Happy 10th Anniversary, 2000 Baptist Faith & Message!

Brandon,
I would argue that the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 does include inerrancy. Moderates and liberals had found a couple of loopholes in the 1963 statement. One of the ways the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 closed those loopholes is with the statement, “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.” While the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 doesn’t use the word inerrancy, that statement is a definition of inerrancy.

For anyone interested, at “Gulf Coast Pastor” I wrote on the differences between the Baptist Faith & Message 1963 and 2000 back on September 21, 2009.
David R. Brumbelow

Matt,
Hey, I just barely know how to turn on my computer. But if I did it right, the link to the Baptist Faith & Message article in Gulf Coast Pastor is:

BF&M 2000 & 1963

If it doesn’t work, it can be found under “Gulf Coast Pastor Articles,” click either “Baptist Faith & Message 1963” or “Baptist Faith & Message 2000.”
David R. Brumbelow

Or maybe this will work:

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2009/09/differences-between-1963-and-2000.html#comments

David R. Brumbelow

Brandon: Do you wish for the BFM 2000 to become a creed? If not, how is a belief statement that all churches are required to affirm anything but a creed?

Brandon,

Several time in your article you refer to the SBC as a “Denomination”… I do this, Danny Akin did this at the B21 panel discussion at the Convention then quickly corrected himself, everyone does this from time to time.

However, I do think that if we are to have unity in the SBC we must be careful to communicate that unlike a denomination the SBC is a Missions Organization made up of “Self Defining” and “Self Governing” Baptist Churches freely choosing to cooperate with the SBC for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission.

Grace Always,

I completely agree with every one of the “pros”. I especially apprecaite the fact that the phrase about “Jesus Christ as the exegetical standard” being removed since that was a huge loophole that allowed moderates to claim “Well, Paul can’t have meant [insert doctrine they didn’t like here] because Christ surely would never have meant that”.

I don’t agree with the cons. I think even though inerrancy is not spelled out I think it is affirmed. Further, I’m not sure that if I was in an SBC church now I would want churches to be required to sign off on it. Don’t get me wrong, I wish there was a mechanism that required that because I would love to see churches disfellowshipped because they wouldn’t sign off on it, I just don’t think there is a way to enforce that. Probably the best way to marginalize churchs like that is to make sure they don’t have representation on any board or committee at the state/national, level by only appointing conservatives from churches that affirm publically the BFM2000.

As a minor issue, I’ve always quibbled a bit with this sentence from article on “Man”:

Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.

It seems to me that the Scriptures teach what we are under condemnation not the moment we are capable of moral action, but the moment we are born. In Adam we all sinned and are under God’s righteous wrath just by being born human. We sin because we are sinners, and we are sinners before we ever sin.

I do believe that infants and young children go to heaven. I just don’t believe that they go to heaven because they did not reach some supposed “age of accountability” and were therefore innocent in God’s sight. I lost an infant son several years ago and believe that he is heaven not because he died before he was capable of moral action, but because of the grace of Christ.

Again, its only a small quibble. The way the sentence reads on the surface is true and I can affirm it, but I’m afraid it could be a bit misleading.

As a case study, wouldn’t it be interesting to explore the staff thinking andlay leadership for example of Dawson Memorial BC in Bham who leads the state convention in CP giving but doesn’t adhere to BFM 2000.
And at what point do these autonomous Baptist churches who are encouraged to “agree” with BFM 2000 but have reservations; please explain to me again why as a matter of realpolitik they are disenfranchised in Convention life, yet their high percentage CP giving is championed.
Please explore that mystery for me.
Thanks

“The removal of “Jesus Christ as the exegetical standard” was a good thing”

this makes me sad.
I have heard all the reasons for it, yes, but none of them make any sense to me.

Another negative of the BFM 2000 is a lack of precision on the issue of justification. There is nothing about Christ’s righteousness being imputed to the sinner. If the SBC ever has a problem with the New Perspective on Paul, the BFM 2000 will not be adequate to deal with it.

Also, the BFM retains the nearly Pelagian anthropology that Herschel Hobbes inserted in Article III in 1963: “Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.”

We need to have a return to the much superior anthropology of the 1925 BFM: “He was created in a state of holiness under the law of his Maker, but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.”

Regarding eschatology, the BFM 2000 is basically amillennial, which is great in my opinion! Its amillennialism is found not just in Article X, but also in Articles VI and IX. Dispensationalism is a heresy that is contrary to the BFM 2000. NONE of the founders of the SBC in 1845 was a dispensationalist.

About the criterion statement. The Baptist Faith & Message 1963 said, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Christ.” The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 dropped that sentence.

First, while it sounded good, no one knew exactly what that meant.

Second, some more liberal folks used that as an excuse to throw out verses they didn’t agree with. According to some of them, if Jesus did not directly speak to an issue, then other verses that spoke to that issue – well, they were free to take them or leave them.

As your post affirms, “all” Scripture is given by inspiration of God, not just the direct words of Jesus.

This is a great ten year anniversary. The Baptist Faith & Message 2000, especially with its unambiguous stand on, “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy,” is really the culmination of the Conservative Resurgence.
David R. Brumbelow

“Dispensationalism is a heresy.”

Sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement. The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 (&1963 &1925) has a general statement about end times. Of course the more general it is the more amillennial it sounds. But that general statement can easily include amillennialists, premillennialists, and I suppose all those in between. It includes the basics that we all agree on.

Amillennialism is not a heresy. Premillennialism is not a heresy. There are good Bible believing folks on both sides. And I say that as a premillennialist.
David R. Brumbelow

Many of the church fathers believed in a doctrine of justification quite similar to what Luther believed. Luther was just recovering the doctrine of justification that the fathers held. In contrast, dispensationalism is a total novelty without any precedent in church history. What is true is not new, and what is new is not true.

Jeff,
So you say premillennialists are heretics, cult-like, obnoxious, and cram their beliefs down throats.

Now, who is exactly is being obnoxious?

Who are these, according to you, heretical people? Well, let’s see: W. A. Criswell, Adrian Rogers, Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, R. G. Lee, Charles H. Spurgeon, John MacArthur, Jimmy Draper, Richard Land, Mac Brunson, Billy Graham… Matter of fact, it seems a recent survey showed the majority of our SBC seminary professors claimed some form of premillennialism. But hey, if they’re heretics, we should kick them out of the convention.
David R. Brumbelow

Jeff, you said, “These dispensationalists would accuse me of being a heretic or a liberal for being amillennial.”

And now you are returning the favor?

I say both are wrong.
David R. Brumbelow

If we started fresh, we could write a confession much better than the BFM.

But the BFM was written, and later revised, in a historical context. I believe it is a good, but not a great confession. It is certainly adequate for convention purposes.

“The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ” is a terrible sentence.

I don’t know what that means. It is really nonsensical.

The statement does not stand on its own without some follow up explanation, “What that means is…”

It, apparently, means a lot of things to different people.

Theologically obtuse statements have no business in any statement of faith.

It is interesting to note how many people worship that sentence as a de facto creed, and insist that it must remain in the BFB, but then denounce creeds in the very next sentence.

Confessions of faith are either really important or they are not that important at all. But they cannot be both.

I read the History of Southern Seminary recently. Basil Manly, Jr., one of the 4 founding faculty members, wrote the Abstract of Principles, which was approved by the trustees, and has been signed by all of the faculty of Southern since its founding. Crawford Toy was dismissed because he was found to be teaching contrary to and not in accordance with the Abstract. Boyce, Broadus and Manly all referred to the Abstract as a “creed.” Dr. Mohler told Molly Marshall Green that she was teaching contrary to and not in accordance with the Abstract. He gave her the choice of resigning or facing the charge in front of the Trustees. She wisely chose resignation, and went on to have a career in an institution with a different doctrinal confession.

So, there have been creeds in Baptist life long before the BFM came along. But I will say that I do not believe that the BFM was ever called a creed.

But I do not agree with Cecil Sherman or the CBF that denominational employees should not be required to agree with the denomination’s statement of faith. Denominations should have statements of faith, and denominational employees should agree with their denomination’s statement of faith.

I do not believe that churches should be required to sign or affirm their own denomination’s statement of faith. But it seems silly for a church to belong (and send money) to a denomination of churches that is going to plant churches and educate ministers and send missionaries, if the church doesn’t agree with the confession of faith of the denomination.

I don’t think that our church would ever join a denomination or send money to one that had a doctrinal statement or confession with which we did not agree. I can’t think of an example of that in the corporate world either.

Churches can do that if they wish. But it is not a good sign of organizational health or leadership. It affirms tradition, but is not a good way of living or moving forward for the organization.

I am glad that the SBC emphasizes theology as well as mission. That is healthy for a church, which is, after all, a theological organization.

Was the idea of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, “invented in 1830 by a 15 year old girl”? That is not exactly accurate.

R. L. Sumner recently wrote on the subject of ancient quotes concerning the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the church:

“For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.” -Ephraem the Syrian, AD 323
“This ancient scholar believed that ‘sore affliction’ would last one week of seven years, with ‘the great tribulation’ being 3 ½ years. He based that on Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy sevens.” -R. L. Sumner, Biblical Evangelist, November/December, 2009.

“The same author [Grant Jeffrey] in the same book quoted the illustrious John Gill (Spurgeon’s predecessor) as teaching the pretrib rapture in 1748 in his First Thessalonians commentary. He even called the snatching up of saints ‘the rapture,’ and said it would ‘be sudden, and unknown before-hand, and when least thought of and expected.’ While he is not as clear as a Tim LaHaye would be, perhaps, his language leaves no doubt about what he is arguing.” -R. L. Sumner

“There is the fourth vision in The Shepherd of Hermas (c. AD 110) which said ‘the elect’ would escape the Great Tribulation.” -R. L. Sumner; biblicalevangelist.org

By the way, I do not view this issue as a litmus test for orthodoxy either way.
David R. Brumbelow

Louis: Carey Newman and David Gushee came to Southern about 94 when Mohler put the Covenant in place. Read their confession in Hankins bookwhen they say it had nothing to do with the ABstract but the agenda was something else; this shadowy group pulling Mohler’s strings. Not me saying that but them.
Also if you want to read about Southern and the Abstract, read BillHull’s latest book about how HOneycutt and DukeMcCall used different strategies tokeep things together.
Several reviews out there, most of them googled through http://www.ethicsdaily.com
Good book yet to be written about Mohler and SBTS. When the truth comes out I imagine it will not me much prettier than the shenanigans CharlesStanley pulled to come to power at FBC, Atlanta; or the coarse direction Criswell took FBC Dallas after the Great George W. Truett.

Brandon—

Leave it to a young whipper-snapper to know it all. I bow at your feet of wisdom—NOT!!!!

In naivete you have missed the most important part of the Preamble to the earliest version: NO BAPTIST CAN TELL ANOTHER WHAT TO BELIEVE—it is called AUTONOMY!!!

Since the first BF&M, each edition has become more stringent and more dictatorial. Historoy clearly shows the more dogmatic we become, the smaller we are getting and the more rediculous we become.

My Grandaddy had a wise saying: “The higher the monkey climbs the tree / the more you see his tail!!!”

My Grandaddy was totally right when it comes to my life long acquaintance personally (I am age 64), and my wider acquaintance through my life long SBC preacher father, add to that my historical reading of who we are and what we stand for.

Our slavery-favoring initiation had other facets which served us well. The basics were: (1) Autonomy and (2) Missions.

These 2 facets of the SBC diamond served us well! They stopped the bickering which was divisive and gave money to missions without missionaries taking half or more of their time from their field of service to raise money.

Thanks to our turning of the BF&M from a simple statement to a Creed requiring signing–CONGRATULATIONS: We now have become more Roman Catholic than the Catholics themselves!!!!!

We flame homosexuals while the Catholics hide them. Is it possible, because we refuse to deal with sexual preditors, we will become more a laughing stock to the public than Catholics are today???

When the Jews started building a fence around the 10 Commandments and started turning the Temple into a money machine, Jesus took a whip and started scattering the moneychangers.

Will he have to take a whip to us as well–the whip of royal failure and irrelevence?????

Stephen:

Thanks for the reply.

I am not sure about a “Covenant” that you reference. I was talking about the Abstract of Principles, which is the doctrinal creed (according to Southern’s founders) for the seminary.

The Abstract states as follows:

“Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist church; and all persons accepting professorships in this seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part shall be considered grounds for his resignation or removal by the Trustees, to wit:…”

The doctrinal creed follows that statement.

My basic point was that the SBC’s oldest (I think, I am not sure whether the missions board was separately chartered by 1860) agency had a creed. Thus, doctrinal creeds have been around a long time in SBC history. Though I would be quick to admit that Baptists even then viewed their creeds much differently than those written by the Catholics and other church groups.

The BFM is a confession, not a creed, but is still a good go by for denominational employees.

I also don’t know about any shadowy groups pulling Mohler’s strings. I believe that the CR was very forthright in its aim – theological accountability, particularly in the seminaries. And I believe that Mohler bought into that. The Abstract was the proper document upon which to rely for that purpose, especially since it had been used that way with respect to Crawford Toy.

I saw the Ethics Daily piece about Bill Hull’s book. Have you read it?

The most shocking thing to me in the Ethics Daily story was Dr. McCall’s attempt to take the seminary from the SBC and give it a self perpetuating board etc. Apparently, that plan did not get much traction.

What shenanigans did Stanley pull to become pastor of FBC Atlanta? I thought that the church voted to make him (he was on staff) the pastor when their pastor left.

The same thing is true about FBC Dallas. I believe that Criswell was voted in to become pastor by the church as well.

I believe it is true to say that both churches took a direction that was in part do to their pastor’s emphases and giftedness. But that’s different from shenanigans.

The same could be said of South Main Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. That is the church where Paul Pressler was raised and became a Christian. When Ken Chaffin became pastor, the church moved in a new direction. But I don’t think it was the result of shenanigans.

Look forward to dialoging with you further.

RE your statement “…in a perfect world I believe churches agreeing to it would bring unity and accountability.”

1. Accountability to WHO?
2. You don’t understand “Baptist” at all.

Your statement that “The emphasis that all Scripture is equally inspired by God keeps some from over-elevating Jesus’ teachings … is positively frightening. It is impossible to “over elevate Jesus’ teachings.”

Let me fill you in on the Charles Stanley story:

I have heard it from his own mouth as he spoke to the Noonday Baptist Association. According to him “God used him in mighty ways to resurrect a dying downtown church”

My father happened to be the Associate DOM fot the Atlanta Baptist Association and gives a wider view–and far more accurate:

Roy McClain had been the well-respected pastor. His son was tragically killed in Viet Nam and he had a nervous breakdown so he resigned and went back to his home in Orangeburg, SC. Stanley had been made the Associate Pastor to appease a faction which wanted an Independent Baptist background fundamentalist on the staff.

Stanley was a good preacher so the Pulpit Committee went to him with the prospect of being the Interim with several clear conditions:
(1) That he recognize he was not a concensus member of the Staff, rather a person put there to appease a certain minority group.
(2) Should he serve it would be with a clear understanding that he was not under consideration in any way for becoming the Pastor.

Stanley agreed and shook hands with them. The second he entered the pulpit he began to call certain members of his lovers group with the declaration that he felt God was callling him to be the Pastor–just like Criswell spoke of “God’s calling.”

Of course, other church members began to like his attractive pulpit style and conservative messages, but there was a clear promise and understanding with the Pulpit Committee. They heard of his quiet moves and ignored them as the elected representatives of the ENTIRE congregation.

When the Committee presented their long-studied-out candidate, there was a significant minority voting against him. The candidate declined to come. That’s when Stanley put on all the pressure to make him the candidate!

Because he went back on his word, one member of the Pulpit Committee actually took a swing at him. Stanley called it “demonic.” I call it good Southern retribution to one lying to his trusting Committee members.

As you can see, depending on who tells it, the story is 180 degrees different. Anyone lusting in his heart for something can hear “God’s voice” telling them exactly what they want to hear.

This is as accurate and plain as I can put it. The bottom line is Stanley did not keep his word and made his desires into “God’s desires.”

Immediately, the FBC Atlanta stopped its massive “top 10” giving to the Cooperative Program. Instead, the money went to a large bus ministry and paid prime time programming on WTBS before it went to satellite technology. Stanly promoted his church and his abilities far and above the wider giving to the SBC!

Also, there was a mass exodus of mainline Baptists to surrounding churches because Stanley was leading FBC into an Independent Baptist mode. He seldom came to the Pastor’s Conference nor participated in any Atlanta Baptist Association nor Georgia Baptist Convention activities. In other words, he became a repeat of his Independent Baptist heritage and the church followed the leader. Into this vacuum came the new “king pastor” making sure no staff crossed him or they would be immediately fired. Most left to serve regular SBC churches in many places.

Brandon,

The only place in Texas will you find a school that believes in inerrancy is Dallas Theological Seminary. There aren’t any Baptist schools that openly support it.

I do wish you would associate with someone other than the SBTC in Texas. They are not all they are painted up to be but then your only other choice is the BGCT and that is even worse. Maybe just be a Southern Baptist and leave it at that.

I have found that the BFM is just a good tool to fight and argue about in all reality. No pastor or church goes by it technically and noone in the pews even knows about it.

Louis and all: Here is more remedial education for you on the Southern Seminary Covenant:

Page 100 is the key page and page 103 Carey Newman talks about “The Firm” at Southern Seminary
Easily googled right up for me just a few minutes ago for simple search: Hankins on Carey Newman at Southern Seminary

That takes you into online read of the heart of Uneasy in Babylon.

Interesting thought there, about making churches subscribe to the BFM 2000. Requiring independent, autonomous congregations to sign off on a uniform theological statement makes the statement a creed by definition. In the SBC, attempting to do that would be like herding cats. A Southern Baptist church, functioning as the body of Christ, is accountable to no one but Jesus. Fact is, requiring churches to adopt the BFM 2000 would be a fundamental contradiction of what the document itself says about the church. If such an attempt were ever made, the SBC would dissolve faster than a menthos in a bottle of diet coke. The attitude of local churches would change from “friendly cooperation” to “We don’t need no stinkin’ convention.”

I’ve always heard the argument about the “Jesus criterion” that it was used by liberals to drive a truck through theological loopholes in order to let the silence of Jesus on certain issues squelch what Paul or the Old Testament had to say about something. However, when I attended a Southern Baptist related undergraduate college, and had some genuinely conservative professors, they didn’t teach that at all. What they taught, correctly I might add, was that Jesus proclaimed himself as the interpretive filter for scripture in Matthew 5:17. Obviously, you can’t set aside anything in the Bible because Jesus himself didn’t address it. But you have to set everything else in scripture along side the words and works of Jesus, and interpret everything by the principles he taught. Otherwise, the Old Testament without the interpretive filter of Christ is just Judaism, and the teachings of Paul without the same filter is pharasaical legalism, neither of which lead to salvation of the soul or reconciliation with God. Paul himself, in many places, acknowledged Christ as the criterion by which he taught, and left context clues for that criterion to be used in interpreting everything he wrote. Perhaps, rather than removing a basic principle of hermeneutics, the statement should have been re-written to take out the loopholes.

I am one of “those” who is uneasy with the BF&M2000, for a couple of reasons. One is the removal of the “Jesus criteria,” because although anything can be abused–including the “witness” language of the 2000 version–all I ever hear are about nameless, faceless liberals who twisted its meaning; who were they? And even if they existed, deleting this statement of criteria was throwing out the baby with the bath water, IMHO. Second, is its move toward being a binding creed, what with its “instrument of doctrinal accountability” language.

Now having said that, I must ask: what SBC churches have called openly gay pastors or openly support abortion? I know a few former SBC churches affirm the practice of homosexuality (I can count them on one hand and have fingers left over), but if an SBC church has called an openly gay pastor, I have missed the news, and would like to know about it. What has their local association done, whose action is the first and frankly pivotal criteria for further action at either the state or SBC level? And as far as female pastors, although a few former SBC churches have called women pastors, I really though all were former SBC, not current, although I am less certain about that. Who are these churches, and how many of them are there?

John

Louis,

There are only two Baptist churches in the South with a lesbian pastor: Pullen Memorial in NC and Glendale Baptist in Nashville. Neither church is affiliated in any way with the SBC. http://tiny.cc/q73ja

As far as women pastors, there are maybe a few churches at most that still hold some sort of ties to the SBC. In those instances, the relationship is historical and maybe a family or two in the congregation still wants to give to Lottie and the church allows that.

I was a bit befuddled when one of the SBC Today fellas introduced a motion at the SBC calling for the ouster of churches dually-aligned with the Alliance of Baptists. I wrote the history of the Alliance – it is featured on their website. I can’t think of any Alliance-affiliated congregation that still supports the SBC via the Cooperative Program. Even the handful of Alliance churches that are still involved at the state-convention level are able to designate around the SBC.

The BGCT has cut ties with Royal Lane but not Broadway Baptist. The SBC dumped Broadway.

The CBF’s recent workshop was simply a conversation on homosexuality. No real conclusions were drawn. The CBF’s policy against funding gay-friendly organizations and gay personnel remains in place. There’s no move to undo those policies. CBF is a diverse group with multiple viewpoints on this issue. Again, the purpose of the workshop was simply to have a dialogue.

The Leonard paraphrase needs to be put in context. Leonard stated years ago that he was committed to defending Wake Forest’s nondiscrimination policy which protects against sexual orientation discrimination. Although, who is to deny that homosexuality is the civil rights struggle of this century? The gay rights movement is by definition a movement for legal rights in the civil sphere. I don’t see that debate going away anytime soon.

Louis,
The very words of Jesus, and his very life clearly show that he was the criterion, and the interpretive filter of scripture. How many times did he say, “You have heard that it was said…but I say unto you,”? Or “In order that the Prophets might be fulfilled…” Or “for the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Or “Today this scripture is fulfilled within your hearing.” Or “It is written…”

“After three days, they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.” Luke 2:46-47

Paul sets Jesus as the criterion for interpreting scripture in I Corinthians 2.

The wording of the 2000 BFM in this particular area was a predictable reactionary move in an atmosphere thick with denominational politics. I went to a Southern Baptist undergraduate college in the 70’s, and had three Bible professors who very clearly and accurately taught this doctrine, and in such a way that the alleged liberal loophole would have been a moot point.

The idea floated above about enforcing the BFM2000 in the churches by refusing to accept members of congregations which haven’t publicly affirmed it as denominational officers, board members or on committees is a violation of Baptist polity in every possible way. Fewer than 5% of the churches send messengers to the convention in any given year, and fewer than 20% have done so in the last decade. Only about 1% of the churches can be represented on its boards and committees at any one time, and anyone who gets on a board already has to agree with, and sign, the BFM without caveat. What does it say about your respect for the BFM 2000 when you are willing to violate its provisions by finding ways to force churches to adopt it?

Lee:
Your first paragraph kinda sounds like some of the rhetoric Mainstream Baptists were voicing in the pamphlet Stand With Christ in response to the IMB firing 80 missionaries about 9 years ago.
It is an open secret the WMU staff in Bham won’t sign the BFM 2000. So what kind of a schizophrenic mission fund raising denomination are you running if BFM 2000 is such a perfect Confessional Instrument???

Louis,

Thanks for the reply. I note your statement, “we are best sticking with what Jesus actually said, not theologically obtuse statements.” That makes for a good sound bite, but not for realistically dealing with the intersection of the world in which we live and the Written Word. To stick with only the words that Jesus said will result in us becomming new Amish at best or a latter day Church of Christ at worst. I will grant you that Jesus never said, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ,” but neither did He ever say, “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” I believe the closest to that He ever came was at Luke 24:44, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” The difference is that the BF&M says all Scripture is about Jesus, but Jesus only referred to that part of Scripture which is about Him, a fairly clear implication that parts are about Him, while others are not. Consequently, the 1963 criterion statement deals with it more directly than the 2000 testimony statement. Everyone has “interpretative filters,” or “criteria” or “presuppositions” which form the basis for their understanding and interpretation of the Bible, although many of them remain unarticulated, and operate either below or just at the level of consciousness. The ’63 statement attempted to verbalize one of them, which I think is positive and good.

As for the criterion statement being “theologically obtuse,” I would disagree. While it may not be as clear as “Jesus is Lord,” principles of criteria for interpretation are a part of any systematic theology course–or it least it was before the CR. (I have no first-hand knowledge and little second-hand knowledge of systematic theology as taught in SBC seminaries post CR.) Lee has articulated interpretative criteria very well and clearly, so I see no reason to repeat that.

I am still waiting to learn the names of these about these Southern Baptist churches that have called openly homosexual pastors. I did a google search as you suggested and failed to find an SBC church with an openly lesbian or gay pastor. As BDW says, there are a few such churches, but none that he noted or I found were SBC. If you could share the name of the church, or at least your city (sorry, I do not recall where you live), I would appreciate it. If, on the other hand, this is simply “a ‘for instance’” as you suggest, then I suggest it is a classic straw-man argument, in which opposition is built up against a situation that does not exist in order to transfer it to another situation, against which arguments are lacking.

I too saw the announcement about the CBF having a workshop about homosexuality. What is wrong about that? It hardly means that the CBF is affirming the practice of homosexuality, and as BDW points out, it was simply a conversation which changed nothing in the CBF’s core values against funding or hiring homosexual persons. Heck, even the SB churches have ministries towards homosexuals, and I presume that those who wish to get inviolved in it at some point attend a workshop or have conversations. But that hardly makes the SBC “gay friendly.” And BTW, if the CBF does change its core values in this regard, or otherwise affirms the practice of homosexuality, I will cease to participate in it, and will recommend that the church I serve cease all financial contributions to it.

John

Darby,
I agree. Many in the moderate group felt there would never be enough well-educated conservative scholars to populate our seminaries. Now we have more solid, conservative, competent, Bible scholars than our seminaries can employ.

Seems the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 strengthened, rather than weakened our seminaries.
David R. Brumbelow

Stephen,
You bring up the BX6400 library designation and whether conservatives have read the other side. I and many others have. Also, some of us were participants during the height of the Conservative Resurgence. We believe what we do out of conviction, not ignorance.

Haven’t checked the library designations, but below are a few books on the subject of the SBC Conservative Resurgence. I’ll even present both sides. I’ve read and own most of them.

Books from the conservative point of view on the Conservative Resurgence:

1. The Baptist Reformation by Jerry Sutton, B&H (Broadman & Holman)
2. The Truth in Crises by James Hefley, Hannibal Books (several volumes; hannibalbooks.com). This series has been recommended by both sides.
3. A Hill on Which to Die by Paul Pressler, B&H.
4. Baptists and the Bible by Bush & Nettles; Moody Press; B&H.
5. Anatomy of a Reformation: The Southern Baptist Convention, 1978-2004 by Paige Patterson, SWBTS (baptisttheology.org).

Books from the moderate to liberal point of view on the Conservative Resurgence:

1. The Takeover in the SBC by James Rob & Gary Lazer
2. Baptist Battles by Nancy Ammerman, Rutgers Press (also recommended by Paige Patterson as a book the confirms some conservative viewpoints).
3. Southern Baptist Holy War by Joe Barnhart, Texas Monthly Press.
4. The Battle for Baptist Integrity by John F. Baugh.
5. God’s Last & Only Hope by Bill J. Leonard, Eerdmans.
6. By My Own Reckoning by Cecil Sherman, Smyth & Helwys (recommended by Paige Patterson, though disagreeing with it’s moderate views).

To all, read all or most of these. If you believe in inerrancy, and believe inerrancy is important, I don’t see how you can avoid being on the conservative side in the SBC. And being proud of the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.

If you only have time to read one set of books, read the conservative ones :-).
David R. Brumbelow

So this is what I’ve learned here:

1. Liberals and moderates are evil, pretty much on par with satanism if you ask Joe Blackmon

2. The BFM2K is the end all, be all document. If there was a way to supplant the bible, then conservatives would be all over it…oh wait…

3. Women are evil yet our two largest offerings are named for women who actually did the roles of pastoring out in the mission field, but conservatives are trying to find a way to rename them after their husbands or closest male friend.

4. Our seminaries are now rock solid theologically with the world’s best Home Econ. class on this side of the globe at Southwestern Seminary. Our message to women: Feel God’s call on your life, it’s to procreate, manage finances, and cook meals for your husband. We’re gonna party like it’s 1959!!!

5. The BFM2K is not creedal but if you want a seat at the table, then by God, it better be your creed!!

6. Did I mention that liberals make the baby Jesus cry?

7. Some of you here either have a warped sense of joy in the Lord or delight in the misery of others.

8. Joe Blackmon must punch kittens every morning.

9. From what I can tell, Conservatives took over the academia while moderates and liberals just went to work trying to reach people for Christ.

10. Many people here must hang a picture of Paige Patterson in their office or hallway at their church.

Louis,

Please pardon me if I confused (and apparently I did) what you said with an assertion that there were SBC churches that had openly homosexual pastors. If someone else did, whoever you are, please provide evidence. If no one did, please pardon me for misreading.

Just a word about pastors Yee and Mason: I don’t think they speak for the CBF; and though I may disagree with what they say, like Voltaire, I would defend their right to say it.

I would enjoy engaging with you on a restatement of the criterion sentence. Unfortunantly, VBS begins in 5 minutes, so I know I cannot even start on it tonight.

John

DavidB: Delighted to know you have read some books on the matter. Along with BDidd’s examples I also notice
Ellen Rosenberg: The SB’s in Cutural Transition.
David Morgan: The Holy Crusaders
Ammerman’s Southern Baptist Observed missing from your list.

Ammerman’s collection of essays in distinction from her Baptist Battles has an effort by Helen Lee Turner on how the Southern Baptist Pastor’s Conference used heightened apocalyptic rhetoric to demagogue many of the key SBC Convention votes. It is fascinating indeed and I highly recommend it.
I am glad Greg Wills is taking a look at Hull’s book. I hope he will invite Gus Niebuhr to SBTS to discuss some of these matters; and maybe Bdidd will have Niebuhr and Charles Marsh out to Baylor to review some of the offerings here on this thread as part of the introduction to Ken Starr to the esoterics of Baptist life in the last 30 years.
If nothing else Brandon has a wide list in his lap to begin exploring. I guess we can wait and see if his insight after he reads some evolves into some kind of understanding and modification comparable to Ben Cole’s pilgrimmage.
One more time Harold Bloom’s sentence on the tragedy of the Southern Baptist Convention in my experience is the best brief description to date taking into account Scripture and politics.
And I hold fast to the notion the Senate race in Texas in 1948 between LBJ and Coke Stevenson tells you more about the Hill Pressler was really ready to die on; than his sophomoric notions about what Jack Flanders was teaching at Baylor in 68 or whenever he took his Primary Sunday School class up there.
I think Aaron Weaver agrees with me, and I heard John Baugh express a similar sentiment, in the most condensed frame though there are flaws in any collection of human beings; Roughly The SBC is the child of WA Criswell and the CBF carries on what a grander Baptist, George Truett, envisioned.
I am proud to have been Baptized in the Truett Memorial Baptist Church in Hayesville, NC (Truett’s birthplace) in 1959; and proud that my online acquaintance Aaron Weaver has fluorished in the seminary at Baylor that bears his name.

Stephen:

I note that you write the following:

“And I hold fast to the notion the Senate race in Texas in 1948 between LBJ and Coke Stevenson tells you more about the Hill Pressler was really ready to die on; than his sophomoric notions about what Jack Flanders was teaching at Baylor in 68 or whenever he took his Primary Sunday School class up there.”

What, in your opinion, is the hill that Judge Pressler was really ready to die on?

You think that he had some hill other than the one he wrote about in his autobiography?

What was the hill?

And how did you determine this other hill was the one Pressler was really ready to die on versus what Pressler wrote about?

Idon’t know if you have seen the Movie The Pledge or not but it turns out the Jack Nicholson character Jerry was right about The Wizard.
I’m usingthis as metaphor, as a parable not implying anything other than making a dark analogy about ambition. In my view Pressler and his comrade in arms in the SBC and the Council for National Policy, Helms vision of America, their ideology and politics were as venal as the evil incarnated in the fictional Wizard in the movie.
All Synonymous to Old Testament Prophet’s reference to the Whore of Babylon. The American Idol Pressler and Helms worshipped in my view was a false god.
Chandler Davidson has written about the religious right in Texas and Joe Ferguson has written about Jesse Helms in North Carolina.
Pressler as you know was the son or grandson of a Vice President of Exxon Oil; and Pressler is proud of his family history in the Texas Legislature.
Best I can make of it, that includes an affinity for the ideology of the Texas Regulars.
If you look at Sidney Blumenthal’s description of the 48 Senate Race between Coke Stevenson and LBJ, you will find a matrix that frustratred the likes of Foy Valentine, John Baugh, Baylor’s W.J. Wimpey and Herb Reynolds not to mention other progressive forces in Texas; and I think safe to say they were convinced shaped Pressler’s zeal and affinity for a Birch Society like vision of America’s promise and character; one that put Pressler at odds with Martin King and Civil Rights; and when that didn’t fly anymore as a Dixiecrat wedge issue, found home in the social issues as a national political wedge and in the SBC, Inerrancy.
So you put that with Tom Edsall poignant finding in his 84 The New Politics of Inequality and his findings of how oil interests strategically financed the 78 election cycle and networked to bring President Carter down; you look at how Criswell and Adrian Rogers platformed themselves and Pressler’s role with the Council for National Policy and at some point you got chopped liver.
This is the world Bill Moyers was zeroing in on on PBS in Dec 87 when Pressler got flustered and walked out of the Interview.
So SBC in my view is analogous to The Pledge’s Jerry’s Monash County; I asked President Carter about it in a short version in a Press Conference in 93 in Bham.
So Pressler’s hill was confused with his grandiose conviction that he was carrying on his family’s Holy Grail, a lesser version of Time Magazine Henry Luce’s America’s Purpose essays which did have some virtue but in retrospect is open for further exploration.
You remember David Brinkley. His son Alan has written the bio of Luce, the Presbyterian China Missionaries son who published Time for some time.
So I digressed, and I know this seems to be a little fabulous to you; but it is better history than the one I saw not long ago of the Patriotic Drama Bellevue Baptist in Memphis presented.
Or another analogy worthy of exploration is the hamlet before the First World War in Michael Haneke’s The White Ribbon.

Stephen:

Thanks for responding. I know that Baugh believed that. I had a friend who interviewed Mr. Baugh at length in about 1990 or so. Baugh believed that Pressler’s plan was to take over the US through the CP and establish a theocracy of some sort.

I do find that fabulous.

From a factual standpoint, it is true that Pressler’s family was involved in Texas politics, generally, and conservative democratic politics, specifically.

But it is no more true to automatically conclude that what motivated Pressler’s activity in SBC matters was a conservative political agenda than it is to suggest that all Foy Valentine really cared about was liberal politics, and that his involvement in church was just a sham to accomplish a liberal political agenda.

I do find, however, that in the case of secular liberals, that can be the case because they do not believe in the need for personal salvation, and generally see that as individual pietism.

I have several friends who have attended the local divinity school at a major university here in town. The divinity school is not theologically aligned at all. What you find is, for the most part, that when there is no spiritual conviction (religion) left in a person’s religion, that they substitute liberal political causes. The Bible is not true. No one needs salvation. There is no way to salvation. There is no one true religion. All that is left for many of these folks is political causes. And it just so happens that most of those, for young people in this country, are liberal in orientation.

Moyers is a perfect example of that. He went to Southwestern seminary shortly before my father in law attended. He eventually migrated from the Baptist faith and probably the Christian religion. He has said that he has come to “a new way of seeing and believing.”

I can see why people like that would project their experiences on to conservatives.

In Pressler’s case, there is no evidence of any real fire here. He is conservative, no doubt. But he has been very focused on evangelism for most of his adult life.

He and his wife worked with Youth for Christ at Northwestern University. They held a Bible study in their home for young people for about 30 years. Used to be that you couldn’t go anywhere in Houston among young professionals and not find people who came to Christ as a part of that weekly Bible study.

Even now, I don’t see Pressler or the SBC, really, heavily invested in political causes.

Most people in the SBC are conservative in their politics and always have been. That used to exist in the South in the democratic party. That day is over for the most part, and southern conservatives have migrated to the Republican party. But that is not the main thing for the SBC.

The main thing that has been the focus of the SBC is the Great Commission Resurgence. I have been to many conventions since 1985, and I would say that missions and related components have been the main thrust of the SBC.

The political issues that have come up at the convention have all been related to the CLC, now ERLC. And the issues on which they have focused have been familiar moral issues – abortion, euthanasia, alcohol consumption, religious liberty, school prayer etc. This is all stuff that the SBC constituency was concerned about before Pressler and Patterson ever came along.

I appreciate your sharing this opinion.

But until there is some real evidence to this, all we have are conservative people being conservative. And we have them actively interested in evangelism, missions, theological education, and not trying to take over the US.

Look forward to talking with you again.

Stephen Fox,
You have accused conservatives of being ignorant if they have not read the books on the SBC that you recommend. Of course the books and literature you recommend are from the moderate to liberal point of view.

I’ll ask you again. Of the books from the conservative point of view, that I listed above, have you read any of them?

I’ll list those books again to refresh your memory.

1. The Baptist Reformation by Jerry Sutton, B&H (Broadman & Holman)
2. The Truth in Crises by James Hefley, Hannibal Books (several volumes; hannibalbooks.com). This series has been recommended by both sides.
3. A Hill on Which to Die by Paul Pressler, B&H.
4. Baptists and the Bible by Bush & Nettles; Moody Press; B&H.
5. Anatomy of a Reformation: The Southern Baptist Convention, 1978-2004 by Paige Patterson, SWBTS (baptisttheology.org).

David R. Brumbelow

Dr. Chaffin butted in and said, “Jesus said, love God and love your fellow man, and that’s all you need to do.”

Do you think that Dr. Chaffin was just confused and lacked the experience to know how to handle a question like that under pressure? Or do you think that was really Dr. Chaffin’s belief?

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind, and I know you weren’t asking me but I can’t let an opportunity to get a dig in on moderate christians pass by, that he knew exactly what he was saying and that it is exactly what he meant. Conservative Christians, on the other hand, know that is not the gospel, it is not true, and believing that will get you to heaven will end up getting you a big surprise when you’re punished in hell forever for your sins because you refused to repent and trust Christ as your Savior–no matter what L’s, Gene S, or the folks in Endi, OK believe.

Stephen Fox,
So you have never read The Baptist Reformation by Jerry Sutton; A Hill on Which to Die by Paul Pressler; Baptists and the Bible by Bush & Nettles; Anatomy of a Reformation by Paige Patterson. But you may have read a little of Hefley’s books.

My suggestion is you seriously need to open your eyes to the other side. Read a little (or a lot) of what they have to say. Whether you agree or not, the conservatives have legitimate points of view. At least the majority of Southern Baptists believe they do.

Plus, as Louis pointed out, the conservatives don’t get mixed up and confused about the plan of salvation.
David R. Brumbelow

I did not know Chafin personally, but I do know he was the Billy Graham chair of evangelism at Southern, and to my knowledge I have never heard Billy was upset about that.

I don’t think the SBC struggle should be decided on one remark on the Phil Donahue show on Live national television.

In the larger frame of things, the SBC as a subculture in a historical moment Chafin’s line at Samford trumps anything I saw reported that Paige Patterson said; and by larger context I would suggest some thought given Steven Miller’s conclusions on the difficulty of analyzing Billy Graham when he considered the conundrum of historicising icons whose public record is well trafficked in the national discourse.

To get to what matters Here are twenty or so items that are pretty much my truth about the matter, courtesy of Buddy Shurden:

http://centerforbaptiststudies.org/shurden/20_reflections.htm

Left wing in your mind only, cartoon man:

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16193

And once you click there, click on book reviews for the Glenn Hinson review of the same book

And here is a WA Criswell “Fact” just for you Cartoon Man

http://jsr.fsu.edu/Volume10/Freeman.pdf

Joe,

Apart from faith in Christ Jesus, repenance, etc., there is no hope for anyone for heaven. I will grant that God has the last word on this, and not me, which is a caveat most moderates believe, few conservatives are willing to articulate, and still fewer fundamentalists are willing to tolerate, or such has been my experience.

Just a word from a self-confessed moderate (albeit right of center), affirmed by the word of many professors at pre-CR SEBTS. (And I say “many” not “all” simply because I did not take classes from all the professors).

Enough of your accusations that moderate = wishy-washy and unwilling to draw a line.

John

John

Feel free to call it “wishy-washy” Joe. I prefer to call it letting God be God.

John

John,

Yea, let God be God, and He has given us His Word…the Bible. It says that people, who die in their sins, apart from Jesus Christ, go to Hell. It says a lot of other very clear things, as well. And, some of those liberal profs of SB seminaries and SB colleges were denying major tenets of the Christian faith. They were claiming things like universalism, denying the miracles of the Bible, etc. And, today, John, have you gone to ABPnews.org lately? The CBF crowd actually had a conference on exploring homosexuality, where they say that homosexuality may have not been God’s plan A, but maybe it’s God’s plan B. Are you kidding me?

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5290/53

Go to that link if you want to read it, John.

David

Doesn’t God list adulterers, fornicators, and gossips in that verse with homosexuals? If gay people don’t get to go to Heaven, what about those who are doing those things? Must be a special Baptist dispensation since we sure have a lot of those in our churches–and some of them are even pastors!

I just found a blog or discussion site that has what I would really call a liberal. I’m just glad they aren’t in a Southern Baptist church that I know of. The site is http://www.baptistlife.com

This is the worst post I have ever read:

http://forums.baptistlife.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8498

Joe,

Me and my “ilk”? I suggest you put a sock on it if you think I am saying that homosexuality is not a sin. Reread what I wrote and quit jumping to conclusions. I was just bringing up the point that people love to single out homosexuality when there are a lot of other sins mentioned right there with it.

Folks–I am somewhat confused as to how posts get on. To this moment, I was convinced mine got missed for some reason.

Let me conplete the Charles Stanley / FBC Atlanta issuel

Stanley, indeed, was elected Pastor of Atlanta First. It was certainly not by majority vote in the beginning. The remnant after the great brew-ha-ha ended up electing him Pastor.

His Independent Baptist leanings is clearly proven by the immediate change in giving patterns under his leadership: from “Top 10 CP giving” to nada!!!

When he was elected President of the SBC, it was a far cry from the previous rationale: It was an honor bestowed on any Pastor who was leading a growing church which greatly supported the SBC financially. That has been true of most presidents since CR took over! They are chosen by what they can contribute to continued CR reign.

Why can’t we admit things have changed since 1979???

I hear Stanley every Sunday here in eastern NC. He is still a dynamic Preacher, HOWEVER, I note several things in his style:

(1) He seldom looks at the camera and his eyes blink constantly–a criminal investigator will quickly tell you this is a sign of prevarication!

(2) He is constantly saying, “Let me tell you this / listen to me.” This is a sign of one wanting to be a “king pastor.”

(3) He totes a big Bible and walks around using it to underscore his right to tell you what to do.

(4) His personal life is in a mess as his wife left him and his son founded another church after being on his staff. No one dares speculate over what is the reason for fear of crossing a “king.”

(5) He has used his position to found a multi-million dollar AMWAY group named “Stanley’s Steamers.” I was invited to join AMWAY in 1973 by well-meaning people who used Stanley’s success as the reason I should join. Personally, I view such use of counseling struggling couples in financial distress as “using your trusting clients for you own benefit.”

Needless to say, I do not hold Charles Stanley in high respect for a number of good reasons.

“It’s not how high you jump–it’s how straight you walk when you hit the ground which serves as a guide for my ministry!

Wow. I am really steamed! I made a vow never to respond to the nonsense on SBC Voices, but I cannot in good conscience ignore a blatant attack with malice upon another brother — any brother.

Gene said, Quote Needless to say, I do not hold Charles Stanley in high respect for a number of good reasons. END NOTE.

First, it was not “needful” to say anything. You did so to inject your venom. Then, you used parody as “facts.” For instance, you impersonate a criminal investigator by saying Dr. Stanley’s obvious nervous “tic” (as they are called in the health field) is evidence of “lying.” I don’t think you can get much lower than a blow like that. Then you make something out of the size of his Bible.

I don’t know what brand of Christianity you espouse, Gene, but I hope you don’t have a position of authority in any church.

I don’t know Dr. Stanley, and I’m not a fan of Amway, but when a person can make this type of attack on a “christian” blog, it is heartbreaking.

I read this blog all the time, and the non-sense that passes for discussion is almost unbelievable.

TO LIVE ABOVE WITH SAINTS I LOVE, OH THAT WILL BE GLORY! TO LIVE BELOW WITH SAINTS I KNOW — WELL, THAT’S A DIFFERENT STORY.

Sp, if a church holds Jerry Boykin in high esteem, how far in substance, Gene, has it come from a Charles Stanley mentality.
Is admiration of the pilgrimage of Jerry Boykin a sign of a mature Baptist Christian congregation; or to put it another way just how far are you willing to go in your prophetic declaration of indices of mature Baptist congregations?

Stephen–

I’m not sure what you are asking.

My experience working seriously with the SBC since the mid-1950’s to the present is that we are no longer the kind of group which we were in the growing 50-60’s. Part of the price of growth is a loss of of heritage–Training Union used to teach it, but it is gone!

Let’s face it, America has been in turmoil politically and socially since our return from WWII. Most soldiers came back home with a gratitude to God that they had survived. We had the sense we were the only great society on the face of the earth and the Russians were evil Communists. If you were a true American you believed in apple pie / the Bible / standing for the National Anthem / etc.

It is a strange mix of religion and politics which Baptists throughout the past avoided citing “separation of church and state” as clearly stated in the Constitution. We endorsed no political candidates and a fellow like Billy Graham was there for all presidents regardless of party.

Next, people discovered the South in droves and corporate America moved here in mass—mostly because it was non-union and cost-of-living was less. As the mobs moved to Atlanta, they joined Baptist churches without any consideration of more than the social value of “going to church” and pointing a finger to the sky swaying to music—and impatient to go to the restaurant when the preacher came on! In short, it was a selfish approach to religion filled with wanting to have you ego stroked and an obsession to “fit in.”

It seems, the more things become unsettled and quickly change, the more some people want to embrace the past as if it were perfect.

Conservatism filled the bill! H.L. Menkin referred to Conservatives as “MY CONTEMPORARY ANCESTORS!” I think he was right. To make the Bible Inerrant gives a sense of security, but it is false. Those who are truely Inerrantists would never fly commercially for fear of falling off a corner of the 3-story earth clearly taught and believed throughout the “inerrant” Bible. Capernicus and Galelio were scorned and threatened by a Catholic Church refusing to allow any other view than the planets and universe circling that 3-story earth created as God spoke it into existence. Darwin was out and the Fundamentalist push of the 20-30’s found Clarence Darrow and Religious Fundamentalists offering security in a changing world! In the same way we are repeating it in the “restless Viet Nam era.”

What troubles me is the self-centeredness of the Mega Church and its leaders. They have giant egos to go with giant numbers. Few preachers in Atlanta’s large churches will ever visit–they have a staff member for that. One even has a spiral staircase leading from his private office to the pulpit so he is not exposed directly to the crowd. He appears at various football games at schools represented in his church–wearing that school’s cap–AND going to each stadium, walking through the stands, moving on to the next school.

Charles Stanley perfectly fits that mold and he is not alone. Since when does a true Servant Pastor not tolerate one word of discent in his Staff or Congregations???

Would Jesus say, “My way or the highway!”

Our supposed example of faith–Jesus, The Christ–offered his thoughts and ministry for every person, no matter their social status. His presence was particularly appreciated by the down-and-out of his day. The Pharisees had the rich man’s corner covered and plenty of smoke-and-mirrors to get their money so they could live a royal lifestyle under the Temple roof—it aproximated the royal lifestyle lived by various kings who could tax people for riches!

Whenever I evaluate people like Stanley / Criswell / Vines / Rogers / Osteen / Warren / the list is infinite—I simply ask if they are like Jesus or like the Pharasees.

Believe it or not, there are large church pastors who haven’t deserted our Servant Saviour and his outlook. The disciples were trying to be big as Satan was tempting.

Think about it: What was the nature of Satan’s temptation in the Wilderness before Jesus moved from baptism to ministry?”

Did it not deal with ego and a quick ride to the top more than humility / sacrifice / telling God’s truth to people who wanted their prejudices stroked and called “good.” Hating Samaritans was great for Pharisees, but Jesus took exception to it!

He died, for the sins of humanity–one of the greatest of which is to worship ourselves / our culture / our big church / our position in society / our refusal to call slavery evil (it still goes on today as people are used from every creed and culture to make rich corporations richer).

It would sure be nice if we would do some real thinking and discussion of important things like above over whether BF&M 2000 is right. Personally, I think it sucks and tries to turn us into worshipers of a Creed over worshiping a living Christ and the Holy Spirit crying real tears because we have deserted the way of the Servant seeking riches and things on this earth!!!!

Long story short:
Gene I think you have a good bit of honest insight from personal experience; at same time lot of your insights here were digested as far back as 93 by Susan Harding in particular in her excellent concluding essay in Southern Baptists Observed on double voicing and compelling hegemonous narrative.
I hope you are not too proud to with all deliberate speed get your hands on Nancy Ammerman’s editted collection Southern Baptists Oberserved; cause you, like me, can gain wisdom from the Chapter Observing the Observers.
If nothing else you will like the choice invocation of Mencken there.

Tim Tyson has great study of the role ego plays with preachers and I agree with you Charles Stanley is Exhibit A.
Stewart Newman’s joke is sublime; he told me on the phone in 86 or so: Stephen our SBC President went out to walk his Duck the Other Day and got his head all cut up by an outboard motor.
That said, in the context of the remedial education we are doing here at this board; it is no small point in the History of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC Bill Powell of the Baptist Faith and Message to become the Southern Baptist Advocate had his sustenance on staff at Stanley’s FBC Atlanta.

And on as yet to be explored aspect of the larger picture, I think you agree with me that no matter what Bonhoeffer might have said about NYC’s Union Seminary in the 30’s; in no way does that justify or become an apology for Jerry Vines Godawful Convention Sermon in St. Louis in 87 directed at Randall Lolley and SEBTS where Vines talked about Creepy Liberalism crossing the Atlantic Ocean from Germany and coming down the Eastern Seaboard.
When Vines gets to heaven I think our Sweet Jesus is gonna take him to the woodshed on that one like Eisenhower did to Joe McCarthy in mid 50’s.
One more thing, there are aspects of your notion above about the SBC of the 50’s and 60’s post WWII that could gain greater substance by close look at the several reviews of Alan Brinkley’s new book on Time Mag’s Henry Luce, where it intersected themes of the Great Protestant Moment in our nation’s ideology; Luce, like Billy Graham’s wife, a child of Presbyterian missionaries to China.

Hey Cartoon Man; How are things in your Cartoon World Today???

Here’s a link for you.

I’ll be William Blake and you be Billy Bob Thornton

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/07/05/movies/1247468002781/critics-picks-dead-man.html

I know this for certain

A person can go to Hell engaging in conversations with you.

Look, I’m not a fool.

There are some folks on this board come across to me as having some sense and worthy of my consideration and taking seriously.
You are a clown. I clown around a good bit, myself; but I don’t see any fun or virtue in your carnival.
That doesn’t mean God doesn’t love you; I’m sure he does.
But for me, your presence here is just something everyone had to deal with until they decide it’s not worth the bother for the few who show some civility and Christlikeness.
Have a nice Circus, and do check out the video clip; from my heart to yours.

Was the John Birch Society we have to believe WA Criswell never questioned the HL Hunt family about at FBC Dallas while Criswell was planting the seed for the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC part of God’s plan.
I doubt it.
Charles Kimball, an ordained Baptist minister has written a book; as has Martin Accad.
You should have some spare time the rest of the summer. Why not spend it more diligently and educate yourself a little, expand your horizons instead of indulging your foolishness on this board.
You know what the Bible says about fools, don’t you??

Let’s face it–Joe is Joe!!! He is the classic example of how people wearing smiles and saying the “right” words can have a heart of stone—and so much judgmentalism they gladly stone a woman caught in adultery without giving consideration to the men involved as well.

What did Jesus say: “He who is without sin cast the first stone.”

The problem, Stephen, is that we go over this stuff / discuss it /write books about it / and continue to “sin more and more.” Jesus told the woman who admitted to her sin to “go and sin no more.”

Our real problem is with a weak definition of SIN! Instead we want to make a list of “Sins” which the BF&M 2000 illucidates. In addition we kick out Broadway last year to show how we hate homosexuals / kick out Decatur First to show how we hate ordained female Pastors / and fail to see how the Resolution on the Environment this year clearly contradicts what was said last year!

We, in the SBC, are becoming more the living representative that: “The higher the monkey climbs the tree—the more you see his tail!!!”

I’ll let Joe climb as high as he wants with judgmentalism. Sooner of later his tree will become so thin that the least breeze will knock him to the ground. Many pastors who are so judgemental on homosexuality end up with someone they love admitting he/she is one—then what do your do?????

Fox,

Another question….do you bellieve in the inerrancy of Scripture? Do you believe that Jews and Muslims, who die apart from Jesus, will go to Hell? Do you even believe in a literal Hell?

DAvid

Some days I think WA Criswell is burning in Hell for the Address he gave to the SC Baptist Evangelism Conference in 56; or if he is not, then he should be.
Other days I think maybe the Baptist deacon who said about MLKing on the occasion of what woulda been about his 65th birthday: “I say we dig the Nigger up and shoot him again.”
Or maybe Jerry Vines should spend a little time in Hell for the demagogic sermon he preached in 87 in ST. Louis against Randall Lolley and SEBTS.
Or Bobby Welch should get some fire for his 84 SBC Weds afternon luncheon remark: “We Got Liberals”.
Then again I am not the Judge.
Bible says Christ Died for the Ungodly and the old axis of Evil is here and there and everywhere, it runs through each and every one of us including Joe Blackmon and David Brumbelow.
The great Sermons of Fleming Rutledge brought that home to me; especially the one on Will Campbellwith the provocative title.
Christiane, I doubt Joe or David will ever read it cause they are too proud and Al Mohler or Jerry Vines did not recommend it; but I trust you will.
David, you and Joe, are itchin for a lynchin, and I’m not gonna be a fool and volunteer; more interested in silencing me than in my Salvation.

Would rather if you are bright enough to get this analogy, this allusion answer this way.
Even spell it out for you JimCrow as the BFM 2000

When I jump
I Jump Jis so
Cause Every time I jump
I be jumpin Jim Crow.

I recommended two good books for you to read and even made several references to God’s Holy Word.
Yall have a nice afternoon and sleep well cause that Holy Innocent thing may cover you on that great gettin up Mornin
Fare Thee Well.

You folks on both sides are too mean and really need to tone it down. Too bad, you never do any research in conspiracy history and theological manipulation. The wizard of oz sets off behind the curtain and manipulates the controls to overwhelming images that manipulate people into doing whatever he desires. Some smart folks in certain locations laugh all the way to the bank, when they read the nonsense of purlieu as written on this blog. We are now in one of the most extreme trials in world history with economic collapse seemingy imminent wth all of its consequent catastrophic calamities. And none of us have the fullness of knowledge to really assess and understand what took place in the past 100 years. All of our leaders have feet of clay, because, like us, they are sinners, hopefully, like us, being redeemed. C.S. Lewis foresaw the answer in his That Hideous Strength which has a more realistic eschatology than much of what has been expressed in this blog thus far. Deep Heaven needs to be pulled down on the hearts of the niwits behind the curtain. Then, and only then, will we come to that time when the earth shall be full of his knowledge and glory as the waters cover the sea.

Joe,

Also, it looks as if Christiane, or L’s, does not want to answer the questions, either. Very telling.

David

Hey, guys, there is no question what the Bible says about repentance and faith being the way to heaven. There is no doubt that is the conclusion you and I both draw from the Written Word. My point is rather simple though: I don’t have the final word on it. In fact, isn’t that what God is saying in Hosea 2:23, “I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.” With no disrespect intended toward David, Joe, or anyone else, and regardless of what conclusions I draw from the Word, my perspective is simply that God has the last word. Now I can reason, I can draw conclusions from major and minor premises, I can work out logical answers, and I have no problem with sharing those either one-on-one or from the pulpit. However, for me to say, “This is what God’s decision is,” then elaborate on what He and will not will do–I am not comfortable with that. Frankly, to me, it seems somewhat blasphemous. I am commissioned to tell the news, but not to think for God.

John

Joe, you have ised the operative word/phrase, “I think.” That is really all that is separating us here, whether we insist we perfectly know the mind of God in all matters and think for Him (= take His place), or whether we are willing to think we know but leave room for God to be soverign.

John

Whoops, “used” not “ised.”

John

JOhn,

There is no other way to Heaven, except thru Jesus. If someone tries to come thru the religion of Islam, then they will go to Hell. There’s no question about it. It’s very clear in the Bible. If a Jew tries to go to Heaven apart from the Messiah, Jesus Christ, then that Jew will go to Hell forever and ever and ever. That’s what the Bible clearly teaches. There’s no maybe, might be, or someone’s opinion about it. And, John, if someone thinks that they can get to Heaven by good works, or religious activity, ie, getting baptised… joining a church…feeding the poor, etc; then that good, religious person will go to Hell. No one, and I mean, no one, will get to Heaven based on their goodness and their religious activity.

John, this is not what “I” think. This is clearly what the Bible says. And, frankly, if you can pass that off as someone’s opinion, then I really have to wonder about your spiritual condition.

David

To John #196

I think I know what you are trying to say: we should be a little humble in our approach to God. But, your theology is way off base if you are implying we can never “know” with a degree of certainty what God’s will is. God states it explicitly throughout the Word. And the entire Book of 1John outlines how we can “know with a degree of certainty” (the only knowing that can bring hope) what the will of God is in regard to salvation.

So, while I appreciate your sentiment, your theology is way off base in regard to what we can or cannot know about the will of God in regard to salvation — in regard to salvation, which is a primary doctrine of Scripture. Your premise when applied to secondary or tertiary doctrines may have some validity, but not in regard to salvation.

Well, you guys be happy knowing that you think you know so well that God is not even necessary in your deterministic equation, and I will be happy abiding by the Word in life and ministry, and letting God have the last Word. Seriously, and this is to SSBN (whoever you are) especially, I get the impression that you come dangerously close to elevating the Written Word over the Living Word, which is exactly what the Phasisees did in saying that even God studied the Torah daily to make sure He did not violate it. And David, you need not worry about my “spiritual condition.” For one thing, me and Jesus are just fine, and if that is a suggestion or a hint that I may not be saved–brother, you have no right to even think that much less suggest it. It is an insult stuffed with presuppositions of the worst kind, and frankly, I am more than a bit insulted by it.

John

Great Point, John Fariss. I imagine you have read the pamphlet Stand With Christ, roughly a CBF publication when BFM 2000 pricked the conscience of 80 SBC missionaries or so and they resigned.
That good pamphlet makes a similar point you are making about the idolatry of the Written Word over the Witness of Jesus.
Some folks lack insight and there is not much it appears you and I can do about it except resist and dissent.
The Good News is Bonhoeffer rode through Alabama on US 11 in 31; And Black Baptists and other Christians, Bonhoeffer understood, incarnated a Living Gospel for some reason or another JoeB and Brumbelow and the SSBN in their obstinacy, stubborness or some worse condition prevents their understanding.
Wade Burleson has blogged Joel Gregory may understand it. But for some reason or another it never registered with the likes of M.O Owens, Bill Powell, Pressler and others who are the creedalists of a warped instrument, the BFM 2000.

QUOTE I get the impression that you come dangerously close to elevating the Written Word over the Living Word, END QUOTE

Sorry, John, I “know” you are wrong in this statement. How do you presume to “know” what is in my heart? And, why do you feel no remorse that you can make a totally inaccurate characterization of what I believe, without any basis in fact.

It appears you do not feel any tinge of guilt about assasinating someone’s character with no basis. I never said ANYTHING that would give you the “impression” you have. It is IN FACT not true whatsoever. But, you feel free to “fire away” hoping to hit something. I’ve known people that were killed by “hunters” just like you who were not mature enough to be handling a gun in the woods.

Your impression is completely wrong, but states exactly the CBF position on God’s Holy Word — a heresy never found anywhere in Scripture. I say this not to attack you but to put on record exactly what the major difference is between CBF and CR.

PS: And, John, I am not trying to reply in kind with an insult for an insult, but am merely making an observation that you believe in line with the CBF and I believe in line with the CR. The debate can go no further forward because we will both support our postion with the Bible. I do not suggest that you are not a believer and I am. This is an area I choose to put “off-limits” in my discussions.

I hope I responded to you with more grace and open-heartedness than you did for me. That makes me morally superior 🙂

It’s scary when you hang out and discuss important issues with people who do God’s thinking for Him!!!!

I’m sure he is “Amening” right and left the more conservative and BF&M 2000 we become.

Some things—more than most imagine—are best left in the hands of God. Certainly, one of them is the decision God makes as to our eternal destination. He knows our hearts whereas, we only see the surface. That is where BF&M 2000 resides: on the surface.

However, with it in place, we continue to push and judge–and end the careers of humble servants–and wise–on the mission field and in our seminaries.

It is as if BF&M 2000 is the “be all and end all” of life. I hate to tell you, but my trust is in God alone and his earthly revelation through Jesus, the Christ.

Rather than going around trying to judge everyone, I am content to enjoy discussions and pray the prayer of a little 5-year-old girl: “Dear God, please make all bad people good—and all good people nice.”

Volfan–

Your logic concerning the only way to heave is through Jesus fails in one important respect:

Jesus, himself, was born a Jew / lived a Jew / and died a Jew!!!!

So is he in heaven or not according to your narrow definition?????

Susan Harding has a remedy of sorts for the impasse Matt2239 and John Fariss have come to. The Written Word/Living Word template is a grand example of the Double Voices conundrum she explores.
A grand introduction to her thought is in the link I shared above in reference to her Book of Jerry Falwell; and even better is the 93 essay in Nancy Ammerman’s SBaps Observed.
Possibly with the exception of Joe B, Brumbelow and a few others on this board, there is hope for some common ground, further dialogue and community.

This is a little off topic but makes me want to send my degree back to Southwestern. You can be sure Patterson’s health insurance won’t be terminated.

Check it out:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11351&Itemid=9

Are Matt2239 and SSBN the same person? If so, that is a drawback to using multiple pseudononyous identities in the same thread: it’s gets confusing to others.

If the answer to that question is “No,” then, Matt2239, I not only do not know your heart, but I said nothing to you, about your heart or anything else, and have no idea why you think I did.

If the answer is “yes,” then my reply is almost the same. Almost: I did reply to you, but to my way of thinking, I did not judge the content of your heart, and certainly did not attempt “assasinating someone’s character with no basis.” I said nothing about your character, and indeed, I know nothing about your character. What I did was to share an impression, based on a solitary comment, of how your theology (in this one aspect) seems to me to be dangerously close to another flawed theology. Now I readily admit that I was tired when I wrote it, but even so, I don’t believe that anything I said comes close to “character assasination,” a personal attack, or an ad hominium (did I spell that right?) attack, because nothing I said was leveled at you personally, but rather was aimed at the position you seem to take. You say that nothing you said could possible lead me to the conclusion I made; all I can tell you is that while you might not have meant it as such, it certainly did suggest the conclusion I reached, else I would not have reached it. Sharing that, and calling it an “impression” was an attempt at communication. It was meant to share what it suggested to me, and at the same time give you an opportunity to reconsider your words and “unpack” or perhaps even revise them further. But what to me was even more puzzling is that in your first paragraph, you seemed to be getting what I said, viz., that we should all have a bit more humility. If you took offense at what I said, believing it to be about you personally, or your character, even though I did not mean it as such, then I apologize for somehow using my words in an imprecise way that allowed that impression. Such was not my intent. Now what about your words back to me, “I’ve known people that were killed by ‘hunters’ just like you who were not mature enough to be handling a gun in the woods”? Are they personal, or about my position? Do you see any need to revisit them?

John

John, we are the same person — SSBN is just the gentler, more willing to discuss real issues without ranting blog postion I wish to take.

Tell me what — by my words — indicated I believe that the Living Word is trumped by the Written Word? I made no such statement and still make no such statement. The fact that you get an “impression” and that equals your impression is valid, seems like circular reasoning to me. I do NOT in fact believe that the Living Word trumps the Written Word or vice versa. Your CBF filters must have been on to draw any such conclusion from what I wrote

My reference to hunting is in regard to the common practice in “blogging” to use semantic smokescreens (like, “I got the impression”) to hide a judgmental statement about a person. That was the “impression” I got from what you wrote. And, since I got my impression from what you wrote my impression must be correct — I think you see where I am coming from.

In fact this is my belief: The Bible makes NO distinction between the written Word of God and the Living Word. There are not “two Word’s” of God, but only THE Word of God. I think this is perhaps the biggest fallacy of the CBF movement and has been there since its conception. It is part of the CBF DNA.

That’s why I am not a part of the CBF (among a few other secondary and tertiary issues, and the fact that the President of the CBF tried to derail my ministry because I refused to make his enemies my enemies).

The hunting analogy simply tried to point out that “getting an impression” is not the same as “having a clear shot.” In this instance, I will probably survive, but this kind of “broad brushing” makes blogging a less edifying place than the “new me” cares to be.

You can respond to the CBF position of the “corn and the husk” or the “two Word’s of Scripture” if you wish, but it is a settled matter for me so I won’t be “reconsidering or revising it.

Remember, this engagement began with your premise that we really cannot “know” anything with any degree of certainty. I respect your view, but I do not agree with it. I made the additional MATT2239 POST under the old me but with a new spirit. I do respect your right to hold a different view of the Scripture. I wanted to clarify I did not want to make any personal statement about you (like some people make when they say “W.A. Criswell” may be in hell). If that kind of comment continues on Voices, but SSBN and his evil twin MATT2239 will make a quick and final exit.

I hope that clarifies my position without any judgment toward your relationship with Lord.

John, just for the record, you can take your counselor hat off. I have no “anger issues.” Again, you use your CBF lenses to assume anyone who is not “pro-CBF” is full of anger and hate. That simply is not the case.

Early on, I could have had some dialogue with the CBF — they chose to work through members of a church I had been interim to assure that no SWBTS would ever become pastor. I had the unanimous support of the church, but unfortunately not the pastor search committee because of one very vocal CBF’er who had been a member of the CBF’s presiden’ts church — which just happened to be the church I was a candidate for. I gave that (and this) for context so that it would be clear I have a very solid resurgence affinity on more than one level.

I also made it clear (I thought) that you were not the one making the reference to who’s in hell or not. It is something distasteful that occurs too frequently on both sides of the aisle.

By the way, my name is not Matt (it was Matthew 22:39). You can call me Fred (which is also not my name) :0

John, it is clear that we cannot have a decent interchange. You want to be my counselor and I don’t want to pay the fee.

I’ve learned that it is impossible to have a decent Christian conversation when the parsing of words change from post to post. I was pretty sure you mentioned something about anger. You parse it now to say, “I am only humanly angry, but not full of anger.” I thought I made it clear, I’m not angry at all. I left that church I was the interim of (though I could have stayed until they found a pastor) because I did not want to be angry with anyone or out of step with the power players of the church. I simply walked away and went on with my life and ministry.

If you are not sympathetic with the CBF, simply say so. Otherwise, if you use the same language they use, it will seem to me that you are indeed sympathetic. I never suggested it was unChristian to be a CBF’er. I think I explicitly said the opposite. I do question why someone who is a CBF’er will not simply admit to holding that theological position.

As I said, you seem to want to be my “counselor” and I do not choose to be in therapy. If you want to discuss the matter of whether there are “two words of God,” or one, I’m willing to discuss that issue. If I lie down on your counselor’s couch, at my age I’ll probably fall asleep.

I’ve set out my theological bias as being an ardent supporter of the SBC CR and a friend of most of the people that Fox demonizes. That’s where I am. Where are you?

This discussion (I read about 20 of the last comments which gave me a headache as well as a heartache) reminds me of a bunch of kids in a sand box who forgot that they were of the same family and started bashing one another over the head with plastic billy clubs. Of course, the possibility of some on both sides not making it ought to put the fear of God into all of us. Besides, we really need to be aware that there are those who intend to give us short shrift in the public arena. Just yesterday, I beheld a report on a judge in Winston Salem, NC rendering a decision that public officials of that city/county area(?) could not allow anyone to pray in the name of Jesus. This decision was the result of a law suit brought by the ACLU, a Jewish group, and some Moslems. Think of it, in the name of religious freedom that judge just took away the right of any American (Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Holiness, Charismatic, Catholic or whatever) to practice his or her God-given right to pray in the name of Jesus. All of the Agnostics and Atheists surely laughed all the way to the local bar to hoist a few in self-congratulations. One would expect as much from the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of church and State, but why would the Jews do that when such a decision will sooner or later be extended to remove their right to pray in the name of Elohim or any of the other names for God in the Old Testament? And why would the Moslems back such

a decision, when it must sooner or later be applied to praying in the name of Allah. As far as the Atheists an Agnostics are concerned, why should they mind as long as they have the right to say poppy cock; it’s all a lot of phony baloney. When I was an atheist, I told my sister to take her namby pamby religion and go jump out the window with it. Our mother proceeded to give me a lesson in religious liberty by letting me know that I could have my opinion and express it and so could my sisters.

“Joe, you have ised the operative word/phrase, “I think.” That is really all that is separating us here, whether we insist we perfectly know the mind of God in all matters and think for Him (= take His place), or whether we are willing to think we know but leave room for God to be soverign.”

John, Are you claiming we cannot go by the Word? I agree there are some translation problems on secondary issues but we cannot get past a fact: Repentance and Faith in Jesus Alone is required for salvation. Jesus’ first sermons were : Repent and believe.

Anything else is another religion.

I understand that you might be saying that we cannot know if one has repented or not unless we are close to them. but the facts remain that it is only good news when we understand the bad news.

…and from what I can surmise reading the Word, repentance is a continuous process as in growing in Holiness. But what would be the point of being Born Again or New Creatures if repentance is not a part of salvation?

I find it interesting that quite a few are dodging Joe’s serious question on this thread:

–”can a person go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone?” (understanding we are not talking about children or the mentally challenged)

Christiane? Stephen?

Here’s what’s really heartbreaking about this post: What began as an anniversary announcement of the BF&M2000 has degenerated to having to discuss the most fundamental truths of the gospel itself. This comment stream should be archived in all our seminary libraries for proof that any liberal leaning will in time lead to an all out cowardice for proclaiming any gospel whatsoever. I am sickened by some of the comments on this stream. We’re not talking about what so and so thinks of Paige Patterson anymore. We’re talking about whether the Word of God means anything at all. God help us.

The Word of God didn’t mean a whole lot to WA Criswell in 56 is one thing that has come to light in this comment stream.

Another thing is fundamentalists on this board refuse to engage the conclusion inerrancy is “fraudulent” as exposed in the takeover chapter I Linked in the other thread

David,

We don’t agree on Calvinism. We don’t agree on some applications of the law regarding things like alcohol. We might not agree on spiritual gifts (not sure). And yet, I can stand beside those who disagree on these things if they agree on the exclusivity of the gospel and the innerancy of Scripture that actually enables belief in such a gospel. First, second and third tier issues come into focus as certain things are challenged. The gospel and the Bible just seem like first priority issues that I find myself saying, “That’s right on. Preach that.” I may argue with you over some things, but I’m actually worried about some others I’m reading here.

Inerrancy is “Fraudulent”; and Clark Pinnock helped build the case at Ridgecrest in 87; Inerrancy as used in the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC
To bring things back into focus for Darby, Volfan, Joe the Cartoon man, and Brumbelow:

Read that clearly marked section in this link with references from Clark Pinnock in 1987

http://www.sbctakeover.com/chapter13.htm

Fox,

If the Bible has errors, then we need to close the doors of the churches, and become hedonists. Without the Bible we have no leg to stand on. Our faith is based on the whims and feelings and thoughts of mere man.

The Bible is the Word of God. That’s what the CR was all about for almost everyone that I knew back then, who was involved in it. It was about the Bible, and taking over the SBC to get it out of the hands of liberals.

DAvid

Fox,

Yet again, allow me to bring you to focus – focus on what is actually at stake here. The stakes are not one group of people gets to run some seminaries and control some money over others!!!! The stakes are human souls, crying for eternity in a place called Hell, because that’s where rebels go who deny their Creator the glory due his name. But so far, I can’t see one instance on this thread where someone who denies innerancy doesn’t also deny this. I don’t care what Pinnock says about the SBC. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about SALVATION! Get with the program man.

Jesus is the way to salvation, not the Inerrancy views of DArby Livingston or Volfan and Joe the Cartoon Man.
The Unfettered Word is a great book referenced in the link above on fraudulent inerrancy.
The thread is about the 10th Anniversary of BFM 2000.
BFM 2000 isnot a first tier issue for me; nor is Inerrancy.

And I’m sad for you misguided souls who got led astray

When I was stating the rights of individuals to pray as they list, it did t mean that I approved of how they prayed. It only meant that I would accord them the same privilege I desire for myself, the freedom to make my own dumb mistakes. And the people who were responsible for this liberty, this freedom of religion were our predecessors and even in some instances actual ancestors. It was Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke who first put it in law that one was free to worship as he or see saw fit and that the state (of Rhode Island) could not compel a person to believe. This was in the 1640s and 50s). The first synagogue in the new world was built there. That is why it was a grief to me to see Jews line up behind the ACLU and AU to stop any minister from praying at a public town commission or board in then name of Jesus. If you can’t pray in the name of Jesus, then neither can one pray in the name of Elohim (or any other of the names of God in the OT). Neither should a Moslem pray in the name of Allah. In short, the decision against the Christians who came up with this idea of religious liberty is taking away the freedom of all to practice their faith in the Public Arena. The privatization of religion will have disastrous results. Funny why the Jews should hand us our heads on a platter in this issue. God grant us all grace to pray. Dark days seem to lie ahead for all of us.

Fox, you wrote: “Jesus is the way to salvation, not the Inerrancy views of DArby Livingston or Volfan and Joe the Cartoon Man.”

To which I say: No he’s not. Prove it.

Brother Fox, at the risk of having you caricature me as a “cartoon” (or something less), I want to say I agree with your aforementioned quote. “Jesus Christ IS the only Way,” not the inerrancy of the Bible.

I agree with that but I doubt you will agree with my agreeing because I don’t think we agree on how we can know Christ.

We part ways when you imply or declare a “Two Words of God” theology — Jesus and the Written Word. Please quote me a scripture passage that explicitly teaches this doctrine. In 13 years of discussions on this matter beginning with the waning days of Dilday at SWBTS, nobody has been able to articulate biblically where this so-called “Two Words of God” doctrine is taught.

In every post I can remember reading of yours you quote from somebody’s book. Please quote from God’s book. I am not all-knowing so I could have missed this important doctrine. I don’t think I have, but I’m open to hearing your defense of the “Two Words of God” doctrine.

I am glad that “Jesus is the Only Way.” I know him, but I do not know the other men you speak about. I’d like to here your view from the one book I do read regularly. Tell me: how do you come to the “Two Words of God” doctrine.

The Bible has a great Theme of Hope. The Inerrantist Billy Graham, whom Tony Cartledge, the former editor of the Biblical Recorder had the flaw of often “insinuating” himself in SBC politics to ill effect; nevertheless I am convinced Billy was right about the Bible and Hope.
I doubt Brandon and Brumbelow will ever be able to disentangle themselves from the deep thicket of the Idolatry of Inerrancy; but in the HOPE others who are reading through this, the silent audience out there will see through their false and faulty construct.
So to them I offer this rich nugget and Link:

Typology, or figuralism, is as an interpretative method that reads biblical history backwards; it interprets the words God spoke to Ezekiel about Israel as foreshadowing, as pertaining ultimately to, Jesus Christ and to oneself. But as method of speaking and of actively receiving speech, typology does more. It is a citational practice that opens up the narrative time and space of the Bible and invites both preacher and listener into its stories. It turns the Bible into an unending conversation. It enables Bible-believing preachers and believers to talk about biblical characters as if they knew them, as if they had meet them, talked to them, walked with them, sat down and had breakfast with them that very morning.[xviii]

From:

http://www.nyu.edu/fas/ihpk/CultureMatters/index2.htm

Correction and apologies:
Cartledge once blogged Graham had the flaw….

Hoping to clarify a sentence in the previous post.

It occurs to me that I have heard “inerrancy” defined numerous different ways. The Chicago Statement even offers multiple definitions. It is silly to say someone does or doesn’t ascribe to soimething when there so may ways to define it are in simultaneous use. Consequently, if you guys–Joe, Fred/SSBN, Brandon, David, whomever–will each give you definition (and no giving ditto’s, or I agree with _____), I will say whether I can agree with it or not, and why. And I expect Stephen, Gene, maybe some others would be willing to do likewise. Fair enough?

John