The latest revision of the Baptist Faith & Message is now a decade old. In celebration, I’d like to offer my humble opinion on the good and bad revisions. Note: Some were introduced at some level in the 1998 revision, though solidified in the 2000 edition.
The Good
- Gender Roles – A much needed clarification of Scripture’s clear teaching of male headship in the church and in the family. Both Articles VI and XVIII clearly state the worth and gifting of women while explicitly and unapologetically describing their roles.
- Exegesis – The removal of “Jesus Christ as the exegetical standard” was a good thing, though most notably resisted by the Baptist General Convention, the largest Baptist convention in Texas. The emphasis that all Scripture is equally inspired by God keeps some from over-elevating Jesus’ teachings and pushing aside other Scripture. Article I is correct in saying, “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.”
- Priesthood of Believers – A needed, specific addition that is orthodox to Protestant Christianity.
- Eschatological Freedom – There was fear among some that dispensationalism may be included, but the new revision was not eschatologically restrictive.
- Homosexuality – Article XVIII on the family is also very clear on marriage between a man and a woman being the only acceptable form of marriage Scripturally, citing the reflection of Christ and His Church and procreation.
- Contemporary Issues – The latest revison takes a stand against current cultural issues such as abortion, adultery, and pornography.
The Bad
- No Inerrancy – Inerrancy is a controversial term to some, and it was left out of the 2000 revision. The word “inspired” is mostly used in its place but inerrancy is a foundational tenant of faith, in my opinion.
- BFM is Loosely Binded – Though seminary faculty and prospective missionaries are required to agree to the BFM2000, churches are not. I believe that church constitutions and pastors should be required to agree, as well. Purpose and unity can only help the convention as a whole.
Though I have a few minor issues with it, I truly believe that the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message is a ground-breaking achievement in church ethics and should be modeled by others.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 652 comments }
Brandon,
I would argue that the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 does include inerrancy. Moderates and liberals had found a couple of loopholes in the 1963 statement. One of the ways the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 closed those loopholes is with the statement, “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.” While the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 doesn’t use the word inerrancy, that statement is a definition of inerrancy.
For anyone interested, at “Gulf Coast Pastor” I wrote on the differences between the Baptist Faith & Message 1963 and 2000 back on September 21, 2009.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Give us a link and Ill check it out!
I would have preferred the word, because the word “inerrancy” carries more weight. To me, at least. But I see what you’re saying and you may be right.
Matt,
Hey, I just barely know how to turn on my computer. But if I did it right, the link to the Baptist Faith & Message article in Gulf Coast Pastor is:
BF&M 2000 & 1963
If it doesn’t work, it can be found under “Gulf Coast Pastor Articles,” click either “Baptist Faith & Message 1963″ or “Baptist Faith & Message 2000.”
David R. Brumbelow
Or maybe this will work:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2009/09/differences-between-1963-and-2000.html#comments
David R. Brumbelow
Brandon: Do you wish for the BFM 2000 to become a creed? If not, how is a belief statement that all churches are required to affirm anything but a creed?
Those are the same questions I have…
That’s a valid point, but no I do not think of it as a creed. Simply, I would like to see churches agree to it because of it’s strength in Scripture and ethics. I realize it is not possible, but in a perfect world I believe churches agreeing to it would bring unity and accountability.
Brandon,
Several time in your article you refer to the SBC as a “Denomination”… I do this, Danny Akin did this at the B21 panel discussion at the Convention then quickly corrected himself, everyone does this from time to time.
However, I do think that if we are to have unity in the SBC we must be careful to communicate that unlike a denomination the SBC is a Missions Organization made up of “Self Defining” and “Self Governing” Baptist Churches freely choosing to cooperate with the SBC for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission.
Grace Always,
Greg, good call. I think I typed that without even thinking. I will change it.
I agree that it would probably be impossible to enforce a system of autonomous churches to agree to the BFM2000, I’d like to see churches held accountable for what their claimed convention stands for.
I completely agree with every one of the “pros”. I especially apprecaite the fact that the phrase about “Jesus Christ as the exegetical standard” being removed since that was a huge loophole that allowed moderates to claim “Well, Paul can’t have meant [insert doctrine they didn't like here] because Christ surely would never have meant that”.
I don’t agree with the cons. I think even though inerrancy is not spelled out I think it is affirmed. Further, I’m not sure that if I was in an SBC church now I would want churches to be required to sign off on it. Don’t get me wrong, I wish there was a mechanism that required that because I would love to see churches disfellowshipped because they wouldn’t sign off on it, I just don’t think there is a way to enforce that. Probably the best way to marginalize churchs like that is to make sure they don’t have representation on any board or committee at the state/national, level by only appointing conservatives from churches that affirm publically the BFM2000.
Joe,
I agree that it would be next to impossible to ask autonomous churches to sign off on the BFM2000, but I’d like to see the churches be held accountable for what their convention teaches. You’re right, a huge draw back would be disfellowship/division that could occur. It is far too late to actually try to enforce it, but I’d like to see churches agree to it.
So, when is the school you attend going to get around to signing the BFM2000?
I think the BDW asks a great question.
And what about Timothy George of the Manhattan Declaration and Samford’s Beeson Div School turning out female candidates for the Senior Preaching Pulpit every year?
How do you square that?
BDW,
What point are you trying to make?
I just think it’s kinda interesting that Brandon is such a huge fan of the BFM2000 and the need for pastors/churches to be held accountable, yet he has chosen to attend a Baptist university that does not require professors to teach according to BFM2000 – a Baptist university affiliated with a state convention that refuses to affirm inerrancy.
In this post, Brandon describes inerrancy as “a foundational tenant of faith.” Yet, his Baptist university employs profs that are decidedly not inerrantists, professors and administrators from his school have provided support and leadership for Texas Baptists Committed, an organization known for its anti-inerrantist/anti-BFM2000 efforts.
Further, the school he attends not too long ago bestowed an honorary doctorate to a Texas Baptist theologian whose paper “The Errancy of Inerrancy” is one of the strongest critiques of inerrancy that I have ever read (see Bart Barber’s blog for background).
I just find it interesting that Brandon views inerrancy as a “foundational tenet of faith” and desires creedal conformity in Baptist life on this particular doctrine yet attends a school that doesn’t demand an affirmation of inerrancy and actually honors those who have publicly attacked inerrancy as, in fact, “errancy”
Joe, My kids go to a private Christian school that requires we sign off on a basic statement of Christian beliefs. We also have a morals statement to sign. And to top that off, we must present a letter from our pastor affirming we are members of an orthodox Christian church in good standing
Why then are there so many parents there who live and act as pagans?
Because signing a creed or statement means nothing.
BDW,
Dallas Baptist and Criswell are my two options in Dallas as far as a Baptist school is concerned. Though Criswell is an SBC school, it doesn’t offer alternative Liberal Arts degrees and I will be minoring in history as I may be teaching at a public school while I work towards the education to hopefully and eventually teach Bible college or seminary in the future.
The College at Southwestern is the other option now, but still lacking in any legitimate LA curriculum.
Furthermore,
My church plant will be SBTC and NAMB funded and my money goes towards the SBC as will my post-grad work. Also, I think a Baylor guy like yourself shouldn’t worry too much about DBU’s views on Scripture. Take those issues to the Baylor board.
As a minor issue, I’ve always quibbled a bit with this sentence from article on “Man”:
Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.
It seems to me that the Scriptures teach what we are under condemnation not the moment we are capable of moral action, but the moment we are born. In Adam we all sinned and are under God’s righteous wrath just by being born human. We sin because we are sinners, and we are sinners before we ever sin.
I do believe that infants and young children go to heaven. I just don’t believe that they go to heaven because they did not reach some supposed “age of accountability” and were therefore innocent in God’s sight. I lost an infant son several years ago and believe that he is heaven not because he died before he was capable of moral action, but because of the grace of Christ.
Again, its only a small quibble. The way the sentence reads on the surface is true and I can affirm it, but I’m afraid it could be a bit misleading.
I definitely agree, good observation.
We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.
As a case study, wouldn’t it be interesting to explore the staff thinking andlay leadership for example of Dawson Memorial BC in Bham who leads the state convention in CP giving but doesn’t adhere to BFM 2000.
And at what point do these autonomous Baptist churches who are encouraged to “agree” with BFM 2000 but have reservations; please explain to me again why as a matter of realpolitik they are disenfranchised in Convention life, yet their high percentage CP giving is championed.
Please explore that mystery for me.
Thanks
“The removal of “Jesus Christ as the exegetical standard” was a good thing”
this makes me sad.
I have heard all the reasons for it, yes, but none of them make any sense to me.
You’re not reading the post correctly, my friend.
“The removal of “Jesus Christ as the exegetical standard” was a good thing”
how does this not say what it says?
(or: if it doesn’t say what it says, what DOES it say?)
Sorry, but lately, in the SBC world, even a ‘fact’ is not a ‘fact’ and
what is called a ‘mis-statement’ looks curiously like a ‘lie’.
I explained why it was good to change the wording.
Another negative of the BFM 2000 is a lack of precision on the issue of justification. There is nothing about Christ’s righteousness being imputed to the sinner. If the SBC ever has a problem with the New Perspective on Paul, the BFM 2000 will not be adequate to deal with it.
Also, the BFM retains the nearly Pelagian anthropology that Herschel Hobbes inserted in Article III in 1963: “Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.”
We need to have a return to the much superior anthropology of the 1925 BFM: “He was created in a state of holiness under the law of his Maker, but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.”
Regarding eschatology, the BFM 2000 is basically amillennial, which is great in my opinion! Its amillennialism is found not just in Article X, but also in Articles VI and IX. Dispensationalism is a heresy that is contrary to the BFM 2000. NONE of the founders of the SBC in 1845 was a dispensationalist.
Heresy? Really? I would love to hear your reasoning on this (with textual proofs, of course.)
Squirrel
About the criterion statement. The Baptist Faith & Message 1963 said, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Christ.” The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 dropped that sentence.
First, while it sounded good, no one knew exactly what that meant.
Second, some more liberal folks used that as an excuse to throw out verses they didn’t agree with. According to some of them, if Jesus did not directly speak to an issue, then other verses that spoke to that issue – well, they were free to take them or leave them.
As your post affirms, “all” Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just the direct words of Jesus.
This is a great ten year anniversary. The Baptist Faith & Message 2000, especially with its unambiguous stand on, “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy,” is really the culmination of the Conservative Resurgence.
David R. Brumbelow
“First, while it sounded good, no one knew exactly what that meant.”
that is even more sad . . .
“Dispensationalism is a heresy.”
Sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement. The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 (&1963 &1925) has a general statement about end times. Of course the more general it is the more amillennial it sounds. But that general statement can easily include amillennialists, premillennialists, and I suppose all those in between. It includes the basics that we all agree on.
Amillennialism is not a heresy. Premillennialism is not a heresy. There are good Bible believing folks on both sides. And I say that as a premillennialist.
David R. Brumbelow
Who said that?
Oh. Jeff did.
Dispensationalism clearly contradicts the BFM 2000:
The BFM 2000 says: “The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. ”
Dispensationalists say that OT believers and Jewish believers after the rapture are part of Israel, not the church, thus denying that the church includes all of the redeemed of all ages.
“The BFM 2000 says: “The Kingdom of God includes both His general sovereignty over the universe and His particular kingship over men who willfully acknowledge Him as King. Particularly the Kingdom is the realm of salvation into which men enter by trustful, childlike commitment to Jesus Christ.”
Dispensationalists say that the Jesus offered the kingdom of God as a national-political kingdom to the Jews, and since they rejected His kingdom offer, the kingdom of God has been postponed until the millennium. Classic dispensationalists deny that the kingdom of God is present right now, thus contradicting the BFM 2000.
The BFM 2000 says: “According to His promise, Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness.”
The BFM 2000 says that all the dead will be raised after Jesus Christ returns “personally and visibly in glory to earth.” Dispensationalists say that Christians will be resurrected at a secret rapture in which Christ is not visible to everybody and does not descend all the way to earth, but turns around and goes back up to heaven. The BFM 2000 says that the dead will be raised and judged when Christ returns. Dispensationalists say that multiple resurrections and judgments separated by intervals of 7 and 1,000 years.
Jeff,
I agree with you exegetically that dispensationalism is incorrect but:
A) Because it disagrees with the BFM2000 doesn’t make it heresy
B) Wouldn’t denying the rapture or second-coming of Christ be the only real heretical statements? Everything else, to me, seems not as crucial… Only interpretative.
Dispensationalism is a heresy because it did not exist until 1830, and was not believed by any Southern Baptist until sometime in the late 1800s. Dispensationalists have taken brand-new beliefs, such as the pre-trib rapture, and made them into litmus tests of orthodoxy, which is cult-like behavior in my opinion. I have never encountered a more obnoxious group of Christians than dispensationalists who were trying to cram their beliefs down my throat.
Jeff,
When were Luther’s theses nailed to the door? I don’t know that date = correct/incorrectness.
Many of the church fathers believed in a doctrine of justification quite similar to what Luther believed. Luther was just recovering the doctrine of justification that the fathers held. In contrast, dispensationalism is a total novelty without any precedent in church history. What is true is not new, and what is new is not true.
Jeff,
So you say premillennialists are heretics, cult-like, obnoxious, and cram their beliefs down throats.
Now, who is exactly is being obnoxious?
Who are these, according to you, heretical people? Well, let’s see: W. A. Criswell, Adrian Rogers, Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, R. G. Lee, Charles H. Spurgeon, John MacArthur, Jimmy Draper, Richard Land, Mac Brunson, Billy Graham… Matter of fact, it seems a recent survey showed the majority of our SBC seminary professors claimed some form of premillennialism. But hey, if they’re heretics, we should kick them out of the convention.
David R. Brumbelow
I am not talking about premillennialists in general. In my experience, historical premillennialists are actually pretty nice people whom I respect, and historical premillennialism has a long pedigree going back to some of the earliest church fathers. Historical premillennialism does not contradict the BFM 2000 that much.
Dispensationalist premillennialism is a whole different story. Almost every dispensationalist I have ever known was arrogant and condescending (and many of their attacks on me were totally unprovoked – they would start out saying, “Are you pre-trib or post-trib? Why are you post-trib?” and so forth). These dispensationalists would accuse me of being a heretic or a liberal for being amillennial. Of course, these dispensationalists were following the example of their leaders who have made the pre-trib rapture into a litmus test of orthodoxy, even though it was invented in 1830 by a 15 year old girl.
Could the kind of arrogance and combative spirit you demonstrated in this comment be why people treated you that way? Perhaps you provoked them with your arrogant attacks? Just wondering.
I keep trying to help Matt Svoboda get his eschatology correct (its a ministry) but we have had several exchanges – none of which were as you described.
Maybe you should check your own spirit and attitude (take the log from your own eye?) before you post wild, defamatory and accusatory attacks like this.
Aaaaaaaand, Dave is back from Taiwan! Welcome home!
I was hoping a Taiwanese christian would have shown you biblical Eschatology while you were there, but I guess you are blinded from the light in every country!
Jeff,
I think Dave might be right. You seem to have a very combative tone, which can easily lead to very unproductive conversations. Dave and I disagree(Im Amill and hes Dispy), but all of our interactions have been cordial and respectful. While I would get annoyed if a Dispy told me I was a heretic for being Amill I realize that very few Dispys are looney enough to think that way. This is a tertiary issue, meaning, we can disagree and still have the most intimate forms of Christian fellowship. Heck, Dave even welcomed me into his home and let me spend time with his family! I was hoping to convert his family to Amillennialism while I was there, but I never got the chance!
Next time, Dave!!! Next time!
I’m still in Taiwan – I just got a little internet access on the other side of the world.
No, it has always been dispensationalists making totally unprovoked attacks on me and trying to cram their views down my throat.
But it is dispensationalists whose beliefs are contrary to the BFM 2000.
Jeff,
How about your totally unprovoked attack in this thread?
David R. Brumbelow
Jeff, you might try exhibiting a gracious spirit in discussions and see if people do not respond to you with grace.
I am a dispensationalist (mild, progressive) and I have a historic post-trib youth pastor and an associate who does not really know what he believes.
You are combative and insulting in your debate style on blogs. If you are like that in real life, you might find that as an explanation for the behavior of others.
I affirm that we can, in fact, discuss eschatology with grace, even if you have never formed the ability to do so. Discussing the subject instead of insulting those who disagree with you would be a great place to start.
To use the term heresy to describe differences in eschatology is just plain wrong in my view. I would say I disagree with someone, but would never call someone a heretic over their views of the end times.
The one exception to that would be the more extreme preterist views – they come pretty close to heresy. (All preterists are wrong hermeneutically, but only some are heretics, right?)
Jeff, if you would season your conversation with the grace of Jesus, you might find that you would help others to do the same.
Jeff, you said, “These dispensationalists would accuse me of being a heretic or a liberal for being amillennial.”
And now you are returning the favor?
I say both are wrong.
David R. Brumbelow
If we started fresh, we could write a confession much better than the BFM.
But the BFM was written, and later revised, in a historical context. I believe it is a good, but not a great confession. It is certainly adequate for convention purposes.
“The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ” is a terrible sentence.
I don’t know what that means. It is really nonsensical.
The statement does not stand on its own without some follow up explanation, “What that means is…”
It, apparently, means a lot of things to different people.
Theologically obtuse statements have no business in any statement of faith.
It is interesting to note how many people worship that sentence as a de facto creed, and insist that it must remain in the BFB, but then denounce creeds in the very next sentence.
Confessions of faith are either really important or they are not that important at all. But they cannot be both.
I read the History of Southern Seminary recently. Basil Manly, Jr., one of the 4 founding faculty members, wrote the Abstract of Principles, which was approved by the trustees, and has been signed by all of the faculty of Southern since its founding. Crawford Toy was dismissed because he was found to be teaching contrary to and not in accordance with the Abstract. Boyce, Broadus and Manly all referred to the Abstract as a “creed.” Dr. Mohler told Molly Marshall Green that she was teaching contrary to and not in accordance with the Abstract. He gave her the choice of resigning or facing the charge in front of the Trustees. She wisely chose resignation, and went on to have a career in an institution with a different doctrinal confession.
So, there have been creeds in Baptist life long before the BFM came along. But I will say that I do not believe that the BFM was ever called a creed.
But I do not agree with Cecil Sherman or the CBF that denominational employees should not be required to agree with the denomination’s statement of faith. Denominations should have statements of faith, and denominational employees should agree with their denomination’s statement of faith.
I do not believe that churches should be required to sign or affirm their own denomination’s statement of faith. But it seems silly for a church to belong (and send money) to a denomination of churches that is going to plant churches and educate ministers and send missionaries, if the church doesn’t agree with the confession of faith of the denomination.
I don’t think that our church would ever join a denomination or send money to one that had a doctrinal statement or confession with which we did not agree. I can’t think of an example of that in the corporate world either.
Churches can do that if they wish. But it is not a good sign of organizational health or leadership. It affirms tradition, but is not a good way of living or moving forward for the organization.
I am glad that the SBC emphasizes theology as well as mission. That is healthy for a church, which is, after all, a theological organization.
It is interesting to note how many people worship that sentence as a de facto creed, and insist that it must remain in the BFB, but then denounce creeds in the very next sentence.
Moderates worship that phrase like an idol. It allows them to dismiss any part of scripture they don’t agree with by saying “Well, Jesus never taught that” or “Jesus wouldn’t have been that exclusive”. Of course, that’s also the reason they won’t affirm inerrancy, a doctrine which all real Christians recognize is true. By claiming the Bible is error filled or that some parts are inspired while others are not, they can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe and obey.
In contrast, real Christians know that the Bible is inerrant and that the inspiration of the text is verbal and plenary.
““The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ” is a terrible sentence.”
Oy. Where’s my aspirin.
And again I say:
Moderates worship that phrase like an idol. It allows them to dismiss any part of scripture they don’t agree with by saying “Well, Jesus never taught that” or “Jesus wouldn’t have been that exclusive”.
Paul’s words are just as much scripture and are equal in authority and are equally inspired as anything we have recorded in the gospel. All real Christians know that.
I should have said “Moderates and liberals…”
Was the idea of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, “invented in 1830 by a 15 year old girl”? That is not exactly accurate.
R. L. Sumner recently wrote on the subject of ancient quotes concerning the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the church:
“For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.” -Ephraem the Syrian, AD 323
“This ancient scholar believed that ‘sore affliction’ would last one week of seven years, with ‘the great tribulation’ being 3 ½ years. He based that on Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy sevens.” -R. L. Sumner, Biblical Evangelist, November/December, 2009.
“The same author [Grant Jeffrey] in the same book quoted the illustrious John Gill (Spurgeon’s predecessor) as teaching the pretrib rapture in 1748 in his First Thessalonians commentary. He even called the snatching up of saints ‘the rapture,’ and said it would ‘be sudden, and unknown before-hand, and when least thought of and expected.’ While he is not as clear as a Tim LaHaye would be, perhaps, his language leaves no doubt about what he is arguing.” -R. L. Sumner
“There is the fourth vision in The Shepherd of Hermas (c. AD 110) which said ‘the elect’ would escape the Great Tribulation.” -R. L. Sumner; biblicalevangelist.org
By the way, I do not view this issue as a litmus test for orthodoxy either way.
David R. Brumbelow
Louis: Carey Newman and David Gushee came to Southern about 94 when Mohler put the Covenant in place. Read their confession in Hankins bookwhen they say it had nothing to do with the ABstract but the agenda was something else; this shadowy group pulling Mohler’s strings. Not me saying that but them.
Also if you want to read about Southern and the Abstract, read BillHull’s latest book about how HOneycutt and DukeMcCall used different strategies tokeep things together.
Several reviews out there, most of them googled through http://www.ethicsdaily.com
Good book yet to be written about Mohler and SBTS. When the truth comes out I imagine it will not me much prettier than the shenanigans CharlesStanley pulled to come to power at FBC, Atlanta; or the coarse direction Criswell took FBC Dallas after the Great George W. Truett.
Brandon—
Leave it to a young whipper-snapper to know it all. I bow at your feet of wisdom—NOT!!!!
In naivete you have missed the most important part of the Preamble to the earliest version: NO BAPTIST CAN TELL ANOTHER WHAT TO BELIEVE—it is called AUTONOMY!!!
Since the first BF&M, each edition has become more stringent and more dictatorial. Historoy clearly shows the more dogmatic we become, the smaller we are getting and the more rediculous we become.
My Grandaddy had a wise saying: “The higher the monkey climbs the tree / the more you see his tail!!!”
My Grandaddy was totally right when it comes to my life long acquaintance personally (I am age 64), and my wider acquaintance through my life long SBC preacher father, add to that my historical reading of who we are and what we stand for.
Our slavery-favoring initiation had other facets which served us well. The basics were: (1) Autonomy and (2) Missions.
These 2 facets of the SBC diamond served us well! They stopped the bickering which was divisive and gave money to missions without missionaries taking half or more of their time from their field of service to raise money.
Thanks to our turning of the BF&M from a simple statement to a Creed requiring signing–CONGRATULATIONS: We now have become more Roman Catholic than the Catholics themselves!!!!!
We flame homosexuals while the Catholics hide them. Is it possible, because we refuse to deal with sexual preditors, we will become more a laughing stock to the public than Catholics are today???
When the Jews started building a fence around the 10 Commandments and started turning the Temple into a money machine, Jesus took a whip and started scattering the moneychangers.
Will he have to take a whip to us as well–the whip of royal failure and irrelevence?????
Easy there, killer.
I said in many follow-up comments that I’m aware that the autonomy of churches makes it nearly impossible.
Bill,
That was the most hilarious comment that I’ve seen in a long time.
Joe,
How dare you punch kittens?!
Stephen:
Thanks for the reply.
I am not sure about a “Covenant” that you reference. I was talking about the Abstract of Principles, which is the doctrinal creed (according to Southern’s founders) for the seminary.
The Abstract states as follows:
“Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist church; and all persons accepting professorships in this seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part shall be considered grounds for his resignation or removal by the Trustees, to wit:…”
The doctrinal creed follows that statement.
My basic point was that the SBC’s oldest (I think, I am not sure whether the missions board was separately chartered by 1860) agency had a creed. Thus, doctrinal creeds have been around a long time in SBC history. Though I would be quick to admit that Baptists even then viewed their creeds much differently than those written by the Catholics and other church groups.
The BFM is a confession, not a creed, but is still a good go by for denominational employees.
I also don’t know about any shadowy groups pulling Mohler’s strings. I believe that the CR was very forthright in its aim – theological accountability, particularly in the seminaries. And I believe that Mohler bought into that. The Abstract was the proper document upon which to rely for that purpose, especially since it had been used that way with respect to Crawford Toy.
I saw the Ethics Daily piece about Bill Hull’s book. Have you read it?
The most shocking thing to me in the Ethics Daily story was Dr. McCall’s attempt to take the seminary from the SBC and give it a self perpetuating board etc. Apparently, that plan did not get much traction.
What shenanigans did Stanley pull to become pastor of FBC Atlanta? I thought that the church voted to make him (he was on staff) the pastor when their pastor left.
The same thing is true about FBC Dallas. I believe that Criswell was voted in to become pastor by the church as well.
I believe it is true to say that both churches took a direction that was in part do to their pastor’s emphases and giftedness. But that’s different from shenanigans.
The same could be said of South Main Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. That is the church where Paul Pressler was raised and became a Christian. When Ken Chaffin became pastor, the church moved in a new direction. But I don’t think it was the result of shenanigans.
Look forward to dialoging with you further.
Be sure to investigate the tiny url I left for you that takes you to the heart of Barry Hankins revelations on Mohler’s Covenant with The Firm.
RE your statement “…in a perfect world I believe churches agreeing to it would bring unity and accountability.”
1. Accountability to WHO?
2. You don’t understand “Baptist” at all.
Your statement that “The emphasis that all Scripture is equally inspired by God keeps some from over-elevating Jesus’ teachings … is positively frightening. It is impossible to “over elevate Jesus’ teachings.”
Accountability to those SBC churches who appoint gay pastors, woman pastors, openly support abortion, etc.
Yes, it’s possible. What happened was that people would throw out other Scripture or pick and choose what they wanted to believe. If they didn’t like something from Paul or the OT, they would say, “Well JESUS didn’t say it so it’s not true!”
What denomination are you?
Let me fill you in on the Charles Stanley story:
I have heard it from his own mouth as he spoke to the Noonday Baptist Association. According to him “God used him in mighty ways to resurrect a dying downtown church”
My father happened to be the Associate DOM fot the Atlanta Baptist Association and gives a wider view–and far more accurate:
Roy McClain had been the well-respected pastor. His son was tragically killed in Viet Nam and he had a nervous breakdown so he resigned and went back to his home in Orangeburg, SC. Stanley had been made the Associate Pastor to appease a faction which wanted an Independent Baptist background fundamentalist on the staff.
Stanley was a good preacher so the Pulpit Committee went to him with the prospect of being the Interim with several clear conditions:
(1) That he recognize he was not a concensus member of the Staff, rather a person put there to appease a certain minority group.
(2) Should he serve it would be with a clear understanding that he was not under consideration in any way for becoming the Pastor.
Stanley agreed and shook hands with them. The second he entered the pulpit he began to call certain members of his lovers group with the declaration that he felt God was callling him to be the Pastor–just like Criswell spoke of “God’s calling.”
Of course, other church members began to like his attractive pulpit style and conservative messages, but there was a clear promise and understanding with the Pulpit Committee. They heard of his quiet moves and ignored them as the elected representatives of the ENTIRE congregation.
When the Committee presented their long-studied-out candidate, there was a significant minority voting against him. The candidate declined to come. That’s when Stanley put on all the pressure to make him the candidate!
Because he went back on his word, one member of the Pulpit Committee actually took a swing at him. Stanley called it “demonic.” I call it good Southern retribution to one lying to his trusting Committee members.
As you can see, depending on who tells it, the story is 180 degrees different. Anyone lusting in his heart for something can hear “God’s voice” telling them exactly what they want to hear.
This is as accurate and plain as I can put it. The bottom line is Stanley did not keep his word and made his desires into “God’s desires.”
Immediately, the FBC Atlanta stopped its massive “top 10″ giving to the Cooperative Program. Instead, the money went to a large bus ministry and paid prime time programming on WTBS before it went to satellite technology. Stanly promoted his church and his abilities far and above the wider giving to the SBC!
Also, there was a mass exodus of mainline Baptists to surrounding churches because Stanley was leading FBC into an Independent Baptist mode. He seldom came to the Pastor’s Conference nor participated in any Atlanta Baptist Association nor Georgia Baptist Convention activities. In other words, he became a repeat of his Independent Baptist heritage and the church followed the leader. Into this vacuum came the new “king pastor” making sure no staff crossed him or they would be immediately fired. Most left to serve regular SBC churches in many places.
And now a few words in honor of Charles Stanley. He is accused of being an independent Baptist, yet the largest voting group of Southern Baptists in history elected him president of the SBC. He is accused of being independent Baptist yet he and his church are a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. Jerry Vines, another former SBC president is a member of Stanley’s church. That Southern Baptist church has won thousands to the Lord. Stanley’s preaching and writing have blessed untold thousands.
Seems to me the real problem is that Stanley was a conservative leader in the Conservative Resurgence and his attacker, well, could he be a moderate? How about debating his preaching or his beliefs, instead of trying to destroy his character and the character of other conservatives.
I have no problem recognizing that many moderate and liberal Baptists are well educated, intelligent, and people of integrity. Why do so many moderates and liberals, however, have such a hard time recognizing the same in conservative leaders? In your minds why does every conservative leader have to be evil and deceptive. Why not the possibility that we just disagree on the issues?
You mention, “Roy McClain had been the well-respected pastor.” I do not dispute that. But could you possibly be objective enough to say “well-respected pastor” of Charles Stanley, W. A. Criswell, Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, Morris Chapman, Jimmy Draper? Or are they just all evil conservatives, or worse, evil fundamentalists.
David R. Brumbelow
Great question, David!
Gene:
Thanks for that.
But isn’t the bottom line for local church autonomy that the church votes to make whomever it wants its pastor?
I really did not hear any shenanigans in your story.
Even though it came through 2 or 3 people to get to you, the worst I can find there was that Stanley agreed he was a caretaker, and then changed his mind. If in fact it happened that way (and apparently it was oral agreement only and never reduced to writing) and there is no way to know for certain – each party would have his own side of it, at the end of the day the church voted for Stanley. I am sure that the folks who didn’t like what Stanley had done had their opportunity to tell the church.
You can keep saying it was a “minority” or a “small group” that got Stanley in, and then lots of people left. But that doesn’t work mathematically. If Stanley was popular and the church wanted him, in Baptist life, that’s the end of it.
It sounds more like the people did not agree with the pulpit committee of their church.
I worked in Atlanta from 1986 to 1989. I went to First Baptist a couple of times, but joined a church outside of town where I lived.
The only thing that I ever heard about all this was from a colleague who went to Second Ponce De Leon Baptist. She was not a fan of Charles Stanley, but didn’t really dislike him either. She came from out of town to work in Atlanta, as I had.
She said (in 1986 or so) that there was a small group of people who got mad when Charles Stanley became pastor of FBC and left and came to Second Ponce. Again, she said that the small group who left were the people who did not want Stanley, and that the bulk of the membership had stayed at FBC.
She said (in 1986 or so) that these people at Second Ponce still had an annual party among themselves as the old FBC people. She thought that was odd since they were members of a different church that they would keep reliving the entire saga.
Gene, thanks a bunch for sharing the info that you got passed through your dad. My take on it is different, but I appreciate your sharing it here.
Louis, maybe you can get in touch with your 2nd Ponce friend of the 80′s and share this with her.
Griffith not letting anybody blow smoke on his blue skies is what is holding your SBC together; and Robert Marsh’s address tohis deacons in 1990 is key to the integrity crisis of history you fellows deny:
Be sure to scroll around and read this entire history. If 1st Baptist were given the Doug Weaver Treatment, I am satisfied Scarborough’s version would be the overwhelming truth.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_1_42/ai_n19311257/pg_4/?tag=content;col1
Brandon,
The only place in Texas will you find a school that believes in inerrancy is Dallas Theological Seminary. There aren’t any Baptist schools that openly support it.
I do wish you would associate with someone other than the SBTC in Texas. They are not all they are painted up to be but then your only other choice is the BGCT and that is even worse. Maybe just be a Southern Baptist and leave it at that.
I have found that the BFM is just a good tool to fight and argue about in all reality. No pastor or church goes by it technically and noone in the pews even knows about it.
I will surely stay with the SBC as long as the BFM2000 stays as solid as it is. You’re right, the BGCT is definitely not a good alternative!
The BFM2000 has become an argument tool (as seen on this post), but I don’t think that makes it irrelevant or unimportant. Anything can be used to start a fight.
Louis and all: Here is more remedial education for you on the Southern Seminary Covenant:
Page 100 is the key page and page 103 Carey Newman talks about “The Firm” at Southern Seminary
Easily googled right up for me just a few minutes ago for simple search: Hankins on Carey Newman at Southern Seminary
That takes you into online read of the heart of Uneasy in Babylon.
Stephen:
Thanks for the great reference.
I know what you are referring to now – the Covenant Renewal document. That was a transient document that was adopted, I think, when Dr. Honeycutt was President or thereabouts. If I read correctly, the trustees did away with that at some point.
I enjoyed reading the excerpt from the book.
I believe that re-telling is fairly similar to Dr. Wills’ account in the History of Southern Seminary that was released last year.
My summary would be that Dr. Honeycutt finally stopped calling for “Holy War” and began to see the need to react to the wishes of the convention. To his credit, he hired David Dockery and others were hired after Dockery. These men really did have a different perspective on the Bible than the profs who had been at Southern.
But Southern Baptists have consistently believed that the office of Bishop, Elder, Pastor (by whatever name) is for qualified men. That position is not without biblical support.
As Southern Baptists had expressed themselves on more primary theological issues, they continued to express themselves on other issues, including this one.
There was no “pulling strings.” The “Firm” is simply an analogy.
What has happened is that the Convention has spoken on the issue of the qualifications for bishop, elder, pastor etc., the trustees at Southern (and the other seminaries) along with their administrations (Mohler and the other Presidents and staff) have adopted policies consistent with that position.
I do not find anything immoral or wrong about that. That is the way organizations work. The Seminaries (trustees and administrations) are being responsive to the larger Southern Baptist Constituency.
If Southern Baptists change on this issue, the institutions will follow. It should not work the other way around.
My original post was about the Abstract and the BFM, a comparison and such.
I believe it is appropriate for denomiantions to have confessions of faith, and I believe it is appropriate for people who work for the denominations and its insitutions to agree with those confessions.
From your post, I see that you really don’t disagree with that.
You apparently disagree with the contours of those confessions, specifically, the qualifications for Bishop, Elder or Pastor.
A question for the group:
Would the requirement of a church/pastor agreeing to the BFM2000 be a good thing if it curbed these SBC churches from appoint gay pastors, woman pastors, openly supporting abortion, etc.? Or should we just realize that we have to deal with these things happening in the church?
A Tiny URL for your Edification and a Question about the level of remedial reading this board should pursue.
http://tinyurl.com/3aoxh6w
First the URL where again Pages 100 and then the Fiirm on 103take you to heart of fundamentalism as it became the warp and woof of Southern Seminary in 94 with Al Mohler’s Covenant.
Then just so everyone knows what level of ignorance on these matters we are dealing with here on this board How about a roll call on the honor system with Brandon and Louis reading the way to let us know how many books in the BX 6400′s you fellas have read.
I think Aaron Weaver and I have pretty much read all of them; but I can’t see any evidence much the rest of you even know such a shelf exists; or if it does it doesn’t hold many volumes in the libraries you frequent.
Brandon could begin by asking the WMU staff in Bham why they won’t sign the BFM 2000; and then as a matter of conviction lead the SBC to quit taking money from Lottie Moon offerings they raise and let Ronnie Floyd and Johnny Hunt and Al Mohler function in the aftermath of that WMU and Lottie Moon Channel doctrinal cleansing.
Stephen:
I plea complete ignorance about the BX 6400 books.
I don’t plea ignorance about the topics of these books, whatever they may be.
My reading list, however, is fairly long. Please don’t dump a project in my lap.
Stephen,
You and Aaron Weaver are obviously also in agreement on continually trying to dust up arguments on every front possible with unconstructive and unedifying comments that only bring about sin in everyone because pride and insults always follow from both sides.
This is at least your third mention of these BX 6400s that I have seen, one of those not even being on this site. If you Google BX 6400, you only come across a few random Baylor guys talking about it on message boards with no actual description of them. I am beginning to believe that they are a made up by Baylor guys when arguing with SBC guys in order to sound like they have a “secret knowledge” of things that we can NEVER understand.
For those who haven’t made it to a library in a while and can’t decipher Fox’s reference:
BX6400 refers to a Library of Congress (LC) call number.
The first letter represents a major LC division. In this case, B = Psychology, Philosophy and Religion.
The second letter presents a subdivision. X = Christian Denominations
The numbers following the letters help define the book’s subject. Books numbered BX4800 – 9999 deal with Protestantism. So, BX6400s refer to the section of the library that deals with Baptist history, specifically the denominational histories of the Southern Baptist Convention.
See, that was both educational and edifying, thank you.
The above is from me, BDW, in case any confusion.
Interesting thought there, about making churches subscribe to the BFM 2000. Requiring independent, autonomous congregations to sign off on a uniform theological statement makes the statement a creed by definition. In the SBC, attempting to do that would be like herding cats. A Southern Baptist church, functioning as the body of Christ, is accountable to no one but Jesus. Fact is, requiring churches to adopt the BFM 2000 would be a fundamental contradiction of what the document itself says about the church. If such an attempt were ever made, the SBC would dissolve faster than a menthos in a bottle of diet coke. The attitude of local churches would change from “friendly cooperation” to “We don’t need no stinkin’ convention.”
I’ve always heard the argument about the “Jesus criterion” that it was used by liberals to drive a truck through theological loopholes in order to let the silence of Jesus on certain issues squelch what Paul or the Old Testament had to say about something. However, when I attended a Southern Baptist related undergraduate college, and had some genuinely conservative professors, they didn’t teach that at all. What they taught, correctly I might add, was that Jesus proclaimed himself as the interpretive filter for scripture in Matthew 5:17. Obviously, you can’t set aside anything in the Bible because Jesus himself didn’t address it. But you have to set everything else in scripture along side the words and works of Jesus, and interpret everything by the principles he taught. Otherwise, the Old Testament without the interpretive filter of Christ is just Judaism, and the teachings of Paul without the same filter is pharasaical legalism, neither of which lead to salvation of the soul or reconciliation with God. Paul himself, in many places, acknowledged Christ as the criterion by which he taught, and left context clues for that criterion to be used in interpreting everything he wrote. Perhaps, rather than removing a basic principle of hermeneutics, the statement should have been re-written to take out the loopholes.
Lee:
Thanks for the good thoughts.
Words are important. Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law and the prophets. We are in total agreement with that.
Jesus did not say he was the interpretive filter. Jesus did not say he was the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted.
If we stick with the actual words of Jesus, we’ll have no issue.
But any time we try to re-state that on this particular issue, we can end up with concepts that Jesus did not actually promote – hence – “I am the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted.”
Jesus never said that.
Very good Lee.
Debbie
As you are so fond of telling people, “Shut up”.
If the SBC is autonomous with relation to the BFM 2000, then it’s autonomous in how churches deal with ministerial miconduct. You don’t get it both ways.
All Christians know that the clause about “Jesus criterion” WAS used in just the way described here by liberals–we can set aside Paul’s teaching on [whatever] because Jesus didn’t touch on that. Only moderate filth would defend such a view of scripture.
I am one of “those” who is uneasy with the BF&M2000, for a couple of reasons. One is the removal of the “Jesus criteria,” because although anything can be abused–including the “witness” language of the 2000 version–all I ever hear are about nameless, faceless liberals who twisted its meaning; who were they? And even if they existed, deleting this statement of criteria was throwing out the baby with the bath water, IMHO. Second, is its move toward being a binding creed, what with its “instrument of doctrinal accountability” language.
Now having said that, I must ask: what SBC churches have called openly gay pastors or openly support abortion? I know a few former SBC churches affirm the practice of homosexuality (I can count them on one hand and have fingers left over), but if an SBC church has called an openly gay pastor, I have missed the news, and would like to know about it. What has their local association done, whose action is the first and frankly pivotal criteria for further action at either the state or SBC level? And as far as female pastors, although a few former SBC churches have called women pastors, I really though all were former SBC, not current, although I am less certain about that. Who are these churches, and how many of them are there?
John
John:
As I said above, on the issue of the nature of Scripture, we are best sticking with what Jesus actually said, not theologically obtuse statements.
Jesus did not say, “I am the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted.” The New Testament had not even been written yet.
You and I will not have any disagreement if we use the actual verses. But paraphrases of verses often have dual or unintended meanings. I believe “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ” is actually nonsenical. I do not know what that means. I can guess what they were driving at. But it seems they took some things Jesus actually said and “tweaked” them to the point where they don’t have any clear meaning.
I am not jumping off on the homosexuality issue. I think that is used as a “for instance.”
But I know of a Baptist church in our town that has 2 women co-pastors, one of whom is a lesbian. You can probably google for that and find them.
But even if there were no such church, I think that the people who have mentioned that have done so for the sake of argument.
We have 2 churches recently, I think, that have been singled out for their policy on homosexual issues – Broadway Baptist in Ft. Worth and another one in Texas whom the BGCT has disfellowshipped (or something like that).
Also, I note that the CBF has had (or is having) a workshop to explore homosexuality. It is reported in Associated Baptist Press.
This is an issue that has attracted the concern and focus of many religious denominations in the U.S., to wit; the Episcopalians, the PCUSA, the Methodists and others. Now the CBF is considering it, though it is for now only called a “workshop.” We all know where these things lead. It’s just a matter of time, usually. Though I certainly hope that the CBF does not go that way. The zeitgeist appears to be in the other direction. One of their leading thinkers, Bill Leonard, believes that homosexuality is the civil rights strugge of this century.
So, it is certainly not silly for us to talk about these things in an SBC context. Otherwise, your grandchildren may be attending a workshop on homosexuality in the SBC in about 15 years.
Louis,
There are only two Baptist churches in the South with a lesbian pastor: Pullen Memorial in NC and Glendale Baptist in Nashville. Neither church is affiliated in any way with the SBC. http://tiny.cc/q73ja
As far as women pastors, there are maybe a few churches at most that still hold some sort of ties to the SBC. In those instances, the relationship is historical and maybe a family or two in the congregation still wants to give to Lottie and the church allows that.
I was a bit befuddled when one of the SBC Today fellas introduced a motion at the SBC calling for the ouster of churches dually-aligned with the Alliance of Baptists. I wrote the history of the Alliance – it is featured on their website. I can’t think of any Alliance-affiliated congregation that still supports the SBC via the Cooperative Program. Even the handful of Alliance churches that are still involved at the state-convention level are able to designate around the SBC.
The BGCT has cut ties with Royal Lane but not Broadway Baptist. The SBC dumped Broadway.
The CBF’s recent workshop was simply a conversation on homosexuality. No real conclusions were drawn. The CBF’s policy against funding gay-friendly organizations and gay personnel remains in place. There’s no move to undo those policies. CBF is a diverse group with multiple viewpoints on this issue. Again, the purpose of the workshop was simply to have a dialogue.
The Leonard paraphrase needs to be put in context. Leonard stated years ago that he was committed to defending Wake Forest’s nondiscrimination policy which protects against sexual orientation discrimination. Although, who is to deny that homosexuality is the civil rights struggle of this century? The gay rights movement is by definition a movement for legal rights in the civil sphere. I don’t see that debate going away anytime soon.
BWD:
Thanks for the info. I did not drag homosexuality into this but was just showing John Farris why some might want to discuss it.
Thank you for all of the info you have provided.
I suspect that there are elements in the CBF that will want to see homosexual activity as not sinful. Some quoted in the ABP article seem that way. Still others I know in the CBF view hmosexuality as I and most Southern Baptists see it.
I was wondering if you had any thoughts about where the CBF is headed on this. I would be interested in your thoughts.
I think the SBC has nailed, glued and screwed the floor down on this issue and that we really do not need to be concerned.
BDW,
That’s what we backwoods SBCers call “sarcasm”… I just think it’s funny you use BX 6400 as a code word to try and sound more intelligent as you know some will not know what it is. My point is that no one uses “BX6400″ in conversation, hence why you can’t find it on Google. Contrary to your Baylor elitist opinion, people know what BX 6400 is.
So Brandon:
Name for us some of the titles on the BX 6400 shelf you have read; and name some of the titles and authors you have every intention of reading to gain a better perspective about how the SBC got to where it is today.
Or are you satisfied to just go with what Dave Miller and Louis and other hearsay had to say about it without any investigation yourself.
Stephen:
Just because a person has not read certain books on a topic does not mean that person is not knowledgeable or that their opnions are worth less.
I suspect that you are very young and that while you may have read many books from a certain perspective on SBC topics that you probably don”t have the reservoir of knowledge that someone like Dave Miller has.
Also, not all books are of equal value. All books are full of hearsay. First person histories have the advantage of not relying on hearsay, but they may suffer from bias.
Brandon,
Can you show me where I mentioned BX6400s to “sound more intelligent”?
I did, however, offer an explanation since it was rather apparent that you didn’t recognize that combination of letters and digits as a Library call number. If you did, you would not have spent time looking it up via Google. You really should reread who wrote what comments before going off on one of your rants.
Speaking of what is edifying, take a glance in the mirror. You’ve been just a bit snotty today. I don’t necessarily have a problem with snotty. Then again, I’m not out making accusations about being unconstructive, unedifying and divisive. Read my comments above. I’ve not called you a name. You can’t say the same, however.
Louis,
The very words of Jesus, and his very life clearly show that he was the criterion, and the interpretive filter of scripture. How many times did he say, “You have heard that it was said…but I say unto you,”? Or “In order that the Prophets might be fulfilled…” Or “for the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Or “Today this scripture is fulfilled within your hearing.” Or “It is written…”
“After three days, they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.” Luke 2:46-47
Paul sets Jesus as the criterion for interpreting scripture in I Corinthians 2.
The wording of the 2000 BFM in this particular area was a predictable reactionary move in an atmosphere thick with denominational politics. I went to a Southern Baptist undergraduate college in the 70′s, and had three Bible professors who very clearly and accurately taught this doctrine, and in such a way that the alleged liberal loophole would have been a moot point.
The idea floated above about enforcing the BFM2000 in the churches by refusing to accept members of congregations which haven’t publicly affirmed it as denominational officers, board members or on committees is a violation of Baptist polity in every possible way. Fewer than 5% of the churches send messengers to the convention in any given year, and fewer than 20% have done so in the last decade. Only about 1% of the churches can be represented on its boards and committees at any one time, and anyone who gets on a board already has to agree with, and sign, the BFM without caveat. What does it say about your respect for the BFM 2000 when you are willing to violate its provisions by finding ways to force churches to adopt it?
Lee:
I am not for requiring churches to subscribe to the BFM. Someone else suggested that.
The 1925 BFM and the 1963 versions were all born out of political iissues of the day.
In none of the quotes you cited did it say that “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ”. I am for all of those quotes. Just not the synopsis.
Quotes? He didn’t give just “quotes” Louis, that was exact scripture!
Lee:
Your first paragraph kinda sounds like some of the rhetoric Mainstream Baptists were voicing in the pamphlet Stand With Christ in response to the IMB firing 80 missionaries about 9 years ago.
It is an open secret the WMU staff in Bham won’t sign the BFM 2000. So what kind of a schizophrenic mission fund raising denomination are you running if BFM 2000 is such a perfect Confessional Instrument???
Stephen:
That is a pretty accurate comment. Schizophrenia abounds in religious circles, especially if those circles are 100 years or more old.
Alas, the WMU is its own animal that cannot be tamed.
It has an “auxillary” status to the SBC. I think it supports CBF missionaries, as well.
Louis,
Thanks for the reply. I note your statement, “we are best sticking with what Jesus actually said, not theologically obtuse statements.” That makes for a good sound bite, but not for realistically dealing with the intersection of the world in which we live and the Written Word. To stick with only the words that Jesus said will result in us becomming new Amish at best or a latter day Church of Christ at worst. I will grant you that Jesus never said, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ,” but neither did He ever say, “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” I believe the closest to that He ever came was at Luke 24:44, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” The difference is that the BF&M says all Scripture is about Jesus, but Jesus only referred to that part of Scripture which is about Him, a fairly clear implication that parts are about Him, while others are not. Consequently, the 1963 criterion statement deals with it more directly than the 2000 testimony statement. Everyone has “interpretative filters,” or “criteria” or “presuppositions” which form the basis for their understanding and interpretation of the Bible, although many of them remain unarticulated, and operate either below or just at the level of consciousness. The ’63 statement attempted to verbalize one of them, which I think is positive and good.
As for the criterion statement being “theologically obtuse,” I would disagree. While it may not be as clear as “Jesus is Lord,” principles of criteria for interpretation are a part of any systematic theology course–or it least it was before the CR. (I have no first-hand knowledge and little second-hand knowledge of systematic theology as taught in SBC seminaries post CR.) Lee has articulated interpretative criteria very well and clearly, so I see no reason to repeat that.
I am still waiting to learn the names of these about these Southern Baptist churches that have called openly homosexual pastors. I did a google search as you suggested and failed to find an SBC church with an openly lesbian or gay pastor. As BDW says, there are a few such churches, but none that he noted or I found were SBC. If you could share the name of the church, or at least your city (sorry, I do not recall where you live), I would appreciate it. If, on the other hand, this is simply “a ‘for instance’” as you suggest, then I suggest it is a classic straw-man argument, in which opposition is built up against a situation that does not exist in order to transfer it to another situation, against which arguments are lacking.
I too saw the announcement about the CBF having a workshop about homosexuality. What is wrong about that? It hardly means that the CBF is affirming the practice of homosexuality, and as BDW points out, it was simply a conversation which changed nothing in the CBF’s core values against funding or hiring homosexual persons. Heck, even the SB churches have ministries towards homosexuals, and I presume that those who wish to get inviolved in it at some point attend a workshop or have conversations. But that hardly makes the SBC “gay friendly.” And BTW, if the CBF does change its core values in this regard, or otherwise affirms the practice of homosexuality, I will cease to participate in it, and will recommend that the church I serve cease all financial contributions to it.
John
John:
I did not say there were a lot of or any SBC churches that had homosexual pastors. Someone else brought that up. I just tried to address it, and am not stuck with being the one who apparently thinks that. I do not.
If you read the story about the CBF workshop, you will see why I brought it up. The quotes in the story are from 2 CBF church pastors.
Joy Yee, pastor of Nineteenth Avenue Baptist Church in San Francisco, said homosexuality is not what she would call “God’s Plan A.”
“But not much of the human journey in history or even in the Bible has followed Plan A,” she observed. “I have seen a lot of redemption in all of God’s Plan B or C or D.”
“There are people in my life who are very dear to me and active in the homosexual lifestyle who have been and are the presence of Christ in profound ways,” Yee said. “Sexual orientation is not a litmus test for salvation. We are saved when we confess our need for God and accept his love for us.”
Yee also said not everyone in her congregation agrees with her about homosexuality. “For me to be the presence of Christ means walking compassionately with each other, regardless of our sexual orientation,” she said. “It does not mean that we have to agree completely about everything with each other on every single thing. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know any human being on this planet with whom I agree completely on everything.”
(Louis’ comment here – I agree with this statement on the point that I know homosexuals who are very kind and have been very kind to me. But I would never characterize, and I don’t know any pastors in my sbc and non-sbc circles who would say or intimate that homosexual activity is somehow God’s B, C or D plan for someone. I cannot even get my head around what she is saying).
Another pastor – George Mason, senior pastor of Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas, said his views on the subject are still evolving but have changed.
“When you read the passages of Scripture that deal with this subject, over time I’ve changed my mind,” he said. “It seemed to me that the weight of the evidence is clear that there was no room to engage this question at all. It does seem to me now that none of the passages that speak directly to the matter speak about orientation. They speak to things like rape and pederasty and prostitution. They are more narrowly construed, and they are used sometimes for larger purposes rather than specifically that issue.”
(Louis comment – balderdash! The commands related to homosexual behavior are not all related to rape, pederasty and prostitution. What complete and utter nonsense. The anicient Jewish world and the NT Jewish and Christian communities contain no flattering references to this sort of behavior. Sexual activity is blessed in a married union between man and wife. Other such behavior, including homosexual behavior, is condemned).
Mason said he sees parallels in changes in attitude during his time in ministry toward divorce. While the Bible strongly condemns divorce, he said, many churches that formerly treated divorcees with scorn found new ways of interpreting Scripture to allow them in good conscience to include and extend grace toward those who have experienced divorce.
“My suspicion is we are trying harder than we ever have been now to be faithful to the gospel, to read the Scripture, to try to understand this matter in a way to create space for people who are gay among us to have life with us and fellowship with us,” Mason said. “For some that goes to the full extent of ordination and full embrace to be welcoming and affirming congregations. Some of those folk are going to model for others what it’s like for that to be the case, and some of us will be watching, because we are concerned about the consequences of all these decisions and our life together and how we will restructure our life together. Others are more reticent. I would hope that we would be patient with them, because they are trying to be faithful to the gospel, too.”
I sense in the comments of these 2 pastors a struggle. Not only how to minister to people who are involved in homosexual behavior, but what to think and say about the behavior in the first place.
There are some good ministries that deal with this issue. One such ministry is in North Carolina. It is run by a guy named Tim Wilkins (Cross Ministries, I think?). From everything I have seen from him, he tries to be kind and tries to be the presence of Christ. But he is very biblical in his approach on the moral side. He used to be involved in homosexual behavior and now he is not. I would hope that CBF would draw on resources from somebody like that.
But the CBF pastors attending sound very squishy on this issue. If they have not “flipped”, it is pretty evident to me that they can be flipped over time to the point where they will preach that homosexual sex between 2 loving, committed monogamous people (I love how they load that moral requirement on) is o.k.
On the question of Jesus’ relation to scripture, I still think that we can come up with lots of direct, clear statements that are biblical and avoid the ones that sound biblical but may not be.
Jesus is the author of all scripture.
All scripture is a testimony about Jesus.
Jesus said that all scripture was true.
Jesus fulfilled the law and the propets.
Jesus promised His followers that they would write accurately about Him.
Etc.
There are other ones, too.
But we can stay away from things that have double or triple meanings like, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”
John, here’s an interesting exercise. Do you think that you can restate the above sentence in a way that pleases both you and me? Take a crack at it. I bet we can do it.
Unless, of course, the sentence is so perfect that it cannot be touched or altered.
If that is the case, then that sentence has become a creed more precious than the Bible itself.
BDW,
Sorry, I am on my phone so I can’t reply to your commenst directly, so I have to post them at the bottom.
I apologize for lumping you in on the BX6400 comment. You’re right, I have been snotty today, and I apologize for that. As I said to Fox earlier and you before, the reason you guys frustrate me is because your comments usually just lead to prideful arguments and division, and I usually get caught up in it. I also realize that this is a personal problem.
As for me Googling BX6400, I did it to show that no one uses it in conversation and it makes Fox sound as if he wants to sound smart or like he is onto something. That’s probably just an assumption, but his name pops up on numerous blogs when “BX6400″ is typed. I am not a liar, sir. I know exactly what BX6400 is.
Fox,
I would be glad to tell you about the 2 BX6400 books in particular that are next to my laptop that I commented about them earlier from. First. I’d like to know why you ask. So we can get into a pointless, circular argument that will not be resolved? So you can needlessly insult Dave Miller again? So you can insult me?
Sorry you get frustrated so easily. It’s difficult to have a real discussion without some level of disagreement. We don’t all think and believe alike. It’s a mistake to equate a disagreement with division. And, I didn’t call you a liar.
I think Fox is trying to ask whether you’ve studied Southern Baptist history written from the perspective of a non-conservative – or an outsider? Ben Cole used to lament in class that many Southern Baptists have not read non-insider accounts of recent SBC history. Don’t confuse “many” with “all.” I know folks like Louis and others are well-read.
Since this post has somehow degraded to the level of griping about doctrinal parameters, I decided to enter the fray. The following is taken from an xbox360… I mean a bx6400 that is from “the perspective of a non-conservative.” I won’t even have to cite the title and author because of everyone’s intimate familiarity with these bx6400s:
“If the circle of acceptable diversity of biblical interpretation is going to be drawn so narrowly regarding matters of opinion and conscientious difference among Bible-believing Christians that such a statement as mine is unacceptable, then it is likely that the seminary in all its parts, including the Carver School of church Social Work, is going to have a very difficult time finding and keeping faculty members of competence and integrity.” (This is an excerpt from a letter from professor David Sherwood to Al Mohler concerning Southern Seminary’s move to the right in response to Sherwood’s rejection as a professor because of his views on women in ministry.)
Russel Moore, Donald Whitney, Thomas Schreiner, James Parker, Herschel York, Gregory Wills, Mark Seifrid, Brian Vickers, Jim Hamilton, Michael Haykin, Thomas Nettles, Gregg Allison, Bruce Ware, Stephen Wellum, Eric Johnson, Stuart Scott, John Polhill, Paul Helm, Andreas Köstenberger, David Powlison, Kevin Ezell, Duane Garrett
I think professor Sherwood can rest easily that Southern is in capable hands of competence and integrity, in spite of its narrow doctrinal parameters, and the baptist pulpits filled by graduates of this hopelessly restrictive seminary will do quite nicely in leading God’s people to an eternal rest.
Darby:
I have met many of these men. They are gifted and scholarly.
BDidd makes a good point; you shouldn’t be insulted so easily. I could just as easily be insulted by your accusations that my intent was to insult.
My question remains, where did your conviction come from, and what do you have to substantiate it other than legend and oral history you apparently have heard from fundamentalists.
Since it’s a big world out there and most likely neither of us have had the same conversations with the same people; maybe we can find out what books on the BX 6400 shelf you have explored.
Best I remember Miller said he had read some James Hefley and that was about the extent. Maybe you have exhausted the shelf. If so I can’t understand what the chip is on your shoulder.
Somebody mentioned Greg Wills above. The couple exchanges I have had with him at bl.com have been cordial.
I am waiting on his review of the several reviews that have been done on Bill Hull’s recent history of the Honeycutt and McCall Administrations, as well as Wills take on the Baptist contribution to the history of Louisville Kentucky as beautifully reported in Reinhold Niebuhr’s great grand nephew Gus in his recent Beyond Tolerance; Gus who in response to Albert Lee Smith in 1990 at a BJC function in DC said if words have meanings the group who took over the SBC were not conservatives, they were fundamentalists.
But don’t let that stop you from having Greg Will take a look at Niebuhr on Baptists in Beyond Tolerance; and having Wills look at the several reviews of Hull’s recent book.
How is it that the Southern academics you list above haven’t been able to convince the good women on staff at the BHam WMU national headquarters of the adequacy of BFM 2000 as a doctrinal statement?
Stephen:
If convincing the women of the WMU of things is the test for success, we are all going to be unsuccessful for a long time.
The WMU is made up of free and faithful Baptists who will decide what is the truth when they decide it. Scholarship is not the only question here.
Stephen:
Greg Wills is a great guy. We recently talked about Hull’s book and how he discussed it with Hull. I will be interested in reading Hull’s book.
Fox,
What chip is on my shoulder? I’m not sure where you’re going with any of this. You seem to think I’m some sort of crazy, brainwashed SBCer. In fact, I have studied Baptist history at pretty decent length, at least I think so. I was an ardent Methodist for quite awhile until I really began to study Scripture. This is why I landed at, and am so in favor of the SBC’s conservative political and theological views as well as it’s work in the Great Commission.
Winning the argument, Losing the Truth
Brandon that may be the section of this essay:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/1986/hitchens_debates_conservative_evangelical%3A_nothing_happens/
that may be most appropriate to the exchanges between you and me; and also has some application to the Inerrancy crusade in the SBC and BFM 2000
For the record as the Hitchens family goes, I side with Peter Hitchens, the Believer; especially his quote from Annie Dillard.
But I will leave it to you to find the Annie Dillard quote.
And since, Brandon you are a Baptist by choice, I would hope you will come to appreciate this grand sermon from July 4th this year:
http://www.pulpitbytes.blogspot.com/
Blog entry for July 5th.
Brandon here is a good sermon for you to consider:
http://www.pulpitbytes.blogspot.com/
Thanks, BDW.
I think that you are well read, too, and I enjoy the internet banter with you very much.
Would enjoy meeting you some time. I guess you have a blog or website. I don’t.
Do you ever attend the SBC?
Oh, also, I just checked out your web page. I went to school with Billy Kim’s son and daughter. Do you (or did you, I don’t know if he is still living) know Billy Kim?
To my knowledge, Dr. Kim is still alive. I met him on a couple of occasions, first about five years or so ago when he was still President of the BWA. My cousin used to work for the BWA and worked closely with Dr. Kim – a great man.
Darby,
I agree. Many in the moderate group felt there would never be enough well-educated conservative scholars to populate our seminaries. Now we have more solid, conservative, competent, Bible scholars than our seminaries can employ.
Seems the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 strengthened, rather than weakened our seminaries.
David R. Brumbelow
A high tide raises all ships.
Fox,
You are right that I was rude, my mistake and I apologize. You assume that because I believe one way or differently than you, I obviously haven’t studied?
Stephen,
You bring up the BX6400 library designation and whether conservatives have read the other side. I and many others have. Also, some of us were participants during the height of the Conservative Resurgence. We believe what we do out of conviction, not ignorance.
Haven’t checked the library designations, but below are a few books on the subject of the SBC Conservative Resurgence. I’ll even present both sides. I’ve read and own most of them.
Books from the conservative point of view on the Conservative Resurgence:
1. The Baptist Reformation by Jerry Sutton, B&H (Broadman & Holman)
2. The Truth in Crises by James Hefley, Hannibal Books (several volumes; hannibalbooks.com). This series has been recommended by both sides.
3. A Hill on Which to Die by Paul Pressler, B&H.
4. Baptists and the Bible by Bush & Nettles; Moody Press; B&H.
5. Anatomy of a Reformation: The Southern Baptist Convention, 1978-2004 by Paige Patterson, SWBTS (baptisttheology.org).
Books from the moderate to liberal point of view on the Conservative Resurgence:
1. The Takeover in the SBC by James Rob & Gary Lazer
2. Baptist Battles by Nancy Ammerman, Rutgers Press (also recommended by Paige Patterson as a book the confirms some conservative viewpoints).
3. Southern Baptist Holy War by Joe Barnhart, Texas Monthly Press.
4. The Battle for Baptist Integrity by John F. Baugh.
5. God’s Last & Only Hope by Bill J. Leonard, Eerdmans.
6. By My Own Reckoning by Cecil Sherman, Smyth & Helwys (recommended by Paige Patterson, though disagreeing with it’s moderate views).
To all, read all or most of these. If you believe in inerrancy, and believe inerrancy is important, I don’t see how you can avoid being on the conservative side in the SBC. And being proud of the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.
If you only have time to read one set of books, read the conservative ones
.
David R. Brumbelow
No mention, however of the works by outsiders like Barry Hankins’ Uneasy in Babylon, David Stricklin’s A Genealogy of Dissent or the more specific studies by outsiders dealing with race and other social issues by Mark Newman, Oran Smith, Edward Queen, John Storey, etc.
Ben Cole’s point was that most engaged SBCers have read the Pressler account but have never bothered to read Uneasy in Babylon – which, unlike a memoir, provides scholarly analysis based on research. Ammerman’s book is the most objective of those listed above – that’s why Patterson can recommend it. Her work is based on survey data – which Patterson claims to support some of his arguments. I think both sides did a good job of picking and choosing what they liked from Ammerman’s findings.
Big Daddy,
.
I apologize for not being more well read
I may not get them all, but I did just order Uneasy in Babylon by Barry Hankins.
I do have a copy of Barry Hankins’ biography of J. Frank Norris. It is a fascinating book.
What do you think of the books by Sutton and Sherman?
David R. Brumbelow
My above Sherwood quote is taken from Uneasy in Babylon.
Darby,
.
Now that should go to show you – don’t ever assume folks know what your talking about. But I’ll get up to speed with that book in another week or two
Stephen,
Have you read the books on the conservative side, listed above?
David R. Brumbelow
A memoir is a memoir. I think both Patterson’s and Sherman’s insider accounts are incredibly useful as primary sources. I don’t have much use, however, for Sutton’s history. His is advocate history at its finest. Have you read A Matter of Conviction by Sutton? I was excited when it came out; as my own research deals with Southern Baptists and social engagement. Big disappointment.
David Roach, a recent SBTS grad, published a strong critique of Sutton’s latest in the journal Themelios. Roach took Sutton to task for depicting “Southern Baptist racism in inappropriately positive light,” “uncritically accepts statements by Richard Land as factual” and “repeatedly cites from Internet-based encyclopedia.” It was refreshing to see a younger SB historian be willing to make those type of substantive criticisms of Sutton.
Big Daddy,
No, I haven’t read Sutton’s other book.
I still like his Baptist Reformation, but I agree with you that it is advocate history. But of course, I agree with his advocacy in his book.
Thanks for your comments.
David R. Brumbelow
So this is what I’ve learned here:
1. Liberals and moderates are evil, pretty much on par with satanism if you ask Joe Blackmon
2. The BFM2K is the end all, be all document. If there was a way to supplant the bible, then conservatives would be all over it…oh wait…
3. Women are evil yet our two largest offerings are named for women who actually did the roles of pastoring out in the mission field, but conservatives are trying to find a way to rename them after their husbands or closest male friend.
4. Our seminaries are now rock solid theologically with the world’s best Home Econ. class on this side of the globe at Southwestern Seminary. Our message to women: Feel God’s call on your life, it’s to procreate, manage finances, and cook meals for your husband. We’re gonna party like it’s 1959!!!
5. The BFM2K is not creedal but if you want a seat at the table, then by God, it better be your creed!!
6. Did I mention that liberals make the baby Jesus cry?
7. Some of you here either have a warped sense of joy in the Lord or delight in the misery of others.
8. Joe Blackmon must punch kittens every morning.
9. From what I can tell, Conservatives took over the academia while moderates and liberals just went to work trying to reach people for Christ.
10. Many people here must hang a picture of Paige Patterson in their office or hallway at their church.
That is, without a doubt, the FUNNIEST thing I have ever read. You, sir, are a genius on the order of Red Buttons or Dick Van Patten.
I liked that part where that cartoon character Blackmon punched the Kittens.
Louis,
Please pardon me if I confused (and apparently I did) what you said with an assertion that there were SBC churches that had openly homosexual pastors. If someone else did, whoever you are, please provide evidence. If no one did, please pardon me for misreading.
Just a word about pastors Yee and Mason: I don’t think they speak for the CBF; and though I may disagree with what they say, like Voltaire, I would defend their right to say it.
I would enjoy engaging with you on a restatement of the criterion sentence. Unfortunantly, VBS begins in 5 minutes, so I know I cannot even start on it tonight.
John
John:
My bad. I read your comment 76, which was the first to mention the homosexual issue, and responded in comment 77. I thought that you were addressing someone else who had brought it up, so I thought the issue was in play.
The only Baptist church I know of that has an openly gay pastor is the one mentioned in the article. But some looked up and found that that church gives no money to the SBC. So, they are not SBC.
As I have said, I think that the SBC has nailed that issue shut for now. But if they had not, I think that it is likely they would be dealing with it at some point.
Of course I don’t think that you agree with Yee and Mason. Nor do I think that they speak for the CBF. I did not say that they did.
But Associated Baptist Press covered the workshop and quoted them as attending and pastors of Baptist churches. I assume they are CBF churches. I believe that is a fair assumption.
I am not attacking the right of Yee and Mason to speak. I never did that.
But I do not agree with what they said.
VBS is much more important than our on-line banner. Please go work on that and make an investment in some kids.
God bless.
I mentioned that we could curb it from happening, but didn’t assert or mean to that it’s current. It could certainly happen again, who kniows?
DavidB: Delighted to know you have read some books on the matter. Along with BDidd’s examples I also notice
Ellen Rosenberg: The SB’s in Cutural Transition.
David Morgan: The Holy Crusaders
Ammerman’s Southern Baptist Observed missing from your list.
Ammerman’s collection of essays in distinction from her Baptist Battles has an effort by Helen Lee Turner on how the Southern Baptist Pastor’s Conference used heightened apocalyptic rhetoric to demagogue many of the key SBC Convention votes. It is fascinating indeed and I highly recommend it.
I am glad Greg Wills is taking a look at Hull’s book. I hope he will invite Gus Niebuhr to SBTS to discuss some of these matters; and maybe Bdidd will have Niebuhr and Charles Marsh out to Baylor to review some of the offerings here on this thread as part of the introduction to Ken Starr to the esoterics of Baptist life in the last 30 years.
If nothing else Brandon has a wide list in his lap to begin exploring. I guess we can wait and see if his insight after he reads some evolves into some kind of understanding and modification comparable to Ben Cole’s pilgrimmage.
One more time Harold Bloom’s sentence on the tragedy of the Southern Baptist Convention in my experience is the best brief description to date taking into account Scripture and politics.
And I hold fast to the notion the Senate race in Texas in 1948 between LBJ and Coke Stevenson tells you more about the Hill Pressler was really ready to die on; than his sophomoric notions about what Jack Flanders was teaching at Baylor in 68 or whenever he took his Primary Sunday School class up there.
I think Aaron Weaver agrees with me, and I heard John Baugh express a similar sentiment, in the most condensed frame though there are flaws in any collection of human beings; Roughly The SBC is the child of WA Criswell and the CBF carries on what a grander Baptist, George Truett, envisioned.
I am proud to have been Baptized in the Truett Memorial Baptist Church in Hayesville, NC (Truett’s birthplace) in 1959; and proud that my online acquaintance Aaron Weaver has fluorished in the seminary at Baylor that bears his name.
Stephen:
I note that you write the following:
“And I hold fast to the notion the Senate race in Texas in 1948 between LBJ and Coke Stevenson tells you more about the Hill Pressler was really ready to die on; than his sophomoric notions about what Jack Flanders was teaching at Baylor in 68 or whenever he took his Primary Sunday School class up there.”
What, in your opinion, is the hill that Judge Pressler was really ready to die on?
You think that he had some hill other than the one he wrote about in his autobiography?
What was the hill?
And how did you determine this other hill was the one Pressler was really ready to die on versus what Pressler wrote about?
Idon’t know if you have seen the Movie The Pledge or not but it turns out the Jack Nicholson character Jerry was right about The Wizard.
I’m usingthis as metaphor, as a parable not implying anything other than making a dark analogy about ambition. In my view Pressler and his comrade in arms in the SBC and the Council for National Policy, Helms vision of America, their ideology and politics were as venal as the evil incarnated in the fictional Wizard in the movie.
All Synonymous to Old Testament Prophet’s reference to the Whore of Babylon. The American Idol Pressler and Helms worshipped in my view was a false god.
Chandler Davidson has written about the religious right in Texas and Joe Ferguson has written about Jesse Helms in North Carolina.
Pressler as you know was the son or grandson of a Vice President of Exxon Oil; and Pressler is proud of his family history in the Texas Legislature.
Best I can make of it, that includes an affinity for the ideology of the Texas Regulars.
If you look at Sidney Blumenthal’s description of the 48 Senate Race between Coke Stevenson and LBJ, you will find a matrix that frustratred the likes of Foy Valentine, John Baugh, Baylor’s W.J. Wimpey and Herb Reynolds not to mention other progressive forces in Texas; and I think safe to say they were convinced shaped Pressler’s zeal and affinity for a Birch Society like vision of America’s promise and character; one that put Pressler at odds with Martin King and Civil Rights; and when that didn’t fly anymore as a Dixiecrat wedge issue, found home in the social issues as a national political wedge and in the SBC, Inerrancy.
So you put that with Tom Edsall poignant finding in his 84 The New Politics of Inequality and his findings of how oil interests strategically financed the 78 election cycle and networked to bring President Carter down; you look at how Criswell and Adrian Rogers platformed themselves and Pressler’s role with the Council for National Policy and at some point you got chopped liver.
This is the world Bill Moyers was zeroing in on on PBS in Dec 87 when Pressler got flustered and walked out of the Interview.
So SBC in my view is analogous to The Pledge’s Jerry’s Monash County; I asked President Carter about it in a short version in a Press Conference in 93 in Bham.
So Pressler’s hill was confused with his grandiose conviction that he was carrying on his family’s Holy Grail, a lesser version of Time Magazine Henry Luce’s America’s Purpose essays which did have some virtue but in retrospect is open for further exploration.
You remember David Brinkley. His son Alan has written the bio of Luce, the Presbyterian China Missionaries son who published Time for some time.
So I digressed, and I know this seems to be a little fabulous to you; but it is better history than the one I saw not long ago of the Patriotic Drama Bellevue Baptist in Memphis presented.
Or another analogy worthy of exploration is the hamlet before the First World War in Michael Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Stephen:
Thanks for responding. I know that Baugh believed that. I had a friend who interviewed Mr. Baugh at length in about 1990 or so. Baugh believed that Pressler’s plan was to take over the US through the CP and establish a theocracy of some sort.
I do find that fabulous.
From a factual standpoint, it is true that Pressler’s family was involved in Texas politics, generally, and conservative democratic politics, specifically.
But it is no more true to automatically conclude that what motivated Pressler’s activity in SBC matters was a conservative political agenda than it is to suggest that all Foy Valentine really cared about was liberal politics, and that his involvement in church was just a sham to accomplish a liberal political agenda.
I do find, however, that in the case of secular liberals, that can be the case because they do not believe in the need for personal salvation, and generally see that as individual pietism.
I have several friends who have attended the local divinity school at a major university here in town. The divinity school is not theologically aligned at all. What you find is, for the most part, that when there is no spiritual conviction (religion) left in a person’s religion, that they substitute liberal political causes. The Bible is not true. No one needs salvation. There is no way to salvation. There is no one true religion. All that is left for many of these folks is political causes. And it just so happens that most of those, for young people in this country, are liberal in orientation.
Moyers is a perfect example of that. He went to Southwestern seminary shortly before my father in law attended. He eventually migrated from the Baptist faith and probably the Christian religion. He has said that he has come to “a new way of seeing and believing.”
I can see why people like that would project their experiences on to conservatives.
In Pressler’s case, there is no evidence of any real fire here. He is conservative, no doubt. But he has been very focused on evangelism for most of his adult life.
He and his wife worked with Youth for Christ at Northwestern University. They held a Bible study in their home for young people for about 30 years. Used to be that you couldn’t go anywhere in Houston among young professionals and not find people who came to Christ as a part of that weekly Bible study.
Even now, I don’t see Pressler or the SBC, really, heavily invested in political causes.
Most people in the SBC are conservative in their politics and always have been. That used to exist in the South in the democratic party. That day is over for the most part, and southern conservatives have migrated to the Republican party. But that is not the main thing for the SBC.
The main thing that has been the focus of the SBC is the Great Commission Resurgence. I have been to many conventions since 1985, and I would say that missions and related components have been the main thrust of the SBC.
The political issues that have come up at the convention have all been related to the CLC, now ERLC. And the issues on which they have focused have been familiar moral issues – abortion, euthanasia, alcohol consumption, religious liberty, school prayer etc. This is all stuff that the SBC constituency was concerned about before Pressler and Patterson ever came along.
I appreciate your sharing this opinion.
But until there is some real evidence to this, all we have are conservative people being conservative. And we have them actively interested in evangelism, missions, theological education, and not trying to take over the US.
Look forward to talking with you again.
Louis,
Good points.
David R. Brumbelow
I am just wanting to point out that this has been a ridiculous and obnoxious comment thread.
Stephen Fox,
You have accused conservatives of being ignorant if they have not read the books on the SBC that you recommend. Of course the books and literature you recommend are from the moderate to liberal point of view.
I’ll ask you again. Of the books from the conservative point of view, that I listed above, have you read any of them?
I’ll list those books again to refresh your memory.
1. The Baptist Reformation by Jerry Sutton, B&H (Broadman & Holman)
2. The Truth in Crises by James Hefley, Hannibal Books (several volumes; hannibalbooks.com). This series has been recommended by both sides.
3. A Hill on Which to Die by Paul Pressler, B&H.
4. Baptists and the Bible by Bush & Nettles; Moody Press; B&H.
5. Anatomy of a Reformation: The Southern Baptist Convention, 1978-2004 by Paige Patterson, SWBTS (baptisttheology.org).
David R. Brumbelow
Hefley gave me his complete set in New Orleans in 90 but I inadvertently never got out of town with them, regretfully.
I am indebted to him for mentioning my name and covering the 11 am Weds Morning press conference in 1988 in San Antonio, with James Dunn and the Laity Journal’s Neal Rodgers on the microphone; Babs Baugh and her husband in the room at my invitation, and best I remember Carolyn W Crumpler as well.
Paige Patterson filtered in and was having impromptu discussions with the press as Dunn and Rodgers held court officially; quite a scene.
In time I hope to see what Paige said.
I did hear Paige out April 7, 1987 at Samford and went back two days later to hear Ken Chafin’s response where Chafin came out with this gem:
“A Bible in the hands of a believer who refuses to submit it to rational means of investigation is a dangerous thing; and has often been used to buttress up injustice.”
I haven’t had the opportunity to question Richard Land about that sentiment; but I would imagine even Land would concede that was true of WA Criswell and his 1956 addresses to the SC Baptist Evangelism conference and a Joint session of the SC legislature.
As Curtis Freeman of Duke has examined in his study of that speech andthe witness of SEBTS proff Stewart Newman; you look at the cultural matrix of M. O. Owens and there is a strong sense in which the Inerrancy mess was a cover, a whitewashing and resentment for the fundamentalist wing of the SBC’s engagement with Civil Rights in the 60′s.
That is something EllenRosenberg explores and Hefley does not; nor do I imagine Sutton orPaigePatterson wade into it either if at all.
As much as I enjoyed the friendship and good prattlin with Hefley at two conventions; I dismiss him as less than framing the SBC struggle properly.
Nancy Ammerman and Ellen Rosenberg have the preeminent framing, followed closely by Southern Baptists Observed.
And I can’t quite remember if it was DAvid Morgan’s Holy Crusaders, but one of the efforts in the BX 6400′s goes back to the 60′s and explores the resentments of the fellow from Gastonia, North Carolina (M.O. Owens??) and the , evolution,rhetoric and demagoguery of the Southern Baptist Advocate; surely one of the darker chapters in Baptist advocacy journalism
Stephen Fox,
So in other words, your answer is no.
You have not read any of the books on the Conservative Resurgence from the conservative point of view.
Yet you criticize as ignorant, conservatives who have not read the moderate to liberal material you recommend. Sounds as though you are guilty of what you accuse in others.
Maybe you should consider reading the other side.
David R. Brumbelow
No, the answer is Yes; I read most of the Hefley books and read almost every issue of the Southern Baptist Advocate in the 80′s.
I was there in the building in 89 when Pressler had the ExCom fire Shackleford and Martin; and helped construct the debate between Pressler and Montoya and Wilmer Fields son Randy at Samford in October 1990.
April 2002 went down to Joe Godfrey’s church in Montgomery to hear Pressler address Alabama fundamentalists about the state convention a day after Godfrey and Pressler had private lunch with Judge Roy Moore.
So yes I am aware of things with much onsite experience.
So I am with a consensus of enlightened folks outside this board who know Barry Hankins, Ammerman and Rosenberg to be a more honest and truthful version of what happenned and why than Jerry Sutton, of Resolution Number Five, the Priesthood of the Believer.
And a link for Brandon and Brumbelow:
http://www.churchplantingvillage.net/atf/cf/%7BA6A80990-48C6-406D-87AC-B652EF345C76%7D/A_Baptist_History_1975_to_present.pdf
Stephen:
It is interesting to hear your background and some of your personal observations and experiences. You sound like you were in the fray back in the day. Did you go to Samford?
Were you working for an agency, a student or just a moderate worker?
What do you do now? Are you still involved in moderate Baptist circles, CBF etc.?
You mentioned Ken Chaffin. I heard him preach one time about 1990 or so. It was o.k.
But I was really disappointed when he was on the Donahue show in 1985. When the young woman (who appeared to be from India or some other part of central Asia) asked if she was doomed or would go to heaven even if she was not a Christian, but otherwise lived by all the moral and ethical rules.
Judge Pressler began to tell her that the problem was that all of us are sinners and that God had solved the sin problem by the death of Christ for us on the cross when Dr. Chaffin butted in and said, “Jesus said, love God and love your fellow man, and that’s all you need to do.”
Of course, the Donahue show audience erupted with applause, much to Dr. Chaffin’s delight.
But the unseen audience of Southern Baptists who were watching the show had a different reaction.
I heard that was the moment John Basagnio (sp?) decided to back the conservatives. Interesting tension that Pressler was in FBC Houston and his pastor remained on the sidelines for so many years.
Do you think that Dr. Chaffin was just confused and lacked the experience to know how to handle a question like that under pressure? Or do you think that was really Dr. Chaffin’s belief?
I did not know Dr. Chaffin personally. I know that when he passed Judge Pressler wanted to pay his respects at South Main, but did not because he did not think it would be well received by several in that church.
Louis–
I do know Ken Chafin to be a well-grounded and down-to-earth person who was honored to become SBC President in the years where that meant his church was a sacrifical giver to the Cooperative Program.
I think he commented on the Donahue program with a compassionate biblical observation over a narrow fundamentalist take that tightly closes the gates to Heaven–more tight than Jesus would, in my opinion.
No matter what, Ken Chafin was authentic to himself and his Lord—and a good representative of Southern Baptists.
Dr. Chaffin butted in and said, “Jesus said, love God and love your fellow man, and that’s all you need to do.”
Do you think that Dr. Chaffin was just confused and lacked the experience to know how to handle a question like that under pressure? Or do you think that was really Dr. Chaffin’s belief?
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind, and I know you weren’t asking me but I can’t let an opportunity to get a dig in on moderate christians pass by, that he knew exactly what he was saying and that it is exactly what he meant. Conservative Christians, on the other hand, know that is not the gospel, it is not true, and believing that will get you to heaven will end up getting you a big surprise when you’re punished in hell forever for your sins because you refused to repent and trust Christ as your Savior–no matter what L’s, Gene S, or the folks in Endi, OK believe.
I actually think that he did believe that to some extent. Earlier in the program he said that a Rabbi in Houston with whom he worked knew God and would be in heaven.
But I believe Ken Chaffin was very smart, and would not have said that in public except for the bright lights and applause and pressure from Donahue.
Donahue sensed differences between Pressler and Chaffin on even fairly essential Christian teaching, and I think kept trying to draw that out to make the show interesting. I think he had no idea how it was hurting Chaffin in the SBC context.
Stephen Fox,
So you have never read The Baptist Reformation by Jerry Sutton; A Hill on Which to Die by Paul Pressler; Baptists and the Bible by Bush & Nettles; Anatomy of a Reformation by Paige Patterson. But you may have read a little of Hefley’s books.
My suggestion is you seriously need to open your eyes to the other side. Read a little (or a lot) of what they have to say. Whether you agree or not, the conservatives have legitimate points of view. At least the majority of Southern Baptists believe they do.
Plus, as Louis pointed out, the conservatives don’t get mixed up and confused about the plan of salvation.
David R. Brumbelow
I did not know Chafin personally, but I do know he was the Billy Graham chair of evangelism at Southern, and to my knowledge I have never heard Billy was upset about that.
I don’t think the SBC struggle should be decided on one remark on the Phil Donahue show on Live national television.
In the larger frame of things, the SBC as a subculture in a historical moment Chafin’s line at Samford trumps anything I saw reported that Paige Patterson said; and by larger context I would suggest some thought given Steven Miller’s conclusions on the difficulty of analyzing Billy Graham when he considered the conundrum of historicising icons whose public record is well trafficked in the national discourse.
To get to what matters Here are twenty or so items that are pretty much my truth about the matter, courtesy of Buddy Shurden:
http://centerforbaptiststudies.org/shurden/20_reflections.htm
Well, him being at Southern when it was a decidedly left wing institution doesn’t exactly prove anything. Fact–he said that. Fact–he said it because he believed it. Fact–his statement that someone can go to heaven some way other than through faith in Jesus Christ doesn’t bother you. Fact–his statement that someone can go to heaven some way other than through Jesus Christ is contrary to scripture.
That pretty well sums it up. Like Joe Friday used to say “Just the facts…”
Oh, and the link–I read it and all the while I heard weepy, sappy, violin music in the background. It was a redention of the old Hee Haw song “Gloom, Despair, and Agony on me” and it was in A flat which I thought was kinda strange because string players generally don’t like playing in flats–go fig.
“8. The biggest casualties of the war: little girls born into SBC churches during the struggle who would grow up wanting to be a part of the SBC ministry in the 21st century.”
I disagree with Shurden, who manages to make man the center of everything in this statement. The biggest casualty of the “war” was the Lord Jesus Christ, who had to watch his children bicker over things that should have been and still should be obvious.
They are obvious–to Christians.
Stephen:
Thanks for sharing Walter Shurden’s thoughts on the CR. Some of them I agree with. Some of them I don’t.
The most interesting one to me is his statement of how at home he feels in the CBF and the Alliance of Baptists.
I would not feel at home in either of these groups.
This emphasizes to me that Mr. Shurden and I would have a very hard time pooling our money to have theological schools, to send missionaries, to plant churches etc. I never met Mr. Shurden. I am sure that he and I would share many beliefs. But I can tell that we have some very serious disagreements that would make our working together on the above tasks very difficult.
That’s what a denomination or convention of churches is all about. People need to have a common belief about things to have seminaries, to send missionaries etc. If they don’t have common beliefs, there will be disagreement about the mission, how to carry it out, etc. It is not workable.
I am glad that Mr. Shurden gathered together with Baptists of like mind to engage in ministry about which they all feel good.
But his reflections make it clear to me that there really were 2 different kinds of Baptists, and it’s better that they are separated pursing their beliefs and vision in a way they feel honors the Lord than that they be stuck together in perpetual war.
The Snopes Trial, Pressler, Criswell and the SBC.
Louis: You must get your hands on a copy of the 93Southern Baptists Observed and read the final essay by Susan Harding on “double voicing.”
For folks like yourself best I can figure you, that is where the conversation should begin, the conversation that matters in the world of Greg Wills and BDidd of Baylor.
Thought not exactly what she is getting at in the SBC struggle this link is an intro to her thought.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_1_63/ai_84396071/
I don’t know how serious you are about exploring the various truths of the SBC struggle; but if you are, then reading Harding in SB’s Observed is an indication.
Harding has a major point I think that holds to this date; in all this mess to this date there is no compelling hegemonous narrative.
I would add that BFM 2000 only adds to the cacophony.
And I’m sure it is not lost on you that Bill Powell and M.O. Owens–Scarborough knows Powell to be part of Charles Stanley’s show in the upheaval at FBC Atlanta; their group named themselves the BFM Fellowship.
Left wing in your mind only, cartoon man:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16193
And once you click there, click on book reviews for the Glenn Hinson review of the same book
Oh, yeah, I’m the only one who thinks that Southern was a left wing institution before it was rescued by conservatives. Yep, it’s only me. You’re right.
And here is a WA Criswell “Fact” just for you Cartoon Man
http://jsr.fsu.edu/Volume10/Freeman.pdf
Well, Stephen, why don’t you just put your cards on the table and tell us–can a person go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone. Now, I know you’re not nearly man enough to answer that with a “Yes” or “No”–moderates have no convictions, after all.
Oh, and it’s about time you stopped thumping all the “racists” as if each and every conservative is tainted because of a few blowhards that stood for racial segregation. That does NOT prove their doctrine of salvation or doctrine of scripture was in any way deficient.
Fox,
Is Christianity untrue because of the Crusades?
Oh, SNAP!!!
Joe,
Apart from faith in Christ Jesus, repenance, etc., there is no hope for anyone for heaven. I will grant that God has the last word on this, and not me, which is a caveat most moderates believe, few conservatives are willing to articulate, and still fewer fundamentalists are willing to tolerate, or such has been my experience.
Just a word from a self-confessed moderate (albeit right of center), affirmed by the word of many professors at pre-CR SEBTS. (And I say “many” not “all” simply because I did not take classes from all the professors).
Enough of your accusations that moderate = wishy-washy and unwilling to draw a line.
John
John
John,
God has given us His final word on the matter–the Bible. Therefore, it’s not “me” saying that no one gets to heaven but through faith in Christ and repentance of sin, Jesus said that. I submit that most moderates, although probably not you, aren’t willing to say that the bible speaks with finality, clarity, and authroity on the issue to the point that we can say without any shadow of a doubt whatsoever that God will not allow anyone in heaven apart from repentance of sin and faith in Christ, not because I say so but because God has already said so.
So, while it may not be true to say “All moderates=wishy washy” it is completely trute that “I can’t say who God will let into heaven for sure=wishy washy”.
Everytime you trash a moderate, God kills a kitten.
Please think of the kittens…
ROFL… Nice. That was awesome.
Well, since all kittens go to heaven, I’m just getting them there quicker, Bill. LOL
haha!
Feel free to call it “wishy-washy” Joe. I prefer to call it letting God be God.
John
John,
Yea, let God be God, and He has given us His Word…the Bible. It says that people, who die in their sins, apart from Jesus Christ, go to Hell. It says a lot of other very clear things, as well. And, some of those liberal profs of SB seminaries and SB colleges were denying major tenets of the Christian faith. They were claiming things like universalism, denying the miracles of the Bible, etc. And, today, John, have you gone to ABPnews.org lately? The CBF crowd actually had a conference on exploring homosexuality, where they say that homosexuality may have not been God’s plan A, but maybe it’s God’s plan B. Are you kidding me?
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5290/53
Go to that link if you want to read it, John.
David
Well now, David, let’s not be dogmatic here. I mean, that’s just your interpretation of the Bible. That may not be what the Bible means to other people. God can do anything He wants even pardon sin without repentance. Further, it’s just your narrow minded, heterosexists views that make you think homosexuality is a sin. Let’s just let God be God rather than suggesting that we have the answers. Doing that is arrogance.
(/sarcasm)
Doesn’t God list adulterers, fornicators, and gossips in that verse with homosexuals? If gay people don’t get to go to Heaven, what about those who are doing those things? Must be a special Baptist dispensation since we sure have a lot of those in our churches–and some of them are even pastors!
Josh, put a sock in it. No one is saying that any unrepentant sinner is going to get to heaven. The last time I checked, and admittedly it has been a while, I don’t notice churches and christians such as yourselves saying “The biblical prohibition against adultry doesn’t apply to this day and time. It was a cultural prejudice of Paul’s. It’s not a sin”. However, those are the arguements you and your ilk use to pimp the idea that someone can be a practicing homosexual and a Christian.
You tired of homosexuality being brought up? Here’s an idea–you stop claiming it’s not a sin. Thanks.
It’s easy to crucify homosexuals because it’s a deviant and outwardly expressed sin. It’s easy to make homosexuals to be the boogeyman, the creature under the bed, or people undeserving of our time and resources.
However, it’s hard to root out pornography, adultery, and gossipers because nine times out of ten, they’re deacons, clergy, and big money people for that church.
So the Southern Baptist Convention will continue to malign homosexuals and continue to undo any efforts wrought by people and churches trying to reach out to these sinners.
Also, the Southern Baptist Convention will continue to protect its’ liars, thieves, child molesters, and rapists because to question God’s Anointed is apparently a sin somewhere…
Bill,
If by malign you mean continue to call unrepentant homosexuality a sin as well as any other unrepentant sin, then I hope you’re right. If by trying to reach out to these sinners you mean churches that openly accept their lifestyle as okay without demanding repentance, then I don’t think these churches are “reaching” them anyway.
If you mean something else, then I think you’re ripping apart a straw man because I know of many very loving SB churches that accept those struggling with homosexuality. Their sin is not accepted as normal or right, but they are loved and accepted as sinners in need of grace, just like everyone else. Where the line is drawn is when churches want to accept them in spite of their lack of repentance and allow them to live openly sinful lifestyles as a special class of people above everyone else. Homosexuality is a hot topic because people are trying to say it isn’t sin. If a large enough group came out in favor of serial adultery and said that God made them that way, then that would become as hot a topic as homosexuality. Make no mistake about it.
I think you’re entirely out of line to think that many churches, let alone most churches in the SBC, would allow unrepentant adultery, child molesters, rapists, etc. to go on unchallenged. There might be some bad apple churches out there. I can think of a few that are questionable. But this is not the norm.
I don’t know what caused you to be so bitter, but maybe you should speak to some struggling homosexuals in good SBC churches if you’re going to rant anymore today. They are out there.
efforts wrought by people and churches trying to reach out to these sinners.
And by “efforts to reach out” what you mean is telling them “It’s ok. It’s not a sin. God will accept you as you are without any repentance”. Do you even own a Bible? Why don’t you try reading it?
You’re welcome.
That’s what we tell everyone else mired in every other sin.
What planet do you live on?
I just found a blog or discussion site that has what I would really call a liberal. I’m just glad they aren’t in a Southern Baptist church that I know of. The site is http://www.baptistlife.com
This is the worst post I have ever read:
http://forums.baptistlife.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8498
Criswell and Pressler and July 4th
What would they think of this sermon?
http://www.pulpitbytes.blogspot.com/
His blog entry of July 5
Would they think it was the “figment of some infidel’s imagination?”
Joe,
Me and my “ilk”? I suggest you put a sock on it if you think I am saying that homosexuality is not a sin. Reread what I wrote and quit jumping to conclusions. I was just bringing up the point that people love to single out homosexuality when there are a lot of other sins mentioned right there with it.
Why is it that whenever homosexuality is mentioned, that someone jumps all over it with a “that’s not the only sin in the world…na na na…other sins are just as bad as sodomy…na na na…why do you want to point out homosexuality…na na na na?” lol C’mon now, nobody is saying that homosexuality is the worse sin above all others. Take a deep breath. It’ll be okay. Really. But, I was just pointing out what was going on over in the liberal CBF.
DAvid
That’s simple, David. They don’t think it should be called a sin. Some of the nonsense I’ve heard out of that crowd is “Well, I don’t see you saying anything to fat people about their gluttony?” The fact is, this is the same group of people, usually, who say we’re being racist and hateful if we say that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Lack of faithfulness to the bible always leads to a lack of convictions.
Um, that argument comes when discussing alcohol, not homosexuality.
Then again, you not usually long for facts are you?
Well,
We’ll go after homosexuals with everything in our arsenal yet wink at people who commit adultery, view pornography, or even molest their own children.
Guess you have to be on staff at mega churches to get a pass on that sin though…
If we proclaim sin is sin, yet we don’t walk out that proclamation, then what have we accomplished?
Folks–I am somewhat confused as to how posts get on. To this moment, I was convinced mine got missed for some reason.
Let me conplete the Charles Stanley / FBC Atlanta issuel
Stanley, indeed, was elected Pastor of Atlanta First. It was certainly not by majority vote in the beginning. The remnant after the great brew-ha-ha ended up electing him Pastor.
His Independent Baptist leanings is clearly proven by the immediate change in giving patterns under his leadership: from “Top 10 CP giving” to nada!!!
When he was elected President of the SBC, it was a far cry from the previous rationale: It was an honor bestowed on any Pastor who was leading a growing church which greatly supported the SBC financially. That has been true of most presidents since CR took over! They are chosen by what they can contribute to continued CR reign.
Why can’t we admit things have changed since 1979???
I hear Stanley every Sunday here in eastern NC. He is still a dynamic Preacher, HOWEVER, I note several things in his style:
(1) He seldom looks at the camera and his eyes blink constantly–a criminal investigator will quickly tell you this is a sign of prevarication!
(2) He is constantly saying, “Let me tell you this / listen to me.” This is a sign of one wanting to be a “king pastor.”
(3) He totes a big Bible and walks around using it to underscore his right to tell you what to do.
(4) His personal life is in a mess as his wife left him and his son founded another church after being on his staff. No one dares speculate over what is the reason for fear of crossing a “king.”
(5) He has used his position to found a multi-million dollar AMWAY group named “Stanley’s Steamers.” I was invited to join AMWAY in 1973 by well-meaning people who used Stanley’s success as the reason I should join. Personally, I view such use of counseling struggling couples in financial distress as “using your trusting clients for you own benefit.”
Needless to say, I do not hold Charles Stanley in high respect for a number of good reasons.
“It’s not how high you jump–it’s how straight you walk when you hit the ground which serves as a guide for my ministry!
Wow. I am really steamed! I made a vow never to respond to the nonsense on SBC Voices, but I cannot in good conscience ignore a blatant attack with malice upon another brother — any brother.
Gene said, Quote Needless to say, I do not hold Charles Stanley in high respect for a number of good reasons. END NOTE.
First, it was not “needful” to say anything. You did so to inject your venom. Then, you used parody as “facts.” For instance, you impersonate a criminal investigator by saying Dr. Stanley’s obvious nervous “tic” (as they are called in the health field) is evidence of “lying.” I don’t think you can get much lower than a blow like that. Then you make something out of the size of his Bible.
I don’t know what brand of Christianity you espouse, Gene, but I hope you don’t have a position of authority in any church.
I don’t know Dr. Stanley, and I’m not a fan of Amway, but when a person can make this type of attack on a “christian” blog, it is heartbreaking.
I read this blog all the time, and the non-sense that passes for discussion is almost unbelievable.
TO LIVE ABOVE WITH SAINTS I LOVE, OH THAT WILL BE GLORY! TO LIVE BELOW WITH SAINTS I KNOW — WELL, THAT’S A DIFFERENT STORY.
Sorry I offended you. I didn’t bring up Charles Stanley, but I know some things from growing up in Atlanta that you obviously don’t.
Charles Stanley is not and has never been a true Southern Baptist. Basically he hijacked a solid giving SBC church into becoming a de facto Independent Baptist Church–and too many people still haven’t figured it out.
Truth is truth and has nothing to do with maligning someone you obviously adore. I just don’t.
Sorry.
Sp, if a church holds Jerry Boykin in high esteem, how far in substance, Gene, has it come from a Charles Stanley mentality.
Is admiration of the pilgrimage of Jerry Boykin a sign of a mature Baptist Christian congregation; or to put it another way just how far are you willing to go in your prophetic declaration of indices of mature Baptist congregations?
Stephen–
I’m not sure what you are asking.
My experience working seriously with the SBC since the mid-1950′s to the present is that we are no longer the kind of group which we were in the growing 50-60′s. Part of the price of growth is a loss of of heritage–Training Union used to teach it, but it is gone!
Let’s face it, America has been in turmoil politically and socially since our return from WWII. Most soldiers came back home with a gratitude to God that they had survived. We had the sense we were the only great society on the face of the earth and the Russians were evil Communists. If you were a true American you believed in apple pie / the Bible / standing for the National Anthem / etc.
It is a strange mix of religion and politics which Baptists throughout the past avoided citing “separation of church and state” as clearly stated in the Constitution. We endorsed no political candidates and a fellow like Billy Graham was there for all presidents regardless of party.
Next, people discovered the South in droves and corporate America moved here in mass—mostly because it was non-union and cost-of-living was less. As the mobs moved to Atlanta, they joined Baptist churches without any consideration of more than the social value of “going to church” and pointing a finger to the sky swaying to music—and impatient to go to the restaurant when the preacher came on! In short, it was a selfish approach to religion filled with wanting to have you ego stroked and an obsession to “fit in.”
It seems, the more things become unsettled and quickly change, the more some people want to embrace the past as if it were perfect.
Conservatism filled the bill! H.L. Menkin referred to Conservatives as “MY CONTEMPORARY ANCESTORS!” I think he was right. To make the Bible Inerrant gives a sense of security, but it is false. Those who are truely Inerrantists would never fly commercially for fear of falling off a corner of the 3-story earth clearly taught and believed throughout the “inerrant” Bible. Capernicus and Galelio were scorned and threatened by a Catholic Church refusing to allow any other view than the planets and universe circling that 3-story earth created as God spoke it into existence. Darwin was out and the Fundamentalist push of the 20-30′s found Clarence Darrow and Religious Fundamentalists offering security in a changing world! In the same way we are repeating it in the “restless Viet Nam era.”
What troubles me is the self-centeredness of the Mega Church and its leaders. They have giant egos to go with giant numbers. Few preachers in Atlanta’s large churches will ever visit–they have a staff member for that. One even has a spiral staircase leading from his private office to the pulpit so he is not exposed directly to the crowd. He appears at various football games at schools represented in his church–wearing that school’s cap–AND going to each stadium, walking through the stands, moving on to the next school.
Charles Stanley perfectly fits that mold and he is not alone. Since when does a true Servant Pastor not tolerate one word of discent in his Staff or Congregations???
Would Jesus say, “My way or the highway!”
Our supposed example of faith–Jesus, The Christ–offered his thoughts and ministry for every person, no matter their social status. His presence was particularly appreciated by the down-and-out of his day. The Pharisees had the rich man’s corner covered and plenty of smoke-and-mirrors to get their money so they could live a royal lifestyle under the Temple roof—it aproximated the royal lifestyle lived by various kings who could tax people for riches!
Whenever I evaluate people like Stanley / Criswell / Vines / Rogers / Osteen / Warren / the list is infinite—I simply ask if they are like Jesus or like the Pharasees.
Believe it or not, there are large church pastors who haven’t deserted our Servant Saviour and his outlook. The disciples were trying to be big as Satan was tempting.
Think about it: What was the nature of Satan’s temptation in the Wilderness before Jesus moved from baptism to ministry?”
Did it not deal with ego and a quick ride to the top more than humility / sacrifice / telling God’s truth to people who wanted their prejudices stroked and called “good.” Hating Samaritans was great for Pharisees, but Jesus took exception to it!
He died, for the sins of humanity–one of the greatest of which is to worship ourselves / our culture / our big church / our position in society / our refusal to call slavery evil (it still goes on today as people are used from every creed and culture to make rich corporations richer).
It would sure be nice if we would do some real thinking and discussion of important things like above over whether BF&M 2000 is right. Personally, I think it sucks and tries to turn us into worshipers of a Creed over worshiping a living Christ and the Holy Spirit crying real tears because we have deserted the way of the Servant seeking riches and things on this earth!!!!
Long story short:
Gene I think you have a good bit of honest insight from personal experience; at same time lot of your insights here were digested as far back as 93 by Susan Harding in particular in her excellent concluding essay in Southern Baptists Observed on double voicing and compelling hegemonous narrative.
I hope you are not too proud to with all deliberate speed get your hands on Nancy Ammerman’s editted collection Southern Baptists Oberserved; cause you, like me, can gain wisdom from the Chapter Observing the Observers.
If nothing else you will like the choice invocation of Mencken there.
Tim Tyson has great study of the role ego plays with preachers and I agree with you Charles Stanley is Exhibit A.
Stewart Newman’s joke is sublime; he told me on the phone in 86 or so: Stephen our SBC President went out to walk his Duck the Other Day and got his head all cut up by an outboard motor.
That said, in the context of the remedial education we are doing here at this board; it is no small point in the History of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC Bill Powell of the Baptist Faith and Message to become the Southern Baptist Advocate had his sustenance on staff at Stanley’s FBC Atlanta.
And on as yet to be explored aspect of the larger picture, I think you agree with me that no matter what Bonhoeffer might have said about NYC’s Union Seminary in the 30′s; in no way does that justify or become an apology for Jerry Vines Godawful Convention Sermon in St. Louis in 87 directed at Randall Lolley and SEBTS where Vines talked about Creepy Liberalism crossing the Atlantic Ocean from Germany and coming down the Eastern Seaboard.
When Vines gets to heaven I think our Sweet Jesus is gonna take him to the woodshed on that one like Eisenhower did to Joe McCarthy in mid 50′s.
One more thing, there are aspects of your notion above about the SBC of the 50′s and 60′s post WWII that could gain greater substance by close look at the several reviews of Alan Brinkley’s new book on Time Mag’s Henry Luce, where it intersected themes of the Great Protestant Moment in our nation’s ideology; Luce, like Billy Graham’s wife, a child of Presbyterian missionaries to China.
All people have to do is read Stephen and Gene and they know the Conservative Resurrgence:
*was a good thing.
*was a God thing.
*didn’t go nearly far enough.
*was a power thing.
*was a last name beginning with “P” thing
*went way too far in committing sinful acts under the guise of fighting sin
There ya go, Joe.
Fixed it for you.
Hey Cartoon Man; How are things in your Cartoon World Today???
Here’s a link for you.
I’ll be William Blake and you be Billy Bob Thornton
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/07/05/movies/1247468002781/critics-picks-dead-man.html
Oh, also noticed you missed my question to you yesterday. I’m sure it was an oversight. I can’t imagine you would just ignore it. That would be cowardly.
From comment 146 above–”can a person go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone?”
Yes or no?
YES
if the person is mentally challenged, and is in the category my Church calls ‘a holy innocent’, they will be unable to ‘understand’ all the ‘proper doctrines’.
They will be saved BY CHRIST ALONE
not by any thing that they can’t personally understand and profess because they are loved ‘as they are’ and Christ died for them ‘as they are’
They can nothing, they are not able, God did not give them the gifts he gave to Joe Blackmon, which Joe has used to spew hatred on just about everyone he disagrees with.
So, the mentally-challenged will be taken by their angels to Our Lord safely home when the time comes.
But Joe? All that hate comes from somewhere. But not from God. Christians are allowed to do only one thing in this life: to love as we were loved by Our Lord.
Joe, take some time to think about it. And get some help.
You are loved.
Christiane,
We’re not talking about children, nor about the mentally challenged. Do you believe that a person, who’s old enough to understand, and who’s mentally normal, will go to a literal Hell if they’re not trusting in Jesus for thier salvation?
Also, Christiane, do Jews and Muslims go to Hell forever and ever and ever, if they die apart from faith in the Lord Jesus for thier salvation?
What say ye?
David
Sorry, Christianne, I’ll type out for you what everyone else would have assumed.
can a person who is not suffering from some sort of mental disability and has the intellectual capacity to understand the gospel (i.e. not an infant or a child who is not old enough to understand) go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone?
Everyone else knew I meant that.
All that hate comes from somewhere. But not from God.
Oh, are you talking about the kind of hate depicted in
this comment where you (even if you didn’t sign your name) said:
If you posted a link on here “exposing me”, the link would point precisely to someone who despises people like you..
Maybe you’re talking about your comment where you say I sleep like a baby at night because my hypocrisy and hate is reserved for people like you. People who deserve it. Normal people think I’m da’ bomb!
Now, why don’t you pretend that you didn’t say those things (without signing your name, of course) and I’ll be amazingly comfortable calling you a liar.
How does that shoe feel on the other foot??
Wait.
You’re ascribing anonymous comments to someone without any access to the IP addresses or other information which could be available to the blog owner?
And you all are trying to attack the credibility of primary sources such as legal documents, high school yearbooks, and Caner’s own sermons, saying they wouldn’t hold up in a court of law?
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Seriously, go take some candy from a baby, it’ll make you feel better.
I know this for certain
A person can go to Hell engaging in conversations with you.
Look, I’m not a fool.
There are some folks on this board come across to me as having some sense and worthy of my consideration and taking seriously.
You are a clown. I clown around a good bit, myself; but I don’t see any fun or virtue in your carnival.
That doesn’t mean God doesn’t love you; I’m sure he does.
But for me, your presence here is just something everyone had to deal with until they decide it’s not worth the bother for the few who show some civility and Christlikeness.
Have a nice Circus, and do check out the video clip; from my heart to yours.
From comment 146 above–”can a person go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone?”
Yes or no?
Which is it, Stephen?
Joe, the very fact that Fox does not want to answer this question tells us much.
DAvid
I know. That’s why I keep pressing him on it.
Was the John Birch Society we have to believe WA Criswell never questioned the HL Hunt family about at FBC Dallas while Criswell was planting the seed for the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC part of God’s plan.
I doubt it.
Charles Kimball, an ordained Baptist minister has written a book; as has Martin Accad.
You should have some spare time the rest of the summer. Why not spend it more diligently and educate yourself a little, expand your horizons instead of indulging your foolishness on this board.
You know what the Bible says about fools, don’t you??
From comment 146 above–”can a person go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone?”
Yes or no?
I typed it slower for you this time.
Let’s face it–Joe is Joe!!! He is the classic example of how people wearing smiles and saying the “right” words can have a heart of stone—and so much judgmentalism they gladly stone a woman caught in adultery without giving consideration to the men involved as well.
What did Jesus say: “He who is without sin cast the first stone.”
The problem, Stephen, is that we go over this stuff / discuss it /write books about it / and continue to “sin more and more.” Jesus told the woman who admitted to her sin to “go and sin no more.”
Our real problem is with a weak definition of SIN! Instead we want to make a list of “Sins” which the BF&M 2000 illucidates. In addition we kick out Broadway last year to show how we hate homosexuals / kick out Decatur First to show how we hate ordained female Pastors / and fail to see how the Resolution on the Environment this year clearly contradicts what was said last year!
We, in the SBC, are becoming more the living representative that: “The higher the monkey climbs the tree—the more you see his tail!!!”
I’ll let Joe climb as high as he wants with judgmentalism. Sooner of later his tree will become so thin that the least breeze will knock him to the ground. Many pastors who are so judgemental on homosexuality end up with someone they love admitting he/she is one—then what do your do?????
Gene,
Can a person go to heaven apart from having repented of their sins and placing their faith in Christ and Christ alone.
A simple “Yes” or “No”.
Fox,
Another question….do you bellieve in the inerrancy of Scripture? Do you believe that Jews and Muslims, who die apart from Jesus, will go to Hell? Do you even believe in a literal Hell?
DAvid
Some days I think WA Criswell is burning in Hell for the Address he gave to the SC Baptist Evangelism Conference in 56; or if he is not, then he should be.
Other days I think maybe the Baptist deacon who said about MLKing on the occasion of what woulda been about his 65th birthday: “I say we dig the Nigger up and shoot him again.”
Or maybe Jerry Vines should spend a little time in Hell for the demagogic sermon he preached in 87 in ST. Louis against Randall Lolley and SEBTS.
Or Bobby Welch should get some fire for his 84 SBC Weds afternon luncheon remark: “We Got Liberals”.
Then again I am not the Judge.
Bible says Christ Died for the Ungodly and the old axis of Evil is here and there and everywhere, it runs through each and every one of us including Joe Blackmon and David Brumbelow.
The great Sermons of Fleming Rutledge brought that home to me; especially the one on Will Campbellwith the provocative title.
Christiane, I doubt Joe or David will ever read it cause they are too proud and Al Mohler or Jerry Vines did not recommend it; but I trust you will.
David, you and Joe, are itchin for a lynchin, and I’m not gonna be a fool and volunteer; more interested in silencing me than in my Salvation.
Would rather if you are bright enough to get this analogy, this allusion answer this way.
Even spell it out for you JimCrow as the BFM 2000
When I jump
I Jump Jis so
Cause Every time I jump
I be jumpin Jim Crow.
I recommended two good books for you to read and even made several references to God’s Holy Word.
Yall have a nice afternoon and sleep well cause that Holy Innocent thing may cover you on that great gettin up Mornin
Fare Thee Well.
From comment 146 above–”can a person go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone?”
Yes or no?
Just in case you missed that I asked it again. I notice you didn’t answer it, yet.
Joe,
I believe it’s very obvious by now that Fox does not want to answer the question. We have our answer.
David
Fox,
Did you seriously just say that Criswell should be burning in Hell over a sermon? Dude… that’s some sinful spewing of garbage if I’ve ever seen it.
Brandon: I am saying you should read the article I linked and tell me again how proud you are Criswell is one of your heroes, while you dismiss the likes of the Great Cloud of Witnesses Buddy Shurden listed in the article I linked about 20 year anniversary of the CBF.
Who will tell you the greater truth about Criswell; Pressler and Patterson and Ronnie Floyd; or Curtis Freeman, Joel Gregory and Bill Underwood.
I am convinced it is the latter three.
PS and Also Brandon: Read Chandler Davidson’s 100 pages on WA Criswell in Race andClass in Texas Politics.
Davidson was right down the hall at Rice from the fellow who did a major biography of Billy Graham.
Your inerrancy carries a lot of shameful baggage, Bro; Tons and Tons.
I am not a huge Criswell guy, to be honest. Regardless, saying he will burn in Hell as a sinner saved by the unwasted blood of Christ, that was a stretch to say the least.
I realize that there is a ton of baggage in inerrancy, Calvinism, and even Christianity (the Crusades, for example). These things do not discount an interpretation or make it false. It’s like non-believers who say they don’t want Christ because of Christians… the response should always be, “What do you think about Christ?”
In the same vain, I hold strongly to inerrancy, the other primaries on my other post, Calvinism, the Baptist church, Protestantism, etc. Not because of Criswell, Calvin, Smyth, Luther, or whomever but because I believe it to be correct.
You folks on both sides are too mean and really need to tone it down. Too bad, you never do any research in conspiracy history and theological manipulation. The wizard of oz sets off behind the curtain and manipulates the controls to overwhelming images that manipulate people into doing whatever he desires. Some smart folks in certain locations laugh all the way to the bank, when they read the nonsense of purlieu as written on this blog. We are now in one of the most extreme trials in world history with economic collapse seemingy imminent wth all of its consequent catastrophic calamities. And none of us have the fullness of knowledge to really assess and understand what took place in the past 100 years. All of our leaders have feet of clay, because, like us, they are sinners, hopefully, like us, being redeemed. C.S. Lewis foresaw the answer in his That Hideous Strength which has a more realistic eschatology than much of what has been expressed in this blog thus far. Deep Heaven needs to be pulled down on the hearts of the niwits behind the curtain. Then, and only then, will we come to that time when the earth shall be full of his knowledge and glory as the waters cover the sea.
Such a great word, Doc. Thanks for keeping sanity on this post.
Joe,
Also, it looks as if Christiane, or L’s, does not want to answer the questions, either. Very telling.
David
Hey, guys, there is no question what the Bible says about repentance and faith being the way to heaven. There is no doubt that is the conclusion you and I both draw from the Written Word. My point is rather simple though: I don’t have the final word on it. In fact, isn’t that what God is saying in Hosea 2:23, “I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.” With no disrespect intended toward David, Joe, or anyone else, and regardless of what conclusions I draw from the Word, my perspective is simply that God has the last word. Now I can reason, I can draw conclusions from major and minor premises, I can work out logical answers, and I have no problem with sharing those either one-on-one or from the pulpit. However, for me to say, “This is what God’s decision is,” then elaborate on what He and will not will do–I am not comfortable with that. Frankly, to me, it seems somewhat blasphemous. I am commissioned to tell the news, but not to think for God.
John
No John, I don’t think God was saying that at the end, when the final audit is done on the books that God is going to decide to maybe let someone in heaven based on something other than faith in Jesus Christ along with them having repented of their sins. God was simply saying that He is soverign, not that He might decide to do something different than what He has revealed in His word.
I understand that you’re NOT saying that someone can get to heaven apart from repentance and faith and that you are saying that it is God who will make that decision. What I’m saying is He has already announced His decision in scripture.
Joe, you have ised the operative word/phrase, “I think.” That is really all that is separating us here, whether we insist we perfectly know the mind of God in all matters and think for Him (= take His place), or whether we are willing to think we know but leave room for God to be soverign.
John
Ok, then rather than “think” I’ll substitute “know” because God will not make a decision that contradicts His word since it is the revelation of His will. I’m not saying He is bound to it as if it were some externally enforcible contract that He is bound to abide by but rather that He revealed His will, character, intents, and purposes perfectly in the Bible. Therefore, when He inspired the text to be recorded that “There is no other name given under heaven by which we may be saved” that means it’s already settled–a done deal. By letting God speak through His word I am letting God be God and be soverign.
Whoops, “used” not “ised.”
John
JOhn,
There is no other way to Heaven, except thru Jesus. If someone tries to come thru the religion of Islam, then they will go to Hell. There’s no question about it. It’s very clear in the Bible. If a Jew tries to go to Heaven apart from the Messiah, Jesus Christ, then that Jew will go to Hell forever and ever and ever. That’s what the Bible clearly teaches. There’s no maybe, might be, or someone’s opinion about it. And, John, if someone thinks that they can get to Heaven by good works, or religious activity, ie, getting baptised… joining a church…feeding the poor, etc; then that good, religious person will go to Hell. No one, and I mean, no one, will get to Heaven based on their goodness and their religious activity.
John, this is not what “I” think. This is clearly what the Bible says. And, frankly, if you can pass that off as someone’s opinion, then I really have to wonder about your spiritual condition.
David
To John #196
I think I know what you are trying to say: we should be a little humble in our approach to God. But, your theology is way off base if you are implying we can never “know” with a degree of certainty what God’s will is. God states it explicitly throughout the Word. And the entire Book of 1John outlines how we can “know with a degree of certainty” (the only knowing that can bring hope) what the will of God is in regard to salvation.
So, while I appreciate your sentiment, your theology is way off base in regard to what we can or cannot know about the will of God in regard to salvation — in regard to salvation, which is a primary doctrine of Scripture. Your premise when applied to secondary or tertiary doctrines may have some validity, but not in regard to salvation.
Well, you guys be happy knowing that you think you know so well that God is not even necessary in your deterministic equation, and I will be happy abiding by the Word in life and ministry, and letting God have the last Word. Seriously, and this is to SSBN (whoever you are) especially, I get the impression that you come dangerously close to elevating the Written Word over the Living Word, which is exactly what the Phasisees did in saying that even God studied the Torah daily to make sure He did not violate it. And David, you need not worry about my “spiritual condition.” For one thing, me and Jesus are just fine, and if that is a suggestion or a hint that I may not be saved–brother, you have no right to even think that much less suggest it. It is an insult stuffed with presuppositions of the worst kind, and frankly, I am more than a bit insulted by it.
John
Great Point, John Fariss. I imagine you have read the pamphlet Stand With Christ, roughly a CBF publication when BFM 2000 pricked the conscience of 80 SBC missionaries or so and they resigned.
That good pamphlet makes a similar point you are making about the idolatry of the Written Word over the Witness of Jesus.
Some folks lack insight and there is not much it appears you and I can do about it except resist and dissent.
The Good News is Bonhoeffer rode through Alabama on US 11 in 31; And Black Baptists and other Christians, Bonhoeffer understood, incarnated a Living Gospel for some reason or another JoeB and Brumbelow and the SSBN in their obstinacy, stubborness or some worse condition prevents their understanding.
Wade Burleson has blogged Joel Gregory may understand it. But for some reason or another it never registered with the likes of M.O Owens, Bill Powell, Pressler and others who are the creedalists of a warped instrument, the BFM 2000.
QUOTE I get the impression that you come dangerously close to elevating the Written Word over the Living Word, END QUOTE
Sorry, John, I “know” you are wrong in this statement. How do you presume to “know” what is in my heart? And, why do you feel no remorse that you can make a totally inaccurate characterization of what I believe, without any basis in fact.
It appears you do not feel any tinge of guilt about assasinating someone’s character with no basis. I never said ANYTHING that would give you the “impression” you have. It is IN FACT not true whatsoever. But, you feel free to “fire away” hoping to hit something. I’ve known people that were killed by “hunters” just like you who were not mature enough to be handling a gun in the woods.
Your impression is completely wrong, but states exactly the CBF position on God’s Holy Word — a heresy never found anywhere in Scripture. I say this not to attack you but to put on record exactly what the major difference is between CBF and CR.
PS: And, John, I am not trying to reply in kind with an insult for an insult, but am merely making an observation that you believe in line with the CBF and I believe in line with the CR. The debate can go no further forward because we will both support our postion with the Bible. I do not suggest that you are not a believer and I am. This is an area I choose to put “off-limits” in my discussions.
I hope I responded to you with more grace and open-heartedness than you did for me. That makes me morally superior
It’s scary when you hang out and discuss important issues with people who do God’s thinking for Him!!!!
I’m sure he is “Amening” right and left the more conservative and BF&M 2000 we become.
Some things—more than most imagine—are best left in the hands of God. Certainly, one of them is the decision God makes as to our eternal destination. He knows our hearts whereas, we only see the surface. That is where BF&M 2000 resides: on the surface.
However, with it in place, we continue to push and judge–and end the careers of humble servants–and wise–on the mission field and in our seminaries.
It is as if BF&M 2000 is the “be all and end all” of life. I hate to tell you, but my trust is in God alone and his earthly revelation through Jesus, the Christ.
Rather than going around trying to judge everyone, I am content to enjoy discussions and pray the prayer of a little 5-year-old girl: “Dear God, please make all bad people good—and all good people nice.”
Volfan–
Your logic concerning the only way to heave is through Jesus fails in one important respect:
Jesus, himself, was born a Jew / lived a Jew / and died a Jew!!!!
So is he in heaven or not according to your narrow definition?????
Gene,
Jesus was and is the Son of the Living God. Yes, He was born to a Jewish mother, and had a Jewish Step Father; but He was the MESSIAH. After He died on the cross and rose from the dead, the only way to Heaven was thru Jesus. The Scripture is very, very clear about this.
Thus, any Jew in this NT age will go to Hell, unless he repents and puts his faith in the Lord Jesus as his personal Lord and Messiah.
So, Gene, your logic is very flawed, and your theology is even worse. Check out your soul, Gene. Make sure that you are regenerate. Make sure that you truly know the LORD Jesus.
David
As Ronald Reagan said, “There you go again!”
Why can’t you just leave some things in the hands of God???
When I wrote above “Jesus, the Christ,” I do so to declare: “Jesus is the Christ to those who, by faith, declare him so. Just because you walked the aisle of some Baptist church somewhere does not guarantee you a place in heaven. Those who believe in their heart and confess with their mouths have a duty, as Apostle James pointed out, to walk the walk rather than just talk the talk.”
Too much judgementalism in this string of commentary only tells me you guys enjoy judging and scoffing at anyone who disagrees with you or calls for a wider definition of “Sin.”
Susan Harding has a remedy of sorts for the impasse Matt2239 and John Fariss have come to. The Written Word/Living Word template is a grand example of the Double Voices conundrum she explores.
A grand introduction to her thought is in the link I shared above in reference to her Book of Jerry Falwell; and even better is the 93 essay in Nancy Ammerman’s SBaps Observed.
Possibly with the exception of Joe B, Brumbelow and a few others on this board, there is hope for some common ground, further dialogue and community.
To say that people, who look upon the Bible as God’s Word, is completely idiotic. The Bible is the Word of God. Jesus is the Living Word. You cannot separate the two. If you love Jesus, then you will love His Word. If you love the Bible, then you love Jesus.
Also, if you believe the Bible is flawed, then you believe that Jesus is flawed.
David
That first sentence above should have read “To say that people, who look upon the Bible as God’s Word, are practicing “IDOLATRY” is completely idiotic.
Sorry for the confusion.
David
David—you were probably more correct in your first “flawed” writing!!!!!
This is a little off topic but makes me want to send my degree back to Southwestern. You can be sure Patterson’s health insurance won’t be terminated.
Check it out:
http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11351&Itemid=9
I’m sorry, I could understand them having to do something to employees health coverage, current employees, but it is reprehensible for them to do that to retiree’s.
Are Matt2239 and SSBN the same person? If so, that is a drawback to using multiple pseudononyous identities in the same thread: it’s gets confusing to others.
If the answer to that question is “No,” then, Matt2239, I not only do not know your heart, but I said nothing to you, about your heart or anything else, and have no idea why you think I did.
If the answer is “yes,” then my reply is almost the same. Almost: I did reply to you, but to my way of thinking, I did not judge the content of your heart, and certainly did not attempt “assasinating someone’s character with no basis.” I said nothing about your character, and indeed, I know nothing about your character. What I did was to share an impression, based on a solitary comment, of how your theology (in this one aspect) seems to me to be dangerously close to another flawed theology. Now I readily admit that I was tired when I wrote it, but even so, I don’t believe that anything I said comes close to “character assasination,” a personal attack, or an ad hominium (did I spell that right?) attack, because nothing I said was leveled at you personally, but rather was aimed at the position you seem to take. You say that nothing you said could possible lead me to the conclusion I made; all I can tell you is that while you might not have meant it as such, it certainly did suggest the conclusion I reached, else I would not have reached it. Sharing that, and calling it an “impression” was an attempt at communication. It was meant to share what it suggested to me, and at the same time give you an opportunity to reconsider your words and “unpack” or perhaps even revise them further. But what to me was even more puzzling is that in your first paragraph, you seemed to be getting what I said, viz., that we should all have a bit more humility. If you took offense at what I said, believing it to be about you personally, or your character, even though I did not mean it as such, then I apologize for somehow using my words in an imprecise way that allowed that impression. Such was not my intent. Now what about your words back to me, “I’ve known people that were killed by ‘hunters’ just like you who were not mature enough to be handling a gun in the woods”? Are they personal, or about my position? Do you see any need to revisit them?
John
John, we are the same person — SSBN is just the gentler, more willing to discuss real issues without ranting blog postion I wish to take.
Tell me what — by my words — indicated I believe that the Living Word is trumped by the Written Word? I made no such statement and still make no such statement. The fact that you get an “impression” and that equals your impression is valid, seems like circular reasoning to me. I do NOT in fact believe that the Living Word trumps the Written Word or vice versa. Your CBF filters must have been on to draw any such conclusion from what I wrote
My reference to hunting is in regard to the common practice in “blogging” to use semantic smokescreens (like, “I got the impression”) to hide a judgmental statement about a person. That was the “impression” I got from what you wrote. And, since I got my impression from what you wrote my impression must be correct — I think you see where I am coming from.
In fact this is my belief: The Bible makes NO distinction between the written Word of God and the Living Word. There are not “two Word’s” of God, but only THE Word of God. I think this is perhaps the biggest fallacy of the CBF movement and has been there since its conception. It is part of the CBF DNA.
That’s why I am not a part of the CBF (among a few other secondary and tertiary issues, and the fact that the President of the CBF tried to derail my ministry because I refused to make his enemies my enemies).
The hunting analogy simply tried to point out that “getting an impression” is not the same as “having a clear shot.” In this instance, I will probably survive, but this kind of “broad brushing” makes blogging a less edifying place than the “new me” cares to be.
You can respond to the CBF position of the “corn and the husk” or the “two Word’s of Scripture” if you wish, but it is a settled matter for me so I won’t be “reconsidering or revising it.
Remember, this engagement began with your premise that we really cannot “know” anything with any degree of certainty. I respect your view, but I do not agree with it. I made the additional MATT2239 POST under the old me but with a new spirit. I do respect your right to hold a different view of the Scripture. I wanted to clarify I did not want to make any personal statement about you (like some people make when they say “W.A. Criswell” may be in hell). If that kind of comment continues on Voices, but SSBN and his evil twin MATT2239 will make a quick and final exit.
I hope that clarifies my position without any judgment toward your relationship with Lord.
That you think I have a “premise that we really cannot ‘know’ anything with any degree of certainty” makes me think we are talking past each other instead of to each other, Matt. There are quite a few preesuppositions we need to work through first–not necessarily to change each other’s position, but simply to understand it. Also, if I put my counselor’s hat on, I would gather that you have some anger–perhaps towards this CBF president, whoever he is–and are transferring some of that to me. And BTW, I have never said, suggested, or thought that WA Criswell is in hell; that must have been someone else, at any rate it was not me. I believe such conclusions can be avoided if we make this about the positions that people take rather than about their character or salvation. And who knows? Maybe, just maybe, communication will take place.
John
SSBN—
You must have missed the important history of the Scriptures which clearly states that people of that day far preferred the “spoken word” of an Apostle to anything written!
As the Apostles aged and died, their particular followers realized their sayings needed to be preserved and passed in written form. Therefore, most of the NT is based on such a need. The written word supplanted the spoken word as centuries passed.
Another aspect of biblical background knowledge has to do with the many scribal errors over years of having to write copies before the invention of the printing press. A quick examination of the Nestle Greek Text–where all variants are cited and the particular script from which they come–should convince you “inerrantists” that the written word of today is far more complex than the uneducated realize.
There ARE variant writings. There WERE incorporations of marginal notes in the text. There WERE things deleted which did not agree with the particular scribe’s understanding. There WAS the addition of “easily” before provoked in the KJV to keep heads from rolling by the violent King James who commissioned the work which came, not from Greek Texts, but mostly the Vulgate which was a translation of the Greek originals.
Get the picture???? It ain’t as simple as you want to pretend!!!
John, just for the record, you can take your counselor hat off. I have no “anger issues.” Again, you use your CBF lenses to assume anyone who is not “pro-CBF” is full of anger and hate. That simply is not the case.
Early on, I could have had some dialogue with the CBF — they chose to work through members of a church I had been interim to assure that no SWBTS would ever become pastor. I had the unanimous support of the church, but unfortunately not the pastor search committee because of one very vocal CBF’er who had been a member of the CBF’s presiden’ts church — which just happened to be the church I was a candidate for. I gave that (and this) for context so that it would be clear I have a very solid resurgence affinity on more than one level.
I also made it clear (I thought) that you were not the one making the reference to who’s in hell or not. It is something distasteful that occurs too frequently on both sides of the aisle.
By the way, my name is not Matt (it was Matthew 22:39). You can call me Fred (which is also not my name) :0
Fred or Matt or whomever you are,
You are applying a lot of generalizations to me: generalizations about what CBF’ers think, do, interpret, etc., and more besides–that I hold to some corn-and-husk position or analogy I have never heard of, that I believe you to be full of hate and anger (when what I said was that you seemed to have some anger, and there is a lot of difference between having some anger and being full of anger AND hate–and FYI, it sounds to me like anger over that situation would be decidedly human) because you were not pro-CBF, that I was too immature to handle a gun in the woods, that I was using semantic smokescreens to make accusations about your character, and more besides. Incidentially, you don’t even know that I am a CBF’er! BTW, I know you did not accuse me of saying Criswell is in Hell, but you chose to mention it in a comment to me, which make me wonder if you were not lumping me in the same category in some way. I would like to have a real discussion with you, one absent of assumed positions. I am willing to not assume things about you, and hope you would meet me “there.”
John
As I read you thread, it appears to me you are in a state of denial relative to anger issues!!!
Why is it those still in the SBC exhibited numerous attitudes of anger in the most recent meeting?
Do you always have to have something or someone to hate in order to hold any position these days?
What is wrong with “agreeing to disagree” with all due respect to those who differ with you?
It is totally obvious you hate CBF and all who honor it! If we counted the giving and growing of CBF alongside the SBC, we could acknowledge Southern Baptists are still growing!
Remember: the CBF has not declared separation and independence from the SBC—it is a “Fellowship” and not a “Convention.” AND–by the way–they had their meeting in Charlotte without the rancor shown down in Orlando!
AND–I bet a lot of messengers quietly took their children to Disney World despite the boycott declared some years ago—due to the SBC hatred of homosexuals who were given equal rights under the US Constitution to health care and other things enjoyed by White Anglo-Saxon Protistents by the more wise and caring Disney Corporation!
Oh My God—how awful!!!!!!!
John, it is clear that we cannot have a decent interchange. You want to be my counselor and I don’t want to pay the fee.
I’ve learned that it is impossible to have a decent Christian conversation when the parsing of words change from post to post. I was pretty sure you mentioned something about anger. You parse it now to say, “I am only humanly angry, but not full of anger.” I thought I made it clear, I’m not angry at all. I left that church I was the interim of (though I could have stayed until they found a pastor) because I did not want to be angry with anyone or out of step with the power players of the church. I simply walked away and went on with my life and ministry.
If you are not sympathetic with the CBF, simply say so. Otherwise, if you use the same language they use, it will seem to me that you are indeed sympathetic. I never suggested it was unChristian to be a CBF’er. I think I explicitly said the opposite. I do question why someone who is a CBF’er will not simply admit to holding that theological position.
As I said, you seem to want to be my “counselor” and I do not choose to be in therapy. If you want to discuss the matter of whether there are “two words of God,” or one, I’m willing to discuss that issue. If I lie down on your counselor’s couch, at my age I’ll probably fall asleep.
I’ve set out my theological bias as being an ardent supporter of the SBC CR and a friend of most of the people that Fox demonizes. That’s where I am. Where are you?
Fox isn’t demonizing anybody; just simply pointing out some views of Criswell most CR GCR devotees are ignorant of.
The main point is to goad you to take a look at Susan Harding on double voicing and we can go from there.
I find no problem with Fox’s statements and their logical validation. He has a right to his opinion, but you who oppose him want to deny his that—GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
Of course he is. His posts are consistently about personalities not principles, or even in his best moments principles supported by personalities.
Such posts indeed demonize people he disagrees with. Some of the personalities, such as Paige, I know on a personal level and do not have the same opinion as Fox.
One problem with some people is they cannot be friends with someone who refuses to make his or her enemies one’s personal enemies. I don’t think personality driven theology (unless the person is Jesus) has any legitimate basis. It forces an “us-them” discussion that goes not place.
As I’ve said before, “I’m willing to discuss matters such as the doctrine of Two Words of God” (held by some if not most in the CBF). But, I don’t want to discuss personalities — unless we want to agree that God has put some great men in different fields to work.
This discussion (I read about 20 of the last comments which gave me a headache as well as a heartache) reminds me of a bunch of kids in a sand box who forgot that they were of the same family and started bashing one another over the head with plastic billy clubs. Of course, the possibility of some on both sides not making it ought to put the fear of God into all of us. Besides, we really need to be aware that there are those who intend to give us short shrift in the public arena. Just yesterday, I beheld a report on a judge in Winston Salem, NC rendering a decision that public officials of that city/county area(?) could not allow anyone to pray in the name of Jesus. This decision was the result of a law suit brought by the ACLU, a Jewish group, and some Moslems. Think of it, in the name of religious freedom that judge just took away the right of any American (Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Holiness, Charismatic, Catholic or whatever) to practice his or her God-given right to pray in the name of Jesus. All of the Agnostics and Atheists surely laughed all the way to the local bar to hoist a few in self-congratulations. One would expect as much from the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of church and State, but why would the Jews do that when such a decision will sooner or later be extended to remove their right to pray in the name of Elohim or any of the other names for God in the Old Testament? And why would the Moslems back such
a decision, when it must sooner or later be applied to praying in the name of Allah. As far as the Atheists an Agnostics are concerned, why should they mind as long as they have the right to say poppy cock; it’s all a lot of phony baloney. When I was an atheist, I told my sister to take her namby pamby religion and go jump out the window with it. Our mother proceeded to give me a lesson in religious liberty by letting me know that I could have my opinion and express it and so could my sisters.
We are all not a part of the same family. God is my Father, because Jesus is my Lord and Savior. But, those people, who are calling upon the god of Islam, or upon the god of the Jewish faith, or upon the god of theological liberals, are not children of the Heavenly Father.
They are lost and on their way to Hell, unless they repent and believe the Gospel…surrendering their hearts to Jesus in faith.
David
David, old boy—
You are so narrow that if you turned sideways—you would disappear!!!!!
Please turn sideways for us!!!!!!
David,
Amen! It is sad to see Gene mock such a foundational truth.
Dude, you should have seen his two page long apologetic on why Mormons are real Christians on Don Quixote’s blog about 6 months ago.
“Joe, you have ised the operative word/phrase, “I think.” That is really all that is separating us here, whether we insist we perfectly know the mind of God in all matters and think for Him (= take His place), or whether we are willing to think we know but leave room for God to be soverign.”
John, Are you claiming we cannot go by the Word? I agree there are some translation problems on secondary issues but we cannot get past a fact: Repentance and Faith in Jesus Alone is required for salvation. Jesus’ first sermons were : Repent and believe.
Anything else is another religion.
I understand that you might be saying that we cannot know if one has repented or not unless we are close to them. but the facts remain that it is only good news when we understand the bad news.
…and from what I can surmise reading the Word, repentance is a continuous process as in growing in Holiness. But what would be the point of being Born Again or New Creatures if repentance is not a part of salvation?
I find it interesting that quite a few are dodging Joe’s serious question on this thread:
–”can a person go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone?” (understanding we are not talking about children or the mentally challenged)
Christiane? Stephen?
Lydia,
You ask, “John, Are you claiming we cannot go by the Word?” Answer: of course not! I have never said otherwise, neither from the pulpit nor in any blog to the best of my memory. Unfortunantly, SSBN or Fred or whoever and I seem to have been talking past each other–me as much as him, but both of us. What I have tried (unsuccessfully) are (1) those who reduce both God and His Word (whether written, spoken, living, all-in-one, whatever) to an issue of strict determinism. Please pardon me if I fail to use precise theological terminology; the term goes back to my undergrad days when I was a physics major, and refers to the Newtonian belief that if one just has enough information about something, viz., a particle in motion, the eventual outcome can be predicted with mathematical certainty. Einstein and especially Warner Heisenburg proved the impossibility of this in physics. I say that if there is such mathematical certainty to a human “particle in motion,” then it is God who will make that mathematical “calculation,” not me; my (2) is related, and it is simply a call for a little humility on our part, and to let God be soverign rather than bandy about who is and isn’t saved.
And certainly I agree that “Repentance and Faith in Jesus Alone is required for salvation.” Much of my belief system has either been misunderstood (no doubt because I was not sufficiently clear about it), or misrepresented for whatever reason, deliberately or inadvertantly.
I happen also to believe that much of the Biblical interpretation that any of us puts forward is directly related to our presuppositions, many of which are never articulated, even to ourselves. For instance: 30ish years ago I was at a Sunday School conference at Ridgecrest, and there I maet a young couple, about the same age as my wife and myself (we were young then). The wife shivered, and in fact turned pale whenever “God the Father” was mentioned. It turned out she had been sexually abused as a child by her father, and it tainted her perception of out Heavenly Father, and consequently, of the Trinity, and several other major doctrines. By the time I met her, she realized it, but she had lived 20ish years in and as a member of a Baptist church with the unspoke presuppositions of an abusive parent affecting her perception of the Bible. Now that is an extreme case; most of us use presuppositions more subtle than that. I’ve had people tell me things like “The innerancy of the Bible is my presupposition,” which makes for a good sound bite, but is usually short of the mark. Far too many of us (and as a once-upon-a-time student who focused on Newtonian physics, I know I am in this number) are grounded in Enlightenment principles and fail to recognize that the Biblical authors, though used by God, had a different set of presuppositions altogether. We must recognize those in order to correct undwerstand, or in King James-ise, “to rightly divide” the Word.
I fail to understand how this makes me a screaming, wish-washy, lilly-livered liberal.
John
Whoops: my 5th sentence should have been, “What I have tried (unsuccessfully) TO ADDRESS. . . .”
Also, please ignore typos.
John
John
I’m not sure I’d call you a screaming, wishy-washy, lilly livered liberal. If I understand your position correctly, you’re saying “The only way to heaven is through faith in Jesus Christ. God is the ultimate judge in the end and will do what He decides to do with each individual.” That is, as I understand it, on the extreme far right of the moderate position. I don’t agree with you that we can’t know with certainty what God is going to do but I think I understand where you’re coming from, mostly.
That is a far cry from someone, like Stepehn and Gene, who will not say that salvation is exclusively found in Christ. So, I have to concur that you are not a liberal. Just wishy-washy.
Here’s what’s really heartbreaking about this post: What began as an anniversary announcement of the BF&M2000 has degenerated to having to discuss the most fundamental truths of the gospel itself. This comment stream should be archived in all our seminary libraries for proof that any liberal leaning will in time lead to an all out cowardice for proclaiming any gospel whatsoever. I am sickened by some of the comments on this stream. We’re not talking about what so and so thinks of Paige Patterson anymore. We’re talking about whether the Word of God means anything at all. God help us.
Darby,
This is exactly why the CR was needed, and why we must constantly be alert to the “creeping, sneaking” into the church of those people, who know not God, and who seek to destroy the faith of people.
David
II Peter chapter 2. Word up, yo.
The Word of God didn’t mean a whole lot to WA Criswell in 56 is one thing that has come to light in this comment stream.
Another thing is fundamentalists on this board refuse to engage the conclusion inerrancy is “fraudulent” as exposed in the takeover chapter I Linked in the other thread
Fox,
Some of us are not arguing innerancy as a political tactic. Thus, we don’t care what is “fraudulent” in some “takeover.” We want to see people come to faith in Christ, because without that, there is no escape from Hell. Do you believe this? Your arguments are telling us more about your heart than about those you’re arguing against.
David,
We don’t agree on Calvinism. We don’t agree on some applications of the law regarding things like alcohol. We might not agree on spiritual gifts (not sure). And yet, I can stand beside those who disagree on these things if they agree on the exclusivity of the gospel and the innerancy of Scripture that actually enables belief in such a gospel. First, second and third tier issues come into focus as certain things are challenged. The gospel and the Bible just seem like first priority issues that I find myself saying, “That’s right on. Preach that.” I may argue with you over some things, but I’m actually worried about some others I’m reading here.
Amen, Darby.
Great point. We can agree to disagree on somethings but the inerrancy of scripture and the exlusivity of salvation in Christ are both doctrines that Christians affirm and both are central to any kind of cooperation.
Inerrancy is “Fraudulent”; and Clark Pinnock helped build the case at Ridgecrest in 87; Inerrancy as used in the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC
To bring things back into focus for Darby, Volfan, Joe the Cartoon man, and Brumbelow:
Read that clearly marked section in this link with references from Clark Pinnock in 1987
http://www.sbctakeover.com/chapter13.htm
Fox,
If the Bible has errors, then we need to close the doors of the churches, and become hedonists. Without the Bible we have no leg to stand on. Our faith is based on the whims and feelings and thoughts of mere man.
The Bible is the Word of God. That’s what the CR was all about for almost everyone that I knew back then, who was involved in it. It was about the Bible, and taking over the SBC to get it out of the hands of liberals.
DAvid
Fox,
Yet again, allow me to bring you to focus – focus on what is actually at stake here. The stakes are not one group of people gets to run some seminaries and control some money over others!!!! The stakes are human souls, crying for eternity in a place called Hell, because that’s where rebels go who deny their Creator the glory due his name. But so far, I can’t see one instance on this thread where someone who denies innerancy doesn’t also deny this. I don’t care what Pinnock says about the SBC. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about SALVATION! Get with the program man.
Jesus is the way to salvation, not the Inerrancy views of DArby Livingston or Volfan and Joe the Cartoon Man.
The Unfettered Word is a great book referenced in the link above on fraudulent inerrancy.
The thread is about the 10th Anniversary of BFM 2000.
BFM 2000 isnot a first tier issue for me; nor is Inerrancy.
And I’m sad for you misguided souls who got led astray
Is Jesus Christ the Way of salvation exclusively? A Christian could answer that question with a simple “Yes”. Someone with class and integrity could answer that question with a “Yes” or a “No”–at least they could give an honest answer.
Yea, Fox, tell us….yes or no….is Jesus Christ the only way to salvation?
And, Fox, what is your faith based on?
David
When I was stating the rights of individuals to pray as they list, it did t mean that I approved of how they prayed. It only meant that I would accord them the same privilege I desire for myself, the freedom to make my own dumb mistakes. And the people who were responsible for this liberty, this freedom of religion were our predecessors and even in some instances actual ancestors. It was Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke who first put it in law that one was free to worship as he or see saw fit and that the state (of Rhode Island) could not compel a person to believe. This was in the 1640s and 50s). The first synagogue in the new world was built there. That is why it was a grief to me to see Jews line up behind the ACLU and AU to stop any minister from praying at a public town commission or board in then name of Jesus. If you can’t pray in the name of Jesus, then neither can one pray in the name of Elohim (or any other of the names of God in the OT). Neither should a Moslem pray in the name of Allah. In short, the decision against the Christians who came up with this idea of religious liberty is taking away the freedom of all to practice their faith in the Public Arena. The privatization of religion will have disastrous results. Funny why the Jews should hand us our heads on a platter in this issue. God grant us all grace to pray. Dark days seem to lie ahead for all of us.
Fox, you wrote: “Jesus is the way to salvation, not the Inerrancy views of DArby Livingston or Volfan and Joe the Cartoon Man.”
To which I say: No he’s not. Prove it.
Brother Fox, at the risk of having you caricature me as a “cartoon” (or something less), I want to say I agree with your aforementioned quote. “Jesus Christ IS the only Way,” not the inerrancy of the Bible.
I agree with that but I doubt you will agree with my agreeing because I don’t think we agree on how we can know Christ.
We part ways when you imply or declare a “Two Words of God” theology — Jesus and the Written Word. Please quote me a scripture passage that explicitly teaches this doctrine. In 13 years of discussions on this matter beginning with the waning days of Dilday at SWBTS, nobody has been able to articulate biblically where this so-called “Two Words of God” doctrine is taught.
In every post I can remember reading of yours you quote from somebody’s book. Please quote from God’s book. I am not all-knowing so I could have missed this important doctrine. I don’t think I have, but I’m open to hearing your defense of the “Two Words of God” doctrine.
I am glad that “Jesus is the Only Way.” I know him, but I do not know the other men you speak about. I’d like to here your view from the one book I do read regularly. Tell me: how do you come to the “Two Words of God” doctrine.
I second this request.
I would love to learn Fox’s interpretation of Scripture, not the interpretation of 14 other men whom he deems intellectually superior to everyone on the planet.
I becoming more convinced that when a person only quotes from people and not the Bible, and constantly tears down people, he cares about neither.
SSBN, maybe you missed this prime example of WA Criswell the first time, The Fiery Sermon:
http://jsr.fsu.edu/Volume10/Freeman.pdf
You prove my point — AGAIN!
The Bible has a great Theme of Hope. The Inerrantist Billy Graham, whom Tony Cartledge, the former editor of the Biblical Recorder had the flaw of often “insinuating” himself in SBC politics to ill effect; nevertheless I am convinced Billy was right about the Bible and Hope.
I doubt Brandon and Brumbelow will ever be able to disentangle themselves from the deep thicket of the Idolatry of Inerrancy; but in the HOPE others who are reading through this, the silent audience out there will see through their false and faulty construct.
So to them I offer this rich nugget and Link:
Typology, or figuralism, is as an interpretative method that reads biblical history backwards; it interprets the words God spoke to Ezekiel about Israel as foreshadowing, as pertaining ultimately to, Jesus Christ and to oneself. But as method of speaking and of actively receiving speech, typology does more. It is a citational practice that opens up the narrative time and space of the Bible and invites both preacher and listener into its stories. It turns the Bible into an unending conversation. It enables Bible-believing preachers and believers to talk about biblical characters as if they knew them, as if they had meet them, talked to them, walked with them, sat down and had breakfast with them that very morning.[xviii]
From:
http://www.nyu.edu/fas/ihpk/CultureMatters/index2.htm
Is Jesus Christ the Way of salvation exclusively? A Christian could answer that question with a simple “Yes”. Someone with class and integrity could answer that question with a “Yes” or a “No”–at least they could give an honest answer.
From Stephen’s link : Culture matters:
Are Women Evolutionary Sex Objects? Why Women Have Breasts
Fran Mascia- Lees, Sarah Lawrence College
(Raising hand) I know! I know the answer!
Lydia:
My apologies if I have boobed up the discussion.
That was not my intent.
My link was for the purpose of exploring Susan Harding’s ideas on double voicing.
The topic on Breasts was an accident; but it is true my extended family once owned the house in Dollywood where Dolly Now resides when visitting her theme park.
Correction and apologies:
Cartledge once blogged Graham had the flaw….
Hoping to clarify a sentence in the previous post.
It occurs to me that I have heard “inerrancy” defined numerous different ways. The Chicago Statement even offers multiple definitions. It is silly to say someone does or doesn’t ascribe to soimething when there so may ways to define it are in simultaneous use. Consequently, if you guys–Joe, Fred/SSBN, Brandon, David, whomever–will each give you definition (and no giving ditto’s, or I agree with _____), I will say whether I can agree with it or not, and why. And I expect Stephen, Gene, maybe some others would be willing to do likewise. Fair enough?
John
I’ve stated clearly my position and all I get from those you mention are quotes of men and references to men’s books. Why don’t you take a shot at saying a little about what you believe in regard to “Two Words of God,” and I’ll be happy to give you my take on it.
I’ve already stated my postion numerous times. I’ve not used dittos or referred to any man — only the Word. Someelse needs to take their turn.
Those you mention have only quoted what other men have said. I don’t think they are interested in taking your challenge. I do think, you are facing in the right direction. Clarification, rather than demonization, might make for some interesting conversation.
I don’t think I ever said nothin about no Two Word Theology.
I did make reference to Susan Harding’s Double voices insight into fundamentalism and rhetoric.
I do wish you would read the two Barbara Taylor links and imagine you and me were both in her Intro to the Bible Class.
I think I would feel right at home there.
You come across to me as unwilling to accept the challenge she offers.
Don’t know her. Don’t know what she has challenged me to do. Not sure how I can be unwilling to accept a challenge I’ve never had posed to me by a person I’ve never heard of.
Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.
I don’t believe I have quoted anyone to you, and I don’t know where your definition if inerrancy is at.
Jesus is the Word of God, the Logos referred to in the opening verses of the Gospel of John. He is alive, hence the living Word of God.
The Bible is the Word of God, and it is written, hence the written word of God. Initially and in some instances, the Word is spoken, hence the spoken Word of God.
Are you saying that the living, written, and spoke Word are all identical in each and every aspect? That the spoken Word has a literal heartbeat, blood, and bone, or that I can hold the living Word in my hand, close it at will, and lay it on my desk? And if I accidentially tear a page, whether through repeated use or accidentially drtopping it, it means I have torn a limb off Jesus? If so, that puts us right back in transubstantiation. What exactly do you mean by there being only one Word of God? Surely you are speaking in some way other than literal?
John
“The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience. “
Perhaps we should be thankful for Stephen Fox. Fox, the CBF, and the Alliance of Baptists should be constant reminders of what the SBC was becoming, and would have become, without the Conservative Resurgence.
Thank God for men like Paul Pressler, Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, Bailey Smith, Jimmy Draper, Charles Stanley, Jerry Vines, Morris Chapman, Ed Young, Jim Henry, Tom Elliff, and so may others who stood for the inerrancy of the Word of God. The SBC has historically stood for the inerrancy of the Bible. It continues to do so today.
Some Scripture to ponder:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God -2 Timothy 3:16
The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever. -Psalm 119:160
Jesus, God the Son, speaking to God the Father said, “Your word is truth.” -John 17:17
David R. Brumbelow
You can’t tell how bright and beautiful the light of the gospel and the light of God’s word is until you see it contrasted with the blackness of night.
David:
I agree with you. The CBF is what the SBC would have been or become. I, too, thank God for the men that you mention.
It was clear to me during the CR, and is even more clear now, that there were, and are now, at least 2 groups of people in the SBC who had different beliefs about the Bible. It is good that these groups are separate now so that they can pursue their own directions as they believe God is leading them.
David, you are absolutely right on the mark. What the CBF is today is what the SBC would have become — no doubt about it. Once there is little or no confidence in the Word of God, the word of men become the focus.
This is clear in nearly every post from those who are part of the CBF. In the early days the mantra as they were departing the conservative family was: “We’re not moderates. Nobody, including Dilday would admit to the name.” Now that they have completely broken from the SBC conservative family the argument is: “We’re not liberal.”
It seems to me that the present argument with these types indicate where they are heading, not where they are at present. The SBC would be facing the same slow death the CBF is experiencing now if we had not said, “Here I stand. I can do no other.”
I think you need to get off the name calling!
What is more basic is, “We are growing and getting along while the SBC is still fighting and losing public respect.”
“Together, we might be reaching more people and keeping each other in the reasonable middle ground of spiritual counsel and example.”
What is most strange to me is that some Seminary Professors are still admitting the Bible contains variances which makes “inerrant” a poor word to describe it.
Please note also: The list of names for CR leaders contains not one name of a small church pastor. The SBC is still composed of about 80% small churches who are getting very little valid input as to how we might be church without “mega” before it!
Basic growth in the old growing days came from a willingness to extablish Mission Churches in areas of need. As each church went about establishing missions without interference from the Mother Church, we saw astounding growth. Now, these “satellite congregations” of the Mega Church simply make that church appear to be bigger than is really is.
I think the main mission these days is control of the mind and heart to just look bigger and more glamerous–sort of reminds me of the Temple at Jerusalem and the Pharisees running it for their glory, if not more than God’s glory!
I don’t know.
The son of Nixon’s barber advised me on several occasions not to cast pearls before swine.
I was tempted to provide a link to an actual grand exercise in the beauty of the Gospel, but thought in these circumstances, the vitriol Joe Blackmon and Brumbelow have turned this discussion into it would be boorish to do so if not a sin.
I do have a Barbara Brown Taylor link to share when I can find it; but you fellows are Becoming the latest Exhibit A of how the CR must surely grieve the spirit of our Lord and Saviour.
Here is one that reminds me a lot of Joe Cartoon.
I wonder what BB Taylor, how she woulda handled him in class; or just given up
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4863
More Insight from Taylor for Pressler and Criswell and their ilk.
Barbara Brown Taylor, if you want to talk about tiers, with Fleming Rutledge and others is in the TOP Tier; one of the greatest preachers on the planet.
For me this goes to the heart of the discussion we are having on the Tenth Anniversary. Mohler is a distraction to this Greater Gospel Barbara Brown Taylor and others like her Preach:
Lately I have been tracking the illusion that God favors my group to the exclusion of all other groups — which is fairly easy to maintain, depending on which stories I choose to tell. Since the Bible contains the foundational stories of two distinct Faiths it is chock full of attacks on those outside the fold. Sometimes the attacks are sanctioned by God and other times they erupt from pure human meanness, but In either case they come as no real surprise. When any group of people is trying to discover who they are, they usually begin by declaring who they are not: we are not Canaanites, not Samaritans, not Pharisees, not Romans, not Greeks, not them.
These are satisfying parts of the story to tell around the campfire, because they reinforce the boundaries of the group as well as its rightness. Sarah orders Abraham to cast Hagar and Ishmael out into the desert so that Isaac’s inheritance is sure. The Egyptians are drowned in the sea. Jesus turns over tables in the temple. No one comes to the Father but by me. If these stories are beloved, then at least one reason is because they guarantee the privileges of those who tell them.
But the truly astonishing thing about the Bible is that it also includes stories from outside the fold, where God seems determined to work through those whom the community of faith has cast out. God visits Hagar in the desert and promises to make a great nation of Ishmael. God anoints the Persian King Cyrus to end the Babylonian exile. Samaritans star in at least two of Jesus’ own stories, and he almost gets killed in Capernaum for reminding his own people that God sometimes skips right over them to go take care of people who don’t share their Faith.
As disturbing as such news may be, it is our assurance that God’s plot is always larger than the ones we weave to reassure ourselves, and that even when we say the story’s over, the story’s not over. As long as anyone is alive to play a part or talk about it afterwards, the sacred narrative continues — at least until the day we wake from sleep to find that there is room in God’s story for us all.
Just a note for Brandon Smith and the Svoboda:
BS’s thoughts on BFM2K got picked up over at the SBC Plodder blog – the insightful blog of a Southern Baptist pastor from the Athens, Georgia area.
A great blog from an independent, conservative thinker who hasn’t drank the kool-aid and has lived a little in Baptist life.
http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com
Thanks for the link.
I guess us young whippersnappers don’t know nothin about no Baptist churchin! Best be on my way now, gots to go pick me up some Baptist hymnals on the way to Sunday school. Hope we be watchin some Best of Criswell so I can be learnin whats to be sayin on these interweb sites. Heavens knows I ain’t gots no opinion of my owns!
And I think Big Daddy Weaver is with me when we say we’ll take Barbara Brown Taylor’s Introduction to the Bible over Pressler, Mohler and BFM 2000′s Inerrancy Every Day:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2635
As Billy Bob Thornton’s Karl Childers would say This One is that One on Christmas I’ve been telling you about
I will gladly take up John Fariss’s encouragement that we define the Bible as we see it so a clearer picture emerges:
My descriptive phrase for the Bible is A Book of Faith grounded in History.
Book = collected writings of faith
Faith = people, like Abraham, who were willing to trust God despite how rediculous his demand to sacrifice his own son was
Grounded = its writings are coming to us from cultures long ago and far away and must be understood from that setting
History = a simplistic “all is perfect” outlook gets us into believing slavery is of God / bashing the heades of infants, innocent women, killing every human or animal is in God’s plan and must be followed–to name a few.
The world view of the Bible is a 3-story square and anyone going to the edge will fall off. It views the earth as being the center of the sun / planets / stars with everything revolving around it.
Anyone who is a true “inerrantist” would never ride a plane or get on a ship for fear of falling off! How many of you “inerrantists” have traveled by these modes and didn’t fall off????
Most people who claim “inerrancy” do so for power purposes rather than logical reason. Their position has so many inconsistencies as to be laughable. They ignore the historical facits surrounding each book of the Bible. They must ignore some discrepencies in the 4 Gospels which cannot be explained without admitting the author put in his views alongside telling the story of Jesus.
The claim of “inerrency in the original manuscripts” is a straw dog argument because anyone having studied the manuscript record should know WE DON’T HAVE ANY and LIKELY WILL NEVER HAVE SUCH!
Just take the Nestle Greek Text and see the variances in our most reliable NT manuscripts. On some pages 90% of the texts shown are variances of what the scholars view as the “most reliable of many.”
If one claims the Bible is “inerrant,” the proper next question is, “Which translation are you talking about?”
Get off the strained reasoning which often require at least 5 logical steps to come up with an “inerrant” view. If one can use a 1-step rational to claim the Bible is “inerrant,” I will gladly concede my definition and studied faith in the reliability of my Bible.
The bottom line is: What do I trust and how do I make sense of it for July 2010!
I believe the Bible is reliable and true. It tells the story of man’s relationship to God and reveals both the good a bad side of our spiritual ancestors like King David. Were it perfect, it would be like the history of the Pharoes where they never make a mistake.
Any who use “All scripture is inspired by God . . .” must first recognize “scripture” is writings in the Greek and there were more circulating in the day of that verse than those the Church Council decided by good Baptist majority vote to include in the Canon. What do you do with them????
The word “inspired” means literally “God breathed.” It does not mean “God dictated.” Most important, it gives place to the moving of the Holy Spirit so that things written and preached today can have the same validity as those things written long ago. However, the “measuring stick” of the Canon keeps us from letting anything become Bible.
I hope this makes sense. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE!
At the same time I LIVE THE BIBLE AS BEST I CAN. I’m not perfect any more than the writings of the Bible are perfect. Again, the Greek word, “perfect” means “accomplishing the purpose for which God intended it.” The image of a beat up old piano being tuned by a master tuner comes to mind. The instrrument is far from perfect, but the tune it plays is inspiring and true to the tones imbued to those strings by the master tuner.
Good music is hard to ignore—sour notes played by one trying to play perfectly without any emotions or love for the music played gives us the cacophany of hate and discord being played many times in the above discussion—and especially among the SBC lovers of fighting / judging / casting out / serious lack of love and forgiveness.
The disciples are fighting while Jesus notices the little children and older spiritual children saying to themselves, “If this is following Christ, I have better things to do.”
Gene: I would hope you and John Fariss would click on the Barbara Brown Taylor aricle about her intro to the Bible Classes.
For me she gets to the core of what is lost with the BFM 2000 guidelines; a creed that limits understanding of the Bible.
I hope you and Fariss both will ground further comments in reference to her.
See the difference between Gene, Steve, and a Christian is that a Christian could answer the question “Is repentance from sin and faith in Christ the only hope of salvation for everybody?” with a “Yes”. Heck, even an unsaved person with class, intelligence, and character could give an answer of “Yes”, “No”, or “I don’t know”. But Gene and Steve won’t even address the question. That’s because moderates will do ANYTHING to avoid admitting what they really believe. I don’t blame them. If I believed they way they do, I’d be ashamed of myself, too.
Joe–
I did what was requested and you—-did what was expected from a simple and narrow believer in inerrancy.
Now, why don’t you make some sense of the things I point out as lacking coverage in BF&M 2000!
What about the Nestle Text variances and the 4 Gospels???
Quit the bull-jive—-PLEASE!!!
You most certainly did…when you babbled about volfan being too narrow in saying that salvation is exclusively in Christ by saying “How did Jesus get to heaven since he was a Jew?” as if Jesus needed salvation.
Again, if I believed the things that you believe (Mormons are real Christians, Muslims can get to heaven apart from faith in Christ, etc…) I’d be ashamed to admit it, too.
Gene,
If we cant trust the Bible about creation, the miracles, and about the Gospels account of Jesus’ life; then we cant trust the Bible about salvation and Heaven, either. Your view is a view that leads to a vain and empty faith based on man’s philosophy and emotions…which we all know is very fallible. In other words, your view of the Bible is that there is no way to know God, nor any way to know about God, nor any way to know anything beyond what we can see and touch and hear and smell. And, even then, those things can be disputed depending on the opinions of people.
Thus, your view of the Bible is from the pit of Hell, and it’s the Devil’s way of trying to destroy the faith of people. Your conceptions of inerrancy are false. They are very bad misconceptions. And, you are in danger of being like the people that Jesus was talking about when He said, “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.” Matthew 23:13-15
Turn to Jesus…the Jesus of the Bible…and throw yourself, humbly, at the feet of the Lord Jesus..asking Him for mercy and grace and forgiveness.
DAvid
David—
You CAN trust the Bible to tell the truth!!!!
Your overstatement offends me and many others! The Bible is a reliable testimony to God’s relationship to man. In it one finds God commanding the Jews to take their Promised Land by slaughter or all men, women, children, and animals. That same book plainly speakes Jesus’ words to love you enemy and forgive those who persecute you.”
One or the other text is true, but not both!!!!
You can also trust proof-texters to use the Bible in small parts to justify slavery / denying women ordaination / castigating homosexuals / claiming Jesus was wrong when it came to firgiving a woman caught in adultery / any “red flag” issue you want to distract us from living as Jesus said:
Love and forgive one another as I have loved and forgiven you.
I don’t feel the love, my brother, only hate and bull-headedness.
Gene,
Either you accept all of it, or none of it. Who determines which is truth, and which is not? You? The Bible is not a buffet line, where you can pick and choose which you want, and what you dont want. You either believe it’s God’s Word to man, or you dont.
So, yes, your view is the distorted view of Hell, and it leads people that way.
David
One or the other text is true, but not both!!!!
Please come to Tennessee, stand in my face and say that.
Please.
Davud & Joe—
This is getting totally judgemental and volatile!!! I always know when Joe is out of reasoning because he invites me to a fist fight in Tennessee!! Please God, make all bad people good and all good people nice!!!!!
I have had a far different experience than you guys when a teen or studying adult asks me how the Bible can be true when there are inconsistencies and outright contradictions. I didn’t have to tell them it was “my way or the highway.”
All I had to do was teach them a little about the nature of the Bible as I tried above (291) with my account of why I believe the Bible is true.
At last—they didn’t have to take their brains out to read it honestly. They didn’t have to lie about what was there to maintain their former presuppositions. They could rejoice that NOW IT MAKES SOME SENSE!!!!
Now, do you gentlemen care to give you analysis as did I in 291?????
Now it is said that my list above of heroes of the Conservative Resurgence (CR) included no names of small church pastors.
That is true. I named those that are more well known. But it is not because they do not exist. If not for small church pastors, the CR would never have happened.
The names of small church pastors who voted for the CR would include my dad, my two brothers and myself. Many, many names of personal friends who were small church pastors could also be included. It should be remembered that conservatives consistently won the presidential elections from 1979 on. That would not have been possible without small church pastors voting their convictions.
“Small-church and bivocational pastors. The backbone of the conservative movement was this group who acted as faithful servants of the Lord. These pastors had nothing personally to gain but gave of all they had because of their deep convictions. I know of some who would drive to SBC meetings, eating peanut butter sandwiches the entire trip and sleeping in their cars. These could afford neither meals in restaurants nor hotel rooms. Their dedication provided the margin of victory. Their praise will not be on this earth but before the throne of grace.” -Paul Pressler, A Hill On Which To Die, B&H; p. 284.
“Joe Brumbelow was proud to have been involved in the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). He and Bonnie attended each year’s convention, though for them to do so was a financial sacrifice…To Brother Joe this controversy was not just a fight among preachers. It was a very spiritual issue. He believed that if the SBC turned from its commitment to the truthfulness of Scripture, we also would lose the zeal to win people to the Lord. If we don’t believe in Hell, we do not have much need for a Savior.” -Wit and Wisdom of Pastor Joe Brumbelow, Hannibal Books; p. 34.
David R. Brumbelow
David—
I happened to be at the SBC in Houston when CR took over with Adrian Rogers as their first “winner.” Blind trust led those simple folks to “do as commanded.”
With my own eyes I witnessed church buses come to the door and hundreds of people push through the registration lines to pick up ballots. Every rule for the allowed number of messengers from churches was broken.
After Rogers was elected by a narrow margin, those same people left tossing unused ballots on the floor. Not only were they “breakers of rules,” they were litterers!!!!
Meanwhile, Pressler and Patterson were in their Sky Box smiling. They coined a “red flag word” to try and convince un-educated masses from pastors with little real knowledge to “throw out the infidels!”
Best I recall, Adolf Hitler used the same techniques to convince hot-headed Germans that homosexuals / gypsies / and Jews should be killed!!!
I, too, read Pressler’s book. It is full on nonsense to any of us who received a real education at the SBC Seminaries of the 50-60′s. BUT—today’s “cleansed” professors are now saying what I said. The Nestle Greek Text clearly shows variances in scripture and cannot bear “without error” as a mantra.
CR believes “might makes right.” I beg to disagree!!!
Has David Brumbelow read the the two links to the wisdom of Barbara Brown Taylor and what an honest Introduction to the Bible Course should be like. It has a lot in Common with Jack Flanders course in Baylor and not much in common with Pressler’s Introduction to the Texas Regulars; the course Pressler was teaching in Sunday School while Carlyle Marney was making History at FBC Austin, Texas.
Coke Stevenson of the Texas Regular and Pressler were not good for American Christendom; Jack Flanders, Marney, and Babs Taylor and their Intro to the Bible are and Brumbelow and Joe Blackmon failed the course.
Gene: Look at the Takeover Linked I shared above in this thread and see if you don’t join me in Recommending Chapter 13 to our Brothers in Christ Jesus as corrective to their warped History and Misguided Notions.
Kinda hard for you to be my brother in Christ since you’re not a Christian.
Gene,
I received a “real” education in the 1970s at a Southern Baptist college (ETBU) and seminary (SWBTS). Our seminaries are now filled with professors who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible; they are not “simple” and uneducated.
To so many moderates and liberals, if you are conservative and don’t agree with them, they conclude you are “simple” and ignorant. Gene, can’t you disagree with someone while still acknowledging they may have a good education, be intelligent, and love the Lord? I can.
By the way, I was also at the 1979 convention. It was one of the greatest days of my life when Adrian Rogers was elected on the first ballot. Mine was not “blind trust” but deep spiritual conviction. You’ll be interested to know that I drove my car to Houston; instead of riding one of those evil buses.
In case it matters, I’ve also seen moderate and liberal voters bussed in to SBC meetings. Does that make them evil? Does that make them like Hitler? Does it really matter how messengers travel to the SBC?
Also, a later investigation proved while there were a few voting irregularities, more of them were on the moderate side than the conservative side. And most of those busses were figments of liberal imagination.
David R. Brumbelow
David–
You are fulla-bulla!!!
Thee have not “always been any messengers bussed” to any convention EXCEPT when Texas Baptists hosted it!!! The CBF made one attempt (in Austin) some 10 years after the takeover to load up for the presidential election. By then, the heart was taken out of the fight which never should have been.
My friend, the CR leadership operates by one motto only: Might makes right / to the victor goes the spoils–and high salaries for institution/agency leaders!
You obviously did not read the Burleson blog back at the end of last year which addressed the current teaching at Seminaries where some professors now admit “inerrant” is a poor word to use when describing text transmission.
Do any of you have the intelligence to explain why the Nestle Greek Text sometimes contains pages 80-90% full of “variant readings” from various manuscripts–some of which make a great difference in the meaning of the text to us??
Later investigation after the turmoil of Huston proved CLEARLY that there were numerous violations of clear rules limiting the number of messengers from any church to 10! I saw it with my own eyes, brother!!! Later business transactions with floor debate at conventions also had the heavy-handed rule of the CR Moderators with a hired-from-outside-the-SBC Parlimentarian guiding the Moderator to bang that gavel.
I saw it and I bear witness to it!!! There was no stopping the dictatorial manner of leadership–Hitler was a dictator–he caused great human tragedy–I stand behind my analogy.
Wasn’t the Inquisition equally horrible: “Believe in Christ and leave Mohammud lest thy head be on the ground!”
I do not care to participate in any name calling. I am simply saying, that one exploring the Nestle Greek Text has 2 choices:
(1) There are many variances
(2) The scolarly text is a lie
If you have the education you claim, how do you answer after consulting the Nestle Text????
I am simple and well-educated and I believe there is a God and the Bible is a reliable witness to Him!! Is that plain enough???
Again, just what the Doctor Ordered, for Brumbelow and Blackmon’s distorted and grossly flawwed history and Conviction on this matter:
Pressler led you to a Hill of Sand to Die on Sisyphisianesquely:
Read that clearly marked section in this link with references from Clark Pinnock in 1987
http://www.sbctakeover.com/chapter13.htm
Fraudulence, Boys; Fraudlence!!!!
So, Stephen, is there any way for a person to get to heaven other than salvation through faith exclusively in Jesus Christ and repentance from sin? That is a “Yes” or “No” question. A real Christian wouldn’t have any problem at all answering that question.
Stephen–
You are talking to Joe, man–keep the words simple!
Had he ever read anything to challenge his presuppositions, he would have burned it!!!
We are both wasting our breath while refusing to name call–sorry for us!!!
Again Stephen—
I thank you for the solid link to truth!!!!
“Inerrant” is a buzz word which easily trips uneducated and unthinking people into the same trap used by politicians: “conservative = trustworthy / liberal = a destroyer.”
Well, my understanding ot “conservative” has to do with conserving that which is meaningful. For the CR folks it means “destroy that which is offensive = anyone who does not kiss my tail and follow me without questions.”
H.L. Menken, with tongue in cheek, described Conservatives as “my contemporary ancestors!”
Can we name any progressive activity since the Enlightenment which was produced by a “conservative mindset?”
The Inquisition and the killing of astronomers or physicists who dared declare “the earth is round and revolves around the sun” is the only thing in recent history that reflects what is going on today—and in this blog (except those who opposed Hitler or Stalin)!
I don’t feel comfortable casting pearls before swine–as Jesus put it!!!
I’m convinced they would rather “fight than switch!”
David,
Noone could have said it better. Keep up the good work!
Was Martin Luther King, Jr a real Christian?
How about Oscar Romero?
Reinhold Niebuhr?
Fleming Rutledge and Barbara Brown Taylor?
How about Atticus Finch?; and Judge Frank Johnson?
<