is putting forth.
Even though we do “fight” with each other I don’t think this has overtaken our reputation in missions. Christian history is filled with healthy debate.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Who Is Watching Your Life? =-.
One more thing. I really hope that any Christian whatever their doctrinal convictions are holding those positions because they believe them to be biblical. If not then why are they holding them?
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Who Is Watching Your Life? =-.
Matt,
You asked, “Aren’t you Baptist because it is Biblical?”
I am a baptist because it is the closest denom I know of to being biblical. I agree with a statement I heard Jack Graham say a few years ago, “I am a Christian first, a baptist second, and a southern baptist third.”
Les
.-= Les Puryear´s last blog ..2009 VBS =-.
I agree with that statement as well. I believe we are on the same page.
Matt,
You said “Seriously, do we not need a Great Commission Resurgence built on our Baptist principles?”
I think Bill has correctly identified the “Real Issue” that is causing division within the SBC right now and it has nothing to do with a Great Commission Resurgence at all.
Bill said:
“I don’t think the conflict is over whether we need a GCR while remaining Baptist, but over what exactly it means to be Baptist.
If being Baptist means autonomous credobaptist churches with congregational polity then I don’t think anyone is going to argue.
If being Baptist means all of the above plus teetotaling, non-Calvinistic, anti-charismatic, Landmarkish with the most extreme form of complementarianism, then we have a problem.”
So you see; the issue is not over do the BI guys believe in a Great Commission Resurgence, but do the BI guys believe in cooperation with other Baptist who are not Landmark to accomplish a Great Commission Resurgence?
Until the Landmark camp (BI is just a new label) stops trying to force their narrow views of who is a Southern Baptist upon the rest of the convention then this division will remain and even grow worse in the next few years.
Grace Always,
Do we have a response from any BI guys?
The BI guys are Landmarkists? That’s a new one on me. lol. I do not know of one, single BI guy, who thinks that the Baptist Church has existed since Jesus. I do not know of one BI guy, who thinks that the Baptist Church is the only, true Church in existence. I do not know of one BI guy, who thinks that Southern Baptists will be the only ones in Heaven. So, for Greg to call BI guys Landmarkists is a malicious attempt to once again put down the BI guys…as he has done on many occasions in other blogs.
It’s kind of hard to be joined together in unity when you have bloggers calling the BI guys “Landmarkists, and Fundamentalists, and Sneaky Meanies.” It’s kind of hard to join with people, who feel that the sufficiency of Scripture is not important, nor that the Lordship of Jesus over the Church is all that important. And, you have some of the people who are calling the BI guys “Divisive Meanies” are the very ones who believe that it’s ok to have women Pastors, or who would accept any ole Baptism whatsoever, or who dont believe it’s important to have missionaries who are sound in their doctrine, and who want to join with any old, evangelical group that ‘s out there to start churches and seminaries. That all makes it might hard to swallow for a lot of SB’s out here.
Also, Matt, many of the so-called “BI” guys have signed the GRCD. I havent. It was changing, and people kept saying that it was gonna do this, and it was gonna do that. I wouldnt sign it, and I wont sign it, and may not vote for it, until I know more of the details. I am for the Great Commission. I am for more Christians, especially Baptist Christians, to have a resurgence in the Great Commission. I’m not so sure about this document, and I have a feeling that it will be nothing more than another EKG with a study committee and a lot of talk. But, we shall see.
BTW, I’m Baptist because I believe that we are closer to the Bible than any other denomination out there. That’s why I’m Baptist. If I felt that someone else out there was closer to what the Scripture teaches, then I would join with them. But, I dont see them, so I’m a Southern Baptist.
BTW, again, I really dont want the SBC to join with extreme groups that are off the deep end, or even in doctrinal error, in starting Churches. Thus, I’m not for us evolving into some kind of ecumenical, evangelical, fuzzy whatever.
David
This is my first venture to comment here. I had always thought this was the “weather service” blog for SBC bloggers. I was just informed by Vol that you guys are now posting articles for discussion and debate. I guess I am late to the party and maybe without invitation.
I would like to chime n on the “why I am Baptist” thing.
I am Baptist because I believe the doctrine of ecclesiology as is presented by Baptists is a truly biblical ecclesiology. I am far more a Southern Baptist due to theological positions historically held by Southern Baptists than due to the position on missions held by Southern Baptists.
In truth, there are many other faith groups who are as dedicated to missions as are Southern Baptists. And, if I am going to be truthful, I financially support some of those faith groups with my personal finances.
I must agree with Adrian Rogers who said we cooperate first because of doctrine. (that is not the exact quote)
cb
Whether late or not I am glad you have joined the conversation. Consider yourself “invited.”
For the record, I used the word Landmark-ish as a shortcut term for the idea that a person baptized by immersion as a believer in an Assemblies of God, Weslyan, or Nazarene church has not been biblically baptized and is not qualified for missionary service in the SBC. I find this idea morally and theologically repulsive but if the term I used is inaccurate or if there is a better term then I withdraw it. The idea is what is important.
Bill,
For the record: I agree that as long as a person is baptized by immersion in a church, whether “Baptist” or not it is still a legitimate Baptism. The only standards I see is that they have to be baptized by a believer, by immersion, and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Matt,
Thanks for this post. I’m glad to see that there are others who don’t want to be pigeonholed into camps that some believe are separate, but which actually overlap. I am excited to be in Louisville this week and see how God blesses “identified Baptists for the GCR.”
I agree that there may not be two easily definable camps, but there is a continuum between those who want to define Baptist identity and thus cooperation narrowly and those who wish define identity broadly. Axiom 5 addresses this issue and notes that Baptists are still discerning between which issues are secondary and tertiary issues.
Whether or not the GCR is adopted next week, the discussion about which issues are secondary and tertiary will remain open.
Blessings,
Todd
Todd: And I am so tired of the “discussing”. By the time we get through discussing, there will be no doing, and the next two generations, who hopefully will have more sense than us, will chuck the whole convention and be the doers. How many people could we have reached while all the “discussing” is going on? It’s beyond ridiculous.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..Give Me That Old Time Religion…Is It Good Enough For Me? =-.
David,
“The BI guys are Landmarkists? That’s a new one on me.”
Really David?
There are no similarities between the new BI movement and the old Landmarkism? There is no shared beliefs/doctrine? No shared ideological DNA at all… nothing?
Really David?
David, so now I am “malicious”? This coming from the same guy who was just over at Timmy Brister’s blog having a stroke over the fact that Johnny Hunt and Tom Ascol are working together in support of the GCR? Yea David people read what you write on blogs as well.
If my warning to fellow Southern Baptist that the landmark ideology of the BI movement has already split the SBC once in our history is “malicious” then I guess I can live with that.
If anyone thinks that the BI guys are going to cooperate with those who they identify as unworthy to be a Southern Baptist just because they have signed the GCR document they are completely delusional.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Decline of LM and CP Offerings – Some Tough Questions =-.
Because there are some similarities we should throw the label Landmarkist at them? Seems extreme to me.
Matt,
First “Malicious”… Now “Extreme”… Perhaps even “Extreme Malicious” is in order next?
Let’s see what the BI movement has produced in the SBC so far:
1) You can’t serve as a missionary with the IMB, or at all in the Florida Baptist Convention, (there probably are many others) if you drink a class of wine at your daughters wedding.
2) You can’t serve as a missionary with the IMB if you were not baptized properly (preferably by a Baptist minister) in a Baptist church that believes in eternal security, regardless of what you believe. If you want to serve you must suffer the “ritual” of being baptized again in the correct method according to our wisdom.
3) The Executive Director of the IMB can’t serve a missionary of the IMB because he has confessed to the awful sin of praying in a private prayer language in his prayer closet.
4) If you are a woman you can’t teach young men biblical languages at the Seminary you received you degree to teach biblical languages.
5) And how can anyone forget the wonderful Burning Bridges / John 3:16 conference.
With all these examples of BI “moderation” you are probably correct… I should not be slandering the Old Landmarkist in the SBC with the conduct of the New BI movement in the SBC.
Grace Always
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Decline of LM and CP Offerings – Some Tough Questions =-.
Debbie,
I am too, but the GCR in its current form does not settle any of the issues. At least its a step in the right direction and hopefully some of the issues (Calvinism for example) will no longer hinder cooperation while we sort out others that still do.
Blessings,
Todd
Todd,
You are right, it doesnt settle any issues. Yet, I signed it because you are also right that it IS a step in the right direction.
David,
And no one is advocating joining the world council of churches, but yet the label “Ecumenical” is often applied by BI guys as a pejorative term.
Perhaps we all should debate issues one item at a time and respect each other when we disagree instead of dividing everyone into camps and then dismissing them with name-calling and condescending attitudes without ever addressing the merits of their arguments.
– Todd
Good word Todd. It is easy to throw out false labels rather than deal with the issues.
I don’t mind being called a “BI guy” by people who understand that the historic Baptist ecclesiology predates the Landmark ecclesiology by a number of years.
Are there similarities? Of course there are. Landmarkers used historic Baptist ecclesiology as the foundation by which they birthed their ecclesiology. Yet, they are not the same.
Maybe a weapons illustration will give more of an understanding to what I mean. The .38 shell casing was used to develop the .357 Magnum. They are similar but never the same. Just try to load the .357 into a revolver chambered for a .38. You can’t do it. But suppose you were able to “jam” the .357 round into the chamber of a .38 revolver. If you fired the revolver it would likely “split” the cylinder of the revolver making it useless. Why? Because even though the two cartridges are similar, they will never be the same.
Historic Baptist ecclesiology and Landmark ecclesiology do have similarities but they will never be the same.
I also don’t mind being called a “Southerner” by people who know that particular “identity” does not mean I hate everyone who is not just like me.:-)
cb
Good morning, Matt,
To this post, I can only give a hearty AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Any curious about where my passions lie with regard to “Baptist Identity” are welcome to read what I wrote about that very subject. I have no covert agenda beyond those things. Other issues will arise along the way. I will have opinions. I will articulate them from time to time. But my opinions about other people’s passions do not necessarily reflect areas about which I am passionate.
For example, although I do not passionately follow baseball (I may watch three games a year, tops), I will be glad to give you an opinion about the St. Louis Cardinals being the greatest franchise ever to grace the field. Having grown up in the Mississippi River Valley in Northeast Arkansas, I’m obligated to comment on that topic when it arises, but my life is not at all “about” advancing the St. Louis Cardinals.
Dr. Akin excels me in every way that I know how to measure. I could count the points of substantive disagreement between us that I know about on one hand (the Camel book, Mark Driscoll, the proper form of Barbeque). We are brothers in Christ and I do not believe that we are in competition with one another.
I went nuclear over a recent blog post because it not only posited that idea that Baptist Identity and the Great Commission Resurgence are in competition, but even went so far as to characterize the entire recent history of the SBC as pertaining entirely to this supposed competition. I find your post to be a delightful representation of the reality that I see.
Bart,
You are right. I found Timmy’s post to be informative, but also speculative in the sense that it too clearly placed people into camps and then interpreted recent history as if these two camps were fighting each other. His response to my comment – “It is what it is” – seems to assume what he has yet to prove. I’m with Matt. “It is what you make it…”
Trevin,
In what way is my post speculative regarding placing people in certain camps? Whether it was Bart or any of the other Baptist Identity advocates, not one of them has challenged the substance of my post.
What I did in my post was make explicit what many Southern Baptists know and understand to be an undeniable reality. Sure, I would love it if Baptists were not “fighting” or “competing” with each other, but there are distinct visions for the future of the SBC that are have significant differences, especially on what it means to be Baptist.
For instance, if being Baptist means that you *must* hold to total absentionism regarding beverage alcohol, then I am not a true Baptist.
If being Baptist means discarding the idea of theological triage and making all doctrines first-tier or primary doctrines, then I am not a true Baptist.
If being Baptist means considering contextualization as compromising the Biblical message, then I am not a true Baptist.
If being Baptist means parading what we are against than what we are for, then I am not a true Baptist.
These examples are just a few I’ve encountered that are distinct areas where ideas of being “Baptist” are in competition with one another. I could give you names of prominent and well-respected Southern Baptists who know and understand the divide (offline of course) and are fully aware of what is at stake between the two visions that are out there today.
Perhaps this could be a topic we can discuss over dinner tomorrow night. Grace and peace.
Timmy,
I am not denying that there are differences in the SBC regarding outside cooperation, secondary issues, etc. Southern Baptists are having a robust conversation about these issues, and I don’t find anyone saying that you can’t be Baptist and have different views on these things.
Arguing for total abstinence regarding alcohol, for example, can be done in a variety of ways. I have yet to find people saying that if someone drinks, they are no longer Baptist. If you run across that person, let me know.
What I think is speculative in your post is the way you too clearly define the camps. Take the “Counter-GCR Campaign.” You describe the doubts about the GCR as if there is a full-fledged campaign to stop this movement. Perhaps some of these posts are coordinated, but most are probably not.
Do you really think Tony Kummer’s doubts are part of a Counter-GCR campaign? Or that Bart Barber’s good questions are somehow in cahoots with Baptist Press and SBC Today?
I posted “Screwtape on the SBC” several weeks before Akin’s Axioms sermon and have been placed in the GCR Campaign section. Well… yes, I am for the GCR document, so I don’t mind being put there. But I am not part of any campaign for the GCR, just like I don’t think Tony is part of a Counter-GCR campaign.
Your post is highly informative, and I found the links very helpful. Yet when the politicization of SBC life gets this intense, people are unable to register doubts or questions or support without immediately being labeled – a problem I think your post ultimately adds to, not helps.
Hope to see you this week!
Trevin.
“I have yet to find people saying that if someone drinks, they are no longer Baptist. If you run across that person, let me know.”
John Sullivan, Executive Director of the Florida Baptist Convention.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Decline of LM and CP Offerings – Some Tough Questions =-.
Greg,
You said that I said,”There are no similarities between the new BI movement and the old Landmarkism? There is no shared beliefs/doctrine? No shared ideological DNA at all… nothing? ” Then, you said,”Really David? Please tell me where I said that? If you can find it, I will give you a dozen Krispy Kreme doughtnuts. When quoting me in the future, Greg, I would appreciate it if you would truly quote me, and not make something up from your mind from what you think I said, or what you wanted me to say.
Also, I went ballistic over at Timmy’s blog??? Really???? I dont remember that, either. I do remember asking Timmy some questions….which he never answered….but having a “stroke” at Timmy’s???? Naaaaa. Not true again.
Todd, I use the term “Ecumenical Evangelical” to describe all these people out here in the SBC, who think that it’s ok to join with other groups who dont believe as we do. Is this not an accurate term? What other term could I use? Ecumenical describes it…does it not? Please help me with a better term for those who have no problem laying our Baptist Beliefs aside in order to start Churches and teach Pastors in seminaries, etc.
David
Greg,
You pointed out some amazing examples of what the BI has brought us…no one responded so I’ll repost them on your behalf….you’re spot on btw.
“Let’s see what the BI movement has produced in the SBC so far:
1) You can’t serve as a missionary with the IMB, or at all in the Florida Baptist Convention, (there probably are many others) if you drink a class of wine at your daughters wedding.
2) You can’t serve as a missionary with the IMB if you were not baptized properly (preferably by a Baptist minister) in a Baptist church that believes in eternal security, regardless of what you believe. If you want to serve you must suffer the “ritual” of being baptized again in the correct method according to our wisdom.
3) The Executive Director of the IMB can’t serve a missionary of the IMB because he has confessed to the awful sin of praying in a private prayer language in his prayer closet.
4) If you are a woman you can’t teach young men biblical languages at the Seminary you received you degree to teach biblical languages.
5) And how can anyone forget the wonderful Burning Bridges / John 3:16 conference. “
The document that is supposed to be the proposed resolution on the Great Commission gives me some concern. To me, it is a front.
“How so?” you may ask.
While the men who drafted the GCR may indeed have the best of intentions from their own perspective, it comes across as being a ploy for power grab.
“Oh, no! You didn’t just say that?” many of you are now saying.
If it is about the Great Commission then points 1-8 and 10 are indeed well stated. Point 9, the restructure clause, is obviously not even of the same genre. Its like plopping a sub-plot from Tom Clancy into a JRR Tolkien novel complete with modern day technology right into Middle Earth.
I suspect that the real issue here IS point 9 — or Axiom IX if you will. The whole document seems to be about point 9 in the ongoing conversations. I submit that points 1-8 and 10 are merely ploys to sugar coat and distract from the real purpose — get a mandate from the convention to restructure.
No Baptist would dare vote against the Great Commission would they? The elites who are pushing this know that point 9 by itself does not have support enough to get out of committee. But they are also astute enough to know that the SBC as a whole holds high regard for biblical inerrency. Therefore, perceiving this as SBC gullibility, they have (in my not so humble opinion) concocted the GCR as a vehicle to move their own plans forward among the unawares.
The GCR is a prop. It will probably pass. And if it does, then that is the last you will hear of points 1-8 and 10. It then becomes all about “Axiom IX”.
Scott: You are spamming.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..Give Me That Old Time Religion…Is It Good Enough For Me? =-.
I have an opinion that I feel needs to be read by two different groups. Each group has its own take on the issue.
Now, did you have something you wanted to say about my comment? :/
David,
If you will go back and read the comment I “actually” made… the quote I attributed to you is in “” (quote marks) — now we both know what quotes marks are for don’t we. I don’t know why the italic font continued for several more lines but I always use quote marks so that no one will misunderstand what I said… But I guess you misunderstood anyway.
In the future I would appreciate it if you would actually try taking the time to carefully read a comment before you misrepresent what I said in your response.
You can forward that dozen Krispy Kreme doughnuts to First Baptist Church Ponce de Leon Florida.
And for the record I never said you “went ballistic”… David, I would appreciate it if you would truly quote me, and not make something up from your mind from what you think I said, or what you wanted me to say.
I meant to ask this on Timmy’s Blog but I had to go do some ministry and never got back to it…so just what was your point over on Timmy’s Blog about Johnny Hunt and Tom Ascol? Does the cooperating of Hunt and Ascol in support of the GCR offend you or something? Or is it just the fact that Calvinist are in support of the GCR that offends you?
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Decline of LM and CP Offerings – Some Tough Questions =-.
Scott: No, only that you are spamming. Three times.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..Give Me That Old Time Religion…Is It Good Enough For Me? =-.
Actually, its on facebook too. You aren’t paying attention. But isn’t that part of the point…
People aren’t paying attention. Folks like you only want to point fingers at people that are sounding an alarm — hopefully a false one. Engage me on the issue. I dare you.
Or do you want fries with the spam?
.-= Scott´s last blog ..The Great Commission Resurgence Resolution =-.
And I would hardly consider posting on my own blog spamming.
.-= Scott´s last blog ..The Great Commission Resurgence Resolution =-.
You folks need to know our past before you set off on your new quest of the Great Commission Resurgence. Even Dr. Akin needs to go back and reconsider what he knows about it. Consider how he spoke in his interview with Trevin re: Calvinism. He correctly identified Carey, Judson, et. al. as 5-point Calvinists. then he mentions 3 young men who quite obviously do not even know their own reformed past or they would never have made the statements they did about not having anything to say about evengelism to the young people in the churches that looked at them and then looked elsewhere. Could it be that the young men were never taught Sovereign Grace Evangelism? Does any of our seminaries offer courses in such evangelism? Does any one know how to evangelize from that perspctive? Does any one present a example on how to preach a Sovereign Grace Evangelistic Sermon? Sometimes I feel like crying in frustration. WAKE UP! Have you never read the Puritans, Whitefield, Edwards, Gano, Spurgeon, Boston, not mention a whole host of others? I remember when I saw the stemnt by Dr John Eusden in his Introduction to his translation of William Ames’ Marrow of Divinity (the first text book in theology used at Harvard) that “Predestination is an invitation to begin one’s spiritual pilgrimage.” I applied it to Roms.9:13, The Hardest Text in the Bible, and I preached it in preaching class under Dr. Theodore Adams, The theme, Predestination is invitation, an invitation to receive 1) God who does not think like we do (As it is written (He lets it all hang out, that his thoughts are not our thoughts)), 2) God who does not love like we do (Jacob have I loved, How could Helove Jacob – that is the really hard part of the text and the hardest part how could he love a slime ball, scum bag like me who made John Newton in the days of his slave captaincy look like a saint by comparison), & 3) God who does not act like we do (Esau have I hated. The real question is this: How did He act toward Esau whom He hated? Why Esau could have said, “With an enemy like that who needs any friends?” Dr. John Gill said, “God treats the wicked so well that no one in his right mind would condemn Him for sending them to Hell seeing how they repay them for such good treatment). Dr. Akin seems like a good man and his Great Commission Resurgence is a great idea, and we will be able to pull it off, once we get our Sovereign Grace evangelism and awakening ministries going right and understand how to apply it in the way that scares every body to death that we might infect them with such a winsome approach. I am telling you that this is the true liberalism of biblical orthodoxy. It scared the people to death that had planned this new nation in a conspiracy that even involved Ben Franklin and King George III, because the old sovereign grace believers (some of whom might hae been aware of what was going on) grabbed it and ran with it. And those two Awakenings made the experiment a success, but now the conspirators want to bring down the population b 5.5 billion and Southern Baptists don’t know it but they soon will that the employment of our members has gone away and is not ging to come back in sufficient quantities so our future as churches and a mssion force is bleak indeed. O yes, religious freedom might soon be gone, too, along with all the other freedoms we use to think we had and which the real powers that be were planning to rip off as soon as they got to the point where they could do it without any worry about an AWAKENING STOPPING THEM. BUT MR. LEWIS SAID IT WELL, THEY PULL DOWN DEEP HEAVEN UPON THEIR HEADS. HA! AND THERE CAN BE NO ESCAPING WHAT GOD IS GOING TO DO, SOONER OR LATER…EVEN IF WE MUST SUFFER A LITTLE WHILE BEFORE IT COMES. AFTER ALL, HE DID NOT RAPTUR OUT ALL OF THE CHINESE SAINTS, WHEN COMMUNISM TOOK OVER, AND THAT WAS QUITE A SHOCK TO THEM…AS IT WILL MIGHT BE TO MANY OF US. (Ps.102:13,14).
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
Comments on this entry are closed.