Comments on: The Problem of “Southern Baptist” Branding http://sbcvoices.com/southern-baptist-branding/ Connecting Southern Baptist: 516 Blogs + 246 Twitter Accounts Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:02:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: When I Hear Southern Baptist http://sbcvoices.com/southern-baptist-branding/#comment-3069 When I Hear Southern Baptist Wed, 13 May 2009 12:54:33 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1378#comment-3069 [...] Hear Southern Baptist, You Think… and Tony Kummer also gathered some additional replies at Southern Baptist Branding.  Below are the replies Wordled by Thom [...] [...] Hear Southern Baptist, You Think… and Tony Kummer also gathered some additional replies at Southern Baptist Branding.  Below are the replies Wordled by Thom [...]

]]> By: Sarah http://sbcvoices.com/southern-baptist-branding/#comment-2966 Sarah Sat, 02 May 2009 05:50:17 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1378#comment-2966 THE BEST RAPTURE LOCATER Guess what. If you can figure out when the "sudden destruction" of wicked persons takes place in I Thess. 5:3, and when "death" is ended in I Cor. 15:54, you will know where to place the rapture on your prophecy chart because those passages talk about the "times and seasons" (and the "when" and "then" ) of the rapture! Neat, huh? THE BEST RAPTURE LOCATER

Guess what. If you can figure out when the “sudden destruction” of wicked persons takes place in I Thess. 5:3, and when “death” is ended in I Cor. 15:54, you will know where to place the rapture on your prophecy chart because those passages talk about the “times and seasons” (and the “when” and “then” ) of the rapture! Neat, huh?

]]> By: Bradley http://sbcvoices.com/southern-baptist-branding/#comment-2771 Bradley Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:59:05 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1378#comment-2771 http://theophilogue.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/alcohol-consumption-is-okey-dokey-daniel-b-wallace/ <abbr><em><abbr><em>Bradleys last blog post..<a href="http://theophilogue.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/book-review-king-david-a-biography-by-mckenzie/" rel="nofollow">Book Review :: King David: A Biography by McKenzie</a></em></abbr></abbr></em> http://theophilogue.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/alcohol-consumption-is-okey-dokey-daniel-b-wallace/

Bradleys last blog post..Book Review :: King David: A Biography by McKenzie

]]> By: Dr. James Willingham http://sbcvoices.com/southern-baptist-branding/#comment-2761 Dr. James Willingham Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:40:51 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1378#comment-2761 I had a dear friend who wrote his dissertation for the Dr. of Theology at one of ours seminaries more than 50 yrs. ago, seeking to establish the views that Bro. David is arguing. He was a good man, led the singing for r. George W. Truett in a revival in Alabama, was more less Arminian in his theological views, except for the usual first and last points of the tulip outline. But h was a mn of God. When Phenix City Alabama was the sin city of the USA he led his people in winning some of the gang that had produced such evil. He baptised the wife and daughter of one of the gang leaders, had a lesser henchman that he baptized who said he (the henchma would be killed and he was. That dear pastor and friend probably had as much to do with bring about a change in that city as any one. At one point his deacons had to provide him with an armed guard for safety as gang members wanted to kill him for his opposition. I did not agree with his view (how can you get drunk at the Lord's Supper, if the element is not fermented (which violates the rules on leaven0), BUT HE NEVER BEAT ME OVER THE HEAD WITH HIS VIEW EITHER. I LOVED HIM AS A BROTHER, AND WHEN HE WAS ON HIS DEATH BED SO TO SPEAK I DROVE HUNDREDS OF MILES TO SEE HIM AND HE COMMENTED ON THAT FACT. I MUST ALSO ADD THAT I NEVER BEAT HIM OVER THE HEAD WITH MY VIEW EITHER. I STILL SAY WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THIS MATTER LEST WE HURT PEOPLE WITH ONE SET OF VIEWS OR THE OTHER. KNOWING AS WE ALL DO, OUR ALTOGETHER HUMAN TENDENCY TO SEE EVERYTHING IN THE LIGHT THAT FAVORS OUR CASE AND SEE EVEYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT, LET US BE GRACIOUS. HERE IS WHERE ONE CAN SEE THE FLAW IN OUR PRESENT DAY SO-CALLED SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THE NULL HYPOTHESIS COULD BE TRUE AS WELL AS THE POINT ONE WANTS TO ESTABLISH. WHAT DOES ONE DO THEN? I must close. 2 comments should be my limit. Let us pray for a third great awakening. <abbr><em><abbr><em>Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..<a href="http://thirdgreatawakeningcom.blogspot.com/2009/02/climax-of-reformation.html" rel="nofollow">The Climax of the Reformation</a></em></abbr></abbr></em> I had a dear friend who wrote his dissertation for the Dr. of Theology at one of ours seminaries more than 50 yrs. ago, seeking to establish the views that Bro. David is arguing. He was a good man, led the singing for r. George W. Truett in a revival in Alabama, was more less Arminian in his theological views, except for the usual first and last points of the tulip outline. But h was a mn of God. When Phenix City Alabama was the sin city of the USA he led his people in winning some of the gang that had produced such evil. He baptised the wife and daughter of one of the gang leaders, had a lesser henchman that he baptized who said he (the henchma would be killed and he was. That dear pastor and friend probably had as much to do with bring about a change in that city as any one. At one point his deacons had to provide him with an armed guard for safety as gang members wanted to kill him for his opposition. I did not agree with his view (how can you get drunk at the Lord’s Supper, if the element is not fermented (which violates the rules on leaven0), BUT HE NEVER BEAT ME OVER THE HEAD WITH HIS VIEW EITHER. I LOVED HIM AS A BROTHER, AND WHEN HE WAS ON HIS DEATH BED SO TO SPEAK I DROVE HUNDREDS OF MILES TO SEE HIM AND HE COMMENTED ON THAT FACT. I MUST ALSO ADD THAT I NEVER BEAT HIM OVER THE HEAD WITH MY VIEW EITHER. I STILL SAY WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THIS MATTER LEST WE HURT PEOPLE WITH ONE SET OF VIEWS OR THE OTHER. KNOWING AS WE ALL DO, OUR ALTOGETHER HUMAN TENDENCY TO SEE EVERYTHING IN THE LIGHT THAT FAVORS OUR CASE AND SEE EVEYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT, LET US BE GRACIOUS. HERE IS WHERE ONE CAN SEE THE FLAW IN OUR PRESENT DAY SO-CALLED SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THE NULL HYPOTHESIS COULD BE TRUE AS WELL AS THE POINT ONE WANTS TO ESTABLISH. WHAT DOES ONE DO THEN? I must close. 2 comments should be my limit. Let us pray for a third great awakening.

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

]]> By: David R. Brumbelow http://sbcvoices.com/southern-baptist-branding/#comment-2757 David R. Brumbelow Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:08:05 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1378#comment-2757 They drank fermented wine in ancient times, but that‘s not the only wine they had. They drank water, my previous point is just that some seem to imply they could not drink the water so they had to drink strong, alcoholic wine. As Nehemiah points out (Nehemiah 5:18), they had all kinds of wine. Pharaoh liked his wine fresh and unfermented (Genesis 40:11). My point has been that the wine “regularly” used in Bible times was either unfermented or of a very low alcoholic content. The scholars I quoted above confirm that. We read our modern day ideas of strong alcoholic drinks into what we see in the Bible. “Making rules beyond what the Bible gives is clear legalism.” If that is meant to be that if the Bible does not directly say something is wrong, then it is legalism to oppose it - then I strongly disagree. If that statement is true, then: We cannot make rules against slavery. We cannot oppose cocaine, heroin, or marijuana. (Some argue that we are not to partake of these because they are against the law. But there are a couple of countries where they are not illegal. Can a good non-legalistic Christian go to those countries and recreationally enjoy crack?) We cannot oppose smoking. We cannot oppose gambling. We cannot oppose pornographic DVDs. We cannot oppose the products of those who are “inventors of evil things.” The Jewish translators of the Septuagint clearly viewed wine as generic. They translated the OT word tirosh (Proverbs 3:10) that clearly refers to what we would call grape juice or unfermented wine, into the Greek word oinos. They did not even say “new” oinos, just “oinos.” When we see “wine” in the Bible it does not automatically refer to strong alcohol, or even alcohol. Tony, I sincerely believe you are a good, godly man. I just believe you and some other guys are wrong on this issue. Thanks for letting me have my say. David R. Brumbelow They drank fermented wine in ancient times, but that‘s not the only wine they had. They drank water, my previous point is just that some seem to imply they could not drink the water so they had to drink strong, alcoholic wine.

As Nehemiah points out (Nehemiah 5:18), they had all kinds of wine. Pharaoh liked his wine fresh and unfermented (Genesis 40:11).

My point has been that the wine “regularly” used in Bible times was either unfermented or of a very low alcoholic content. The scholars I quoted above confirm that. We read our modern day ideas of strong alcoholic drinks into what we see in the Bible.

“Making rules beyond what the Bible gives is clear legalism.” If that is meant to be that if the Bible does not directly say something is wrong, then it is legalism to oppose it – then I strongly disagree. If that statement is true, then:

We cannot make rules against slavery.
We cannot oppose cocaine, heroin, or marijuana. (Some argue that we are not to partake of these because they are against the law. But there are a couple of countries where they are not illegal. Can a good non-legalistic Christian go to those countries and recreationally enjoy crack?)
We cannot oppose smoking.
We cannot oppose gambling.
We cannot oppose pornographic DVDs.
We cannot oppose the products of those who are “inventors of evil things.”

The Jewish translators of the Septuagint clearly viewed wine as generic. They translated the OT word tirosh (Proverbs 3:10) that clearly refers to what we would call grape juice or unfermented wine, into the Greek word oinos. They did not even say “new” oinos, just “oinos.”

When we see “wine” in the Bible it does not automatically refer to strong alcohol, or even alcohol. Tony, I sincerely believe you are a good, godly man. I just believe you and some other guys are wrong on this issue. Thanks for letting me have my say.
David R. Brumbelow

]]> By: Tony Kummer http://sbcvoices.com/southern-baptist-branding/#comment-2754 Tony Kummer Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:37:12 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1378#comment-2754 I can think of examples where water as for drinking (Woman @ the Well) and when they said Jesus drank too much (Son of Man came eating and drinking). The tired old line about "lite" wine and poised water just doesn't work. Wine was definitely their cultural expression of celebration & a symbol of God's blessing. That's not so much the case in America. As a pastor I do not have biblical warrant to forbid people from all drinking. Making rules beyond what the Bible gives is clear legalism. But I do have warrant to teach about wisdom and let people have their "soul competency" before God. I can think of examples where water as for drinking (Woman @ the Well) and when they said Jesus drank too much (Son of Man came eating and drinking). The tired old line about “lite” wine and poised water just doesn’t work.

Wine was definitely their cultural expression of celebration & a symbol of God’s blessing. That’s not so much the case in America.

As a pastor I do not have biblical warrant to forbid people from all drinking. Making rules beyond what the Bible gives is clear legalism. But I do have warrant to teach about wisdom and let people have their “soul competency” before God.

]]> By: Dr. James Willingham http://sbcvoices.com/southern-baptist-branding/#comment-2751 Dr. James Willingham Thu, 16 Apr 2009 03:21:39 +0000 http://sbcvoices.com/?p=1378#comment-2751 I have said nothing about the issue of wine, because it behooves all of us to be very carful on this issue. Some folks take things wrong and turn that into a justification for indulgence in either drink or arrogant legalism. Neither extreme is desirable. I will answer the issue from the historical perspectives. It use to be that Baptist churches used wine (I never saw anything else to the contrary in the records back past the temperance movement). After temperance became abstinence, then the use of wine declined as it was replaced with grape juice (which action by the way made the Welsh family quite wealthy). I have been in Baptist churches where men in the oldest Sunday School classes could still remember who the person was that had been appointed to secure the wine for the communion. In the day when they used wine, they had strict discipline. A member found guilty of drunkenness would be dealt with gently, but firmly. When the last possible help had been tried, then they would proceed to excommunication. The Jersey Church whose first noted pastor was John Gano ( 1755ff?) in the 1800s labored for ten years with one member who had the problem of drunkenness before they finally decided he was incorrigible and excommunicated him. Churches that excluded members for drunkenness were also swift to readmit them, when they showed evidence of repentance. The original elements for communion as far as I can know them historically are unleavened bread and fermented wine (not the heavily alcoholic kind, but it would make a person drunk as Paul indicates in I Cors.11, if enough of it was consumed). I do know of cases where people who had been alcoholics were converted and taking wine in communion never bothered them. I also know of one case where a person was supposedly turned back to his drinking problem by wine in communion. I have found that one of the biggest problems is for brothers to fall out over this issue. One pastor became very upset at me over this issue, and that really grieved me. After all, I did not claim to know everything, but he was down right hostile. Perhaps, the problem came from alcoholism in his family back ground. I had some of it in my family history as many others have. No one wants to see a loved one return to that kind of life style. People handle the thing in dfferent ways, and I suspect that the problem and/or solution really lies in how we can learn to work together to address the problems raised. We also have to learn that both sets of advocates have a tendency to read our prejudices back into the past as well as into the Bible. God, however, desires that we read His book, His way....And His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways until we learn His are far better than ours. What I have written is intended to contribute to the peaceful side of the coin. Knowing the griefs that can be found on both sides, I recommend a conciliatory attitude toward any with whom we differ. After all, reconciliation is one of the major themes of our message, Is it not? And where is love suppose to be in all this. I for one do not wish to be a cause for someone falling into drunkenness nor do I wish to discourage any one who has come to a settled conclusion about the proper elements of the communion. Take care brethren, both sides can do harm by harsh words. Courtesy is definitely an element of love, I Cors.13:5, "Love does not behave itself unseemly." Put a positive spin on that and it comes to courtesy and gentleness and tenerness and kindness. <abbr><em><abbr><em>Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..<a href="http://thirdgreatawakeningcom.blogspot.com/2009/02/climax-of-reformation.html" rel="nofollow">The Climax of the Reformation</a></em></abbr></abbr></em> I have said nothing about the issue of wine, because it behooves all of us to be very carful on this issue. Some folks take things wrong and turn that into a justification for indulgence in either drink or arrogant legalism. Neither extreme is desirable. I will answer the issue from the historical perspectives. It use to be that Baptist churches used wine (I never saw anything else to the contrary in the records back past the temperance movement). After temperance became abstinence, then the use of wine declined as it was replaced with grape juice (which action by the way made the Welsh family quite wealthy). I have been in Baptist churches where men in the oldest Sunday School classes could still remember who the person was that had been appointed to secure the wine for the communion. In the day when they used wine, they had strict discipline. A member found guilty of drunkenness would be dealt with gently, but firmly. When the last possible help had been tried, then they would proceed to excommunication. The Jersey Church whose first noted pastor was John Gano ( 1755ff?) in the 1800s labored for ten years with one member who had the problem of drunkenness before they finally decided he was incorrigible and excommunicated him. Churches that excluded members for drunkenness were also swift to readmit them, when they showed evidence of repentance. The original elements for communion as far as I can know them historically are unleavened bread and fermented wine (not the heavily alcoholic kind, but it would make a person drunk as Paul indicates in I Cors.11, if enough of it was consumed). I do know of cases where people who had been alcoholics were converted and taking wine in communion never bothered them. I also know of one case where a person was supposedly turned back to his drinking problem by wine in communion. I have found that one of the biggest problems is for brothers to fall out over this issue. One pastor became very upset at me over this issue, and that really grieved me. After all, I did not claim to know everything, but he was down right hostile. Perhaps, the problem came from alcoholism in his family back ground. I had some of it in my family history as many others have. No one wants to see a loved one return to that kind of life style. People handle the thing in dfferent ways, and I suspect that the problem and/or solution really lies in how we can learn to work together to address the problems raised. We also have to learn that both sets of advocates have a tendency to read our prejudices back into the past as well as into the Bible. God, however, desires that we read His book, His way….And His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways until we learn His are far better than ours. What I have written is intended to contribute to the peaceful side of the coin. Knowing the griefs that can be found on both sides, I recommend a conciliatory attitude toward any with whom we differ. After all, reconciliation is one of the major themes of our message, Is it not? And where is love suppose to be in all this. I for one do not wish to be a cause for someone falling into drunkenness nor do I wish to discourage any one who has come to a settled conclusion about the proper elements of the communion. Take care brethren, both sides can do harm by harsh words. Courtesy is definitely an element of love, I Cors.13:5, “Love does not behave itself unseemly.” Put a positive spin on that and it comes to courtesy and gentleness and tenerness and kindness.

Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

]]>