The latest revision of the Baptist Faith & Message is now a decade old. In celebration, I’d like to offer my humble opinion on the good and bad revisions. Note: Some were introduced at some level in the 1998 revision, though solidified in the 2000 edition.
The Good
- Gender Roles – A much needed clarification of Scripture’s clear teaching of male headship in the church and in the family. Both Articles VI and XVIII clearly state the worth and gifting of women while explicitly and unapologetically describing their roles.
- Exegesis – The removal of “Jesus Christ as the exegetical standard” was a good thing, though most notably resisted by the Baptist General Convention, the largest Baptist convention in Texas. The emphasis that all Scripture is equally inspired by God keeps some from over-elevating Jesus’ teachings and pushing aside other Scripture. Article I is correct in saying, “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.”
- Priesthood of Believers – A needed, specific addition that is orthodox to Protestant Christianity.
- Eschatological Freedom – There was fear among some that dispensationalism may be included, but the new revision was not eschatologically restrictive.
- Homosexuality – Article XVIII on the family is also very clear on marriage between a man and a woman being the only acceptable form of marriage Scripturally, citing the reflection of Christ and His Church and procreation.
- Contemporary Issues – The latest revison takes a stand against current cultural issues such as abortion, adultery, and pornography.
The Bad
- No Inerrancy – Inerrancy is a controversial term to some, and it was left out of the 2000 revision. The word “inspired” is mostly used in its place but inerrancy is a foundational tenant of faith, in my opinion.
- BFM is Loosely Binded – Though seminary faculty and prospective missionaries are required to agree to the BFM2000, churches are not. I believe that church constitutions and pastors should be required to agree, as well. Purpose and unity can only help the convention as a whole.
Though I have a few minor issues with it, I truly believe that the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message is a ground-breaking achievement in church ethics and should be modeled by others.
Brandon,
I would argue that the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 does include inerrancy. Moderates and liberals had found a couple of loopholes in the 1963 statement. One of the ways the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 closed those loopholes is with the statement, “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.” While the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 doesn’t use the word inerrancy, that statement is a definition of inerrancy.
For anyone interested, at “Gulf Coast Pastor” I wrote on the differences between the Baptist Faith & Message 1963 and 2000 back on September 21, 2009.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Give us a link and Ill check it out!
I would have preferred the word, because the word “inerrancy” carries more weight. To me, at least. But I see what you’re saying and you may be right.
Matt,
Hey, I just barely know how to turn on my computer. But if I did it right, the link to the Baptist Faith & Message article in Gulf Coast Pastor is:
BF&M 2000 & 1963
If it doesn’t work, it can be found under “Gulf Coast Pastor Articles,” click either “Baptist Faith & Message 1963” or “Baptist Faith & Message 2000.”
David R. Brumbelow
Or maybe this will work:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2009/09/differences-between-1963-and-2000.html#comments
David R. Brumbelow
Brandon: Do you wish for the BFM 2000 to become a creed? If not, how is a belief statement that all churches are required to affirm anything but a creed?
Those are the same questions I have…
That’s a valid point, but no I do not think of it as a creed. Simply, I would like to see churches agree to it because of it’s strength in Scripture and ethics. I realize it is not possible, but in a perfect world I believe churches agreeing to it would bring unity and accountability.
Brandon,
Several time in your article you refer to the SBC as a “Denomination”… I do this, Danny Akin did this at the B21 panel discussion at the Convention then quickly corrected himself, everyone does this from time to time.
However, I do think that if we are to have unity in the SBC we must be careful to communicate that unlike a denomination the SBC is a Missions Organization made up of “Self Defining” and “Self Governing” Baptist Churches freely choosing to cooperate with the SBC for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission.
Grace Always,
Greg, good call. I think I typed that without even thinking. I will change it.
I agree that it would probably be impossible to enforce a system of autonomous churches to agree to the BFM2000, I’d like to see churches held accountable for what their claimed convention stands for.
I completely agree with every one of the “pros”. I especially apprecaite the fact that the phrase about “Jesus Christ as the exegetical standard” being removed since that was a huge loophole that allowed moderates to claim “Well, Paul can’t have meant [insert doctrine they didn’t like here] because Christ surely would never have meant that”. I don’t agree with the cons. I think even though inerrancy is not spelled out I think it is affirmed. Further, I’m not sure that if I was in an SBC church now I would want churches to be required to sign off on… Read more »
Joe,
I agree that it would be next to impossible to ask autonomous churches to sign off on the BFM2000, but I’d like to see the churches be held accountable for what their convention teaches. You’re right, a huge draw back would be disfellowship/division that could occur. It is far too late to actually try to enforce it, but I’d like to see churches agree to it.
So, when is the school you attend going to get around to signing the BFM2000?
I think the BDW asks a great question.
And what about Timothy George of the Manhattan Declaration and Samford’s Beeson Div School turning out female candidates for the Senior Preaching Pulpit every year?
How do you square that?
BDW,
What point are you trying to make?
I just think it’s kinda interesting that Brandon is such a huge fan of the BFM2000 and the need for pastors/churches to be held accountable, yet he has chosen to attend a Baptist university that does not require professors to teach according to BFM2000 – a Baptist university affiliated with a state convention that refuses to affirm inerrancy. In this post, Brandon describes inerrancy as “a foundational tenant of faith.” Yet, his Baptist university employs profs that are decidedly not inerrantists, professors and administrators from his school have provided support and leadership for Texas Baptists Committed, an organization known for… Read more »
Joe, My kids go to a private Christian school that requires we sign off on a basic statement of Christian beliefs. We also have a morals statement to sign. And to top that off, we must present a letter from our pastor affirming we are members of an orthodox Christian church in good standing
Why then are there so many parents there who live and act as pagans?
Because signing a creed or statement means nothing.
BDW,
Dallas Baptist and Criswell are my two options in Dallas as far as a Baptist school is concerned. Though Criswell is an SBC school, it doesn’t offer alternative Liberal Arts degrees and I will be minoring in history as I may be teaching at a public school while I work towards the education to hopefully and eventually teach Bible college or seminary in the future.
The College at Southwestern is the other option now, but still lacking in any legitimate LA curriculum.
Furthermore,
My church plant will be SBTC and NAMB funded and my money goes towards the SBC as will my post-grad work. Also, I think a Baylor guy like yourself shouldn’t worry too much about DBU’s views on Scripture. Take those issues to the Baylor board.
As a minor issue, I’ve always quibbled a bit with this sentence from article on “Man”: Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. It seems to me that the Scriptures teach what we are under condemnation not the moment we are capable of moral action, but the moment we are born. In Adam we all sinned and are under God’s righteous wrath just by being born human. We sin because we are sinners, and we are sinners before we ever sin. I do believe that infants and young children go… Read more »
I definitely agree, good observation.
We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.
As a case study, wouldn’t it be interesting to explore the staff thinking andlay leadership for example of Dawson Memorial BC in Bham who leads the state convention in CP giving but doesn’t adhere to BFM 2000.
And at what point do these autonomous Baptist churches who are encouraged to “agree” with BFM 2000 but have reservations; please explain to me again why as a matter of realpolitik they are disenfranchised in Convention life, yet their high percentage CP giving is championed.
Please explore that mystery for me.
Thanks
“The removal of “Jesus Christ as the exegetical standard” was a good thing”
this makes me sad.
I have heard all the reasons for it, yes, but none of them make any sense to me.
You’re not reading the post correctly, my friend.
“The removal of “Jesus Christ as the exegetical standard” was a good thing”
how does this not say what it says?
(or: if it doesn’t say what it says, what DOES it say?)
Sorry, but lately, in the SBC world, even a ‘fact’ is not a ‘fact’ and
what is called a ‘mis-statement’ looks curiously like a ‘lie’.
I explained why it was good to change the wording.
Another negative of the BFM 2000 is a lack of precision on the issue of justification. There is nothing about Christ’s righteousness being imputed to the sinner. If the SBC ever has a problem with the New Perspective on Paul, the BFM 2000 will not be adequate to deal with it. Also, the BFM retains the nearly Pelagian anthropology that Herschel Hobbes inserted in Article III in 1963: “Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon… Read more »
Heresy? Really? I would love to hear your reasoning on this (with textual proofs, of course.)
Squirrel
About the criterion statement. The Baptist Faith & Message 1963 said, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Christ.” The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 dropped that sentence. First, while it sounded good, no one knew exactly what that meant. Second, some more liberal folks used that as an excuse to throw out verses they didn’t agree with. According to some of them, if Jesus did not directly speak to an issue, then other verses that spoke to that issue – well, they were free to take them or leave them. As your post affirms, “all”… Read more »
“First, while it sounded good, no one knew exactly what that meant.”
that is even more sad . . .
“Dispensationalism is a heresy.”
Sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement. The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 (&1963 &1925) has a general statement about end times. Of course the more general it is the more amillennial it sounds. But that general statement can easily include amillennialists, premillennialists, and I suppose all those in between. It includes the basics that we all agree on.
Amillennialism is not a heresy. Premillennialism is not a heresy. There are good Bible believing folks on both sides. And I say that as a premillennialist.
David R. Brumbelow
Who said that?
Oh. Jeff did.
Dispensationalism clearly contradicts the BFM 2000: The BFM 2000 says: “The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. ” Dispensationalists say that OT believers and Jewish believers after the rapture are part of Israel, not the church, thus denying that the church includes all of the redeemed of all ages. “The BFM 2000 says: “The Kingdom of God includes both His general sovereignty over the universe and His particular kingship over men who willfully acknowledge… Read more »
Jeff,
I agree with you exegetically that dispensationalism is incorrect but:
A) Because it disagrees with the BFM2000 doesn’t make it heresy
B) Wouldn’t denying the rapture or second-coming of Christ be the only real heretical statements? Everything else, to me, seems not as crucial… Only interpretative.
Dispensationalism is a heresy because it did not exist until 1830, and was not believed by any Southern Baptist until sometime in the late 1800s. Dispensationalists have taken brand-new beliefs, such as the pre-trib rapture, and made them into litmus tests of orthodoxy, which is cult-like behavior in my opinion. I have never encountered a more obnoxious group of Christians than dispensationalists who were trying to cram their beliefs down my throat.
Jeff,
When were Luther’s theses nailed to the door? I don’t know that date = correct/incorrectness.
Many of the church fathers believed in a doctrine of justification quite similar to what Luther believed. Luther was just recovering the doctrine of justification that the fathers held. In contrast, dispensationalism is a total novelty without any precedent in church history. What is true is not new, and what is new is not true.
Jeff,
So you say premillennialists are heretics, cult-like, obnoxious, and cram their beliefs down throats.
Now, who is exactly is being obnoxious?
Who are these, according to you, heretical people? Well, let’s see: W. A. Criswell, Adrian Rogers, Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, R. G. Lee, Charles H. Spurgeon, John MacArthur, Jimmy Draper, Richard Land, Mac Brunson, Billy Graham… Matter of fact, it seems a recent survey showed the majority of our SBC seminary professors claimed some form of premillennialism. But hey, if they’re heretics, we should kick them out of the convention.
David R. Brumbelow
I am not talking about premillennialists in general. In my experience, historical premillennialists are actually pretty nice people whom I respect, and historical premillennialism has a long pedigree going back to some of the earliest church fathers. Historical premillennialism does not contradict the BFM 2000 that much. Dispensationalist premillennialism is a whole different story. Almost every dispensationalist I have ever known was arrogant and condescending (and many of their attacks on me were totally unprovoked – they would start out saying, “Are you pre-trib or post-trib? Why are you post-trib?” and so forth). These dispensationalists would accuse me of being… Read more »
Could the kind of arrogance and combative spirit you demonstrated in this comment be why people treated you that way? Perhaps you provoked them with your arrogant attacks? Just wondering.
I keep trying to help Matt Svoboda get his eschatology correct (its a ministry) but we have had several exchanges – none of which were as you described.
Maybe you should check your own spirit and attitude (take the log from your own eye?) before you post wild, defamatory and accusatory attacks like this.
Aaaaaaaand, Dave is back from Taiwan! Welcome home! I was hoping a Taiwanese christian would have shown you biblical Eschatology while you were there, but I guess you are blinded from the light in every country! 🙂 Jeff, I think Dave might be right. You seem to have a very combative tone, which can easily lead to very unproductive conversations. Dave and I disagree(Im Amill and hes Dispy), but all of our interactions have been cordial and respectful. While I would get annoyed if a Dispy told me I was a heretic for being Amill I realize that very few… Read more »
I’m still in Taiwan – I just got a little internet access on the other side of the world.
No, it has always been dispensationalists making totally unprovoked attacks on me and trying to cram their views down my throat.
But it is dispensationalists whose beliefs are contrary to the BFM 2000.
Jeff,
How about your totally unprovoked attack in this thread?
David R. Brumbelow
Jeff, you might try exhibiting a gracious spirit in discussions and see if people do not respond to you with grace. I am a dispensationalist (mild, progressive) and I have a historic post-trib youth pastor and an associate who does not really know what he believes. You are combative and insulting in your debate style on blogs. If you are like that in real life, you might find that as an explanation for the behavior of others. I affirm that we can, in fact, discuss eschatology with grace, even if you have never formed the ability to do so. Discussing… Read more »
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… Read more »
It is interesting to note how many people worship that sentence as a de facto creed, and insist that it must remain in the BFB, but then denounce creeds in the very next sentence. Moderates worship that phrase like an idol. It allows them to dismiss any part of scripture they don’t agree with by saying “Well, Jesus never taught that” or “Jesus wouldn’t have been that exclusive”. Of course, that’s also the reason they won’t affirm inerrancy, a doctrine which all real Christians recognize is true. By claiming the Bible is error filled or that some parts are inspired… Read more »
““The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ” is a terrible sentence.”
Oy. Where’s my aspirin.
And again I say:
Moderates worship that phrase like an idol. It allows them to dismiss any part of scripture they don’t agree with by saying “Well, Jesus never taught that” or “Jesus wouldn’t have been that exclusive”.
Paul’s words are just as much scripture and are equal in authority and are equally inspired as anything we have recorded in the gospel. All real Christians know that.
I should have said “Moderates and liberals…”
Was the idea of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, “invented in 1830 by a 15 year old girl”? That is not exactly accurate. R. L. Sumner recently wrote on the subject of ancient quotes concerning the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the church: “For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.” -Ephraem the Syrian, AD 323 “This ancient scholar believed that ‘sore affliction’ would last one week of seven years, with ‘the great… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Easy there, killer.
I said in many follow-up comments that I’m aware that the autonomy of churches makes it nearly impossible.
Bill,
That was the most hilarious comment that I’ve seen in a long time.
Joe,
How dare you punch kittens?! 😉
Stephen: Thanks for the reply. I am not sure about a “Covenant” that you reference. I was talking about the Abstract of Principles, which is the doctrinal creed (according to Southern’s founders) for the seminary. The Abstract states as follows: “Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist church; and all persons accepting professorships in this seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part shall be considered grounds for his… Read more »
Be sure to investigate the tiny url I left for you that takes you to the heart of Barry Hankins revelations on Mohler’s Covenant with The Firm.
RE your statement “…in a perfect world I believe churches agreeing to it would bring unity and accountability.”
1. Accountability to WHO?
2. You don’t understand “Baptist” at all.
Your statement that “The emphasis that all Scripture is equally inspired by God keeps some from over-elevating Jesus’ teachings … is positively frightening. It is impossible to “over elevate Jesus’ teachings.”
Accountability to those SBC churches who appoint gay pastors, woman pastors, openly support abortion, etc.
Yes, it’s possible. What happened was that people would throw out other Scripture or pick and choose what they wanted to believe. If they didn’t like something from Paul or the OT, they would say, “Well JESUS didn’t say it so it’s not true!”
What denomination are you?
Let me fill you in on the Charles Stanley story: I have heard it from his own mouth as he spoke to the Noonday Baptist Association. According to him “God used him in mighty ways to resurrect a dying downtown church” My father happened to be the Associate DOM fot the Atlanta Baptist Association and gives a wider view–and far more accurate: Roy McClain had been the well-respected pastor. His son was tragically killed in Viet Nam and he had a nervous breakdown so he resigned and went back to his home in Orangeburg, SC. Stanley had been made the… Read more »
And now a few words in honor of Charles Stanley. He is accused of being an independent Baptist, yet the largest voting group of Southern Baptists in history elected him president of the SBC. He is accused of being independent Baptist yet he and his church are a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. Jerry Vines, another former SBC president is a member of Stanley’s church. That Southern Baptist church has won thousands to the Lord. Stanley’s preaching and writing have blessed untold thousands. Seems to me the real problem is that Stanley was a conservative leader in the Conservative… Read more »
Great question, David!
Gene: Thanks for that. But isn’t the bottom line for local church autonomy that the church votes to make whomever it wants its pastor? I really did not hear any shenanigans in your story. Even though it came through 2 or 3 people to get to you, the worst I can find there was that Stanley agreed he was a caretaker, and then changed his mind. If in fact it happened that way (and apparently it was oral agreement only and never reduced to writing) and there is no way to know for certain – each party would have his… Read more »
Louis, maybe you can get in touch with your 2nd Ponce friend of the 80’s and share this with her.
Griffith not letting anybody blow smoke on his blue skies is what is holding your SBC together; and Robert Marsh’s address tohis deacons in 1990 is key to the integrity crisis of history you fellows deny:
Be sure to scroll around and read this entire history. If 1st Baptist were given the Doug Weaver Treatment, I am satisfied Scarborough’s version would be the overwhelming truth.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_1_42/ai_n19311257/pg_4/?tag=content;col1
Brandon, The only place in Texas will you find a school that believes in inerrancy is Dallas Theological Seminary. There aren’t any Baptist schools that openly support it. I do wish you would associate with someone other than the SBTC in Texas. They are not all they are painted up to be but then your only other choice is the BGCT and that is even worse. Maybe just be a Southern Baptist and leave it at that. I have found that the BFM is just a good tool to fight and argue about in all reality. No pastor or church… Read more »
I will surely stay with the SBC as long as the BFM2000 stays as solid as it is. You’re right, the BGCT is definitely not a good alternative!
The BFM2000 has become an argument tool (as seen on this post), but I don’t think that makes it irrelevant or unimportant. Anything can be used to start a fight.
Louis and all: Here is more remedial education for you on the Southern Seminary Covenant:
Page 100 is the key page and page 103 Carey Newman talks about “The Firm” at Southern Seminary
Easily googled right up for me just a few minutes ago for simple search: Hankins on Carey Newman at Southern Seminary
That takes you into online read of the heart of Uneasy in Babylon.
Stephen: Thanks for the great reference. I know what you are referring to now – the Covenant Renewal document. That was a transient document that was adopted, I think, when Dr. Honeycutt was President or thereabouts. If I read correctly, the trustees did away with that at some point. I enjoyed reading the excerpt from the book. I believe that re-telling is fairly similar to Dr. Wills’ account in the History of Southern Seminary that was released last year. My summary would be that Dr. Honeycutt finally stopped calling for “Holy War” and began to see the need to react… Read more »
A question for the group:
Would the requirement of a church/pastor agreeing to the BFM2000 be a good thing if it curbed these SBC churches from appoint gay pastors, woman pastors, openly supporting abortion, etc.? Or should we just realize that we have to deal with these things happening in the church?
A Tiny URL for your Edification and a Question about the level of remedial reading this board should pursue. http://tinyurl.com/3aoxh6w First the URL where again Pages 100 and then the Fiirm on 103take you to heart of fundamentalism as it became the warp and woof of Southern Seminary in 94 with Al Mohler’s Covenant. Then just so everyone knows what level of ignorance on these matters we are dealing with here on this board How about a roll call on the honor system with Brandon and Louis reading the way to let us know how many books in the BX… Read more »
Stephen:
I plea complete ignorance about the BX 6400 books.
I don’t plea ignorance about the topics of these books, whatever they may be.
My reading list, however, is fairly long. Please don’t dump a project in my lap.
Stephen, You and Aaron Weaver are obviously also in agreement on continually trying to dust up arguments on every front possible with unconstructive and unedifying comments that only bring about sin in everyone because pride and insults always follow from both sides. This is at least your third mention of these BX 6400s that I have seen, one of those not even being on this site. If you Google BX 6400, you only come across a few random Baylor guys talking about it on message boards with no actual description of them. I am beginning to believe that they are… Read more »
For those who haven’t made it to a library in a while and can’t decipher Fox’s reference: BX6400 refers to a Library of Congress (LC) call number. The first letter represents a major LC division. In this case, B = Psychology, Philosophy and Religion. The second letter presents a subdivision. X = Christian Denominations The numbers following the letters help define the book’s subject. Books numbered BX4800 – 9999 deal with Protestantism. So, BX6400s refer to the section of the library that deals with Baptist history, specifically the denominational histories of the Southern Baptist Convention. See, that was both educational… Read more »
The above is from me, BDW, in case any confusion.
Interesting thought there, about making churches subscribe to the BFM 2000. Requiring independent, autonomous congregations to sign off on a uniform theological statement makes the statement a creed by definition. In the SBC, attempting to do that would be like herding cats. A Southern Baptist church, functioning as the body of Christ, is accountable to no one but Jesus. Fact is, requiring churches to adopt the BFM 2000 would be a fundamental contradiction of what the document itself says about the church. If such an attempt were ever made, the SBC would dissolve faster than a menthos in a bottle… Read more »
Lee: Thanks for the good thoughts. Words are important. Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law and the prophets. We are in total agreement with that. Jesus did not say he was the interpretive filter. Jesus did not say he was the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted. If we stick with the actual words of Jesus, we’ll have no issue. But any time we try to re-state that on this particular issue, we can end up with concepts that Jesus did not actually promote – hence – “I am the criterion by which the… Read more »
Very good Lee.
Debbie
As you are so fond of telling people, “Shut up”.
If the SBC is autonomous with relation to the BFM 2000, then it’s autonomous in how churches deal with ministerial miconduct. You don’t get it both ways.
All Christians know that the clause about “Jesus criterion” WAS used in just the way described here by liberals–we can set aside Paul’s teaching on [whatever] because Jesus didn’t touch on that. Only moderate filth would defend such a view of scripture.
I am one of “those” who is uneasy with the BF&M2000, for a couple of reasons. One is the removal of the “Jesus criteria,” because although anything can be abused–including the “witness” language of the 2000 version–all I ever hear are about nameless, faceless liberals who twisted its meaning; who were they? And even if they existed, deleting this statement of criteria was throwing out the baby with the bath water, IMHO. Second, is its move toward being a binding creed, what with its “instrument of doctrinal accountability” language. Now having said that, I must ask: what SBC churches have… Read more »
John: As I said above, on the issue of the nature of Scripture, we are best sticking with what Jesus actually said, not theologically obtuse statements. Jesus did not say, “I am the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted.” The New Testament had not even been written yet. You and I will not have any disagreement if we use the actual verses. But paraphrases of verses often have dual or unintended meanings. I believe “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ” is actually nonsenical. I do not know what that means.… Read more »
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… Read more »
BWD: Thanks for the info. I did not drag homosexuality into this but was just showing John Farris why some might want to discuss it. Thank you for all of the info you have provided. I suspect that there are elements in the CBF that will want to see homosexual activity as not sinful. Some quoted in the ABP article seem that way. Still others I know in the CBF view hmosexuality as I and most Southern Baptists see it. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about where the CBF is headed on this. I would be interested… Read more »
BDW,
That’s what we backwoods SBCers call “sarcasm”… I just think it’s funny you use BX 6400 as a code word to try and sound more intelligent as you know some will not know what it is. My point is that no one uses “BX6400” in conversation, hence why you can’t find it on Google. Contrary to your Baylor elitist opinion, people know what BX 6400 is.
So Brandon:
Name for us some of the titles on the BX 6400 shelf you have read; and name some of the titles and authors you have every intention of reading to gain a better perspective about how the SBC got to where it is today.
Or are you satisfied to just go with what Dave Miller and Louis and other hearsay had to say about it without any investigation yourself.
Stephen:
Just because a person has not read certain books on a topic does not mean that person is not knowledgeable or that their opnions are worth less.
I suspect that you are very young and that while you may have read many books from a certain perspective on SBC topics that you probably don”t have the reservoir of knowledge that someone like Dave Miller has.
Also, not all books are of equal value. All books are full of hearsay. First person histories have the advantage of not relying on hearsay, but they may suffer from bias.
Brandon, Can you show me where I mentioned BX6400s to “sound more intelligent”? I did, however, offer an explanation since it was rather apparent that you didn’t recognize that combination of letters and digits as a Library call number. If you did, you would not have spent time looking it up via Google. You really should reread who wrote what comments before going off on one of your rants. Speaking of what is edifying, take a glance in the mirror. You’ve been just a bit snotty today. I don’t necessarily have a problem with snotty. Then again, I’m not out… Read more »
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… Read more »
Lee:
I am not for requiring churches to subscribe to the BFM. Someone else suggested that.
The 1925 BFM and the 1963 versions were all born out of political iissues of the day.
In none of the quotes you cited did it say that “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ”. I am for all of those quotes. Just not the synopsis.
Quotes? He didn’t give just “quotes” Louis, that was exact scripture!
Lee:
Your first paragraph kinda sounds like some of the rhetoric Mainstream Baptists were voicing in the pamphlet Stand With Christ in response to the IMB firing 80 missionaries about 9 years ago.
It is an open secret the WMU staff in Bham won’t sign the BFM 2000. So what kind of a schizophrenic mission fund raising denomination are you running if BFM 2000 is such a perfect Confessional Instrument???
Stephen:
That is a pretty accurate comment. Schizophrenia abounds in religious circles, especially if those circles are 100 years or more old.
Alas, the WMU is its own animal that cannot be tamed.
It has an “auxillary” status to the SBC. I think it supports CBF missionaries, as well.
Louis, Thanks for the reply. I note your statement, “we are best sticking with what Jesus actually said, not theologically obtuse statements.” That makes for a good sound bite, but not for realistically dealing with the intersection of the world in which we live and the Written Word. To stick with only the words that Jesus said will result in us becomming new Amish at best or a latter day Church of Christ at worst. I will grant you that Jesus never said, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ,” but neither did He… Read more »
John: I did not say there were a lot of or any SBC churches that had homosexual pastors. Someone else brought that up. I just tried to address it, and am not stuck with being the one who apparently thinks that. I do not. If you read the story about the CBF workshop, you will see why I brought it up. The quotes in the story are from 2 CBF church pastors. Joy Yee, pastor of Nineteenth Avenue Baptist Church in San Francisco, said homosexuality is not what she would call “God’s Plan A.” “But not much of the human… Read more »
BDW, Sorry, I am on my phone so I can’t reply to your commenst directly, so I have to post them at the bottom. I apologize for lumping you in on the BX6400 comment. You’re right, I have been snotty today, and I apologize for that. As I said to Fox earlier and you before, the reason you guys frustrate me is because your comments usually just lead to prideful arguments and division, and I usually get caught up in it. I also realize that this is a personal problem. As for me Googling BX6400, I did it to show… Read more »
Sorry you get frustrated so easily. It’s difficult to have a real discussion without some level of disagreement. We don’t all think and believe alike. It’s a mistake to equate a disagreement with division. And, I didn’t call you a liar.
I think Fox is trying to ask whether you’ve studied Southern Baptist history written from the perspective of a non-conservative – or an outsider? Ben Cole used to lament in class that many Southern Baptists have not read non-insider accounts of recent SBC history. Don’t confuse “many” with “all.” I know folks like Louis and others are well-read.
Since this post has somehow degraded to the level of griping about doctrinal parameters, I decided to enter the fray. The following is taken from an xbox360… I mean a bx6400 that is from “the perspective of a non-conservative.” I won’t even have to cite the title and author because of everyone’s intimate familiarity with these bx6400s: “If the circle of acceptable diversity of biblical interpretation is going to be drawn so narrowly regarding matters of opinion and conscientious difference among Bible-believing Christians that such a statement as mine is unacceptable, then it is likely that the seminary in all… Read more »
Darby:
I have met many of these men. They are gifted and scholarly.
BDidd makes a good point; you shouldn’t be insulted so easily. I could just as easily be insulted by your accusations that my intent was to insult. My question remains, where did your conviction come from, and what do you have to substantiate it other than legend and oral history you apparently have heard from fundamentalists. Since it’s a big world out there and most likely neither of us have had the same conversations with the same people; maybe we can find out what books on the BX 6400 shelf you have explored. Best I remember Miller said he had… Read more »
Stephen:
If convincing the women of the WMU of things is the test for success, we are all going to be unsuccessful for a long time.
The WMU is made up of free and faithful Baptists who will decide what is the truth when they decide it. Scholarship is not the only question here.
Stephen:
Greg Wills is a great guy. We recently talked about Hull’s book and how he discussed it with Hull. I will be interested in reading Hull’s book.
Fox,
What chip is on my shoulder? I’m not sure where you’re going with any of this. You seem to think I’m some sort of crazy, brainwashed SBCer. In fact, I have studied Baptist history at pretty decent length, at least I think so. I was an ardent Methodist for quite awhile until I really began to study Scripture. This is why I landed at, and am so in favor of the SBC’s conservative political and theological views as well as it’s work in the Great Commission.
Winning the argument, Losing the Truth Brandon that may be the section of this essay: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/1986/hitchens_debates_conservative_evangelical%3A_nothing_happens/ that may be most appropriate to the exchanges between you and me; and also has some application to the Inerrancy crusade in the SBC and BFM 2000 For the record as the Hitchens family goes, I side with Peter Hitchens, the Believer; especially his quote from Annie Dillard. But I will leave it to you to find the Annie Dillard quote. And since, Brandon you are a Baptist by choice, I would hope you will come to appreciate this grand sermon from July 4th… Read more »
Brandon here is a good sermon for you to consider:
http://www.pulpitbytes.blogspot.com/
Thanks, BDW.
I think that you are well read, too, and I enjoy the internet banter with you very much.
Would enjoy meeting you some time. I guess you have a blog or website. I don’t.
Do you ever attend the SBC?
Oh, also, I just checked out your web page. I went to school with Billy Kim’s son and daughter. Do you (or did you, I don’t know if he is still living) know Billy Kim?
To my knowledge, Dr. Kim is still alive. I met him on a couple of occasions, first about five years or so ago when he was still President of the BWA. My cousin used to work for the BWA and worked closely with Dr. Kim – a great man.
Darby,
I agree. Many in the moderate group felt there would never be enough well-educated conservative scholars to populate our seminaries. Now we have more solid, conservative, competent, Bible scholars than our seminaries can employ.
Seems the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 strengthened, rather than weakened our seminaries.
David R. Brumbelow
A high tide raises all ships.
Fox,
You are right that I was rude, my mistake and I apologize. You assume that because I believe one way or differently than you, I obviously haven’t studied?
Stephen, You bring up the BX6400 library designation and whether conservatives have read the other side. I and many others have. Also, some of us were participants during the height of the Conservative Resurgence. We believe what we do out of conviction, not ignorance. Haven’t checked the library designations, but below are a few books on the subject of the SBC Conservative Resurgence. I’ll even present both sides. I’ve read and own most of them. Books from the conservative point of view on the Conservative Resurgence: 1. The Baptist Reformation by Jerry Sutton, B&H (Broadman & Holman) 2. The Truth… Read more »
No mention, however of the works by outsiders like Barry Hankins’ Uneasy in Babylon, David Stricklin’s A Genealogy of Dissent or the more specific studies by outsiders dealing with race and other social issues by Mark Newman, Oran Smith, Edward Queen, John Storey, etc. Ben Cole’s point was that most engaged SBCers have read the Pressler account but have never bothered to read Uneasy in Babylon – which, unlike a memoir, provides scholarly analysis based on research. Ammerman’s book is the most objective of those listed above – that’s why Patterson can recommend it. Her work is based on survey… Read more »
Big Daddy,
I apologize for not being more well read :-).
I may not get them all, but I did just order Uneasy in Babylon by Barry Hankins.
I do have a copy of Barry Hankins’ biography of J. Frank Norris. It is a fascinating book.
What do you think of the books by Sutton and Sherman?
David R. Brumbelow
My above Sherwood quote is taken from Uneasy in Babylon.
Darby,
Now that should go to show you – don’t ever assume folks know what your talking about. But I’ll get up to speed with that book in another week or two :-).
Stephen,
Have you read the books on the conservative side, listed above?
David R. Brumbelow
A memoir is a memoir. I think both Patterson’s and Sherman’s insider accounts are incredibly useful as primary sources. I don’t have much use, however, for Sutton’s history. His is advocate history at its finest. Have you read A Matter of Conviction by Sutton? I was excited when it came out; as my own research deals with Southern Baptists and social engagement. Big disappointment. David Roach, a recent SBTS grad, published a strong critique of Sutton’s latest in the journal Themelios. Roach took Sutton to task for depicting “Southern Baptist racism in inappropriately positive light,” “uncritically accepts statements by Richard… Read more »
Big Daddy,
No, I haven’t read Sutton’s other book.
I still like his Baptist Reformation, but I agree with you that it is advocate history. But of course, I agree with his advocacy in his book.
Thanks for your comments.
David R. Brumbelow
So this is what I’ve learned here: 1. Liberals and moderates are evil, pretty much on par with satanism if you ask Joe Blackmon 2. The BFM2K is the end all, be all document. If there was a way to supplant the bible, then conservatives would be all over it…oh wait… 3. Women are evil yet our two largest offerings are named for women who actually did the roles of pastoring out in the mission field, but conservatives are trying to find a way to rename them after their husbands or closest male friend. 4. Our seminaries are now rock… Read more »
That is, without a doubt, the FUNNIEST thing I have ever read. You, sir, are a genius on the order of Red Buttons or Dick Van Patten.
I liked that part where that cartoon character Blackmon punched the Kittens.
Louis, Please pardon me if I confused (and apparently I did) what you said with an assertion that there were SBC churches that had openly homosexual pastors. If someone else did, whoever you are, please provide evidence. If no one did, please pardon me for misreading. Just a word about pastors Yee and Mason: I don’t think they speak for the CBF; and though I may disagree with what they say, like Voltaire, I would defend their right to say it. I would enjoy engaging with you on a restatement of the criterion sentence. Unfortunantly, VBS begins in 5 minutes,… Read more »
John: My bad. I read your comment 76, which was the first to mention the homosexual issue, and responded in comment 77. I thought that you were addressing someone else who had brought it up, so I thought the issue was in play. The only Baptist church I know of that has an openly gay pastor is the one mentioned in the article. But some looked up and found that that church gives no money to the SBC. So, they are not SBC. As I have said, I think that the SBC has nailed that issue shut for now. But… Read more »
I mentioned that we could curb it from happening, but didn’t assert or mean to that it’s current. It could certainly happen again, who kniows?
DavidB: Delighted to know you have read some books on the matter. Along with BDidd’s examples I also notice Ellen Rosenberg: The SB’s in Cutural Transition. David Morgan: The Holy Crusaders Ammerman’s Southern Baptist Observed missing from your list. Ammerman’s collection of essays in distinction from her Baptist Battles has an effort by Helen Lee Turner on how the Southern Baptist Pastor’s Conference used heightened apocalyptic rhetoric to demagogue many of the key SBC Convention votes. It is fascinating indeed and I highly recommend it. I am glad Greg Wills is taking a look at Hull’s book. I hope he… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Louis,
Good points.
David R. Brumbelow
I am just wanting to point out that this has been a ridiculous and obnoxious comment thread.
Stephen Fox, You have accused conservatives of being ignorant if they have not read the books on the SBC that you recommend. Of course the books and literature you recommend are from the moderate to liberal point of view. I’ll ask you again. Of the books from the conservative point of view, that I listed above, have you read any of them? I’ll list those books again to refresh your memory. 1. The Baptist Reformation by Jerry Sutton, B&H (Broadman & Holman) 2. The Truth in Crises by James Hefley, Hannibal Books (several volumes; hannibalbooks.com). This series has been recommended… Read more »
Hefley gave me his complete set in New Orleans in 90 but I inadvertently never got out of town with them, regretfully. I am indebted to him for mentioning my name and covering the 11 am Weds Morning press conference in 1988 in San Antonio, with James Dunn and the Laity Journal’s Neal Rodgers on the microphone; Babs Baugh and her husband in the room at my invitation, and best I remember Carolyn W Crumpler as well. Paige Patterson filtered in and was having impromptu discussions with the press as Dunn and Rodgers held court officially; quite a scene. In… Read more »
Stephen Fox,
So in other words, your answer is no.
You have not read any of the books on the Conservative Resurgence from the conservative point of view.
Yet you criticize as ignorant, conservatives who have not read the moderate to liberal material you recommend. Sounds as though you are guilty of what you accuse in others.
Maybe you should consider reading the other side.
David R. Brumbelow
No, the answer is Yes; I read most of the Hefley books and read almost every issue of the Southern Baptist Advocate in the 80’s. I was there in the building in 89 when Pressler had the ExCom fire Shackleford and Martin; and helped construct the debate between Pressler and Montoya and Wilmer Fields son Randy at Samford in October 1990. April 2002 went down to Joe Godfrey’s church in Montgomery to hear Pressler address Alabama fundamentalists about the state convention a day after Godfrey and Pressler had private lunch with Judge Roy Moore. So yes I am aware of… Read more »
And a link for Brandon and Brumbelow:
http://www.churchplantingvillage.net/atf/cf/%7BA6A80990-48C6-406D-87AC-B652EF345C76%7D/A_Baptist_History_1975_to_present.pdf
Stephen: It is interesting to hear your background and some of your personal observations and experiences. You sound like you were in the fray back in the day. Did you go to Samford? Were you working for an agency, a student or just a moderate worker? What do you do now? Are you still involved in moderate Baptist circles, CBF etc.? You mentioned Ken Chaffin. I heard him preach one time about 1990 or so. It was o.k. But I was really disappointed when he was on the Donahue show in 1985. When the young woman (who appeared to be… Read more »
Louis–
I do know Ken Chafin to be a well-grounded and down-to-earth person who was honored to become SBC President in the years where that meant his church was a sacrifical giver to the Cooperative Program.
I think he commented on the Donahue program with a compassionate biblical observation over a narrow fundamentalist take that tightly closes the gates to Heaven–more tight than Jesus would, in my opinion.
No matter what, Ken Chafin was authentic to himself and his Lord—and a good representative of Southern Baptists.
Dr. Chaffin butted in and said, “Jesus said, love God and love your fellow man, and that’s all you need to do.” Do you think that Dr. Chaffin was just confused and lacked the experience to know how to handle a question like that under pressure? Or do you think that was really Dr. Chaffin’s belief? There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind, and I know you weren’t asking me but I can’t let an opportunity to get a dig in on moderate christians pass by, that he knew exactly what he was saying and that it is exactly… Read more »
I actually think that he did believe that to some extent. Earlier in the program he said that a Rabbi in Houston with whom he worked knew God and would be in heaven. But I believe Ken Chaffin was very smart, and would not have said that in public except for the bright lights and applause and pressure from Donahue. Donahue sensed differences between Pressler and Chaffin on even fairly essential Christian teaching, and I think kept trying to draw that out to make the show interesting. I think he had no idea how it was hurting Chaffin in the… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
Well, him being at Southern when it was a decidedly left wing institution doesn’t exactly prove anything. Fact–he said that. Fact–he said it because he believed it. Fact–his statement that someone can go to heaven some way other than through faith in Jesus Christ doesn’t bother you. Fact–his statement that someone can go to heaven some way other than through Jesus Christ is contrary to scripture.
That pretty well sums it up. Like Joe Friday used to say “Just the facts…”
Oh, and the link–I read it and all the while I heard weepy, sappy, violin music in the background. It was a redention of the old Hee Haw song “Gloom, Despair, and Agony on me” and it was in A flat which I thought was kinda strange because string players generally don’t like playing in flats–go fig.
“8. The biggest casualties of the war: little girls born into SBC churches during the struggle who would grow up wanting to be a part of the SBC ministry in the 21st century.”
I disagree with Shurden, who manages to make man the center of everything in this statement. The biggest casualty of the “war” was the Lord Jesus Christ, who had to watch his children bicker over things that should have been and still should be obvious.
They are obvious–to Christians.
Stephen: Thanks for sharing Walter Shurden’s thoughts on the CR. Some of them I agree with. Some of them I don’t. The most interesting one to me is his statement of how at home he feels in the CBF and the Alliance of Baptists. I would not feel at home in either of these groups. This emphasizes to me that Mr. Shurden and I would have a very hard time pooling our money to have theological schools, to send missionaries, to plant churches etc. I never met Mr. Shurden. I am sure that he and I would share many beliefs.… Read more »
The Snopes Trial, Pressler, Criswell and the SBC. Louis: You must get your hands on a copy of the 93Southern Baptists Observed and read the final essay by Susan Harding on “double voicing.” For folks like yourself best I can figure you, that is where the conversation should begin, the conversation that matters in the world of Greg Wills and BDidd of Baylor. Thought not exactly what she is getting at in the SBC struggle this link is an intro to her thought. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_1_63/ai_84396071/ I don’t know how serious you are about exploring the various truths of the SBC struggle;… Read more »
Left wing in your mind only, cartoon man:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16193
And once you click there, click on book reviews for the Glenn Hinson review of the same book
Oh, yeah, I’m the only one who thinks that Southern was a left wing institution before it was rescued by conservatives. Yep, it’s only me. You’re right.
And here is a WA Criswell “Fact” just for you Cartoon Man
http://jsr.fsu.edu/Volume10/Freeman.pdf
Well, Stephen, why don’t you just put your cards on the table and tell us–can a person go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone. Now, I know you’re not nearly man enough to answer that with a “Yes” or “No”–moderates have no convictions, after all.
Oh, and it’s about time you stopped thumping all the “racists” as if each and every conservative is tainted because of a few blowhards that stood for racial segregation. That does NOT prove their doctrine of salvation or doctrine of scripture was in any way deficient.
Fox,
Is Christianity untrue because of the Crusades?
Oh, SNAP!!!
Joe, Apart from faith in Christ Jesus, repenance, etc., there is no hope for anyone for heaven. I will grant that God has the last word on this, and not me, which is a caveat most moderates believe, few conservatives are willing to articulate, and still fewer fundamentalists are willing to tolerate, or such has been my experience. Just a word from a self-confessed moderate (albeit right of center), affirmed by the word of many professors at pre-CR SEBTS. (And I say “many” not “all” simply because I did not take classes from all the professors). Enough of your accusations… Read more »
John, God has given us His final word on the matter–the Bible. Therefore, it’s not “me” saying that no one gets to heaven but through faith in Christ and repentance of sin, Jesus said that. I submit that most moderates, although probably not you, aren’t willing to say that the bible speaks with finality, clarity, and authroity on the issue to the point that we can say without any shadow of a doubt whatsoever that God will not allow anyone in heaven apart from repentance of sin and faith in Christ, not because I say so but because God has… Read more »
Everytime you trash a moderate, God kills a kitten.
Please think of the kittens…
ROFL… Nice. That was awesome.
Well, since all kittens go to heaven, I’m just getting them there quicker, Bill. LOL
haha!
Feel free to call it “wishy-washy” Joe. I prefer to call it letting God be God.
John
John, Yea, let God be God, and He has given us His Word…the Bible. It says that people, who die in their sins, apart from Jesus Christ, go to Hell. It says a lot of other very clear things, as well. And, some of those liberal profs of SB seminaries and SB colleges were denying major tenets of the Christian faith. They were claiming things like universalism, denying the miracles of the Bible, etc. And, today, John, have you gone to ABPnews.org lately? The CBF crowd actually had a conference on exploring homosexuality, where they say that homosexuality may have… Read more »
Well now, David, let’s not be dogmatic here. I mean, that’s just your interpretation of the Bible. That may not be what the Bible means to other people. God can do anything He wants even pardon sin without repentance. Further, it’s just your narrow minded, heterosexists views that make you think homosexuality is a sin. Let’s just let God be God rather than suggesting that we have the answers. Doing that is arrogance.
(/sarcasm)
Doesn’t God list adulterers, fornicators, and gossips in that verse with homosexuals? If gay people don’t get to go to Heaven, what about those who are doing those things? Must be a special Baptist dispensation since we sure have a lot of those in our churches–and some of them are even pastors!
Josh, put a sock in it. No one is saying that any unrepentant sinner is going to get to heaven. The last time I checked, and admittedly it has been a while, I don’t notice churches and christians such as yourselves saying “The biblical prohibition against adultry doesn’t apply to this day and time. It was a cultural prejudice of Paul’s. It’s not a sin”. However, those are the arguements you and your ilk use to pimp the idea that someone can be a practicing homosexual and a Christian. You tired of homosexuality being brought up? Here’s an idea–you stop… Read more »
It’s easy to crucify homosexuals because it’s a deviant and outwardly expressed sin. It’s easy to make homosexuals to be the boogeyman, the creature under the bed, or people undeserving of our time and resources. However, it’s hard to root out pornography, adultery, and gossipers because nine times out of ten, they’re deacons, clergy, and big money people for that church. So the Southern Baptist Convention will continue to malign homosexuals and continue to undo any efforts wrought by people and churches trying to reach out to these sinners. Also, the Southern Baptist Convention will continue to protect its’ liars,… Read more »
Bill, If by malign you mean continue to call unrepentant homosexuality a sin as well as any other unrepentant sin, then I hope you’re right. If by trying to reach out to these sinners you mean churches that openly accept their lifestyle as okay without demanding repentance, then I don’t think these churches are “reaching” them anyway. If you mean something else, then I think you’re ripping apart a straw man because I know of many very loving SB churches that accept those struggling with homosexuality. Their sin is not accepted as normal or right, but they are loved and… Read more »
efforts wrought by people and churches trying to reach out to these sinners.
And by “efforts to reach out” what you mean is telling them “It’s ok. It’s not a sin. God will accept you as you are without any repentance”. Do you even own a Bible? Why don’t you try reading it?
You’re welcome.
That’s what we tell everyone else mired in every other sin.
What planet do you live on?
I just found a blog or discussion site that has what I would really call a liberal. I’m just glad they aren’t in a Southern Baptist church that I know of. The site is http://www.baptistlife.com
This is the worst post I have ever read:
http://forums.baptistlife.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8498
Criswell and Pressler and July 4th
What would they think of this sermon?
http://www.pulpitbytes.blogspot.com/
His blog entry of July 5
Would they think it was the “figment of some infidel’s imagination?”
Joe,
Me and my “ilk”? I suggest you put a sock on it if you think I am saying that homosexuality is not a sin. Reread what I wrote and quit jumping to conclusions. I was just bringing up the point that people love to single out homosexuality when there are a lot of other sins mentioned right there with it.
Why is it that whenever homosexuality is mentioned, that someone jumps all over it with a “that’s not the only sin in the world…na na na…other sins are just as bad as sodomy…na na na…why do you want to point out homosexuality…na na na na?” lol C’mon now, nobody is saying that homosexuality is the worse sin above all others. Take a deep breath. It’ll be okay. Really. But, I was just pointing out what was going on over in the liberal CBF.
DAvid
That’s simple, David. They don’t think it should be called a sin. Some of the nonsense I’ve heard out of that crowd is “Well, I don’t see you saying anything to fat people about their gluttony?” The fact is, this is the same group of people, usually, who say we’re being racist and hateful if we say that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Lack of faithfulness to the bible always leads to a lack of convictions.
Um, that argument comes when discussing alcohol, not homosexuality.
Then again, you not usually long for facts are you?
Well,
We’ll go after homosexuals with everything in our arsenal yet wink at people who commit adultery, view pornography, or even molest their own children.
Guess you have to be on staff at mega churches to get a pass on that sin though…
If we proclaim sin is sin, yet we don’t walk out that proclamation, then what have we accomplished?
Folks–I am somewhat confused as to how posts get on. To this moment, I was convinced mine got missed for some reason. Let me conplete the Charles Stanley / FBC Atlanta issuel Stanley, indeed, was elected Pastor of Atlanta First. It was certainly not by majority vote in the beginning. The remnant after the great brew-ha-ha ended up electing him Pastor. His Independent Baptist leanings is clearly proven by the immediate change in giving patterns under his leadership: from “Top 10 CP giving” to nada!!! When he was elected President of the SBC, it was a far cry from the… Read more »
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… Read more »
Sorry I offended you. I didn’t bring up Charles Stanley, but I know some things from growing up in Atlanta that you obviously don’t.
Charles Stanley is not and has never been a true Southern Baptist. Basically he hijacked a solid giving SBC church into becoming a de facto Independent Baptist Church–and too many people still haven’t figured it out.
Truth is truth and has nothing to do with maligning someone you obviously adore. I just don’t.
Sorry.
Sp, if a church holds Jerry Boykin in high esteem, how far in substance, Gene, has it come from a Charles Stanley mentality.
Is admiration of the pilgrimage of Jerry Boykin a sign of a mature Baptist Christian congregation; or to put it another way just how far are you willing to go in your prophetic declaration of indices of mature Baptist congregations?
Stephen– I’m not sure what you are asking. My experience working seriously with the SBC since the mid-1950’s to the present is that we are no longer the kind of group which we were in the growing 50-60’s. Part of the price of growth is a loss of of heritage–Training Union used to teach it, but it is gone! Let’s face it, America has been in turmoil politically and socially since our return from WWII. Most soldiers came back home with a gratitude to God that they had survived. We had the sense we were the only great society on… Read more »
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… Read more »
All people have to do is read Stephen and Gene and they know the Conservative Resurrgence:
*was a good thing.
*was a God thing.
*didn’t go nearly far enough.
*was a power thing.
*was a last name beginning with “P” thing
*went way too far in committing sinful acts under the guise of fighting sin
There ya go, Joe.
Fixed it for you.
Hey Cartoon Man; How are things in your Cartoon World Today???
Here’s a link for you.
I’ll be William Blake and you be Billy Bob Thornton
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/07/05/movies/1247468002781/critics-picks-dead-man.html
Oh, also noticed you missed my question to you yesterday. I’m sure it was an oversight. I can’t imagine you would just ignore it. That would be cowardly.
From comment 146 above–“can a person go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone?”
Yes or no?
YES if the person is mentally challenged, and is in the category my Church calls ‘a holy innocent’, they will be unable to ‘understand’ all the ‘proper doctrines’. They will be saved BY CHRIST ALONE not by any thing that they can’t personally understand and profess because they are loved ‘as they are’ and Christ died for them ‘as they are’ They can nothing, they are not able, God did not give them the gifts he gave to Joe Blackmon, which Joe has used to spew hatred on just about everyone he disagrees with. So, the mentally-challenged will be taken… Read more »
Christiane,
We’re not talking about children, nor about the mentally challenged. Do you believe that a person, who’s old enough to understand, and who’s mentally normal, will go to a literal Hell if they’re not trusting in Jesus for thier salvation?
Also, Christiane, do Jews and Muslims go to Hell forever and ever and ever, if they die apart from faith in the Lord Jesus for thier salvation?
What say ye?
David
Sorry, Christianne, I’ll type out for you what everyone else would have assumed.
can a person who is not suffering from some sort of mental disability and has the intellectual capacity to understand the gospel (i.e. not an infant or a child who is not old enough to understand) go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone?
Everyone else knew I meant that.
All that hate comes from somewhere. But not from God. Oh, are you talking about the kind of hate depicted in this comment where you (even if you didn’t sign your name) said: If you posted a link on here “exposing me”, the link would point precisely to someone who despises people like you.. Maybe you’re talking about your comment where you say I sleep like a baby at night because my hypocrisy and hate is reserved for people like you. People who deserve it. Normal people think I’m da’ bomb! Now, why don’t you pretend that you didn’t say… Read more »
Wait.
You’re ascribing anonymous comments to someone without any access to the IP addresses or other information which could be available to the blog owner?
And you all are trying to attack the credibility of primary sources such as legal documents, high school yearbooks, and Caner’s own sermons, saying they wouldn’t hold up in a court of law?
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Seriously, go take some candy from a baby, it’ll make you feel better.
I know this for certain A person can go to Hell engaging in conversations with you. Look, I’m not a fool. There are some folks on this board come across to me as having some sense and worthy of my consideration and taking seriously. You are a clown. I clown around a good bit, myself; but I don’t see any fun or virtue in your carnival. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t love you; I’m sure he does. But for me, your presence here is just something everyone had to deal with until they decide it’s not worth the bother for… Read more »
From comment 146 above–”can a person go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone?”
Yes or no?
Which is it, Stephen?
Joe, the very fact that Fox does not want to answer this question tells us much.
DAvid
I know. That’s why I keep pressing him on it.
Was the John Birch Society we have to believe WA Criswell never questioned the HL Hunt family about at FBC Dallas while Criswell was planting the seed for the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC part of God’s plan.
I doubt it.
Charles Kimball, an ordained Baptist minister has written a book; as has Martin Accad.
You should have some spare time the rest of the summer. Why not spend it more diligently and educate yourself a little, expand your horizons instead of indulging your foolishness on this board.
You know what the Bible says about fools, don’t you??
From comment 146 above–”can a person go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone?”
Yes or no?
I typed it slower for you this time.
Let’s face it–Joe is Joe!!! He is the classic example of how people wearing smiles and saying the “right” words can have a heart of stone—and so much judgmentalism they gladly stone a woman caught in adultery without giving consideration to the men involved as well. What did Jesus say: “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” The problem, Stephen, is that we go over this stuff / discuss it /write books about it / and continue to “sin more and more.” Jesus told the woman who admitted to her sin to “go and sin no more.” Our… Read more »
Gene,
Can a person go to heaven apart from having repented of their sins and placing their faith in Christ and Christ alone.
A simple “Yes” or “No”.
Fox,
Another question….do you bellieve in the inerrancy of Scripture? Do you believe that Jews and Muslims, who die apart from Jesus, will go to Hell? Do you even believe in a literal Hell?
DAvid
Some days I think WA Criswell is burning in Hell for the Address he gave to the SC Baptist Evangelism Conference in 56; or if he is not, then he should be. Other days I think maybe the Baptist deacon who said about MLKing on the occasion of what woulda been about his 65th birthday: “I say we dig the Nigger up and shoot him again.” Or maybe Jerry Vines should spend a little time in Hell for the demagogic sermon he preached in 87 in ST. Louis against Randall Lolley and SEBTS. Or Bobby Welch should get some fire… Read more »
From comment 146 above–”can a person go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Christ alone?”
Yes or no?
Just in case you missed that I asked it again. I notice you didn’t answer it, yet.
Joe,
I believe it’s very obvious by now that Fox does not want to answer the question. We have our answer.
David
Fox,
Did you seriously just say that Criswell should be burning in Hell over a sermon? Dude… that’s some sinful spewing of garbage if I’ve ever seen it.
Brandon: I am saying you should read the article I linked and tell me again how proud you are Criswell is one of your heroes, while you dismiss the likes of the Great Cloud of Witnesses Buddy Shurden listed in the article I linked about 20 year anniversary of the CBF.
Who will tell you the greater truth about Criswell; Pressler and Patterson and Ronnie Floyd; or Curtis Freeman, Joel Gregory and Bill Underwood.
I am convinced it is the latter three.
PS and Also Brandon: Read Chandler Davidson’s 100 pages on WA Criswell in Race andClass in Texas Politics.
Davidson was right down the hall at Rice from the fellow who did a major biography of Billy Graham.
Your inerrancy carries a lot of shameful baggage, Bro; Tons and Tons.
I am not a huge Criswell guy, to be honest. Regardless, saying he will burn in Hell as a sinner saved by the unwasted blood of Christ, that was a stretch to say the least. I realize that there is a ton of baggage in inerrancy, Calvinism, and even Christianity (the Crusades, for example). These things do not discount an interpretation or make it false. It’s like non-believers who say they don’t want Christ because of Christians… the response should always be, “What do you think about Christ?” In the same vain, I hold strongly to inerrancy, the other primaries… Read more »
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… Read more »
Such a great word, Doc. Thanks for keeping sanity on this post.
Joe,
Also, it looks as if Christiane, or L’s, does not want to answer the questions, either. Very telling.
David
Hey, guys, there is no question what the Bible says about repentance and faith being the way to heaven. There is no doubt that is the conclusion you and I both draw from the Written Word. My point is rather simple though: I don’t have the final word on it. In fact, isn’t that what God is saying in Hosea 2:23, “I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.” With no disrespect intended toward… Read more »
No John, I don’t think God was saying that at the end, when the final audit is done on the books that God is going to decide to maybe let someone in heaven based on something other than faith in Jesus Christ along with them having repented of their sins. God was simply saying that He is soverign, not that He might decide to do something different than what He has revealed in His word. I understand that you’re NOT saying that someone can get to heaven apart from repentance and faith and that you are saying that it is… Read more »
Joe, you have ised the operative word/phrase, “I think.” That is really all that is separating us here, whether we insist we perfectly know the mind of God in all matters and think for Him (= take His place), or whether we are willing to think we know but leave room for God to be soverign.
John
Ok, then rather than “think” I’ll substitute “know” because God will not make a decision that contradicts His word since it is the revelation of His will. I’m not saying He is bound to it as if it were some externally enforcible contract that He is bound to abide by but rather that He revealed His will, character, intents, and purposes perfectly in the Bible. Therefore, when He inspired the text to be recorded that “There is no other name given under heaven by which we may be saved” that means it’s already settled–a done deal. By letting God speak… Read more »
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…… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Volfan–
Your logic concerning the only way to heave is through Jesus fails in one important respect:
Jesus, himself, was born a Jew / lived a Jew / and died a Jew!!!!
So is he in heaven or not according to your narrow definition?????
Gene, Jesus was and is the Son of the Living God. Yes, He was born to a Jewish mother, and had a Jewish Step Father; but He was the MESSIAH. After He died on the cross and rose from the dead, the only way to Heaven was thru Jesus. The Scripture is very, very clear about this. Thus, any Jew in this NT age will go to Hell, unless he repents and puts his faith in the Lord Jesus as his personal Lord and Messiah. So, Gene, your logic is very flawed, and your theology is even worse. Check out… Read more »
As Ronald Reagan said, “There you go again!” Why can’t you just leave some things in the hands of God??? When I wrote above “Jesus, the Christ,” I do so to declare: “Jesus is the Christ to those who, by faith, declare him so. Just because you walked the aisle of some Baptist church somewhere does not guarantee you a place in heaven. Those who believe in their heart and confess with their mouths have a duty, as Apostle James pointed out, to walk the walk rather than just talk the talk.” Too much judgementalism in this string of commentary… Read more »
Susan Harding has a remedy of sorts for the impasse Matt2239 and John Fariss have come to. The Written Word/Living Word template is a grand example of the Double Voices conundrum she explores.
A grand introduction to her thought is in the link I shared above in reference to her Book of Jerry Falwell; and even better is the 93 essay in Nancy Ammerman’s SBaps Observed.
Possibly with the exception of Joe B, Brumbelow and a few others on this board, there is hope for some common ground, further dialogue and community.
To say that people, who look upon the Bible as God’s Word, is completely idiotic. The Bible is the Word of God. Jesus is the Living Word. You cannot separate the two. If you love Jesus, then you will love His Word. If you love the Bible, then you love Jesus.
Also, if you believe the Bible is flawed, then you believe that Jesus is flawed.
David
That first sentence above should have read “To say that people, who look upon the Bible as God’s Word, are practicing “IDOLATRY” is completely idiotic.
Sorry for the confusion.
David
David—you were probably more correct in your first “flawed” writing!!!!!
This is a little off topic but makes me want to send my degree back to Southwestern. You can be sure Patterson’s health insurance won’t be terminated.
Check it out:
http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11351&Itemid=9
I’m sorry, I could understand them having to do something to employees health coverage, current employees, but it is reprehensible for them to do that to retiree’s.
Are Matt2239 and SSBN the same person? If so, that is a drawback to using multiple pseudononyous identities in the same thread: it’s gets confusing to others. If the answer to that question is “No,” then, Matt2239, I not only do not know your heart, but I said nothing to you, about your heart or anything else, and have no idea why you think I did. If the answer is “yes,” then my reply is almost the same. Almost: I did reply to you, but to my way of thinking, I did not judge the content of your heart, and… Read more »
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… Read more »
That you think I have a “premise that we really cannot ‘know’ anything with any degree of certainty” makes me think we are talking past each other instead of to each other, Matt. There are quite a few preesuppositions we need to work through first–not necessarily to change each other’s position, but simply to understand it. Also, if I put my counselor’s hat on, I would gather that you have some anger–perhaps towards this CBF president, whoever he is–and are transferring some of that to me. And BTW, I have never said, suggested, or thought that WA Criswell is in… Read more »
SSBN— You must have missed the important history of the Scriptures which clearly states that people of that day far preferred the “spoken word” of an Apostle to anything written! As the Apostles aged and died, their particular followers realized their sayings needed to be preserved and passed in written form. Therefore, most of the NT is based on such a need. The written word supplanted the spoken word as centuries passed. Another aspect of biblical background knowledge has to do with the many scribal errors over years of having to write copies before the invention of the printing press.… Read more »
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… Read more »
Fred or Matt or whomever you are, You are applying a lot of generalizations to me: generalizations about what CBF’ers think, do, interpret, etc., and more besides–that I hold to some corn-and-husk position or analogy I have never heard of, that I believe you to be full of hate and anger (when what I said was that you seemed to have some anger, and there is a lot of difference between having some anger and being full of anger AND hate–and FYI, it sounds to me like anger over that situation would be decidedly human) because you were not pro-CBF,… Read more »
As I read you thread, it appears to me you are in a state of denial relative to anger issues!!! Why is it those still in the SBC exhibited numerous attitudes of anger in the most recent meeting? Do you always have to have something or someone to hate in order to hold any position these days? What is wrong with “agreeing to disagree” with all due respect to those who differ with you? It is totally obvious you hate CBF and all who honor it! If we counted the giving and growing of CBF alongside the SBC, we could… Read more »
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… Read more »
Fox isn’t demonizing anybody; just simply pointing out some views of Criswell most CR GCR devotees are ignorant of.
The main point is to goad you to take a look at Susan Harding on double voicing and we can go from there.
I find no problem with Fox’s statements and their logical validation. He has a right to his opinion, but you who oppose him want to deny his that—GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
Of course he is. His posts are consistently about personalities not principles, or even in his best moments principles supported by personalities. Such posts indeed demonize people he disagrees with. Some of the personalities, such as Paige, I know on a personal level and do not have the same opinion as Fox. One problem with some people is they cannot be friends with someone who refuses to make his or her enemies one’s personal enemies. I don’t think personality driven theology (unless the person is Jesus) has any legitimate basis. It forces an “us-them” discussion that goes not place. As… Read more »
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… Read more »
a decision, when it must sooner or later be applied to praying in the name of Allah. As far as the Atheists an Agnostics are concerned, why should they mind as long as they have the right to say poppy cock; it’s all a lot of phony baloney. When I was an atheist, I told my sister to take her namby pamby religion and go jump out the window with it. Our mother proceeded to give me a lesson in religious liberty by letting me know that I could have my opinion and express it and so could my sisters.
We are all not a part of the same family. God is my Father, because Jesus is my Lord and Savior. But, those people, who are calling upon the god of Islam, or upon the god of the Jewish faith, or upon the god of theological liberals, are not children of the Heavenly Father.
They are lost and on their way to Hell, unless they repent and believe the Gospel…surrendering their hearts to Jesus in faith.
David
David, old boy—
You are so narrow that if you turned sideways—you would disappear!!!!!
Please turn sideways for us!!!!!!
David,
Amen! It is sad to see Gene mock such a foundational truth.
Dude, you should have seen his two page long apologetic on why Mormons are real Christians on Don Quixote’s blog about 6 months ago.
“Joe, you have ised the operative word/phrase, “I think.” That is really all that is separating us here, whether we insist we perfectly know the mind of God in all matters and think for Him (= take His place), or whether we are willing to think we know but leave room for God to be soverign.” John, Are you claiming we cannot go by the Word? I agree there are some translation problems on secondary issues but we cannot get past a fact: Repentance and Faith in Jesus Alone is required for salvation. Jesus’ first sermons were : Repent and… Read more »
Lydia, You ask, “John, Are you claiming we cannot go by the Word?” Answer: of course not! I have never said otherwise, neither from the pulpit nor in any blog to the best of my memory. Unfortunantly, SSBN or Fred or whoever and I seem to have been talking past each other–me as much as him, but both of us. What I have tried (unsuccessfully) are (1) those who reduce both God and His Word (whether written, spoken, living, all-in-one, whatever) to an issue of strict determinism. Please pardon me if I fail to use precise theological terminology; the term… Read more »
Whoops: my 5th sentence should have been, “What I have tried (unsuccessfully) TO ADDRESS. . . .”
Also, please ignore typos.
John
John I’m not sure I’d call you a screaming, wishy-washy, lilly livered liberal. If I understand your position correctly, you’re saying “The only way to heaven is through faith in Jesus Christ. God is the ultimate judge in the end and will do what He decides to do with each individual.” That is, as I understand it, on the extreme far right of the moderate position. I don’t agree with you that we can’t know with certainty what God is going to do but I think I understand where you’re coming from, mostly. That is a far cry from someone,… Read more »