Yes. Plain and simple. In humility, we ought to recognize that some organizations are doing some thing better than the SBC and we ought to encourage joining with other networks. Mohler said recently, ”SBC is going to have to grow accustomed to churches being involved in SBC AND other networks.”
I agree 100%. I don’t want this thread to become about Mark Driscoll, but Acts 29 is an obvious example. Acts 29 is very good at assessing church planters and helping them plant churches. We ought to encourage networking with Acts 29 and other missions agencies such as Action International. The SBC can benefit greatly from these other networks and agencies. Some might say that we shouldn’t allow our churches to network with Acts 29 and others that we might have disagreements with. I contend, that with “networking” we have more freedom for differences than within our own denomination. It should be okay for a teetotaler to network with people who allow drinking. I certainly don’t mind joining with networks that hold to teetotalism.
If we are really about fulfilling the Great Commission shouldn’t we be opened to allowing our churches to be involved with other networks that help us towards that goal?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 166 comments… read them below or add one }
Absolutely yes. We are involved with several others and even co-lead one, and we are all the better for it. We are blessed to learn from southern baptist leaders as well as non-southern baptist leaders.
Our network is http://www.ReproducingChurches.com. We also associate with the Mosaic Alliance, Vision 360, theChurchofWestOrange.com, and others.
A prominent SBC leader once told me he would have nothing to do with other associations of this sort, because he (and I quote) “didn’t want to hunt with another man’s dog.”
I thought all followers of Jesus were given the great commission.
Jason Dukes´s last blog ..a southern baptist post
Not only is it OK for SBC churches and individuals to join with other groups, we could not stop it if we tried. Southern Baptist churches are independent, therefore free to join or separate from whomever they chose. This has been going on for many, many years. People can complain about it, but that is about all they can do. I guess the only exception might be if the church were affiliating with some pretty far out groups.
On the other hand, if a mission is getting direct funds from the SBC Cooperative Program, then leaders have a right to check up on that mission to see if they fit in with what Southern Baptists generally believe. If they don’t, we have a right to stop sending them our mission money. If the mission is not with us, they should not expect our funding.
It should also be remembered that when you join certain groups you may either help or hurt your influence with other Southern Baptists.
David R. Brumbelow
I agree with your post. SBC cant have it both ways – always stating that SB churches are autonomous and then griping when those churches go out and embrace other organizations to help them accomplish their goals.
Steve´s last blog ..Diet Recommendation from Runner’s World mag
Steve,
We can have it both ways, and we do have it both ways. Churches are autonomous. But, if they dont line up with our basic beliefs and practice, then they should not expect an autonomous SBC to send thier members as missionaries.
What’s so hard to understand about that?
David
I agree totally. Will someone please tell this to the IMB and some missionaries on the field?
Recently I tried to work with an SBC missionary in another country and even though I am part of the SBC, I was told he could not partner with me because there was a non-SBC church involved as well. It just so happens that this non-SBC church has an almost identical faith statement and is one of the few churches in the country seeing real growth for the Kingdom.
I don’t get it!
Ron Edmondson´s last blog ..Leadership Requires Guts
Absolutely. For me, answering that question is as simple as answering this one: Are there other Christians outside the SBC faithfully preaching the gospel? If the answer to that question is yes, the answer to your question has to be the same.
Barry Wallace´s last blog ..Interview with incoming SBTS seminarian Isaac Johnson
I agree completely with what David Brumbelow said above.
SBC Churches can do whatever they want to do.
Now, if you’re talking about the SBC giving CP dollars to these groups, then we have a whole nuther thang here.
Personally, I would not be for joining with, nor supporting with CP dollars, any outside group out there who didnt line up with our beliefs. I would have a very hard time joining with Acts 29 for many reasons, with the way they stand now on alcohol and language and such.
Let me ask yall, how could we start Churches with groups that believed in paedo baptism? talking in tongues as an evidence of salvation? believe that a Christian can be lost again? What kind of a Church would you be starting?
If we’re gonna join hands with groups that are outside of the SBC, then they need to believe as we do about first tier and second tier doctrines. They must be in agreement with the BFM2K, or else we cant join with them, IMHO.
David
David,
Your comments are the exact reason why giving to, and support of, the CP will continue to decline in the future, and why more and more of those missions dollars that used to go directly to the CP will be redirected to these other groups.
Somehow you just can’t seem to get it that the SBC is made up of a “Diversity” of Baptist Churches. And if we do not allow for a diversity of opportunities to cooperate in missions work within the SBC, then these diverse Baptist Churches will, as we now see happening, go outside the SBC and form partnerships with other like minded believers to accomplish what they feel the Lord is leading them to do. But then again perhaps that’s what some of you want?
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
Greg,
I believe in diversity of Churches…as long as they fit the parameters of sound doctrine….ie, the BFM2K. Those outside of these parameters are not Churches, nor groups, that I could partner with in starting Churches or running a seminary.
Let me ask you, how diverse is too diverse for you?
David
From my vantage point, the SBC is too diverse as it is. Let’s see, how long did it take to kick Broadway out? What denomination is FBC Decatur affiliated with again?
Now, if you’re talking about doing some yard work for a nursing home or bringing meals over for a family that has had a member with some serious health issues or repairing some playground equipment at a neighborhood playground then yeah, I could partner up with a Church of God or a church with a woman pastor. And those are things that could be done as ministry in the name of Jesus. But if you’re talking about building churches or evangelistic work then I would be labeled intolerant by some folks regarding who I would partner up with. I’ve even been called a fundy which is fine by me. I mean, I spent a little extra to get the big tricked out name tag and all.
Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Missing the Point of Missions Part III
Joe,
Amen.
David
David,
Should a Very Conservative Southern Baptist Church who agrees with the BFM (Without Caveats’) have it’s members (who are willing to sign the BFM) Rejected as Unacceptable by the IMB which is only missionary sending agency of the Southern Baptist Convention?
Should a Very Conservative Southern Baptist (who is willing to sigh the BFM, again with Caveats’) be Rejected as Unacceptable for employment within any agency of the Southern Baptist Convention or State Convention?
Your response to these two questions should prove to be very interesting.
Why are we even having this discussion about cooperation with other groups when we have those inside our own convention who don’t even want to cooperate with other Southern Baptist?
You write: “Let me ask you, how diverse is too diverse for you?”
I would not be honest with you if I did not say that there are some groups whom I would not be comfortable cooperating in missions work with. Any group that holds to heretical views on first tier doctrines would be included in this category… However, there are also many groups that are absolutely solid in the core doctrines of the Christian Faith that I would be very comfortable cooperating in missions work with. They are not Baptist, (and I do not have a problem with that) but they are solid Christians with a firm foundation in the Word of God and as such I am willing to cooperate with them (That is, if they will have a me?).
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
Would you be willing to start a Church with an Assembly of God Church Planter?
David
David,
Just who in the SBC is attempting to partner with the AG to plant churches? You keep throwing out the extreme examples that are no where near the truth of what is actually taking place in the SBC as if this discussion was just all hypothetical… it is not.
There are real world examples where Baptist brothers have been denied CP funds to help in planting “Baptist” churches. So let’s stick to discussing what is really happening and leave off these absurd examples please.
I noticed you did not answer my two questions so I will post them again:
Should a Very Conservative Southern Baptist Church who agrees with the BFM (Without Caveats’) have its members (who are willing to sign the BFM) Rejected as Unacceptable by the IMB which is our only missionary sending agency of the Southern Baptist Convention?
Should a Very Conservative Southern Baptist (who is willing to sigh the BFM, again without Caveats’) be Rejected as Unacceptable for employment within any agency of the Southern Baptist Convention or State Convention?
I am still waiting for you answer…
Grace Always
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
So what happens now in places like Missouri where the MBC has already de-funded all Acts29 church plants?
Rich´s last blog ..Why I Love and Hate Christian Radio: Part II
Rich,
The MBC is an autonomous entity. They, like SB Churches, can do whatever they want to do. The SBC is also an autonomous entity. It can do whatever it wants to do.
We have no hierarchy that dictates that Missouri Baptist have to do this, or do that. Thank God. We have no Bishops, nor Cardinals, nor Popes who tell SB Churches what they can do, or cant do. Thank God.
David
I understand that the MBC is an autonomous entity. My question might have been better stated: In light of the GCR and Mohler’s statement above, the what should happen in Missouri? I don’t expect the SBC to crack down on the MBC, I just wanted people’s opinions. The MBC and the SBC are gradually drifting further apart when it comes to cooperating with other networks…so what happens now?
There should also be something said about our church giving money to the MBC who in turn gives a portion of our money to the SBC. If this gradual drift continues should I not start giving directly to the SBC and bypass the MBC?
Rich´s last blog ..Why I Love and Hate Christian Radio: Part II
Can a “really old guy” get in here? I am an alum of Mid America Baptist Theological Seminary in Memphis, TN. When it comes to personal soul winning, missions and church planting, I have heard Dr. B. Gray Allison say something time and again that I think is worth repeating here. Quote; “There no competition amongst light houses!”
Nuff Said!!
Roger Duke,
I am also an alum of Mid America. Dr. Gray is a great man, and I agree with his statement. I dont believe that we’re talking about competition here. We’re talking about who we could join with to start Churches and seminaries.
I would say to all the Presbyterian Churches out there, who are truly preaching the Gospel and uplifting Jesus….”Amen!” I’m glad that yall are doing good things for God’s Kingdom. But, at the same time, I could not join with them to start churches with them believing in paedobaptism. Could you?
Also, to all the Assembly of God Churches that are out there. I would say amen to all of them for preaching the Gospel and winning souls. But, I would not want to start Churches nor seminaries with a group that believes that Christians can lose their salvation, and they believe in tongue speaking. Would you want to?
BTW, I graduated in 1988. You?
David
David,
You know there is a great “Landmark Baptist Influence” @ MABTS (and by-the-by let the record state that I AM NOT OF THAT PERSUSION), and that I too could not go into “bidness” with those whom baptize babies and such.
But, on the other hand, I was reared in a nominal SBC church in Nashville, TN who had a “Bob Jones Pastor.” We barely were SBC “in name only.” Did not go to the asso. meetings, state conventions, and only now and again went to the national conventions. So, when we went into the “bus ministry” we turned to the IFBaptists for their “know how” if you please.
We had and supported our own missions people where we could find them in order to “get the most bang for the buck” if you will.
I bring up the idea of “deputation” here. And I bet one in three does not even know what that means. You handpick your missionary, put them in your church’s budget, send them on thier way, to win souls or build churches or whatever. Then after 3 or 4 years they come home on furlow, make a circuit, showing all of their films, and giving a report of what they have done with your money. Then just to do it all over again.
This resembles the old “society method” pre-CP. And if we are not very careful we will sacrifice the CP and move back to that model again.
I prefer doing a modified both. Allowing the home church to “pick and choose” what they do. But also allowing (or highly suggesting) the home church to support the CP as set up in 1925 right here in Memphis. What I would really prefer is for each church, small and great, to give 10% to the CP and then plant some churches near home in op-operation with their local associtation, state convention, and NAMB.
But it seems to me that many are spending way too much money on “Building & Budgets & Baptisms” that turn and look inward. If you want to have a stint of hear-failure, get a mega-church budget in hand. Even a church that run 500-1000, obtain a copy of their budget. It will stagger you to see what they spend on themselves. When you count personnel, gymnasiums, debt retirement, etc., et al., you can really tell how much “we do missions!” I am sorry, I have started to pry into my brother’s business.
Why does it have to be “this or that?” Why can it not be “This AND that?” I thought it was “Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth?” But then again I may be wrong?!
My two cents worth! And I know there may be some inconsistency in my thought. But remember, “consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind!” (Now go look that up!).
I am so proud you young guys let this “old guy” in here to talk. Thanks!!!
sdg!
rd
PS I graduated from MABTS in 1985 as a lowly 96 sem.hr. Diploma Student. And as you know they later changed the Diploma to an Associate of Divinity degree.
It sounds so easy and makes so much sense until the BI crowd launches in with their pedantic silliness. The gospel must go!
Brent,
What silliness? Is it silly to want to be Scripturally sound in beleif and practice? Please tell me the silly things that the BI crowd brings up?
David
PS. I would dare say that the BI crowd is just as concerned, or maybe even more concerned, with getting the Gospel out to the world. And, they are actively participating in doing this. Maybe it’s just that they dont agree with your way of doing it, Brent.
I think we should distinguish between partnering in general and planing churches specifically. I think Vol has a point. How do you start a church plant with a paedobaptist organization? I don’t think you can. But, there are lots of Great Commission things you could do besides an official church plant.
Bill,
I can partner with any Christian group in starting a food pantry/clothes closet….and my Church does. I can partner in prayer with any Christian group in praying for the nation, and I have done so in the past. I have preached in Methodist Churches….Presbyterian Churches…for college campus groups of all flavors…in jails….in prisons….in the streets…..
But, you got it when you talk about not being able to start Churches nor seminaries with groups that dont even hold to our basic beliefs and practice. That should not be done.
David
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I thought it was that Southern Baptist entities were giving money to individual SB churches, not to groups like Acts 29. So, if it is not these groups are being funded, but the churches, why is anyone bothering to make a fuss about non-SBC groups that receive no CP dollars?
The way it’s looked thus far is that “as long as you’re affiliating with these other groups (whom we don’t like for whatever reason), we aren’t giving you any financial support.” Why should it matter that a church in good standing with the SBC/state convention, affirming the BFM, decides to partner with an outside agency as well as the conventions? Isn’t that outside the scope of the conventions? As has been said several times in this thread, the SBC/state conventions don’t get to tell the churches what to do.
Indeed, it is the churches that tell the SBC/state conventions what to do. And I think what some of these churches have been saying is that the attitude the conventions are taking about some of these outside agencies, quite frankly, stinks and needs to stop.
But again, please correct me if I’m wrong.
Stephen Newell´s last blog ..Welcome to stephennewell.com!
Stephen,
Because we dont want CP dollars going to Church starts that are unsound in belief and practice. That’s what it’s all about. Why would we want CP dollars going to CHURCH STARTS that dont believe in our basic beliefs and practice??? Why would we?
This is just getting harder and harder for me to understand where yall are coming from. I’m a Southern Baptist Christian. I’m a Christian, first and foremost. I’m SB by conviction. I was raised a Methodist. But, now I am a SB. I would not want to start Methodist type Churches…why should I? We should want to start Churches that are lined up with what we believe the Scriptures teach? Amen?
David
David, perhaps you missed that I mentioned this:
a church in good standing with the SBC/state convention, affirming the BFM
Unless you really want to imply that those SBC churches that choose to affiliate with outside agencies are “unsound in belief and practice.”
Stephen Newell´s last blog ..Welcome to stephennewell.com!
Stephen,
Why would a Church start be joined with groups that dont confirm the BFM2K? Why would new Church starts expect to recieve CP money if they are joined with groups that are unsound in belief and practice? That would make me wonder if that church was a Church in good standing….make you want to check them out.
David
David, I refer you to my comment below, after your response to Sallie.
Stephen Newell´s last blog ..Welcome to stephennewell.com!
Another thought. You can throw in with any organization you want. But don’t necessarily expect the SBC to bow down and praise you for doing so. They will be promoting their own thing, and that is what they should be doing.
Don’t expect a Ford dealer to be extolling the virtues of a Honda Civic. And don’t expect Ford to finance your starting up a Honda Dealership.
You think the new organization is better than the SBC? OK, maybe it is. But the SBC has been starting churches, preaching the Word, leading people to Jesus, and sending missionaries around the world for 164 years. How long has your organization been doing that?
My point is not to knock your organization. But I admit my point is to put in a good word for the SBC.
David R. Brumbelow
David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..Biblical Principles Condemn Alcohol
How long has your organization been doing that?
Does it really make a difference? Should we really care? “One-upmanship” is a pretty silly reason not to affiliate with a “new” group. We have to do better than that.
Stephen Newell´s last blog ..Welcome to stephennewell.com!
Well, since there will be more than just Southern Baptists going to heaven (hope I didn’t burst any bubbles there), then I think the obvious answer to that is yes.
We do, however, have to be careful that we are working with folks who represent the same basic ideas as ourselves. For instance, I can’t imagine doing any real ministry/salvation type work with mormans, even though they do A LOT to feed people. They just don’t believe the same basics that we do.
Does that make sense?
Sallie,
More sense than what a lot of people have said.
David
Whew! I’m so glad we are back to easier topics
Sallie´s last blog ..A Teeny, Tiny Blog Update
Yet the question isn’t “basics.” Where a group like Acts 29 is concerned, it’s not “basics” at all. It’s the fact that they aren’t an SBC entity. Which is, to be honest, a pretty lame excuse. A29, as far as can be seen, falls under the BFM doctrinally – go look at their doctrinal statement and see for yourself. To make it an issue of “basics” with a group like this is a red herring.
Nor is it about planting “their” kind of church. In fact, a group such as A29 makes it clear church plants are to honor their denominational commitments. This objection is also a red herring.
The real question is whether or not it is “wrong” for a local church to do what it believes is best to do to get the Gospel out, when that means affiliating with a non-SBC group that would otherwise fall under the BFM doctrinally. If we really do believe that local churches are autonomous, we can’t go around saying they can’t do this.
Stephen Newell´s last blog ..Welcome to stephennewell.com!
Stephen,
Acts 29 has proven to have very questionable beliefs and practices like drinking alcohol and starting Churches in bars. It is concerning to many, many people in the SBC.
David
Can you show where that’s against the BFM? Or even that it’s not “Baptist?”
The ironic thing about such an objection is that many of the same people objecting to “starting churches in bars” (never mind that having a discussion group at a bar/coffe house/etc. is entirely different from starting a church in a bar, which conveniently gets ignored) probably wouldn’t object to starting a church on the property of an abortion clinic. They’d probably applaud it as “marching off to war.”
Stephen Newell´s last blog ..Welcome to stephennewell.com!
Not only that, can you even show that anything on the A29 doctrinal statement wouldn’t conform to the BFM? I’m looking at the doctrinal statement on their website right now, and nary a mention of alcohol. Nor do I see anything contrary to the BFM.
Instead, what I do see is this statement: [The doctrinal statement] intentionally omits some finer points of doctrine and secondary issues as we allow the elders in our local churches to operate according to their convictions on these matters.
That means, at best, those two issues you mentioned are secondary matters to them and are up to the local churches themselves; and at worst, they simply don’t matter! If we follow the BFM, lo and behold, those issues are also secondary to the essentials contained in the BFM and are up to the local churches!
So what beliefs/practices are really the “questionable” ones you and others don’t like? Can you really look at their doctrinal statement and honestly say they are “questionable?”
Stephen Newell´s last blog ..Welcome to stephennewell.com!
Stephen,
The SBC has spoken against the use of alcohol for pleasure for years and years and years. Look it up.
David
but you, yourself said, “Thank God. We have no Bishops, nor Cardinals, nor Popes who tell SB Churches what they can do, or cant do. Thank God.”
So the MBC/SBC can’t tell us what to do…but it can take away funding from local churches who affiliate with Acts29, because of one church’s stance and actions concerning alcohol and their affiliation with Acts29.
You can throw arguments around all day, and whether or not you agree with alcohol has nothing to do with it. Let’s talk about SBC/state convention authority and BFM. Anyone can see the hypocrasy in this situation.
So I ask my question again: In light of the GCR and Mohler’s statement above, the what should happen in Missouri? Should the MBC repent and side with the SBC or stand firm and drift from the SBC on this subject?
Rich´s last blog ..Why I Love and Hate Christian Radio: Part II
Rich,
Again, I remind you that although we have no hierarchy in the SBC, that the SBC and MBC are also free to do what they feel is the best. Therefore, if some people want to start a Church in a bar, with the bar open during worship, where the Pastor is also drinking Bud Lite, then the SBC and/or the MBC has the freedom to say to that Church that they will not be funding such things.
The Church starters are still free to do whatever they feel like they should do….but they should not expect SB CP dollars if they do. Or, they should not expect MBC dollars to back up thier plans, if they go against what the MBC feels is wise and sound.
David
Ok. I’ll hop on the merry-go-round for now.
First, the examples you gave have nothing to do with the situation that happened in Missouri, leading up to the de-funding of all Acts29 associated church plants. Yes, alcohol was a major issue, but the examples you gave were not the reasons the MBC took action.
Second, my responses have been in relation to the topic. The title of this thread is “Should SBC churches be involved with other networks?” He asks this in light of Mohler’s statement, “SBC is going to have to grow accustomed to churches being involved in SBC AND other networks.”
Obviously the MBC is Southern Baptist. In light of Mohler’s statement, that the SBC and therefore her state conventions, ie MBC, are going to have to grow accustomed to working w/other networks, then what happens when the MBC doesn’t “grow accustomed” because of their actions already taken against Acts29?
And in regards to the SBC and the MBC being free to do what they feel is best…I’m told, here in Missouri, that I’m not being a good Southern Baptist if I don’t give in the “proper order” which is, tithe to the church, which in turn gives to MBC, which in turn gives to the SBC. But when the MBC starts pulling our money out of church plants for secondary issues, not to mention, issues not dealt with in the BFM, then I am going to have a problem with it. The MBC and the SBC are not fully seperate from each other. The MBC is a part of the SBC. If the SBC is the body then the MBC is an arm. So what happens when the arm doesn’t want to follow the lead of the rest of the body?
Rich´s last blog ..Why I Love and Hate Christian Radio: Part II
Rich,
The MBC and the SBC are two entirely different entities. They are joined only by voluntary cooperation. The SBC does not tell the MBC what to do, and the MBC does not tell the SBC what to do.
David
Ah yes, in one of our famous “non-binding” resolutions. Even with a resolution from the convention, it is still a matter of local church conviction. The churches in question don’t have to agree with it or even abide by it. Or do you really think the churches answer to the convention? Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around?
Stephen Newell´s last blog ..Welcome to stephennewell.com!
Stephen,
The non binding resolutions do tell us all what the SBC believes and wants to do.
David
David, you are exactly right. And it is not just one resolution, but many resolutions against alcohol over the years. From the 1880s to 2006. There is no doubt that Southern Baptists do and have recognized the evil and dangers of beverage alcohol.
The resolutions can be looked up at sbc.net.
David R. Brumbelow
David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..Biblical Principles Condemn Alcohol
There is no doubt that Southern Baptists do and have recognized the evil and dangers of beverage alcohol.
I don’t think Southern Baptists have recognized but rather they have asserted that alcohol is evil.
Stan McCullars´s last blog .."The…people have the right to insurrection."
I believe that SB’s have known and asserted the evils of alcohol, and they have known and asserted the evils of alcohol for a long, long time.
Those of us who have had many first hand dealings with alcohol know the foolishness and the evilness of it.
David
David,
I hear what you’re saying. I would suggest that rather than knowing the foolishness and the evilness of the substance known as alcohol they have known or experienced the foolishness and the evilness of the abuse of alcohol.
Last night at dinner (at Outback) my wife had two glasses of the house red and I had two margaritas. There was no foolishness or evilness associated with it.
We enjoyed our meal. We discussed an upcoming trip, books we plan on reading in the next couple of weeks, the economy, freedom as it relates to the health care “debate,” and the Christian’s response to a government acting outside of its Constitutional authority in light of Romans 13. We even snuck in some humor here and there.
We do not get drunk with wine (Ephesians 5:18). We are not addicted to much wine (1 Timothy 3:8). We are not slaves to much wine (Titus 2:3). We are not led astray by it (Proverbs 20:1). We simply enjoyed something, namely wine to gladden the heart of man (Psalm 104:15), which God created for just such a purpose.
(All verses from ESV)
Stan McCullars´s last blog .."The…people have the right to insurrection."
Highly doubtful, otherwise the resolutions would be binding. Instead, following the resolutions is a matter of local church conviction. Even adhering to the BFM is a matter for the local church – the SBC cannot enforce it!
You cannot continue to assert on one hand that the SBC speaks for the churches (as you just now did), and on the other hand say that the SBC can’t tell the churches what to do (as you did earlier). The SBC is a tool for churches who want to cooperate to get the Gospel out, nothing more. When it becomes the Holy Magisterium, as you seem to be implying while yet denying, we’ve got a big problem.
Stephen,
You are right. The SBC cannot enforce a resolution on a Church, nor can it make a Church believe the BFM2K. But, the SBC can decide on whether they will support the work of a Church, or whether they will send the missionaries of that Church. The SBC does not have to send them. They are not obligated to send any Churches missionaries, nor to hire any Churches people as Seminary Profs.
David
starting Churches in bars
Oh the horror!
Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Are Not People Of The Bible If…
Seriously, anyone who objects to starting a church in a bar does not understand the nature of the church, at all. It does not matter AT ALL, what building a church meets in; whether it be a bar, house, doughnut shop, etc…
Maybe my next post will be on this issue..
So, you dont think that I know the nature of a Church? lol. Yea, Matt, right.
I have gone into bars witnessing and handing out tracts, BTW. The big problem that I have with Acts 29 is that they seem to be very open to drinking alcohol…very open to it. Also, of course, Mark Driscoll is one of the main guys of Acts 29, and many of the SBC guys who are sympathetic with Acts 29 seemed to be backing up the cussing and the explicit sexual talking of Driscoll….and dont I remember a Church that even served liquor during the meeting of the Church??? Am I remembering right about that?
I really dont think that a bar is the place for a Church to meet. To soul win…yea. But, to worship…not so much. But, I really dont care if a Church meets in a Sonic, or a Burger King, or an O’Charley’s…..as long as they are preaching sound doctrine and uplifting the Lord Jesus. But, I really dont like the message it portrays to say that Grace Baptist Church meets in Charlies BarStool Lounge. That’s me.
David
Oh, I know…maybe the Real Life Church can meet at Lil’ Darlin’s Bar.
lol
David
Oh wait, maybe we could start a Church at Hoochie Goochie’s Stripper Bar and Peep Show???? I hear that the smell in those places is rank after a big night.
lol
David
So Christians can go to bars to “soul win” but not to come together for preaching and worship?
If you understand the nature of the church you should that the sign outside doesnt mean anything at all.. God doesnt care where his people worship, he just cares if they’re worshipping. Because alcohol is served at the Bar on Saturday nights that means Christians cant gather there to worship Christ on Sunday morning? Are you serious? Just because they are in a bar doesnt mean they have the vodka open and are passing around Crown and Coke.
How do you justify having church at O’charleys, but not a bar when both of them serve alcohol. This seems legalistic to me… Just because a building is titled “bar” it is off limits, but “restaurants” that serve alcohol are okay? Please…
Why does it matter at all what the building is used for on Saturday nights? It obviously isnt used for that on Sunday morning when people are gathering to hear the Word preaches and sing to their God.
I know you and everyone else who agrees with you on this say, “I’m not legalistic.” or “if you really knew me you would know I am not legalistic” but the fact is that if that is your stance on this issue, you are being legalistic.
I agree with you on a lot and am proud that you are my brother in Christ, but I think you are terribly mistaken here. I think part of it has to do with our over-institutionalized view of the nature of the church as well.
Matt,
O’Charley’s is known as a restaurant that has a bar. Fat Charlie’s Barstool Lounge is known as a bar. There’s a huge difference to me.
Also, would you be for a Church starting in Voluptuous Victoria’s Peep Show and Porno Boutique? So, you would be inviting people to Church, and you would say,”Yea, we meet on Sunday mornings at 9 at Voluptuous Victoria’s.” And, you would be worshipping with the porno and the peep shows around you. And, if you would be against that…would that not be hypocritical?
David
Just as an exercise, I’m looking at the ads for the girlie bars in my local paper right now. Hmm. I don’t see any that are open Sunday morning at 9.
lol
dont I remember a Church that even served liquor during the meeting of the Church??? Am I remembering right about that?
Yeah I think those churches are called Presbyterian…no wait, Catholic…no, Anglican… Gosh darn it who are they again? They sure ain’t Baptist.
Stephen Newell´s last blog ..Welcome to stephennewell.com!
Stephen,
They were not Presbyterian, nor Catholic. And, many people in the blogs…some of them SB’s…defended the Pastor drinking Bud Lite during the sermon. And, some bloggers defended the Church serving alcohol during the service. And, some bloggers, some SB Pastor’s, defended Driscoll’s Church for serving champagne at a New Year’s, Church fellowship.
David
Uh, David, that was meant to be funny, not serious. I guess I have the same disease every pastor has – an inability to touch the funny bone.
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” But wisdom is proved right by her actions.
Word,
I see that you totally missed the whole point.
I, too, have gone into bars to share the Gospel. I, too, have gone to places where people were feasting and drinking liquor. I, too, have been to places that some legalists would consider me bad, and have looked upon me as bad, for going to these places. And, I did it to be a witness for the Lord.
I have not set up a Church in a Stripper Bar and Peep Show, and served liquor during the worship. I dont remember the Lord Jesus nor the Apostles ever doing that, either.
David
So let me get this straight, you are dead set against Acts 29 and Driscoll, and your basis is outdated, misrepresented, exagerrated, out-of-context, third-hand information that you vaguely recollect and how you suppose a few unnamed hypothetical SBC pastors seem to take this as a license to cuss, get drunk, and talk dirty?
Wow!
Todd,
My info about Driscoll is not third hand, outdated info. Do a little research, and you’ll find it out.
BTW, I praise God for all the good that Mark Driscoll does for God’s Kingdom. I rejoice that he is a brother in Christ. I thank Gof for saving him out of a rough life. And, I look forward to seeing him in Heaven.
I dont think that he is being very wise down here, nor are his fellow Acts 29 guys, for giving links on his website to “Christian Nympho’s,” nor for having alcohol served at Church fellowship’s, nor for cussing and making nasty jokes in the pulpit, nor for a few other things. I really dont want to start Churches with CP money that would have any of this involved. Would you?
Also, the thing I was trying to remember was a Church that served alcohol during it’s worship, and another Church start where the Pastor was actually drinking a Bud Lite while preaching his sermon. I was trying to remember if they were Acts 29 Church starts. Todd, if you’ll scroll up, I was asking if I was remembering right. I remember the Churches doing this…. they did this…I remember that well. What I couldnt quite recollect was if they were Acts 29 Church starts or some other. And, if I remember correctly, a lot of the SB Pastors that are sympathetic with Acts 29 were defending these Churches for doing so. Correct?
David
Well, I have had interaction with Acts 29 pastors first hand and they are nothing like what you are describing. The actual statement on alcohol by Acts 29 is a pretty biblically solid admonition, in my opinion, and neither promotes drinking nor suggests that a positive stance on alcohol consumption is even the dominant view among Acts 29ers. Further, I know of no SBC funded plants that promote alcohol, are led by planters who drink, or are otherwise unsavory.
Even if I’m wrong and every accusation against Driscoll is well-founded and there are pastors and plants that do not fit our Baptist principles and priorities, support from Baptist funds should still be on a case by case basis. There is nothing in the ACTS 29 charter that warrants refusing to partner with them. The majority of Acts 29 plants would meet all SBC requirements for funding and should not be denied because of what Driscoll or some other Acts 29 affiliated pastors do. . . Unless of course we are going to go the old way of being second and third degree separationists.
This is easily seen if we look at the issue in reverse. Should Acts 29 refuse to partner with Southern Baptists because we allow non-Reformed churches or because some SBC churches are legalistic or because certain high-profile SBC pastors have said some offensive things or use questionable church growth methodologies? If you were planting a church, would one be fair in not supporting you based on the fact that they don’t like Rick Warren or Jerry Vines or any other SBC ministry and thus will not support any Southern Baptist?
Todd Writes: “If you were planting a church, would one be fair in not supporting you based on the fact that they don’t like Rick Warren or Jerry Vines or any other SBC ministry and thus will not support any Southern Baptist?”
Game – Set – and Match!
Todd,
Yes, we have a few ” Third Degree Separationists.” in the SBC. (I think you have been debating one of them)
I have a suspicion that this whole alcohol issue is nothing more than a “Trojan Horse” that allows them to get at their real target for discrimination – Calvinism. I think that two years ago it became very clear for the Anti-Calvinist in the Convention that it was the Calvinist who were standing at the microphones saying that the resolution against alcohol could not be supported by Scripture… and ever since that time we have seen the issue of alcohol used to defund and disfellowship reformed churches.
Ask yourself this question: “Are these churches non-reformed, somewhat reformed, mostly reformed, or all reformed? How may non-reformed churches have been defunded?
NO… it is not the evils of alcohol that is at the core of why many are against these churches… It is the unbelievable audacity of having these Passionate Missionary Calvinist asking for CP funding to help them start a “Reformed” church that they are really against.
Ok… there I’ve said it. Regardless if they are inside the convention or outside the convention… they really don’t want to cooperate with Calvinist… Period!
Sorry to be so blunt but that’s how I see it.
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
Greg,
The only Calvinists that I have any problem with are the aggressive, obsessed, Dortian Calvinists who are out to change the SBC into a convention that’s like them.
David
Here’s your “aggressive, obsessed, Dortian Calvinist out to change the SBC into a convention just like him.” I agree these guys have to go. There’s just no place in the SBC for guys like them.
http://tinyurl.com/m5b6bz
David,
You may have addressed this elsewhere before but if so, I missed it. Can you explain exactly what you mean by a “Dortian” Calvinist? I’ve seen you use the term before, but not sure exactly what you mean. Since I don’t know anyone who self-identifies that way, I was hoping you could shed some light concerning to whom you are referring when you use the term.
Thanks in advance,
Todd
Todd,
That just another term the “Angry Arminian”, “Aggressive Anti-Calvinist”, and “Pugnacious Pelagians” use to try and slander the Passionate Missionary Calvinist of the SBC as extreme or hyper Calvinist.
I have ask our “Angry Arminian”, “Aggressive Anti-Calvinist”, and “Pugnacious Pelagian” friend David to refrain from using such an offensive term, but apparently he desires to rub my noise in it… Sadly, that’s what we have come to expect from the Anti-Great Commission, Anti-Unity camp of the SBC.
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
I wouldnt expect Acts 29 network to support me starting a Southern Baptist Church. I would be starting a SB Church, not an Acts 29 Church.
David
David,
You are a credit to the BI/Landmark movement in the SBC…
Have you ever met a “Passionate Missionary Calvinist”? You would call them “aggressive, obsessed, Dortian Calvinists…” But that’s just what you aggressive, obsessed Anti-Calvinist say to try to discredit anyone who is both a Calvinist and Passionate about fulfilling the Great Commission.
So you can’t support someone who is planting a Church with the Acts 29 network… How about a Southern Baptist who happens to be a Passionate Missionary Calvinist who desires to start a Southern Baptist Church?
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
David,
Here’s the big elephant in the thread you are very clearly missing or at worst ignoring. Acts 29 church planting is NOT an “us versus them” issue. Did you even read the A29 policy I pointed to that clearly says churches are expected to honor their denominational commitments?
Those SB church plants that affiliate with A29 are not planting “A29 churches.” They are planting Southern Baptist churches. Affiliation with A29 is for the purposes of not only planting said SB church, but for a church to plant more churches, to reproduce themselves.
So you’re telling us, seriously, that it is flat-out wrong for a Southern Baptist church plant to partner with a non-SB group for the purposes of growing a SB church and planting more SB churches? Seriously?
Somehow I refuse to believe that of you, but when you honestly look at A29 and what you’ve been saying, that’s exactly what you’re saying!
Matt,
My short answer to the question posed by your post is YES.
“Cooperation is desirable…when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.” — BFM2000
– Todd
They were not Presbyterian, nor Catholic. And, many people in the blogs…some of them SB’s…defended the Pastor drinking Bud Lite during the sermon
David: I have read a lot of blogs during the past four years. I don’t recall reading this at all. Could you provide a link to the blogs that defended this?
Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Are Not People Of The Bible If…
ABSOLUTELY YES! These partnerships have been wonderful for us here in the Pacific Northwest and for my own church plant.
Partnerships build a healthy SBC and keep us from the error of Denominationalism.
Joe Miller´s last blog ..Is There Life Beyond the Grave?
Greg,
A third degree separationist would not be a part of the SBC in the first place.
Your argument that those against alcohol are really out to get the Calvinists, might be more effective if not for the fact that SBC resolutions and statements against alcohol began in the 1880s. Have we been out to get the Reformed folks for that long? Back then both Calvinists and non-Calvinists were against drinking. I think most still are.
I don’t recall any resolution in SBC history against Calvinism, but as has already been pointed out, there have been many against alcohol. Most Southern Baptists would be opposed to funding a pro-alcohol church whether that church were Reformed, Calvinist, semi-Reformed, non-Calvinist, or whatever.
David R. Brumbelow
David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..Biblical Principles Condemn Alcohol
David,
Thank you.
David
Brumbelow,
“I don’t recall any resolution in SBC history against Calvinism”
I am not talking about what happened 40, 60, or even 100 years ago… what I am talking about is the flurry of activity directed toward anyone who even smelled a wine cork after the 2008 convention, including the move to defund the Acts 29 churches.
There might not have been any resolutions passed against Calvinism but you would have to have lived on the moon for the past 20 years not to know of all the hostility and persecution directed toward the Calvinist camp in the SBC.
Example…. Morris Chapman’s little embracing rant at this year’s Southern Baptist Convention. Good grief man, wake up!
I guess for some of the old fighting Fundamentals/Arminians in the Convention it’s like killing two birds with one stone.
My question remains “How many non-reformed churches have been defunded?” Any? Does anyone know of Any?
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
Well…I dunno. Start being influenced by Presbyterians like Charles Finney and we start adopting their practices like altar calls.
We baptists need to be more careful!
Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Write Your Own Message Bible
Todd,
Dortian Calvinists are those Calvinists who hold to the five points of Beza’ s system. They are the ones who hold to regeneration before faith, and they have a fatalistic view of salvation. These are the guys who are more Calvinistic than Calvin.
Can you please tell Greg that it’s not a dirty word, but just a descriptive term?
David
Are you saying that all Dort entails is the five points?
How can salvation be fatalistic? It’s salvation.
Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Write Your Own Message Bible
Also, according to Curt Daniel (quoted here) most Calvinists hold to regeneration preceding faith. So it’s just plain ole “Calvinism”.
Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Write Your Own Message Bible
I agree with Mark here. It would seem that “Dortian” is an unnecessary modifier. Affirming the five points, whether or not one uses the acronym “TULIP”, and the view that regeneration precedes faith are pretty standard to Calvinism. I’d save the modifiers for those who do not hold these views.
5 points? Plain old Calvinism. Regeneration before faith? Plain old Calvinism. Fatalistic view of salvation? Imaginary Calvinism.
Name 5 people in the SBC with a fatalistic view of salvation.
Anti-Calvinist is also a descriptive term. But non-Calvinists don’t like it applied to themselves.
If some people are gonna get saved…no matter what, and some are not gonna be saved…no matter what…is fatalism, pure and simple. If some people are elected before the foundation of the world, and they are gonna be saved no matter what….and there are others who have no hope of salvation…I mean, no hope, no chance…because of a TULIP’s view(Greg, notice that I did not use the term Dortian Calvinist) of limited atonement and irresistible grace, then that’s fatalism. Because, ole Joe and Mary down the road have no hope of ever being saved…not ever…no how…no way….because the Lord Jesus did not die for thier sins, and the Lord is not truly calling out to them. That’s a fatalistic view.
Now, I do beleive that I was chosen before the foundation of the world not based on anything but the grace of God. God predestined, or planned before hand, to come to me and save me. I do believe that the Lord Jesus died for my sins on the cross, and that God will keep me saved…He will finish what He has started in me.
But, I also had to respond in repentance and faith to the call of God. And, the moment that I was ready to surrender my heart to Jesus…responding to the work of the Holy Spirit in my heart…God gave me the ability to repent and gave me faith. It is all the working of God by grace. And, Ole Joe and Mary down the road can be saved….really can be saved…if they will respond to the call of God in simple, humble repentance and faith. The Lord really does want them to be saved, even though they may never be saved. And, somehow, someway, God’s soveriegnty and election and predestination does not wipe out the choice of man, nor the responsibility of man. How? I dont know. I dont believe that we’re told that in the Scriptures. I do believe that Scholastic Calvinists(Greg, is that a better word?) think they have it figured out. And, Scholastic Arminians think that they have it figured out. But, I dont believe that either one does.
It’s a mystery how the different doctrines come together, yet they are all true. Jesus really does want to save all people, and His death is sufficient to cover every man and woman and boy and girl on the planet, and every person has light shed upon them, and they must respond to the light they have. Yet, if a person is saved, then it’s only because God chose them and saved them.
What does that make me?
David
David,
I love you brother and I hope our verbal jousting never causes you to doubt this… (see Calvinist can say nice things).
I have a couple of points that I want to raise from your last comment:
1) Thank you for dropping the “Dortian Calvinist” label… it really is not helpful. I really enjoyed reading your comment here… you finally opened up and showed your heart to all of us and don’t think anyone could read this comment and ever again question your love for both the Lord and the Lost. (I know I shall not!)
2) I am going to ask you some question and all of them are rhetorical and meant only as “discussion starters” for us think upon. But before I get too far into my replay I would like to offer that for me the key to my personal understand of the doctrine of Election came through asking only one question of John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
The question is: “Why do I now believe?” When I answered that question from God’s Word the issue was settled in my mind and slowly, very slowly, things began to fall into place and make better sense.
3) You appear to be of two minds on this issue of Election… (Torn by two apparent contradictory truths) I too walk this same path and I have found it to be a long and often troubling journey, yet in my continuing journey toward understanding I have found the doctrine of inerrancy to be a precious treasure, as it has established a knowledgebase of truth (God’s Word) to constantly check my thoughts and opinions against. And when my opinions do not line up completely with what I find in God’s Word I know that my opinions/doctrines are yet incomplete and as Paul said “brethren, not that I have attained”.
4) I think our BFM2000 does a masterful job of explaining how the doctrine of Election works in the salvation of sinners… and it is not “fatalism”. I would love to blog through the BFM2000 and discuss each article, but we don’t have time to cover all that here. Let suffice us to say that or statement of faith can be a helpful guide in this area.
5) You say: “ If some people are elected before the foundation of the world, and they are gonna be saved no matter what….and there are others who have no hope of salvation…I mean, no hope, no chance…because of a TULIP’s view(Greg, notice that I did not use the term Dortian Calvinist) of limited atonement and irresistible grace, then that’s fatalism.” David, does everyone really have a chance for salvation? Has every single person who has ever lived upon this earth had the same chance of salvation? Have all heard the Gospel? Have none lived and died upon this earth, going into eternity, having never even heard the name of God or Jesus Christ? How then shall they be saved? If some have never heard the Gospel and you have, then why have you heard the Gospel and they have not? Who made the choice that you would hear the Gospel and they would not?
6) If as you say “Jesus really does want to save all people,” then why doesn’t he do just that. I mean that would be really wonderful and I know of no Calvinist who would not rejoice with you if God indeed saved the whole world. Your comment however raises a whole host of problems: If Jesus really does want to save all people and all people are indeed not saved, then Jesus has failed… and a God who fails is no God at all. A God who is unable to accomplish whatsoever he desires is truly not sovereign, and therefore he is not God. Can you point to even just one thing else in all of the scriptures where you would say that Jesus/God desired to do this or that and found that he could not accomplish what he desired?
As I said all of the above is just food for thought…
You ask “What does that make me?” It makes you a Bible believing Christian!
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
Greg,
Thank you for your kind words. I consider you my brother in Christ as well.
When you said,” If Jesus really does want to save all people and all people are indeed not saved, then Jesus has failed… and a God who fails is no God at all.” That does not make God a failure. That makes men failures. God has paid the price for man’s sin. God has shed light upon people about sin, judgement, and righteousness. God has given each man a conscience. And, for men to look at the witness of creation, and the witness of their conscience that tells them there must be a God and there are rights and wrongs, and for men, who have the witness of the Gospel, to turn away from the offer…the true offer…of salvation makes men the failure….not God.
In Ezekiel, it says that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked…
In the Gospels, Jesus wept over Jerusalem about how He would have been their Lord and Savior…but they would not…THEY(whoever “they” are)…not Him, but they would not.
I believe that the death of Jesus was shed for the sins of the whole world…that it’s sufficient to cover everyone’s sins…but, only those who believe will be saved, just like the only ones cured of snake bite in the days of Moses were those who looked at the snake on the pole. The ones who didnt looked…died.
Now, how that all fits together is a mystery, but it does not cause me any headache at all. I’m fine with the fact that God is far above and beyond my little pea brain. I just know that the Bible teaches that all can be saved, and that God really does want all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, and yet, if I’m saved, it’s only by the grace of God. I’m fine with letting the mystery be a mystery. I’m glad that I cant completely figure God out. If I could completely figure God out, then He wouldnt be much of a God. So, I just accept things like the Trinity, and sovereignty and man’s responsiblity(which includes choice), and a Hell that will last forever and ever and ever.
David
So am I right in assuming you are OK with partnering with so-called “Dortian” Calvinists so long as they are evangelistic and not aggressive and obsessed and wanting to change the SBC to be all like them?
That is, is it OK to be a five-pointer and believe that regeneration precedes conversion or does that view alone disqualify one from cooperation in the SBC regardless of their views on evangelism or towards non-Calvinists?
– Todd
Todd,
I have no problem partnering with 5 point Calvinist who are evangelistic and missions minded. I do have a problem with the aggressive, obsessed Five pointers who are out to change the Churches and the SBC. I have no problem with the Five point Calvinist who is not preaching the five points, or trying to convert people to the five points the majority of his sermons. I have known many five point Calvinists whom you couldnt even tell if they were five point Calvinists, or not…unless you asked them. I have no problem with this type.
I do have strong reservations about those who are out to convert the SBC to the five points.
About the regeneration before faith thing, I think that it is wrong and will lead to much error in theology…but, if that person is evangelistic and missions minded, then I could definitely be in the same SBC as them. The umbrella is big enough.
David
Great! Looks like we’re pretty much on the same page.
David: You are confusing yourself. Calvin believed in life changes before asking Christ to be part of their life. In fact it is the change that causes us to run to Christ and not away. Every Calvinist believes in regeneration first. It is the Holy Spirit that causes the heart to change, then action begins. You are going on the outer. God works from the inside out, not the outside in.
Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Are Not People Of The Bible If…
Debbie,
No, I’m not.
David
Todd: David would consider Founders to be “dortian” and I have been a Calvinist for many many years and had not heard of it either. I think it is just another thing to discredit Calvinists. That is just my opinion.
Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Are Not People Of The Bible If…
The Founders would definitely be Dortian Calvinists.
David
Brother, that’s just weird for you to think that. I thought Founders Ministries were Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles Calvinists.
David B: I would have to do some research to check your statement but even if that is true for sake of argument, history shows that Southern Baptists have been away from what the Bible actually says for a very long time. We are just now getting back to what the Bible really says and for that I am grateful. You should read the controversy that Charles Spurgeon went through in order to enjoy his cigars. The arguments were much the same, yet he kept enjoying his cigars.
Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Are Not People Of The Bible If…
Robert G. Lee, that great, former Pastor of the Bellevue Baptist Church of Memphis, was on an airplane one time. The stewardess asked him if he would like some liquor to drink. Dr. Lee looked at the young lady and said,”Ma’am, do I look like a fool to you?” The stewardess replied,”Why, no sir, you don’t.” To which, Dr. Lee said,”Then why would you offer me liquor to drink.”
lol.
God give us more Dr. R. G. Lee’s.
David
David,
Great story. I love R. G. Lee stories.
David R. Brumbelow
David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..Biblical Principles Condemn Alcohol
Should a Very Conservative Southern Baptist Church who agrees with the BFM (Without Caveats’) have its members (who are willing to sign the BFM) Rejected as Unacceptable by the IMB which is our only missionary sending agency of the Southern Baptist Convention?
Well, do they have a private prayer language? And by signing the BFM, are these members saying the affirm that women cannot pastor churches or teach men in the church? Were these members sprinkled as babies and never baptized by immersion after they professed faith in Christ? Lots of questions to be answered in your hypothetical scenario.
Should a Very Conservative Southern Baptist (who is willing to sigh the BFM, again without Caveats’) be Rejected as Unacceptable for employment within any agency of the Southern Baptist Convention or State Convention?
See above questions.
Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Matthew 6:24 No Moonlighting Allowed
Greg,
What Joe said.
David
Joe & David,
You have not answered the questions…
Or have you?
Is your lack of a NO to be interpreted as a YES?
Is not the BFM2000 our consensus document containing the doctrines around which we cooperate; saying in the preamble: “That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us.”
Please explain to me on what gourds (other than for moral failure) and authority anyone would find a fellow Southern Baptist who signs our consensus statement of faith unacceptable for service.
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
Greg,
Can’t answer the question until you answered the follow up questions I had. For instance, taking only one of the questions I raised, if the idividual cam from a Very Conservative Southern Baptist Church who agrees with the BFM (Without Caveats’) had been sprinkled as a child but had never been baptized by immersion after they were saved as the New Testament teaches regardless of their beingwilling to sign the BFM) they should be Rejected as Unacceptable by the IMB which is our only missionary sending agency of the Southern Baptist Convention?.
Of course, in that one hypothetical instance, there would be a quick, simple solution. They could be baptized by immersion in the Very Conservative Southern Baptist Church who agrees with the BFM (Without Caveats’) and everything would be hunky-dorry.
The problem comes because some people don’t want to have to affirm that their sprinkling as a child was not scriptural and go through with believers baptism they way the New Testament clearly teaches it. That’s fine. Just don’t poke your bottom lip out when you don’t get an IMB apponitment.
Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Matthew 6:24 No Moonlighting Allowed
Very Conservative Southern Baptist Churchesdon’t affirm infant baptism and don’t have members who haven’t been baptized as believers by immersion.
Joe,
BFM2000 – VII. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
“Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. …”
If someone signed the BFM2000 and had not been baptized by immersion then they should NOT be allowed to serve with the IBM… Because they are dishonest, not because they were sprinkled as a baby…
Again… is this really a problem? Has this ever happened? I do know for a fact that some have been rejected because they would not suffer the imposed, and meaningless, “ritual” of being dunked a second time because some IBM Pharisee decided that their true baptism by immersion in a non-Baptist church was not good enough for them. And this is a clear violation of the consensus document of cooperation between our Southern Baptist agencies and local churches.
So let’s stick to discussing real world issues please.
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
I guess I’ll ask it again.
In light of the GCR and Mohler’s statement above, the what should happen in Missouri? Should the MBC repent and side with the SBC or stand firm and drift from the SBC on this subject? And what is the outcome if they and the SBC become ever more distant?
Rich´s last blog ..Why I Love and Hate Christian Radio: Part II
I would like to get some feedback on this real-world example.
What about two baptist groups working together?
Does anyone have any problems with a church plant being aligned with the SBC & the Baptist General Conference (now called Converge Worldwide)?
Joe Miller´s last blog ..Is There Life Beyond the Grave?
Joe,
As a Southern Baptist Church, you can partner and dually align with whoever you like.
I really dont know enough about the Converge Worldwide to give any comment about them.
David
I’d still like a reply to my question in comment #89.
Thanks!
Greg,
You ask a question, are asked for clarification, won’t give it, and want to get in a tizzy when someone responds to you. Give me a break. And then you’re going to come back with “I knew someone…” as if that PROVES your point. I also know someone who was baptized by immersion and wasn’t approved by the IMB because the baptism was in another church…that believed in baptismal regeneration. So just because they had been baptised by immersion and rejected by the IMB does not prove your point that they were pharasee’s.
Of course, some people have a doctrinal stance that could fit on a postage stamp and their only requirement for cooperating with another person who claims to be a Christian is to check for a pulse.
Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Matthew 6:24 No Moonlighting Allowed
Joe,
“So just because they had been baptised by immersion and rejected by the IMB does not prove your point that they were pharasee’s.
In my best 3rd grader impression… “O YES IT DOES!”.
If a policy cannot be directly supported by scripture then it is a Doctrine of Man… thus the charge of IMB Pharisee’s stands.
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
3rd grader…well, that sounds about right.
If someone was baptized by immersion and they thought that baptism saved them and they still held to that belief then the policy most certainly is a good one because their belief is heretical. The individuals I’m referring to were baptized in the Disciples of Christ church and believed in baptismal regeneration. That heresy can certainly be refuted from scripture.
Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Matthew 6:24 No Moonlighting Allowed
Joe,
“The individuals I’m referring to were baptized in the Disciples of Christ church and believed in baptismal regeneration. That heresy can certainly be refuted from scripture.”
Hold on to something… I agree with you 100%
Joe, I know of Good Old Southern Baptist Churches that believe this very same thing… (I know, I know…it’s Pure Heresy and we should kick them out! But they are in the SBC and have no intention of leaving.)
But just where in Scripture does it teach that if someone does not understand doctrine/theology correctly at the time of their Baptism then their Baptism is invalid and must be redone.
If a proper understanding of doctrine/theology is required for a Baptism to be valid then we Southern Baptist are in big, Big, BIG TROUBLE.
When I went to FBC Ponce de Leon Florida, over eight years ago now, I stood in the pulpit and held up a BFM and ask if anyone had ever read it… Not one single person had even read the BFM, much less understood the doctrines contained within it. Also, we (the SBC) Baptize thousands of children under the age of 10 each year… do we really believe that they have mastered correct doctrine/theology?
And if a correct understanding of Baptist doctrine/theology were to be the prerequisite for your Baptism to be valid, would not correct doctrine/theology also be a prerequisite for your Salvation? After all, Salvation is a far more important issue for you to get right than is your Baptism.
Joe, I am confused (it’s easy to confuse 3rd graders)… Are you suggesting that we give a test on proper Baptist doctrine before we administer Baptism in our Churches?
…got to go now, it’s recess and the kick ball gave is starting up.
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
Greg,
Of course, we would hope that the person who is getting baptised would have enough understanding of salvation to be saved before getting baptised….would we not? And, baptism is a Church ordinance, not an individual ordinance. So, while the person should know what salvation is, and should have made a prof. of faith, before being baptised; they do not have to have correct theology in all things before getting baptised. They do not have to have the BFM2K memorized before descending into the baptismal waters. They dont even have to know everything about baptism before being dunked….but you and I should help them to know basic things about baptism before going under….should we not?
So, whether the person being baptised understands everything about salvation and baptism, or not, is not really the most important thing about baptism. It’s what the Church believes about the baptism…the Church that’s doing the baptism. As Joe said, if the Church believes in baptismal regeneration, then it’s not a valid baptism….no matter what the candidate believed, or didnt believe or understand.
So, to me, it’s what kind of a baptism was it that’s important. What were they baptised for, and what was it supposed to mean that’s important. I mean, Mormons immerse??? Campbellites immerse???? Pentecostals dont believe in the Trinity, nor do they believe in eternal security…should we accept a baptism like this?
David
David,
“if the Church believes in baptismal regeneration, then it’s not a valid baptism….no matter what the candidate believed…”
David, I’m not exactly sure what it is, but something doesn’t sound right about that statement?
I’ll have to think about it a little and get back to you… anyone else want to take a swing at that pitch?
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
Greg,
You said, “Please explain to me on what [grounds] (other than for moral failure) and authority anyone would find a fellow Southern Baptist who signs our consensus statement of faith unacceptable for service.”
“Other than for moral failure.” Are you adding to the Baptist Faith & Message 2000?
The BF&M is a good solid statement of our faith. But no statement is going to cover everything. So yes, there are times that we will deal with issues not directly stated in the BF&M. A good example is “moral failure.”
Not to do so would get us in some ridiculous situations. Also, there are always those who are just looking for loopholes in any document.
I think it was Phil Roberts who said the BF&M does not mention cross-dressing. But he said if he has a professor who gets into that, he (Roberts) will deal with it even though it is not mentioned in their official doctrinal statement.
On the other hand, Southern Baptists have great freedom. Many have started Southern Baptist churches with no Cooperative Program money and without ever even asking for it. Unless you are asking for denominational money, a Baptist can do, and join, just about anything he wants to do. Ask for free money and there are usually strings attached. And there should be.
Since you (Greg) and David are now becoming close friends, however, I do not want to interfere. I’m just giving an opinion
.
David R. Brumbelow
David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..Biblical Principles Condemn Alcohol
David,
lol.
David
Just because a Calvinist has a weak moment and stops being an aggressive jerk for one comment everyone on this blog is now a comedian. LOL…
Brumbelow,
You said:
“Southern Baptists have great freedom. Many have started Southern Baptist churches with no Cooperative Program money and without ever even asking for it. Unless you are asking for denominational money, a Baptist can do, and join, just about anything he wants to do.”
So I guess that Matt can put you down as a “YES” on the question that Southern Baptist should get over their hang-up’s with our Baptist Churches partnering with other groups like Acts29?
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
david: I am still waiting for the links. If you are misrepresenting your case, no matter how right or how strong you may believe it, it is slander. Let’s be careful of doing this. That is a sin. I don’t find where preaching with a drink in hand is. Slander is definitely mentioned in the Bible.
Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Are Not People Of The Bible If…
Debbie,
Google it.
David
Debbie
Slander is spoken. In print or on the internet, it’s called libel.
Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Matthew 6:24 No Moonlighting Allowed
Joe: I am well aware of the legal term. The Bible however calls it slander, backbiting.
Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Are Not People Of The Bible If…
David: You brought the charge, you provide the links.
Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..We Are Not People Of The Bible If…
Anti-Calvinist is also a descriptive term. But non-Calvinists don’t like it applied to themselves.
That’s because many of us are not “Anti-Calvinists.”
Stephen Newell´s last blog ..Welcome to stephennewell.com!
I’m not anti-Calvinists. I am anti-aggressive, obsessed, five point Calvinists who want to convert Churches and the SBC to the five points.
David
David,
So should these Calvinist just go out and start new Calvinist friendly Churches?
Before you answer let me say that this is what I have been saying for years…
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
umm…all this hootin’ and a’hollarin’ sure is fun, but no one seems to want to touch my question on comment #107.
Rich´s last blog ..Why I Love and Hate Christian Radio: Part II
Rich,
I guess that MO Baptists will have to decide that one, and the SBC will have to decide as well.
I think that they should continue to cooperate as they’ve always done…no matter what happens in this GCR situation. Besides, I really dont know how the GCR would make the MBC more distant from the SBC anyway????
Why would it?
David
Why would it? The GCR is basically why cooperating with other networks is the topic of the day. Surely Mohler’s comments reflect that. And in all actuality, the GCR isn’t what would cause the MBC to drift. The MBC is “drifting” from the rest of the SBC when it comes to this topic.
Just for clarity, what do you mean by “and the SBC will have to decide as well”?
Rich´s last blog ..Why I Love and Hate Christian Radio: Part II
The SBC can decide to do whatever it wants to do. It can decide to continue cooperating and working with the MBC, which would be the best thing; or the SBC could decide to break it’s relationship with the MBC….like it did with the Baptist World Alliance and Broadway Baptist Church in Texas.
David
I’m not anti-Calvinists. I am anti-aggressive, obsessed, five point Calvinists who want to convert Churches and the SBC to the five points.
___
I’ve known a few “cage-stage” Calvinists who fit this bill, but not the overwhelming majority of Reformed brothers in the SBC. The rhetoric that comes from the anti-Calvinist crowd, however, seems to make blanket assumptions that all or even the majority of 5pt Calvinists
1. Are aggressive, obsessed and divisive.
2. Are anti-evangelistic hyper-Calvinists.
3. Deny that there is a need for repentance and faith in Conversion.
4. Are responsible for the decline in baptisms in the SBC
Number 1 is true in only a few cases but the charge can be made of persons of every viewpoint within the SBC not just Calvinists — sinful behavior is a danger for all believers. Number 2 is not true of 99.9% of SBC Calvinists. Number 3, as far as I know, is not true of any Calvinist in any denomination. Number 4 is a case of denial and blame-shifting rather than a truthful assessment of the current state of affairs and a willingness to take personal responsibility.
If Southern Baptists are truly going to unite around the gospel, it’s time to put an end to the red-herring Calvinist bashing in the SBC.
Todd said
Amen!
I know of an SBC association in my state that has explicitly said they do not want Calvinist SBC pastors joining their organization. Is that now the standard around which we cooperate?
Or take the articles by Nelson Price, one of which I responded to and was supposed to be publish. Where are the non-Calvinists to stand up publicly to folks like Nelson?
Just sayin…
Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Write Your Own Message Bible
Todd,
My experience around W. TN and NW. MS and NE Arkansas have not been the same as yours. I have dealt with many, many “cage-stage” Calvinists as you call them. I have known of many, many more…as told to me by people I know all over W. TN and NW MS and NE Arkansas…of these types of five point Calvinists. I have known of many Churches where they caused division and Church splits over the five points. I have talked with many of them who have accused me of everything from being a Pelagian to an Arminian to a theological ninkapoop to being sub-Christian. My brother, where he used to go to Church, here in the Mid South area, had a couple of five pointers come on thier Church staff. It wasnt long until there was a division over the five points. It caused that Church much headache and heartache, and they lost members over it.
So, Brother, my experience has been very much different than yours.
Now, on the other hand, I have also known some five pointers, who you would never know that they are five pointers from their preaching, who are wonderful people. They just simply preach and teach the Word. I have no problem with them.
David
What I find interesting is that it seems to be the same 5-10 people commenting on all the ‘major blogs’ throughout the SBC, and it always seems to degenerate into the same mundane arguments – Calvinism & alcohol. Don’t you people have jobs?
Me
A few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. I have seen a number of similar problems like this here in my home state of Indiana. Still, I submit that your experience, even if extensive, is not representative of Calvinists generally, but of those few Calvinists that have caused such divisions.
First, such situations and individuals are no where near the majority of Calvinists. Lifeway Research shows that the number of 5-point Calvinist pastors is 10% (not to mention about 30% of recent seminary grads). A handful of problems may occur in any region of SBC life, but I don’t see that as a problem in anywhere even remotely close to 10% of our churches. Thus, we only see Calvinism when it becomes a blatant divisive issue while the majority of Calvinists are cooperative, cordial, and generally stay under the radar.
Second, I submit that the majority of 5-point Calvinists do not wear their soteriology on their sleeve to make it a big issue. Rather, in many of these “conflict situations” the problem was the unwillingness of anti-Calvinists to tolerate the presence of Calvinists in their midst NOT the Calvinists stirring up trouble on their own. There is so much mis-information and fear of Calvinism, due to misrepresentations, characterizations, and unfounded charges of anti-evangelism, that merely identifying oneself as Calvinist is enough to cause a big problem in some places regardless of the teaching or demeanor of the person. Not only do anti-Calvinists not want to be converted to Calvinism, they do not want any hint of Calvinism to be present. Thus, while I agree that there are many instances in which obnoxious and aggressive Calvinists split churches, and I join you in opposition to them, there are just as many if not more cases in which innocent, non-aggressive Calvinists becoming victims of anti-Calvinist bias through no fault of their own. In my experience, Calvinism usually becomes an issue only when anti-Calvinists make it an issue.
I am thankful in the case of my last church and the church I now serve, to be part of congregations that have both Calvinists and non-Calvinists among the leadership and the laity. In both of these churches there is no animosity between the two groups and Calvinism is not an issue. That, in my opinion, is how it should be.
Todd,
The solution to all this is very simple… and in fact I would say that many of those 30% seminary graduates who are Calvinist have already come to the same conclusion as I have…
What is the solution? For every Southern Baptist Pastor who is a Calvinist to give the Non-Calvinist exactly what they have been asking for… to leave the established churches for them to pastor and go out and start new works that are Calvinist friendly.
Would this not make everyone in the SBC happy? The Calvinist could no longer be accused of splitting churches… Upon seeing the hundreds of new Calvinist friendly churches being started each year the Non-Calvinist would (reluctantly) have to admit that this current generation of Calvinist are serious about fulfilling the Great Commission after all. The Calvinist finally get a church where they don’t have to walk on egg shells whenever the text call for a sermon on the doctrine of Election. In short everybody wins, Right?
I am sure that our Non-Calvinist friends would be supportive of this solution… they finally get rid of those aggressive, obnoxious, Dortian Calvinist so what’s not to like? O yes I almost forget, these Calvinist Pastors might be asking for CP dollars to help start these new Calvinist friendly churches and some might not like that… but then again it just might be worth the price to finally get rid of the Calvinist?
Does this sound like a good solution to anyone else? If so, I have good news; young Calvinist Pastors are already doing this… to see for yourself go to: http://www.acts29network.org
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
Rather, in many of these “conflict situations” the problem was the unwillingness of anti-Calvinists to tolerate the presence of Calvinists in their midst NOT the Calvinists stirring up trouble on their own.
Not only that, such tendencies are responsible for attacking some non-Calvinists who might hold more Calvinistic views on certain doctrines, or whom simply taught exactly what the text said whether it sounded Calvinistic or not.
I ought to know, because it happened to me. You might imagine the look of incredulity on my face when I, an avowed non-Calvinist, was accused of teaching Calvinism. Thankfully — after much pain, argument, and my fighting for myself — the issue was later revealed to be something else, not the content of my teaching, and the divisive person was asked to leave the church. Two years later we are still picking up the pieces.
Stephen Newell´s last blog ..Welcome to stephennewell.com!
Stephen,
It has been my experience that the vast majority of church fights that are blamed on Calvinism are in truth over something else… Yet Calvinism is an easy target… and the Calvinist are usually the minority in most churches and therefore they are the ones who loose the fight and come away with the black eye.
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
Greg,
That has been my experience as well.
All the situations that I know about where because the Five Pointer was trying to shove Calvinism down the Youth Group or the Churches throats. Every single one of them.
David
David,
Let’s cut to the chase here…
Tell us, “What should these Calvinist in the SBC do?”
Grace Always,
Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up
They should stop being aggressive, obsessed, five pointers who are out to convert the Churches and the SBC. They should just be Christians who preach and teach the Bible and seek to win the lost to Christ.
David
David: Should they stop being 5 pointers? Can they teach scripture passages from a Calvinistic perspective?
By the way, I would caution you about statements like “Pentecostals don’t believe in the Trinity”. While that is no doubt true for some Pentecostals (likely even some SBCers) it is undoubtedly not true for all of them.
Bill,
Every Pentecostal Church that I know does not believe in the Trinity. In fact, that is a huge teaching on their part. They believe the Holy Spirit is the force of God, or His power, or something like that. They do not believe that He is a person of the Godhead. I have talked to many of them who told me that the Father and Jesus could not be one in the sense of the Trinity, because Jesus prayed to the Father.
Anyway, I have no problem with Calvinists preaching from a Calvinistic perspective. I have trouble with Calvinists teaching Calvinism.
David
David,
I’m seeing a trend here of you making blanket statements about other groups based on your limited first-hand experience.
FYI, Here are the views of major pentecostal denominations in the U.S.:
The Assemblies of God: “WE BELIEVE…There is only One True God–revealed in three persons…Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (commonly known as the Trinity).”
Church of God: “We believe…In one God eternally existing in three persons; namely, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”
Church of God in Christ: “We believe that there is One God, eternally existent in three Persons; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.”
International Pentecostal Holiness Church: “in the unity of this Godhead there are three Persons of one substance of eternal being, and equal in holiness, justice, wisdom, power, and dignity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost”
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel: “We believe that God is triune: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the Three are coexistent, coeternal, and equal in divine perfection (1 John 5:7).”
– Todd
Pentecostals dont believe in the Trinity, nor do they believe in eternal security…should we accept a baptism like this?
(1) I would not accept the baptism from a group that held a oneness theology and thus denied the Trinity. As demonstrated above, however, such a view is a minority among Pentecostals. Most Pentecostals, including the one in which I was Baptized (Assemblies of God), do in fact hold a Trinitarian theology.
(2) I absolutely WOULD accept a Baptism from a church that did not believe in eternal security. The doctrine of eternal security has absolutely nothing to do with baptism. Those who would deny the validity of believer’s baptism by immersion based solely on one’s position on eternal security either has a false understanding of Arminian theology, a false view of baptism, or both.
For my full perspective on this issue: http://bemywitnesses.blogspot.com/search/label/Baptism
Todd,
I was talking about oneness Pentecostals….that seems to be the dominant group around where I live….we also have many Pentecostal type groups around where I live who would deny the Trinity.
David
So in other words, the Calvinist should keep quiet on his convictions? I won’t even dignify that with a response…
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen´s last blog ..It’s Official…Rob Bell Has Finally Tipped His Hand and Shown Us What Gospel He Truly Believes…
Douglas,
I’m not going to presume to speak for anyone else in this thread, but I think maybe what David might be thinking is that some Calvinists act like they’re more interested in being evagelists for Calvinism than for Jesus. Now, I’m a 5 pointer and the only kinds of flowers that I’ll have in my garden are TULIPS but I have seen Calvinists use their theology like a club and treat folks as though “You’re not as mature as I am” if they didn’t accept 5 point Calvinism.
I totally agree that no Calvinist should have to keep their convictions to themselves. I’m not sure that was what Davd really meant. I could be wrong.
Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Matthew 6:25 Don’t Worry, Be Happy
Of course, because there is only a such thing as Calvinist or non-Calvinist. It’s a shame after all these years there aren’t more official theological categories.
That’s sort why I asked about Disclosure and unity.
Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Book Review: Brothers We Are Not Professionals
Now, I’m a 5 pointer myself but I’ve seen 5 pointers who do give the impression that if you’re not a Calvinist you’re either immature or just plain stupid. For instance, there are 5 pointers I’ve known who will say that if you don’t accept limited or definite (which ever name you want to use) atonement that you believe everyone is going to heaven. Well, I don’t think most non-Calvinists believe in universalism.
Now, most Calvinists I know are not like that and most of them don’t carry their 5 points around like a chip on their shoulder asking for someone to come try to knock it off. I don’t think the majority of Calvinists are out to win people to Calvinism.
Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Matthew 6:24 No Moonlighting Allowed
David,
“They should stop being aggressive, obsessed, five pointers who are out to convert the Churches and the SBC.” — I Agree! And I really mean this… They should take their passion and go start New Calvinist Friendly Churches. Fortunately that is exactly what many of them are now doing at http://www.acts29network.org and other Reformed Church Planting Networks.
“They should just be Christians who preach and teach the Bible”— Again I Agree! As Calvinist they should trust God enough that, as they are faithful to Preach and Teach the Bible, the Holy Spirit will lead God’s Sheep into a fuller understanding of His truth. They should never force anything upon anyone, after all it is the Holy Sprit’s job to convict us of truth and error and not the Preacher’s. However, they must never shy away from teaching what the text of any passage requires… that includes the doctrines that are called Calvinism, and the doctrine of Man’s absolute responsibility.
“and (Calvinist should) seek to win the lost to Christ.” Amen, and Amen! Any supposed Pastor (Calvinist or Non-Calvinist) that does not have a burden for, and a personal commitment toward, winning the Lost probably needs to go sell used cars.
Grace Always,
A lot of talk about agressive, obsessed five-pointers.
How about the agressive, obsessed anti-alcohol types?
Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Fish tale, for once, not big enough
Or how about the aggressive, obsessed anti-Calvinist types?
In an attempt to get us back to the point of this post, I’m still waiting for David to answer this question:
So you’re telling us, seriously, that it is flat-out wrong for a Southern Baptist church plant to partner with a non-SB group for the purposes of growing a SB church and planting more SB churches? Seriously?
Because from what you’ve said all throughout the thread, that seems to be exactly what you’re saying.
Stephen,
As a SB Church, you can partner with whoever you want to. But, if that group goes against SB beliefs and practice, or appears to be too far out there for the rest o f us….dont expect SB’s to fund your Church starts.
Does that make it clearer?
David
About as clear as mud. You say it’s okay while still saying it’s not okay. You can’t have it both ways.
Plus, “appears to be” is not a valid reason to reject a non-SB group. You need facts about them, brother, not your or someone else’s perspective of them. And the evidence shows the non-SB group in question is perfectly kosher according to what we as SBs believe.
So I ask again, is it wrong for an SB church to partner with a non-SB group for the purposes of growing an SB church and planting more SB churches?
Stephen,
The sky is blue, and the grass is green.
David
In the end, we may not agree on specific partnerships. Each entity will have to make its own determination on whether or not such a partnership is appropriate and they may or may not get it right from the perspective of the planter. NAMB, the state convention, local association, and partnering churches are often in one accord. If this comment stream is any indication, there may be disagreements on such partnerships. While it would be ideal for everyone to be on the same page, sometimes disagreements do occur and the church/church planter will be forced to make hard choices. In such cases, one must prayerfully weigh whether partnership with one group is worth the loss of support from another. Ultimately, each entity must make its own choice. Such choices reflect the joy and pain of autonomy.
The real aim of the doctrines of Soverign Grace is not to make calvinists; it is to make Christians and better Christians.
Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation
I haven’t read every comment, so forgive me if someone already said this:
The Apostle Paul made it clear that there should not be any “I’m of Paul, I’m of Apollos, I’m of Jesus” going around. There is one faith and one baptism. When the disciples found some guys preaching in Jesus’ name, but were not part of their little group, Jesus himself said not to stop them.
Just today, a group of about 80 volunteers came in from Lynchberg, VA. The group consists of several churches, mostly Baptist but also Methodist and Episcopal. They will be doing construction, at our church and in the community, as well as running several Backyard Bible Clubs. One of those clubs will meet at our neighborhood Presbyterian church; notably the one I often preach at. Does anybody have a problem with this? This is what the Kingdom looks like people.
Clark´s last blog ..In Order to Understand Scripture