Trevin Wax, a rising voice in the SBC, is a brother in Christ and has been helpful to me as of late as I learn the ropes of potentially publishing a book. Further showing his unselfish character, he was gracious enough to allow me to ask him a few questions about the SBC without hesitation.
His blog, Kingdom People, is one of the most read Christian blogs on the internet today and his book, Holy Subversion, has been acclaimed by J.I. Packer, Al Mohler, Ed Stetzer, and Russell Moore.
I first interviewed him on my blog and it was a great blessing and I pray that this will be for the SBC Voices readers, as well.
BRANDON: In your opinion, what is the current state of the SBC?
TREVIN: The Southern Baptist Convention actually only exists two days a year during our annual meeting. So in that sense, the state of the Convention varies from year to year. The real question behind this question, I’m guessing, is what is the current state of the Southern Baptist churches? And that is difficult to answer because of the great diversity of Southern Baptist churches. Our diversity makes it nearly impossible to paint with a broad brush and say, “This is the current state of Southern Baptist churches.” Numbers tell one part of the story, and they aren’t encouraging. But even then, there are many great churches doing great things for the kingdom.
The diversity that characterizes Southern Baptists presents both an advantage and a challenge. The advantage is that we are beginning to realize that we cannot build our cooperation upon programs or specific methods of doing church. If methods are what unite us, then the diversity of Southern Baptist churches would become an almost insurmountable obstacle to fulfilling the Great Commission together. Instead, our diversity has forced us to unite around the basics of our faith, expressed in our confessional consensus, the Baptist Faith and Message. The challenge of our diversity is keeping that confessional statement at the forefront of our thinking when it comes to the future. The BF&M is not a creed that churches are forced to accept, but by using it as the consensus of the majority of churches, it has been helpful in steering our discussions away from issues or differences that would cause us to splinter into various groups.
B: What unique strength does new SBC president Bryant Wright bring to the convention?
T: I don’t know very much about Bryant Wright. I met him briefly at the LifeWay book signing (we were signing books at the same time). I supported Ted Traylor because of a personal connection back from my days in Romania and because of his missionary activities and his church’s support of the Cooperative Program. Nevertheless, I was happy to know that all four candidates for SBC president this year were good men who would have served our churches well.
What I like most about Bryant Wright is that his church has been at the forefront of the short-term missions movement, which I think is a positive development in recent years. Mission trips almost always lead to more global-mindedness on the part of a congregation, as well as missional thinking in our own neighborhoods.
B: Ten years from now, what will Johnny Hunt be most remembered for?
T: We’re much too close to the events to be able to make predictions as to how historians will think of Johnny Hunt’s presidency. Still, I think we will look back and be grateful for the way God used Pastor Johnny to bridge the divide between the older and younger generations of the SBC. Before Hunt became president, the Southern Baptist conversation was degenerating into a sniping war between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, contemporary versus traditional, and old guard versus young guard. Hunt elevated the conversation, refocused our attention on the Great Commission, built bridges between warring camps, and brought along the younger generation. That is no small feat for a president whose term is two years.
B: For you, what was the highlight of the SBC 2010 Pastor’s Conference?
T: CJ Mahaney. His message was a word of encouragement to weary pastors, and God used him to strengthen our resolve and remind us of the great calling we have as shepherds of God’s church. That said, the whole conference was terrific. Kevin Ezell did an outstanding job bringing old and new faces together. It was obvious that that Conference intended to appeal to a younger generation, which by looking at the diversity of ages in the crowd, it certainly did.
B: What is the greatest advantage of being affiliated with the SBC?
T: I don’t say this out of pride but out of gratitude. We really do have the greatest missions force in the world. The International Mission Board does great things, and it is a privilege to cooperate with other churches to fund these missionaries. Southern Baptists do a lot of good things together, but it’s our common cause in fulfilling the Great Commission that is most exciting to me.
I was encouraged by the debate about the GCR. In that Convention hall full of people – many who passionately disagreed with each other – the passion for best stewarding the resources we have in order to fulfill the Great Commission was palpable. Though not everyone was united around the recommendations of the Task Force, it seemed that everyone had the Great Commission in mind. And that is something unique to our Convention when so many denominations are wrestling over issues related to Scripture, homosexuality, etc.
Also: See Trevin’s Christianity Today article on the GCR.
Just as a clarification, Brandon. I’m plenty selfish, though praying to be less so every day!
Great observations. I don’t know Trevin, but he seems like a smart, level headed person.
All,
I suppose Matt or Tony decided to close the comment section on the Patterson/Beck post and I knew that would happen eventually.
One of the greatest things about SBC Voices is Matt’s fairness in allowing people to speak and the fact that all views are represented on this blog. What a boring place this would be if everyone agreed all the time!
That said, we have to be able to debate and discuss without all the sinful, arrogant nonsense that keeps creeping in. Insults are not welcome in the Kingdom between brothers and sisters in Christ.
It saddens and discourages me that that is my second post to have comments closed on. The comments are great for blog ratings and discussion but poor for the Kingdom when they turn nasty.
I pray that you will continue to discuss and enjoy the posts that I contribute. Love you all for your different opinions and I hope we can discuss as much as always but with more love and humility.
I did it, Brandon, because the comments had run amok so badly. That seems to happen on blogs. You wrote a good post and then it went off in a direction it should not have gone.
I wrote Matt, and if he decides to re-open the comment stream, that is his decision as the blog administrator.
The fact that comments had to be closed on two of your posts has nothing to do with the quality of your posts.
I would encourage people not to bring that ugliness to this post.
I think Trevin has made some great observations in the interview. Particularly his comment about Bryan Wright’s church having such a strong presence in short term missions. That is certainly something all churches ought to seek to be more involed in.
“I would encourage people not to bring that ugliness to this post.”
Then why do you continue to allow Joe to post on this site at all?
This post is well worth commenting on. But we will not allow the last thread to spill over here.
Serves me right for calling for moderation in the last thread. 😉
No problem, Bill.
I’ll be lower case bill and you be upper case Bill to avoid all confusion that people may have with you and I posting here.
:)))))
I think it’s extremely funny in an ironic way that Fox constantly appeals to books as his authority…But THE BOOK is not his authority. lol.
Fox, I could read every book that you’ve mentioned and still know the truth of the CR…that it was very much needed and had to happen. AND, that God blessed the CR and used it to turn the SBC back to the Bible and the Gospel. So, you can mention everyone’s book in the liberal’s hall of fame library that you want to, but it’s not gonna change anyone’s mind who knows better, who was there, who saw and heard all of it.
Hey, I’ve got a solution for you…why dont you and Tom and Big Daddy and Wade and Debbie and all the rest of you get out there and start another denomination where yall would fit? I mean, if yall hate the SBC so much, why dont yall either join the CBF and make it into a real denomination…very separate and very much disconnected from the SBC….and be a part of it and leave us alone at the SBC? Or, why dont yall start your own? Hummmm?
David
I think you are a bigger joke than I am, Double Knot. I hold the Book high, my problem is with folks like you who Miss the point on some of its major teachings; like if you had been in Earl Stallings place in 63 in Birmingham, would you have been more likeJimmy Allen, or morelike Ed McAteer and JesseHelms and Pressler’s Texas Regulars.
That is where books like Chandler Davidson on Criswell may give us some insight into the inadequacies of the way you use The Book, or missed the point of some of its great witness.
I never saw where Jesus said forget me, just enforce the Leviticus Codes on the Southern Baptist Convention. There is more to the Bible, Double Knot, than memoriizing some OT verses cause you think Pressler and Mohler requires that of you and then puking your misguided notions up automatically and routinely every time you feel like your conclusions are threatenned at SBCVoices or when you go to town and have a conversation with someone who is not an Independent Baptist.
Sly Fox, The point is we do not need to read a book that tells us how bad they think we are mistreating the Bible. I am educated too. Your not the only one. We get your position, and we reject your position. This is why we don’t need some group read that promotes your agenda. We know your agenda, and we reject it. I am not a fan of Patterson or Pressler BTW so I don’t drink their political kool-aide.
Fox,
What Jeff said. We dont need some book written by some liberal, who hates the CR and conservatives and the SBC to rewrite history in their perspective. As Jeff said, we understand exactly what you’re saying, and what all the books that you mention say, and we REJECT it. We look upon it as trash…nonsense…and a weak, feeble attempt at trying to discredit the CR which took place.
So, we absolutely reject your viewpoint….and no amount of books written by liberals and moderates is gonna change that.
David
The names liberal and moderate are way over used. The definition keeps changing, and now it’s used more as attack words than actual fact. Learn to listen David. It might serve you well. It seems you guys are yelling just to be yelling, like the man who puts his fingers in his ears and yells so he can’t hear. Listen David.
So Debbie, how did it go when you presented the gospel to MoKahn? Was he receptive? Oh, that’s right, you never did. I forgot.
Joe: My private conversations with Mohammad are just that private. Bugs you though doesn’t it. 🙂
Debbie:
Share this with Mohammad and if it gains any traction, and you blog about his thought on this link, please let us know here cause I think it is one many of us will want to consider.
Thanks:
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=8602
I’m going to ask you good folks to just stop, now. Enough is enough. What more can any of you say to insult the other side than you have already said? Enough is enough.
I am going to ask everyone to just lay down the weapons. Move on. Hopefully, there will be another post soon.
Sorry, David,
I entered my comment before I saw the ‘stop’ request.
My conscience was moved to support Debbie in this matter, as a response to Joe Blackmon.
I will stop.
Thank you, Christiane.
I think it is an appropriate time to “borrow” a quote from a great American, Top Cowboy, King of the NRA, chariot driver and the world’s best Moses imitator, Charleton Heston:
“You can have my ‘CR’ when you can pry it out of my cold, dead hands.”
I KNOW that everytime Debbie interacted with Mr. Khan is a way that honored truth, she witnessed to her faith.
Mr. Khan saw a man who was deceiving people and pointed this out.
The deceptions are openly obvious and are recorded in the man’s own actions and words on film.
Was that man witnessing to Mr. Khan or to anyone about Our Lord, when he was ‘mis-speaking’ for nine years? No, he wasnt’.
Mr. Khan will not forget the Christian woman who recognized that what is true should not be twisted and distorted in the Name of Christ. That is Debbie’s Christian witness and that speaks wonderfully of her strong faith, even in the face of tormentors who supported the deception.
You know, the Christians of old stood up for their faith in the face of great persecution. And they suffered. But they didn’t renounce Our Lord when put ‘to the test’. Debbie follows in their footsteps.
What is troubling is that the ‘witness’ of the man who deceived for nine years, and the ‘witness’ of his ‘supporters’ is also seen by Mr. Khan. These people claim to follow Lord Christ. But they couldn’t so much as answer for the video evidence out there.
That, also, Mr. Khan sees.
As do many others who seek to know Christ through the witness of others.
Did Debbie witness ‘of Christ’ to Mr. Khan? Absolutely.
She has witnessed that as a follower of Our Lord, she honors truth.
Our Lord said, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life’.
Denial of ‘the Truth’ is denial of Him Who spoke those Words.
Some people have a LOT to explain to Our Lord, when they claim to follow Him, and yet deny evidenciary truth on film, in favor of a deceiver.
Christiane:
That is a great point and endorses the sentiment Bill Friday of the UNC System expressed to Cecil Sherman about Helms and Pressler’s disastrous vision for SEBTS and the damage it did to the State of North Carolina.
Deception is anathema to Christ, even if it comes in the guise of what Paige Patterson called “the inerrancy thing.”
“Learn to listen David. It might serve you well. It seems you guys are yelling just to be yelling, like the man who puts his fingers in his ears and yells so he can’t hear. Listen David.”
With all due respect Debbie, this is what practically everyone on this comment thread is doing, on both sides.
Brandon and David both called for civility and addressing the the topic at hand, not a rehash of the same old garbage. Those requests have been ignored. They are owed an apology. In so far as I have contributed to this madness, I offer mine to them.
Thanks, Bill!
I had noticed that among some of the gentlemen who comment . . . almost as though they have forgotten that, with all that ‘yelling’, no one, least of all themselves, can hear the ‘still quiet Voice of the Lord’.
I think a lot of the ‘yelling’ must be a kind of ‘sport’.
But it is not a Christian witness.
Well let’s just throw out all the books. That would include the ones written by those ministers you would agree with. Books are not evil for crying out loud. If that were the case let’s just not read any books. Ridiculous. Next argument and this time make it have some substance.
Don’t you guys have something better to do with your time that hurl insults at each other? Debbie, and everyone else, unless you have something new and productive to say, why not just let it go? Why keep hashing out the same angry arguments over and over?
Let it drop.
Yeah Dave you are right, I was pretty rough.
I’m confused, “exactly what position did Jesse Helms hold in the SBC during the CR?” I can’t speak for everyone in the CR — that’s Fox’s job — but speaking for myself, I’m no fan of Jesse Helms.
Just wanted to wipe that mud off from what Fox is slinging around.
You also mention the OT a couple of times in what seems to me a negative light. Are you saying that the OT is somehow flawed and we should not “memorize” any passages from it? I did have a few professors during the liberal years of the SBC that had that opinion of the OT. They might as well have torn out those 39 books and thrown them away.
Jesse Helms, no OT. Wow. You cover a lot with your big brush.
SSBN, AGain you misunderstood.
If you really want to know about Jesse Helms and the SBC at key moments in Takeover Strategy you would find a copy of Joe Ferguson’s political memoir of Helms and his chapter The REd White and Blue Bible about the enormous number of zealots in Helms network in key positions in the Takeover.
If you just want to straw men my revelations, I guess there isn’t much I can do about that.
I have memorized lots of the Old Testament myself, and appreciate what the critic James Wood did with David in his short but magisterial How Fiction Works.
In the eulogy for my Father Aug 5, 11 years ago I talked about his Romance with the Gospel, broken in the loss of his witness as a Baptist Preacher.
My problem with several on this board is they seem to want to rush backward to Leviticus codes rather than basque in Life and Teachings of Jesus.
My spirit was challenged yesterday as I heard a sermon holding up the El Salvadoran Saint Oscar Romero as an example through his beautiful words.
You may not be aware of Helms history with Romero.
So forgive me if I came across to you as slinging mud. I’m just trying to help you with the Whitewash; and only you know in your heart if with you it is witting on no.
QUOTE My problem with several on this board is they seem to want to rush backward to Leviticus codes rather than basque in Life and Teachings of Jesus. END QUOTE
Could you point out the post that several on this board made in regard to Leviticus. I’m sorry I must have missed it.
QUOTE You may not be aware of Helms history with Romero. END QUOTE. I’m not sure if you missed my question or just don’t want to answer. You suggested that Jesse Helms in some way was part of the “conspiracy” to “wrench” the SBC from a group of Bible-loving moderates.
Again, I’ve only been a S. Baptist for 32 year, so maybe Jesse Helms leadership in the SBC preceded my time. I certainly don’t remember him being in SBC leadership when the CR was in progress trying to bring our seminaries back in line with the beliefs and practices of typical S. Baptists.
Quite frankly, I don’t ever remember mentioning Oscar Romero.
And, you sling mud all the time which is a crazy way to clean a “whitewash” in my humble opinion. Once again, you make a post that clearly ignores addressing the accusations you make.
Signed, “Still Confused.”
I guess you SSBN coveniently missed the reference I made to Joe Ferguson’s book.
It is there, it is unequivcal; it is a matter of the historical record whether it registered with you or not.
Just because you didn’t want to know about it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen; just like about the other 8 of the ten and more books of the BX 6400 shelf you didn’t have the time or inclination to look at.
But if you sleep well at night and want to go on like you know what the last 40 years in SBC life were about; I guess there isn’t a lot we can do about it now is there SSBN except let you go on here at the Voices as if you had the Authority of Scripture.
You are such a bitter old man. I don’t sleep well at night, but it isn’t because I disagree with you. It is because my heart is heavy most of the time for people that are going through great difficulty.
Sometimes I am restless at night and get up to spend time in prayer for those on my heart. But, I can assure you I am not restless because you throw “poop” at me like a monkey in a cage.
Just to set the record straight: I read an article you linked and it was completely useless because of an obvious bias against anyone who disagrees with your point of view. I won’t be wasting my time with anymore of your links.
And, I have already admitted, that I do not remember Jesse Helms being a part of the CR. I’m assuming that was before my time. That’s why I read the link you suggested, but it didn’t indicate the years Jesse Helms was a leader in the SBC.
40 years ago, I was in Jr. High. That’s why I have to rely on others for ancient history — even if that other person is a bitter old man who throws “poop” at people he doesn’t like.
I hope you liked Jr. High. You must have cause that seems to be about your station when it comes to the Truth about the SBC Takeover and the Helms role in it.
It’s there in the Furgurson Book, Hard Right, the Rise of Jesse Helms just in case in the future you want to add some knowledge to your passionate opinions about what was at stake in the SBC takeover.
It’s amazing. Even when someone agrees with them you still throw “poop” at them!
Oh, that was directed at Mr. Fox in regard to the url he posted.
Not that it really matters, but I did not become a crusader for the CR until a moderate DOM tried to steal the church property where I was pastoring — which was only a few years ago.
Even when Daniel Vestal came after me in the early 90’s and prevented me from being called as the pastor of church he once pastored (because I was a SWBTS student at the time), I just moved on.
In post after post, Mr. Fox keeps trying to prove he knows more about the CR than I do. He argues his point with venom and vitality. But, I’ve never disagreed with him. I’m no CR expert, though I do know a few things about some of the major behind the scenes people in California that Mr. Fox probably does not know.
I’m sure Mr. Fox will read this a find some way to argue his point further, but it really is not necessary — I’m a CR lightweight to be sure. But, if I have to sit the bench, it is good to be sitting on the winning side.
All the talk from Mr. Fox about losing sleep has actually made me sleepy.
Good night!
SSBN, I sorta agree with you in some ways. I went to SWBTS in the late 80’s and early 90’s. I was a supporter of Dr. Dilday. In fact at this moment, I am not a fan of Patterson, Pressler, and Moran. Yet, the more I read from Sly Fox, Terrific Tom, Do Right Debbie, Wonderful Wade, Big Daddy Hair Weave, the more I rejoice in the CR. The more I am convinced it was needed. This is why I don’t need to read the links provided, I am witnessing first hand why the CR was needed.
Sleeping Good Night
Just Little Jeff
Big Daddy Hair Weave . . . I think even he will laugh at that 🙂
Fox,
Who cares what Ferguson said? I mean, really…who cares? I lose no sleep at night about the CR, or the SBC Takeover, or whatever else you want to call it. I thank God for it. I praise God for it.
So, go join the CBF, or the American Baptist, or the PCUSA, or the Episcopalians, or somewhere else where you fit in.
David
How many did yall have in Sunday School last Sunday, VolFan?
52, 41; How Many?
I guess what you are trying to say SSBN is you just don’t know a heckuva a whole lot about much.
That’s okay; you’re not the only one who doesn’t let that stop them on this board.
So you’re in the majority, just like the fundamentalists by half a percent in San Antonio in 88
See my tiny url on down the line here that will take you straight to the heart of the matter; also see roughly 408 on hearts and minds of young Baptist preachers.
Sly Fox, I could care less about Jesse Helms, he is not a trump card to show how evil the CR movement was/is. I am thankful that the SBC is moving in the right direction which is doctrinal purity, missional living, evangelism, and fellowship built around Jesus Christ as revealed in the Holy Scriptures by the Holy Spirit.
I’m not sure the Holy Spirit has a lot to do with anything with Ronnie Floyd at the Center of it; but if two percent is what floats your boat, then float it high in the water.
This is in reply to JeffT
I am not a fan of Ronnie Floyd. Yet, I am not willing to say that God has not used him to do good in the SBC. I find it amazing that you are so close minded, and cannot rejoice in what God has done thru Ronnie Floyd. I think it is the height of arrogance to assumed that the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with Ronnie Floyd. The more I read you the more I am glad that the CR happen.
Has Ronnie Floyd ever reconsidered his harangue against Bill Clinton just a year after extending his hand in Rededication.
From Springdale REvival the summer of 92 to Houston SBC platform the next year.
Call Ronnie Flolyd and get a hubris check, instead of chastising me, Brother.
Sorry BSBN; I meant to place this Helms Link here to support my other references for Helms and the Takeover:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16492
Jesse Helms was involved in the CR? lol I never saw him at a SBC. Did he ever even attend one of them? And, if he did, and if he was…involved in the SBC Takeover….then so what?
Fox, yea, we TOOK OVER the SBC. Hallelujah!
David
David, I’m sorry I must disagree with you about the CR: we did not take it over, we took it back 🙂
And again. This is just ridiculous. You guys need to do a reality check here. You have lost your first love and hint: It’s not power, greed, nor the SBC.
Debbie,
We’re not in this for power…nor for greed….and it’s not even for the SBC. We’re in this for the Lord Jesus…to be obedient to Him. Therefore, we want the SBC to be grounded in the clear teachings of the Scriptures. So, why in the world you’d make such a statement as you did in #531 is beyond me.
Who do you think was in the CR for power and greed?
David
PS. Thank God that we(conservatives) were able to take it back…the SBC. Thank God for His glorious answer to prayer.
Debbie, I wonder about your first love at times too! When I visited your blog, I never read about Jesus, just what’s wrong with the SBC.
To me it’s one in the same. And the wrong I point out is major and needs to be seen. There is a lot wrong. Lately more wrong than right. We either believe in being holy or we don’t.
Again….I rest my case.
I doubt it. I’ll bet you’ll be back.
To rest a case, you have to make case. You have not done that Debbie.
Just for SSBN and ole TJoe I condensed a url of 311 characters down to 26 cause Ignorance is a shameful thing in matters of Christian Conviction we must do everything we can to eradicate it else we make a mockery of the New Testament parable of the talents and human potential
Because I care about the palpable ignorance here and want to shine a Light in the Darkness I give you this aspect about the fundy takeover of the SBC
Page 63
http://tinyurl.com/29ebzy3
Stephen, I’ve never contended the view of yourself as an intellectual giant. I took your word for it.
As for me being ignorant, I guess that is a matter of opinion, and an opinion that really does not matter to me. I don’t preach to impress people, I try to inspire them.
There are more than a few people in my church that are indeed intellectual giants and leaders in industry. They don’t impress very easily, but surprisingly, they do get inspired easily.
So, if insulting my intelligence inspires you — I am achieving my purpose 🙂
Intelligence and ignorance are two different matters.
You are ignorant about the baggage and insidious rippling effect of the character of the fundamentalist takeover.
The Point I made about hearts and minds of young minds in seminaries using SEBTS as an example and the incisive remark of Bill Friday, truly a Giant in the State of North Carolina; that is where the Helms chapter matters.
And it is a shame you are reluctant to see it for what it is.
HL Hunt was a giant in WA Criswell’s congregation at FBC Dallas, but what good did he Do?
Maybe the analogy will register with you; maybe it will not.
Carlyle Marney was a giant, for instance; Grey Allison is not.
He might be a decent and well meaning fellow, but he is no giant.
And Francis Schaeffer is no giant either.
Nor Am I; but then again I’m not on the SBC Executive Committee pretending I’m doing good in the world or the forces that got one there is a good thing.
Great fiction writing is always interesting.
See roughly 408 on Hearts and Minds, SSBN. I don’t want you to miss it
I’m not SBC, David. I haven’t been affiliated with a church that supports the SBC in about 10 years. Prior to that, I was at a church that supported both SBC and CBF.
I have published on Southern Baptists and my dissertation is on Southern Baptists. So, I have an interest.
Slowly making progress on the dissertation; will be visiting your fine library and archive later this Fall for about a week or so.
Big Daddy, what is the subject of your dissertation (if you care to share that with us)?
Southern Baptists and environmentalism/conservationism since the 1960s, written from a historical perspective – will attempt to put the efforts/views of Southern Baptists in the context of environmental history/politics and what other religious groups were saying/doing at the time. So I’ll be looking at the conservation efforts of Southern Baptists out West, views about population control (and abortion), nuclear power, clean air/clean water and then the more recent global warming-related debates of the past 10-15 years – and more generally how Southern Baptists have responded to environmental legislation starting with LBJ and Nixon.
It sounds an interesting, and certainly is a very BROAD topic!
You have your work cut out for you.
It looks like a topic wide enough for a book, or two !
Some of the letters and encyclicals mentioned in this power-point summary may give you a starting (jumping-off place) reference for my Church’s point-of-view:
sao.clriq.org.au/publications/cst_and_environ_comp.ppt – Similar
The Anglicans world-wide have done some interesting writing.
And there are also encyclicals from the Orthodox.
Best of luck with this project. It will certainly lead you into a very diverse world of thought, Aaron.
It is very difficult, also, in trying to limit your topic to certain parameters, because of all the important interconnections.
I’m hoping you have an excellent (and accessible ) advisor, or advisors who will meet with you regularly, as you proceed.
Note: my comment number 516 is to Aaron Weaver (Big Daddy Weave) and references his comment at 513.
QUOTE So, I have an interest. END QUOTE
With the way you preface the above remark, I would be suspicious that you not only have an “interest,” but a particular bias.
I just wonder why you picked, “Southern Baptists” when you have no connection to S. Baptists. I say that without any judgment attached, because you may contribute something useful through your dissertation, but it does make me wonder.
Fox,
I think David makes a good point if you just look at the practical side of it. If we all affiliated where we fit theologically, we wouldn’t be griping like old wives in every comment thread.
That said, that doesn’t justify a whitewash of the history of fundamentalism in the SBC, nor a failure on the parts of many folks here to evaluate and be honest about the bogus issue of Inerrancy in for starters:
http://www.sbctakeover.com/
Fox,
I’ve already read and decided on the issues. Over at SBC Voices, people of both persuasions have made up their minds and no book will change that.
I’m not naive, I understand that people were hurt in the CR. I hate what happened to Dilday, but the Biblical convictions that brought about the CR and the now the BFM2000, in my opinion, were needed to keep the convention from where the PCUSA is today. There was surely sin on both sides of the CR, but you seem to think that all the CR leaders didn’t care about the Bible but only power and it’s simply untrue.
I guarantee you there were guys who jumped on board for power and I guarantee you there were liberals who taught evolution and hated the Gospel even though they wouldn’t admit it. But the seemingly typical tactic for liberals against the CR is attacking the integrity of the men involved as if the Biblical convictions aren’t needed regardless of the sins of men involved. Both sides had sin, no one came out pretty in the CR.
As I replied our common fallen nature does not excuse a whitewash of the History of the Fundamentalist takeover of the SBC; nor an otherwise good soul like Trevin Wax for instance failure to come to grips with the strong case in Chapter 13 of http://www.sbctakeover.com inerrancy was A RUSE and a Tool.
Even if it were only a ruse and a tool, which it wasn’t, if people like you got hurt, I’m ok with it. Anything that was done to your kind was perfectly on in my book.
Joe, think about it. Was that remark representative of a man who claims to be ‘a real Christian’, in this sense:
a ‘real’ Christian is one whose life if being ‘conformed’ to Christ.
That is something for you to think about because that ‘harm’ you intend for people you do not agree with; the wish for that ‘harm’ is NOT evidence of a life that is being ‘conformed’ to Our Lord.
In that, you do have something to think about.
What do your words about desiring harm to come to others tell us?
To what do they witness, Joe?
I’m trying to help you, here, so don’t take my words the wrong way.
Correction:
‘ a ‘real’ Christian is someone whose life IS in process of being conformed to Christ’
Christiane,
If it is always un-Christlike to harm someone, was Christ being un-Christlike when he whipped the money-changers?
Sometimes, the most Christ-like action one can take is to drive out from our midst those who perpetuate error.
Also, when you speak as you do about what took place with Dr. Klouda, I’m inclined to believe you do not have any direct evidence to support your claims. I don’t say that to be mean or hurtful, but your assertions do not match the facts. So, either you are intentionally trying to mislead people in order to further your crusade against conservatives, or you are just parroting what you heard from others with an agenda like yours.
There is no evidence to support your claims so perhaps the Christian thing would be to stop making those claims.
SSBN, I believe Dr. Klouda.
I rest my flippin case.
Stephen,
I started to read “chapter 13”. The info in that chapter does not even get inerrancy right concerning “dictation”. I think I stopped reading after that.
You talk about being “honest” about what happened in the SBC. Well, nobody interprets the “facts” of what happened without some lens through which they “interpret” the facts. If folks are wearing different glasses, then folks will interpret that history differently.
You can appeal to people to read link after link after link, but if people read these links with a different lens that you do, then you still are not going to be satisfied with their interpretations of those links because they will be different than yours.
Therefore, why keep giving links?
Allow me to give one simple difference in interpretation of the history from two sides interpreting that history with two different pairs of glasses. One side interprets the history to be the “TO” [Takeover]. The other side interprets the history to be the “CR” [Conservative Resurgence].
Both groups are coming to the “facts” with different commitments. Therefore, there is disagreement after disagreement after disagreement.
In fact, I noticed that while I agreed with BDW concerning the presence of neoorthodoxy, I don’t think I agree with the nature of neoorthodoxy being described as “conservative”.
Benji, Great post. I read the “13” link (against my better judgment). Most of it was just “another opinion.” Some of it definitely mischaracterized the whole issue of inerrancy. It was a waste of time.
You are absolutely right about “lenses.” One difference with me is: I know I have a very conservative lens. I’m just, “conservative” in every area of my life.
I’d really be open to discussing the “moderate” view on issues, but they never give any. They just attack my point of view with gratuitous assertions without any substance or support.
Giving links that are obviously biased is just a waste of my time, so I won’t be exploring them anymore.
Great post.
Brandon,
I wish that were true, but I think some of the most common and vocal protagonists and antagonists is these comment threads are not SBC at all.
David: That is always your answer. And that is why I hesitate for us to be so gung ho on the Great Commission. It should be done, but if a new convert starts reading scripture and disagreeing with you, are you going to move for this person to leave too? I am Southern Baptist because I believe that except for a few disagreements I have, and the fact that we are a mess right now, that we have the most Biblical doctrine. But you can’t just solve a problem by pushing people out. That is just way too easy and thankfully Christ did not do that when his disciples disagreed.
The Pharisees did it even killing Christ they hated him so much for disagreeing with them and showing them their sin. See the correlation here?I think the days of pushing people out because they disagree with certain things or see that we are a proverbial mess and need to clean up that mess are over.
David: You continually seem to discredit without proofs instead of listening. Just because someone recommends books(which God also uses just like he does preaching) does not mean that someone does not hold the Bible to a high standard. That is a ridiculous thought. And not true.
I really like what Trevin has to say, he seems like a big tent guy ( with reasonable limitations). I agree with his comments regarding the diversity of SBC churches and his statement about the bfm not being a creedal statement
I’d like to insert a snarky comment to get blood boiling but I’m not that kind of guy 🙂
Jim,
Haha… be snarky, not stupid! 😉
Here is a comment I just left Trevin on his 8-3-10 blog Worth a Look. At first glance he does have an interesting blog; reviewing Borg.
Maybe he will interview Charles Marsh, Kate Campbell and Charles Pickering soon; and review NT Wright on Inerrancy:
My comment on Wax blog:
Trevin:
I’m following the discussion at SBC voices.
Wondering what you make of Carey Newman and David Gushee’s remarks in Hankins Uneasy in Babylon abut SBTS that in the 94 Covenant, God was not in the place, the place being Mohler’s administration.
Read it in context.
Found your review of Borg interesting. Wondering what your Review of NT Wright’s recent books will come to; and eventually hope you tackle Marilynne Robinson’s The Death of Adam.
And maybe explore the differences between Anne Graham Lotz and her nephews Tulio and Stephen Tchifidjian on the orndination of women for pulpit preaching.
Would also like you to explore Charles Marsh on why Billy Graham signed the Lausanne Covenant and Francis Schaeffer did not and how that inflects Mohler’s admiration and implementation of a Schaefferite world view
Stephen,
I’ve reviewed Hankins’ book on the blog as well as every book Wright has released in the past few years. (I may have skipped “Justification,” but I interviewed him about it and then did the Christianity Today article outlining his view next to Piper’s.) Haven’t read Robinson’s latest, but it looks fascinating.
As to the other possible subjects, there’s only so much time in a day. 🙂
Trevin:
Thanks for the reply. Interested to see what you make of NT Wright’s views on Inerrancy as I understand him to think it a tertiary issue at best.
In no way can I see a conservative like Wright having found fault with Russell Dilday at SWBTS; or with Randall Lolley like Jim Deloach and others did at SEBTS.
Would love to see you hone in on that for the discussion here.
And would love for you to address the Newman and Gushee comments on their time at SBTS with Mohler in particular.
In the meantime will be looking for your review of Hankins at your blog.
Thanks’
Sfox
Trevin: Just read your review of Hankins book:
http://trevinwax.com/2009/10/28/southern-baptists-and-american-culture/
Found a little sophomoric, but I am encouraged to see you at least read the book.
BDW who sometimes visits this board has studied with Hankins at Baylor. Hoping he will take a look at your review and maybe we can do some further surgery on the matter.
Please place on your radar the works of Charles Marsh whose father was SBC Peace Committee Member Charles Pickering’s pastor in Laurel Mississippi. Take a look at what Marsh says about the Lausanne Covenant in Wayward Christian Soldiers.
Hope we can discuss Mark Noll as well as the conversation continues.
Grounded in the Authority of Scripture the Conservative ethicist David Gushee found fault with Mohler’s Southern Seminary and later with the SBC.
Gushee raises the question just what kind of Baptist are you.
With Gushee as the faultline, seems maybe Trevin Wax’s estimation of the SBC is a little shortsighted.
Here is a current article on Gushee that should bring some focus to the discussion where David Miller could find only a few proffs; and yet sold out wholesale to the SBC takeover.
Wade Burleson and Tom Parker have engaged the ongoing discussion at bl.com
Meantime, Gushee.
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5410/9/
for EVENSONG
(this was most gratefully found on Trevin’s blog)
” This is He who made the heavens and the earth,
and formed humanity in the beginning,
who is announced by the Law and the Prophets,
who was enfleshed in a Virgin,
who was hanged on the Tree,
who was buried in the earth,
who was raised from the dead,
went up into the heights of heaven,
who is sitting at the right hand of the Father,
who has the authority to judge and save all things,
through whom the Father made the things which exist,
from the beginning to all the ages.
This One is “the Alpha and the Omega,”
this One is “the beginning and the end”
the Beginning which cannot be explained
and the End which cannot be grasped.
This One is the Christ.
This One is the King.
This One is Jesus.
This One is the Leader.
This One is the Lord.
This One is He who has risen from the dead.
This One is He who sits at the right hand of the Father.
He bears the Father and is borne by the Father.
To Him be the glory and the power to the ends of the ages. Amen.”
– Melito, Bishop of Sardis, from “Concerning the Passover”
FROM: Trevin’s Seven”
thank you, Trevin, for journeying into ancient Church to retrieve and post that 🙂
Christiane,
I can only imagine how spectacular that homily must have been delivered. It’s one of my favorite “ancient” posts.
I love it.
Thanks again.
Trevin:
You said:”The BF&M is not a creed that churches are forced to accept, but by using it as the consensus of the majority of churches, it has been helpful in steering our discussions away from issues or differences that would cause us to splinter into various groups.”
Corrrect me if I am wrong on this but do not certain people in the SBC have to sign that they agree with the 2000 BF&M?
If they do, how are they not signing off on a creed?
My thanks in advance.
Tom,
I don’t know of anyone who has to actually sign the BF&M, but I believe there are certain positions of leadership within the Convention that require an affirmation of this statement of faith. Asking for an affirmation is merely a way of making sure that the people in leadership reflect the beliefs of the large majority of Southern Baptists.
Trevin—
For your information, the BF&M 2000 is required sigining for professors at Seminaries and IMB MIssionaries as well as Agency Heads.
The IMB has given some senior missionaries a pass, but the pressure is tremendous to bring about conformity.
If you check out the history of SBC Confessions, the earliest one of importance (in the 50’s) had a long preamble stating clearly that it was “just a statement of things upon which most SBC churches agree.”
The 2000 version has eliminated this and with its use as a measure of orthodoxy, could be called a “Creed” by most definitions.
What you need to realize is that Baptists began in revolt from the Roman Catholic world of Europe and Church of England. Our main point as it started was to tell people what “we do not believe:”
(1) Church hierarchy
(2) A formal creed such as the Nicean Creed
(3) High formal worship with litany / split chancel / assigned pews / pew tax / etc.
(4) While Baptist churches in the Charleston Tradition (as cited by several Bastist historians) were more formal and wanted formally educated clergy—those of the Sandy Creek Tradition used great emotion / un-educated clergy / looked down on formal education.
When you are young with a partial experience of our Baptist world, it is difficult to understand. When you have lived a lifetime plus had a Baptist Preacher for a father, you have a much wider perspective like me.
Some of the input to this blog is to give you younger folks a better perspective—if you view it as simply that rather than an attempt to debate you at every corner.
I applaude your dedication. Just don’t think for a moment you are fully aware of “all things SBC.”
Gene,
Whether you are right or wrong is beside the point right now… I just have to add that this comment is one of the most “elitist” comments I have read in awhile.
The whole mentality of “you dont really know anything until you’re old” is really tiresome. While experience certainly is beneficial your comment shows the old and tiresome approach your generation often has for my generation.
From what I have read, and many agree with me, Trevin is one of the most insightful young minds in our convention. He is an impressive writer with a humble spirit and I would take him over most of the older generation. As us young guys often need to swallow our pride it appears that many in your generation need to do the same thing.
I don’t think Trevin would ever say, that he is “fully aware of all things SBC.” Yet, it is telling that you feel the need to say that to him as if you have the SBC cornered.
I genuinely hope I am reading your comment wrong, but that is certainly how it came off to me.
Matt Svoboda said:
“The whole mentality of “you dont really know anything until you’re old” is really tiresome. While experience certainly is beneficial your comment shows the old and tiresome approach your generation often has for my generation.”
You know, I believed that same thing when I was Matt’s age.
It may sound strange but, I still believe it to be true today….probably more so.
Matt–
You guys are saying exactly what the hippies were saying when they coined the phrase, “You can’t trust anyone over 30!” This was when I was in my early 20’s and a student at Emory and SEBTS. That was elitist on their part!!!
I didn’t buy it then because I knew several wise and studied people over 30 who knew enough to teach me a thing or 2! I still know and respect older people–both men and women.
To say you don’t know anything because you are too young is a misunderstanding of my approach. To put it simply: Until you have a personal experience of what you judge, you are judging on partical material which could be misleading.
I was wise enough to listen and learn rather than to throw out epithets as to their lack of knowledge.
Knowledge comes in 2 forms:
(1) Personal experience
(2) What one reads and hears
NO ONE is omnicient but God. One of my favorite little posters says, “Only God is perfect / I am uncomfortable around people who think they are gods!!!”
cb scott,
I must say that I have always gotten that feeling from you… Which is why I really appreciate guys like you, Dave Miller, Hershael York, and many many others of the older generation. IMHO, you all have the right type of approach to my generation and interact with is us in such a way that makes us respect you and want to learn from you.
I have much enjoyed my relationship with Dave as I have really started to see him as a guy I can go too and learn from. I do this because he doesn’t come off to me in a way that says, “listen here, you dont have a right to an opinion because you’re not 30 yet.” Instead he welcomes my thoughts(except for Eschatology of course 😉 and interacts with me in a way that shows respect and yet is happy to give guidance and wisdom when needed.
All of this to say, the attitude and mentality that you, Dave, and others show to my generation is much appreciated.
Trevin,
Totally agree about the BFM. I even think if autonomous churches weren’t in place as freely as they are that pastors should have to agree. I got blasted for saying that on here, and you may disagree as well..
Church pastors want sign it in bulk at grassroots level cause if they had to CP giving would dry up dramatically.
As an example take a look at Dawson Memorial in Bham Alabama one of the leading percentage CP givers in the state; yet none of their staff to my knowledge feel comfortable with the BFM 2000.
And why didn’t Jimmy Jackson go ahead with his plans to oust FBC Huntsville from the Madison County Association?
You fellows are just messin; some intentionally, and many like Trevin it appears, unwittingly.
I personally would love to see pastors and churches be required to sign it and abide by it. Other than moderates and liberals (i.e. people whose opinions don’t matter) who would object to what is found in there? Complimentarian, correct view of human sexuality, took out the liberal loophole about how to interpret the bible that let libs/moderates claim “Well Paul couldn’t have meant that because Christ is too loving to have been that exclusive”. Not perfect by any means, but solidly biblical.
Are you an independent Baptist Joe, or is that VolFan who is the Indie.
I see where David Rogers today is endorsing immigration reform.
What has Paul Pressler told you to think about that; or did you miss his call today?
Tell ya what, Fox, you answer this question with a “Yes” or “No” and I’ll answer any question you ask me.
Is it possible for a person to go to heaven without repenting of their sins and placing their faith in Jesus Christ alone?
I have come to the conclusion it would be almost impossible for anyone go to heaven if he were a member of a church where you were the pastor or you had prevailing influence.
“Hell on Earth with Heaven in Jeopardy” should be on the marquee of any church you frequent.
Stephen! Stephen! Stephen! You can do it man… Answer the question. He has asked you 1.4 billion times on SBCVoices and I have never seen you answer it.
I dont want to assume what your answer is, but the fact that you dodge it every time seems to be an indicator- fill me in! Plus, Joe said ANY question you ask him- that is priceless!
Ron West, Tom Parker and Wade Burleson have some questions for you at baptistlife.com forums SBC Trends. YOu should check it out.
Joe sabotages your Forum here. He is your problem not mine.
It was him on his fellow clown Volfan who had a wedding in the family last weekend. Out of respect for their family I am trying to avoid him as much as possible.
Trevin seems to be sincere in his pursuits though his conclusions to date are a little sophomoric.
I think we should turn our attention back to him and be better role models for youngsters like him and Brandon.
Stephen,
All of them are free to email me, but I know Wade likes to publicly post private emails so I probably wont email him back. But, if the questions are good, maybe I will go ahead and write a public post of my own so Wade(as he did to Dave Miller) doesn’t butcher my email by taking bits and pieces of it to intentionally deceive and change what I say.
See, here’s the deal…if he answers it “Yes” he is going to have to admit that a Muslim or a Mormon isn’t going to heaven and that will inflame his liberal buddies over at Baptist Life Forums.
If he answers “No”, which is what he really beleves, he will prove once for all forever that he is not saved because he doesn’t believe the gospel.
It’s a no win situation for him, which of course is why I keep asking him about it.
I answered Joe Blow’s Hell question in comment 25. Over at bl.com there is a new post on WA Criswell also a comment that establishes Blackmon as an Independent Baptist.
I don’t know Joe’s Momma but how do we know she didn’t die and go to Hell.
Point is, only God Knows, not what Joe says.
Joe, Go see Winter’s Bone and let’s talk about Thump Milton.
I answered Joe Blow’s Hell question in comment 25.
No you didn’t. The question was can anyone go to heaven apart from repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ. The question requires a yes or a no which of course you’re not man enough to give because you know you lose all credibility if you answer it.
You answer was some blathering about churches and pastors. My question, as anyone who can read can tell, didn’t have anything to do with that.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why people think you punch kittens every morning.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why this didn’t attach to Joe Blackmon either.
Brandon,
Just curious as to what you mean by your statement, “I even think if autonomous churches weren’t in place as freely as they are that pastors should have to agree.” I promise I won’t blast you, but I would like some clarification (because I have not read your previous posts saying this) before I comment. Also, are you in agreement with 100% of the BF&M? You don’t have one small quibble with anything contained therein?
Finally for you and all who would like to see (require) autonomous SB churches/pastors sign the BF&M, would that be a legally binding document that would be filed with the national SBC? I am not trying to be vague with these questions, but I would like for you and others who believe that autonomous churches/pastors should sign the BF&M to think through what you are saying as relates to a Convention of cooperating churches as opposed to a denomination. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Every SBC preacher out there knows it only takes one zealous fundamentalist in his church who wants to cause trouble and the preacher’s head can be had on a platter with 51% of any vote; and they can vote as often as a fundy makes a stink.
So if Brandon starts enforcing his BFM requirement in “autonomous” local SBC congregations then every preacher out there will sweat his “convictions” on the nature of Scripture praying that it doesn’t come down to a moment like it was in 84 on the Wednesday afternoon of the SBC annual Meeting when Black Hawk Down Boykin’s favorite preacher Bobby Welch went looney at the evangelist luncheon and said boys: ” We Got liberals”; let’s run em out.
What a grand and noble way to takeover a denomination. Joe Blackmon’s mentality ran wild on those halcyon days of “virtue” in Baptist life. Yall have a grand legacy to tell your grandchildren about chock full of McCarthyism, deceit and demagoguery in the Name of holding up the Bible.
What a crock!!!!!!!!!!
Howell,
Essentially my position on the BFM2000 is that I think it is the best doctrinal statement for a convention I think of the past two centuries. I disagree that the word “inerrancy” was avoided after all the CR did to fight that word into things (not that I disagree with them pushing it) but I suppose inerrancy is essentially established nonetheless.
I think the creed/statement of faith line is close for me there. The SBC schools and missionaries have to sign off on it and I think it would build accountability and unity if pastors who chose to associate with the SBC signed it (seeing as it’s the official position of the convention). I know that this is impossible because of autonomy, but it’s a pipe dream that I wish for.
For some reason BFM2000 detractors, namely Fox, think that I wish for this conformity of sorts because I want to further the CR and push liberals out. This is absolutely wrong. I don’t hate non-conservatives at all, but I wonder why they would associate with the SBC when they don’t even agree with the BFM2000. Just breeds the strife and divison that we see on this blog daily. I think it’d more helpful for everyone if these autonomous churches joined up with their beliefs. Non-conservatives should associate with the BGCT, CBF, etc. who share their convictions.
Brandon,
Thanks for the reply. I have read enough of Stephen (Fox) to know that those of us who supported the CR (even if it was not perfect) will never be able to agree with those who would have preferred that no CR ever took place.
I don’t know that I would say the BF&M2000 is the best doctrinal statement of the last two centuries, but it is a worthy competitor for that title.
I appreciate your “pipe dreams,” but I believe the mandatory requirement for pastors or churches to sign the BF&M would fundamentally alter the very nature of what it means to be a Southern Baptist (or even Baptist for that matter). I don’t have any major heartburn over the Convention directing the various trustees and employees of the agencies or seminaries to sign the BF&M.
You seem to indicate that the schools require this. Do the students have to sign or only the professors? I know at Southern that the professors had to sign at the beginning of the academic year that they would teach “in accordance with and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles.”
I don’t object to pastors or churches voluntarily signing or affirming the BF&M. In fact, our church voluntarily affirms our agreement with the principles embodied within the BF&M. I would most strenuously object to that becoming mandatory for local churches. I would encourage you to read what I have written on this subject, inspired by this comment stream, at http://www.fromlaw2grace.com on Friday. Thanks for the dialogue. God bless,
Howell
Howell,
You said “I would most strenuously object to that becoming mandatory for local churches.”
Thank you. One example–BF&M 2000 affirms that the Spirit baptizes people.
Some who do not like this part of the confession might still be able to sign because they think this is “poorly worded”. Others might not be able to sign because their conscience is too sensitive, if I may use that word, to find rest in that reasoning.
Howell in many ways I think you beg the question; you are looking for the Pony in the piles of what ponies do, but the Pony isn’t there.
The SBC was fundamentally(don’t let the pun go over your head) alterred Weds morning of the San Antonio 88 Convention when Pressler’s forces finally got to the Jugular with the Resolution Number Five presented by Fred Wolfe and Sutton On the Priesthood of the Believer.
And it you don’t get the signficance of That, then read Harold Bloom on the Matter in American Religion.
Maybe he can help you understand.
I’m sorry that it looks like we will never partake of the Eucharist together in this World.
Maybe in Heaven with Criswell and Frank Norris, Father Coughlin and Jesse Helms; if Helms made it.
Benji:
I do think that there are some issues within the BF&M that, depending on how they were interpreted, could cause major headaches if churches or pastors were required to sign. The issue of the Spirit baptizing “every believer into the Body of Christ” at the moment of regeneration (BF&M, Article II, Sec. C) as it relates to water baptism/Lord’s Supper is one that has already been discussed by some.
My church practices modified open communion whereby any born-again believer may partake, regardless of their water baptism. This perhaps conflicts with a literal interpretation of Article VII, but is consistent with Article II. Who would be tasked to make sure that the 45,000+ churches are in strict compliance with every interpretation? Of course, I have no problem with believer’s baptism by immersion being a prerequisite to local church membership.
Stephen:
If you are ever in my neck of the woods in New Mexico, you will be more than welcome to partake of communion with us. Every 5th Sunday we observe the Lord’s Supper. Who knows, maybe we’ll meet this side of heaven.
God bless,
Howell
I just want to clarify something. No church has to sign the BFM2K but many employees of the denomination are REQUIRED to sign it. All of the missionaries of the IMB and NAMB must actually sign that they are in agreement with it. Some state conventions require that all trustees appointed to boards and committees also sign it.
I assume most folks here think that is a good thing.
Scott
Trevin:
You said to me:”I don’t know of anyone who has to actually sign the BF&M, but I believe there are certain positions of leadership within the Convention that require an affirmation of this statement of faith. Asking for an affirmation is merely a way of making sure that the people in leadership reflect the beliefs of the large majority of Southern Baptists.”
You call it an affirmation but is that not just another name for a creed?
Baptist used to not be a people of a creed until the 2000 BF&M.
But now it is sign it, otherwise you are out.
What about the missionaries who were fired because they refused to sign off on this creed?
Do you think pastors and churches will be required to sign off on the 2000 BF&M to remain members of the SBC?
We already have one individual in the blog section who says:”I personally would love to see pastors and churches be required to sign it and abide by it. Other than moderates and liberals (i.e. people whose opinions don’t matter) who would object to what is found in there? Complimentarian, correct view of human sexuality, took out the liberal loophole about how to interpret the bible that let libs/moderates claim “Well Paul couldn’t have meant that because Christ is too loving to have been that exclusive”. Not perfect by any means, but solidly biblical.”
Someone should point out to him that SB have never required such action by churches and pastors–I believe I just did.
BTW, Joe, would the SB church you go to sign off on the 2000 BF&M?
Wait a minute, I keep forgetting Joe Blackmon does not attend a SB church.
What about the missionaries who were fired because they refused to sign off on this creed?
If they came to me at work and told me I had to sign something that I did not agree with because I believed it was wrong or be fired, I guess I’d be fired too because I wouldn’t compromise my principals. Of course, these people were fired because they disagreed with biblical theology, but that’s another story.
Matt S.:
Joe Blackmon said the following:”I personally would love to see pastors and churches be required to sign it and abide by it. Other than moderates and liberals (i.e. people whose opinions don’t matter) who would object to what is found in there? Complimentarian, correct view of human sexuality, took out the liberal loophole about how to interpret the bible that let libs/moderates claim “Well Paul couldn’t have meant that because Christ is too loving to have been that exclusive”. Not perfect by any means, but solidly biblical.”
Your thoughts on Joe’s position.
I, like Joe, would be happy to sign it, but right now I am pleased with only having paid SBC employees having to sign it. I am glad paid SBC employees do have to sign it and I am not opposed to making all SBC pastors sign it, but I am happy with how it is done currently.
Moderates in the SBC often seem to avoid trying to argue that their views are more biblical. Instead, they focus on ad homenim – pointing out the hypocrisies, inconsistencies, and bad behaviors of conservatives. While it is true that conservatives in the SBC do provide much material for such ad homenim, it is also true that the inability or unwillingness or many (but not all) moderates to make arguments for their theological positions is one of the reasons why they lost in the SBC controversy and why they have a hard time recruiting young pastors to their ranks right now.
I have asked others on this board and they usually avoid the question but I will ask you anyway.
Name the books on the BX 6400 shelf at any decent Library; name the books you have read on the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC.
Mark Noll and ClarkPinnock put the whole mess in a Nutshell in 1987 at Ridgecrest; but apparently you weren’t there and none of your fundamentalist mentors to date have bothered to tell you about it.
I have read:
Barry Hankins, Uneasy in Babylon
Bill Leonard, God’s Last and Only Hope
Jerry Sutton, The Baptist Reformation
Nancy T. Ammerman, Baptist Battles
David Morgan, The New Crusades, The New Holy Land
Paul Pressler, A Hill on Which to Die
Jeff,
That has certainly been the majority case on SBC Voices.
We all fall short- I just realized that I partook in the comment thread getting off topic. I do apologize and I will make sure that I get punished… Stephen, Joe, etc- let’s try to stay on topic. You, me, and everyone else!
Matt S:
You said :”I, like Joe, would be happy to sign it, but right now I am pleased with only having paid SBC employees having to sign it. I am glad paid SBC employees do have to sign it and I am not opposed to making all SBC pastors sign it, but I am happy with how it is done currently.”
You do realize how unbaptistic it would be to making all SBC pastors sign it–the 2000 BF&M.
My question is what if the pastor and or church will not agree to sign it–your thoughts.
Jeff, please help me what is a moderate?
As I said, I’m happy with how it currently is. I’m not anti making pastors sign it, but I think it is unnecessary.
A moderate is a person, who is somewhat conservative in their theology; but he is okay with liberals being in leadership positions in the SBC, being missionaries, etc. A moderate would be ok with a SB seminary prof praying to Mother god; or with a missionary that believed in universalism and liberation theology; or with an SBC entity head believing abortion is ok. Moderates seem to believe in the “let’s just all get along with each other” mentality that goes along with the good ole boy system.
DAvid
To add to that, they typically are very cagey about what they actaully believe. You really have to “smoke ’em out” to get them to admit what they believe. That’s because, while some of them may have some conservative beliefs (i.e. salvation come through repentance of sin and faith in Christ) they’ire usually not that conservative (i.e. salvation comes through repentance of sin and faith in Christ but God may allow a Muslim into heaven if he’s sincere enough–faith trumps belief). That’s why moderates are, in my most humble of opinions, even worse than liberals. At least liberals own what they believe and are up front about it.
Matt s:
You said:”All of them are free to email me, but I know Wade likes to publicly post private emails so I probably wont email him back. But, if the questions are good, maybe I will go ahead and write a public post of my own so Wade(as he did to Dave Miller) doesn’t butcher my email by taking bits and pieces of it to intentionally deceive and change what I say”
That is a very serious and outrageous charge you are making their young man!
How can you prove that Wade or anyone is intentionally deceiving or changing anything?
Wade did that! I’m shocked. Please, don’t tell Debbie 🙂
I have no problem with him saying it.
Tom, go to your own forum- Baptist Life and read it objectively. I read it this morning and it was quite obvious. When you quote someone and yet cut out an important part you are intentionally deceiving and misrepresenting.
Matt: At what point of the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention did Paul Pressler and Robert Tenery and company NOT intentionally Deceive.
I think the record is clear BDW and I have read considerably more on the matter than you and Dave Miller and we can not find many points where there Was Not Intentional Deception and Deceit of the Grossest Magnitude, Brother.
Steve,
Show me, who has read as much or more about it, and has far more first hand experience than both of you, any intentional deception of which Robert Tenery was involved. Tell me where, you, Steve Fox, have firsthand information wherein Judge Pressler was intentionally deceptive.
CB: I was using Criswell’s Pulpit license; I was preaching and as any fan of Criswell will tell you, when you are preaching you can say anything you want to.
That said, if this board had an edit option I would go back and say that a different way.
To bring it to the level of intention was a mistake on my part, an error.
Am I convinced it was a Grand Exercise in Deception; that Deception was an overwheliming aspect of the Takeover, Yes I am.
Do I have evidence that would satisfy your understanding of Intent, I doubt it.
Why did Pressler walk off his interview with Bill Moyers on National PBS Christmas of 87? I guess we’ll never know.
That said look at the discussion at the 120’s and following. I hope to put up Ron West testimony from Bl.com
Stephen,
So your defense of Wade intentionally deceiving is “well thats what the SBC takeover people did”? Nice, well, I guess that means you guys are in the same boat of those you hate so much.
Matt,
Repay evil with evil… you know the old saying! 😉
Matt: I don’t see where I implied Wade intentionally deceived.
See the Ron West Testimony from BL.com
“Why did Pressler walk off his interview with Bill Moyers on National PBS Christmas of 87? I guess we’ll never know.”
Steve, Restroom break maybe? Remember, he did say, “excuse me.” before he left.
He can ask me. I know it to be true.
I should have said, Tom Parker, he can ask me. I know it is true.
CB, I hope you didn’t act on my frustrated email last night! I had a moment of weakness, but I’m back to being a huggy-bear again.
Huggy Bear Dave,
I worked in the “business” too long not to know you were just frustrated. You also did not mention a $ amount. 🙂
Do we still allow female missionaries? I know we dump the stateside women into the home econ class known as Southwestern, but I’m wondering if we still commission female missionaries.
And if we do, how do we reconcile women not being senior pastors and teachers of men here stateside when they perform those very same roles out in the mission field as they teach converts and establish churches, just not with the title and paycheck.
No need to justify anything. Women do not serve as NAMB or IMB pastors anyplace in the world. That’s a red herring.
No, but they perform the same duties and actions as senior pastors while out in the field. How is that reconciled?
I’m sorry, but didn’t we settle this about 10 years ago. Women, no matter how much moderates wish it weren’t so, are not going to serve as pastors in the SBC. You see, it’s this little thing called “The Bible” that has clear instructions on that sort of thing. I Timothy 2. You might want to read it sometime.
They are fulfilling the role of senior pastor while out in the field, are they not? They are doing everything that a senior pastor would do here state side.
Wait, I see the disconnect:
Most male senior pastors stopped performing those tasks years ago to pursue book writing and convention speaking opportunities. I can see why my simply worded questions are not getting answered.
I know 1 Timothy 2. That’s why I’m questioning everyone’s stance on it since we’re allowing women to do the duties of a senior pastor while they are missionaries, we’re just not letting them make the money in our stateside churches.
Mary Magdalene did not need a ‘title’ and a ‘paycheck’ to obey Our Lord when she was told to announce His Resurrection to the Apostles.
In time, the Church awarded her a very special title. In early Christian tradition, she is known as ‘the Apostle to the Apostles’.
Sending a message and serving as a pastor are two totally different things.
TJ: Two of the greatest preachers on the planet are women: Fleming Rutledge and Barbara Brown Taylor.
You ought to go hear em preach some time, in the flesh.
I have heard them both in the flesh; one Preaching on the Ole Axis of Evil.
Don’t let the wife know where you are and sneak out of the house or order and have delivered in a brown package of some kind Fleming’s Help My Unbelief.
Several sermons in there that will go straight to the heart of a lot of your nonsense and blunderbuss.
Not if you’re dong the exact same things. A female missionary is preaching and teaching to men every bit as much as a female pastor would be doing here stateside. However, we condemn the female here stateside while supporting the female in another area.
This is what I’m questioning. Or is the SBC getting ready to stop sending female missionaries?
She also washed Jesus feet with her Hair and I don’t have any doubts Jesus was grateful.
A foot washin Preacher; quite a package but Paige Patterson would fire her for sure; most likely just see her as a temptress; an occasion for man’s sin, something to be avoided.
bill:
You said–““I would encourage people not to bring that ugliness to this post.”
Then why do you continue to allow Joe to post on this site at all?”
007, CB, and especially Joe Blackmon frequent SBC voices with their attack of the “liberals” and they are generally given a pass, but let anyone say anything against the CR and that is a no, no.
Also if Joe Blackmon does not agree with someone he is around 100% ugly in his response but CB likes the spirit of Joe Blackmon and so Joe Blackmon feels emboldened.
I do not see any consistency here at all.
There seems to be plenty of ugliness from the moderates that frequent this site. How would I know that unless I read their posts.
So, it seems like your criticism of those who provide this blog is comletely unfounded — sort of like your consistent, persistent and insistent attacks on the CR.
The fact that you are complaining seems to mitigate against your complaint.
but let anyone say anything against the CR and that is a no, no.
Oh, muzzle it. Stephen blathers constantly about the evils of the CR and how hateful fundy’s are and I don’t see his “SBC Voices” card revoked. Why don’t you try dealing with the facts?
Also if Joe Blackmon does not agree with someone he is around 100% ugly in his response
Let’s see here. To whom is it that I’m ugly? That would be moderates. Yeah, I’m ok with that.
Yeah, because being mean spirited and insulting to those who don’t agree with you is in perfect line with the scriptures.
I think I’ll punch my senior adult pastor in the face next time I see him since we don’t agree on worship music.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me present the gospel according to Joe Blackmon.
It sounds like it is also the gospel to bill. You and Tom are a like in your thinking. Hey since person x did something sinful, let me do it to show them how it feels. You sin to show others how bad their sin is….must be because you don’t believe the Bible is enough. Just present the Word of God and let the Holy Spirit convict them.
If someone denies the basic tenents of the Christian faith (inerrancy, exclusivity of salvation through Christ alone etc) then they shouldn’t act all surprised when I am less than friendly to them.
Considering how you treat your brothers in Christ…
But hey, what ever helps you sleep at night, Joe.
Well Tom Parker,
Now that you have called me by name, I do like Joe. He is an honest guy, straight forward guy like some of those Jesus called to follow Him years ago down by the seashore.
I had planned to leave this post alone because Trevin Wax seemed like a nice guy when I met him in Orlando. But if you insist, I’ll be glad to…….
Tom Parker,
I am the main administrator of this site. You speak of what you do not know… I once banned 007 for how he was conducting himself and I have deleted A LOT of 007s and Joe’s comments…
Of course you dont see consistency because you only see half of it. You have no idea how many times I have edited and deleted comments of Joe and 007. We allow more conversation than any other Baptist blog that I am aware of. Am I a perfect administrator? Definitely not… Do I try my best to be fair? Yes. You, Stephen, and others cannot attack Joe and CB for being unkind when you all carry yourself in the same manner, if not worse. Well, worse than CB, but maybe not Joe! sorry Joe 🙂
Tom Parker,
I have been deleted on Voices more than once. Same is true of SBC TODAY, IMPACT!, Wade’s Goose Farm, Debbie’s Funhouse, and several others. You may not believe it, but I have been deleted more at SBC TODAY than any other place.
But I don’t fell bad toward any of those guys. What really hurt me was when I was “deleted” from a Boy Scout Troop over an incident with some M-80s, a tent and a sleeping Scout Master. 🙂
See Tom, you simply dont know the facts. CB, 007, and Joe have all been deleted at SBC Voices… We are as fair as any SBC blog I know of and we allow more conversation than any SBC blog that I know of.
Yeah, we let Joe ramble and get off topic, but we let you and Stephen Fox do the same thing.
Matt Svoboda,
Your grandfather did not happen to be a Scout Master who was blown up in a tent back fifty or so years ago was he? 🙂
You are on a roll, CB.
Huggy Bear Dave,
I had to ask him that. You know how rampant vendettas are here in Blogtown. I thought maybe I got deleted here was because Matt was getting revenge for his Grandfather? I didn’t ask the Scout Master’s name. I just blew up his tent. It wasn’t personal. 🙂
Well, being deleted from SBC Today is par for the course.
They aren’t known for being keen on people having a different position or view point over there.
They also aren’t known for being entirely accurate in their own reporting either. God help them when bloggers posing as news outlets are subject to the same libel laws as reputable news sources.
Then again, after gross negligence in their reporting, they just toss out a trite apology like Joe does from time to time.
Well, if you’re talking about the error with the BGCT and Lottie Moon receipts, yes they were wrong. And they offered a sincere appology. However, it’s not like they were criticizing the conservative convention so it was really no big deal. It’s just the BGCT.
Dude, I almost choked on my biscuit reading that last line. I know you dit’nt!!!! LOL
When have I ever acted ugly?
You may not like what I say…you dont agree with what I say… but when have I acted ugly?
Tom, talk about the pot calling the kettle black?
David
Joe Blackmon:
You said:”If they came to me at work and told me I had to sign something that I did not agree with because I believed it was wrong or be fired, I guess I’d be fired too because I wouldn’t compromise my principals. Of course, these people were fired because they disagreed with biblical theology, but that’s another story.”
What an ugly and outrageous comment made about missionaries who in a million years you would never reach the spiritual maturity of qualifying and serving as missionaries as they did.
Please be quiet.
Just a note about the real history: most moderate leaning missionaries resigned and were not fired.
There is SSBN’s History and then there is Credible History of why the Missionaries were Fired.
In case anybody in their prayer time is inclined to a smidgeon of truth on this matter as opposed to BSBN’s Jr. High what he thought he remembered somebody saying there is This:
http://www.helwys.com/books/obrien_2.html
You know Tom, as I was reading your pithy little comment I think I heard an orchestra in the background playing “My Heart Bleeds For You”. And the funny thing is, it was in E flat which is strange because most string players hate flats. Weird.
JB Taliban Joe, when I think Of you I always think Diapason cause you are the heartbeat, the Major Chord of All that is Right in the World; Serenity and Peace.
QUOTE know we dump the stateside women into the home econ class known as Southwestern END QUOTE
Tom, is this the kind of “ugliness” you were talking about?
Of course not, it was a slam against SWBTS, Patterson, and the CR. It’s a hat trick!! Don Quixote will probably give him a medal for such a comment.
If you’re going to quote me, at least have the decency to address this to me.
I stand by my comment about the Home Economics class at SWBTS. As a matter of fact, I’ve spoken with several (in excess of thirty) women who stated that they would have attended one of the other seminaries rather than SWBTS because of the new 1959 style of curriculum for women who want to be in the ministry.
Then again, women can fulfill the roles ascribed to that of teacher and senior pastor while serving as a missionary but they aren’t allowed to make the big bucks when they come back stateside and do the exact same roles. But hey, as long as we keep the congregations stupid, no one will be the wiser for it.
I have spoken to several women who plan on going to SWBTS because they do offer this course of study.
Outstanding.
SSBN:
Whoever you are, you said the following:”There seems to be plenty of ugliness from the moderates that frequent this site. How would I know that unless I read their posts.
So, it seems like your criticism of those who provide this blog is comletely unfounded — sort of like your consistent, persistent and insistent attacks on the CR.
The fact that you are complaining seems to mitigate against your complaint.”
My questions to SSBN–alias ?????:
What is a moderate?
Who is ripping the CR?
What is insistent?
What is mitigate? that one I think I know–it is what birds do when they fly from one place to another–right?
Is it grammatically correct to use complaining and complaint in the same sentence?
And last but not least what is the world do you mean by comletely, is that where you throw around the words moderate and CR in the same comment?
And I know you agree with Joe Blackmon–ugh.
Matt:
You said:”Tom, go to your own forum- Baptist Life and read it objectively. I read it this morning and it was quite obvious. When you quote someone and yet cut out an important part you are intentionally deceiving and misrepresenting.”
I do not have a Forum.
Help me what part did he cut out. My thanks in advance.
Here is Daves response to Wade taht shows what Wade left out:
“My comment was: “I graduated from SWBTS. I know of at least two men who were my professors whom I would call liberal (or at least who held positions that should have eliminated them from teaching at an SBC seminary). I would be reluctant to name them publicly. Neither were prominent big-name professors.”
Your comment became deceptive when you excised my parenthetical comment.(this would be the important part in which Wade would to have purposefully deleted the words- it could not have been an accident it had to be intentional- to deny this is pathetic.)
I also followed that comment up with this clarification to Joe. I said, “Once again, Joe, they were not “liberal” as that is commonly defined. They held doctrines that I believe were incompatible with SBC doctrine and practice. Neither, as I understood them, would deny the deity of Christ, the exclusivity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. But they held to positions that were not compatible with teaching in the SBC, as I understand it. Just want to be clear.”
Again, you misrepresented my comments – intentionally.”
SSBN:
You said:”Just a note about the real history: most moderate leaning missionaries resigned and were not fired.”
lol, man they were fired. It may help you and the others to sleep better at night believing they resigned, but bottom line they were fired.
Now, that is the real history, SSBN or whomever you are.
It must be hard living in such a confusing world of your own making. I would answer your questions, but your really don’t want answers.
Your crack about grammar makes you look ignorant.
And, I didn’t say “none” were fired, I just said that some resigned. Others went with other missionary agencies. I sleep well at night knowing that because of the CR, our missionaries are giving a clear, unadulterated, soul-saving message and not the confusion some missionaries were trying to pass of as the gospel.
I didn’t go back over all of your posts, but everyone of the dozen or so I did reread, you were saying something negative about someone who supports the CR, or the CR itself. That would qualify as “insistent.”
Sorry, I used too many big words . . . just kidding 🙂
Matt:
You said to Stephen:”So your defense of Wade intentionally deceiving is “well thats what the SBC takeover people did”? Nice, well, I guess that means you guys are in the same boat of those you hate so much.”
Matt, you can not prove Wade’s intent anymore than I could prove your intent.
Also, there is no hate involved here, it is the truthful standing up to the Takeover, I believe your guys came up with that word.
My guys? I wasn’t even in diapers. lol.
Tom,
I cannot prove Wades intent, but deductive reasoning points me in that direction. To do what he did accidently means he has the intellect of an 8th grader, but I believe Wade is a smart guy. He is just a smart guy with an agenda.
Matt:
You said:”My guys? I wasn’t even in diapers. lol.
Tom,
I cannot prove Wades intent, but deductive reasoning points me in that direction. To do what he did accidently means he has the intellect of an 8th grader, but I believe Wade is a smart guy. He is just a smart guy with an agenda.”
Your being in diapers is no excuse for not getting yourself up to speed for what really happened with the CR.
I’ll say it again, Matt, you can not prove Wade’s intent.
Please show me what Wade did wrong with Dave Miller’s quote.
Go read it… He quoted what Dave said and intentionally(this could not have been by accident- he would have had to delete it on purpose) left an important part off. It had to be intentional because it could not have been an accident. It really is that simple.
I am “up to speed”, but you cant call them “my guys” when I wasnt even in diapers. lol. It is ridiculous.
Dave Miller,
I have thought about whether to say something or not. If you or Matt think that what I am about to say hurts more than helps [though my intent is to defend Dave], then please nuke this comment:
I have personally met Dave Miller and I believe the negative disposition that he has been accused of having is false. Dave is the kind of guy who I think would be good at hosting a “Christian Late Night Show” [if there was such a thing]. He was good at keeping the conversation going when he, Chris, David R, and myself were having lunch together. I believe he is a good Christian man.
and I would like to add an Amen. (this is also from personally meeting him… I even stayed in his house!) 🙂
Thanks guys.
Well said. I met Dave. I affirm Benji’s characterization of him.
Matt:
You said:”Go read it… He quoted what Dave said and intentionally(this could not have been by accident- he would have had to delete it on purpose) left an important part off. It had to be intentional because it could not have been an accident. It really is that simple.
I am “up to speed”, but you cant call them “my guys” when I wasnt even in diapers. lol. It is ridiculous.”
What does the part in parenthesis have to do with Wade’s comment?
How does it change Wade’s intent?
I do notice the atta boys for Dave Miller against Wade Burleson.
The devil has to laugh at what the CR has done to the spirit of fellowship that used to exist in the SBC before the takeover destroyed it and has us fighting against each other.
Tom,
You cant be blind and dumb so just try, please! This is what happened:
Person A says, “I love cats and I hate it when people kill cats.”
Person B quotes person A as saying, “I love it when people kill cats.”
Person B intentionally misquoted person A by leaving out a part of the quotation. This couldnt have been on accident, he would have had to INTENTIONALLY left out the other words.
Do you see now?
Also, I am glad you notice the “atta boys” because Dave is a man of integrity that is fair and balanced and allows more conversation than most- even as he is being slandered. You all vilify people for attaching other Christians and yet you all are doing the same thing to him.
Tom Parker,
It is not hard to catch on to someone’s “intent” when they have poured it out by buckets full over the last four-five years. It becomes rather simple after a while.
Well, simple to all those willing to see it.
I know this is not my blog and I am a guest here, but for crying out loud, does every single thread have to evolve into this same tired argument between the same half dozen people? Could somebody please declare a CR moratorium?
Its a really good question, Bill.
I thought the CR would live forever. Isn’t a moratorium a little soon.
If this is yet another death; I hope some of you will go see the grand job Ron West did at baplife.com on the matter.
He and Wade Burleson speak truth with love, to borrow Adrian Rogers old phrase.
What was it Lincon said about the Judgment of the Lord are true and Righteous altogether?
And then Noll made his points.
Oh well, we can’t all be as certain as Jos Blackmon.
Maybe some of the certain ones here will venture deep into the BX 6400’s.
As the only surviving member of the CR who admits to perpetrating evil upon the heads of various liberals and at least one who tape recorded one of our meetings and urged the firing of Baptist press guys who followed me into a restroom asking me questions about the Sanctity of Human Life motion I made at the BSSB, I declare a moratorium against “CR rumbles” on posts without direct reference to the CR or the men who freed the SBC from slavery of poor theology, empty missions efforts by the missions boards, and bad books at the book stores.
But let it be said, that on any post which does reference the CR, let the fur fly to the last man standing and let the Devil take the hindmost parts with the rest of it.
Bill Mac:
You said:”I know this is not my blog and I am a guest here, but for crying out loud, does every single thread have to evolve into this same tired argument between the same half dozen people? Could somebody please declare a CR moratorium?”
It’s not likely to happen and it is the fault of both sides.
And I personally am sorry that you find it to be a tired argument as it is a living reality that changed the SBC forever.
“it is a living reality that changed the SBC forever.”
A-Men Tom Parker. Bless your heart. I certainly hope it has changed it forever.
Good point Tom Parker; great point.
Stay with us at bl.com. Maybe Joe Blackmon will keep his gunk here where he is the class clown; rather than venture there where things are different and he in short order will be the laughingstock.
Of course he will relish the martyrdom, I imagine, like Pressler did in his narcissistic venture Hill Upon Which to die with the TExas Regulars.
Look, guys, I am never going to believe that the CR was anything but a work of God. A few of you have the opposite view. If one of us writes a “CR” related post, I guess we opened the door.
But Brandon did a very good interview with Trevin Wax that has devolved into the same old garbage.
Could we just stop? Could we just NOT make every blog post about this? Just stop – right now.
How about it fellas?
Of too minds here; I agree to some extent, Trevin Wax is worthy of notice even if quite sophomoric in his depth on the takeover. He takes Mohler and Akins as if they were innocents when in fact they arose as Mother was fond of saying; rose up and knew not Joseph.
I do want to see if anyone will take up Wax on NT Wright; as Wright discounts inerrancy; yet far as I can make so far, Wax is okay with Wright as if Wright were he a SBC honcho would sign the BFM 2000 and it just isn’t so.
Steve,
I would like for you to respond to my comment #52.
Dave M:
As long as some of the commenters here loosely throw the two words of liberal and moderates around in their comments and attack these invisible people the CR is going to keep coming up.
Trevin says the 2000 BF&M is not a creed, but I believe that it is.
Ask the missionaries who had to “resign” because they could not in clear conscience sign it.
Tom Parker,
Some of us had to sign the ’63 BF&M. Was it also a creed?
CB:
If you had to sign the 1963 BF&M it was a creed.
My understanding is prior to the 2000 BF&M missionaries were not required to sign a document of their support for the BF&M.
The BF&M was used in other entities than just the mission boards Tom Parker.
Tom Parker, if you sign a document representing the terms on which you agree to work, is that a creed?
I would say it boarders very close to being a creed. The sbc missionaries and swbts proffs I knew certainly thougt so, and that included those that signed it w no real theological issues
How is it a creed Jim?
“The modern cry ‘less creed and more liberty’ is the degeneration from the vertebrate to the jelly fish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy.” – B. H. Carroll
Jeff,
I think it is precisely B.H. Carroll who might have been shut out by the BF&M 2000 if he were alive today. Unless he could have signed it based on the poorly worded reasoning, then I do not see how he would not have been.
He rejected the idea that the Spirit baptized people.
See my comment #28 August 6, 2010 at 9:52 am
SSBN:
Whoever you are you said to me:”Your crack about grammar makes you look ignorant”
Its really nice when unknown people insult you.
And BTW I will gladly admit that I am an ignorant person, thanks for reminding me how little I really know.
What about you, are you ignorant?
Tom Parker,
That is hypocrisy. You are as anonymous as SSBN. You go by Tom Parker, but who knows anything about you? Some folks say you are a youth minister here in Alabama who is angry because you can’t preach well and nobody will call as a pastor. Others say you are a former Southern Baptist living in the Triad working for the Presbyterian Ministers’ Fund. But I ask you, whom do you say you are?
Tom Parker,
I do hope you tell us who you are and something about yourself. Thus far all we know is that you post anti-conservative comments on blog threads and you take pleasure in your own personal ignorance.
You know, that is just kinda sad Tom Parker.
Which is it Tom Parker. Is it frustrated youth guy or Presbyterian Ministers’ Fund guy?
Tom Parker,
Did you really mean this: “I will gladly admit that I am an ignorant person, thanks for reminding me how little I really know.”??
Why do you want to remain ignorant?
Do you wear T-Shirts that bear the print, “I GLADLY ADMIT THAT I AM AN IGNORANT, MISINFORMED PERSON” on the front? Or, is the same message printed on both front and back?
No
Actually, I posted the first comment on this thread but it didn’t make it to light.
Trevin spoke about the usefulness of short-term mission trips. I suggested that we might want to rethink an automatic response of “yea, it really builds a love for missions.”
I’m sure it does in some instances, but I’ve seen mission groups come back to churches and step over homeless people to get into the church.
My theory is this: do hands on missions in our own backyard and give the money saved on travel to the CP to fund an ever increasing mission movement overseas.
Just for context: I’ve been on short-term mission trips to central american slums. I believe we did a great work, but it did cost a lot of money to get there.
I’m in agreement with SSBN. I see some value in short term mission trips, but I also think they not be the best stewardship.
lower case bill: I’ve been trying to go by Bill Mac to avoid confusion but I haven’t been consistent.
No worries.
You’re far more polite and compassion in your posts than I am so I’m sure that those reading will be able to spot the difference.
That’s a perspective I never thought about. I know that I haven’t been called to full time missions overseas so I guess I looked at short term mssions as a way to help out where I can.
SSBN,
I’ve wrestled with the pros and cons of short-term mission trips too… especially since I used to live in Europe and dealt with many teams, some good and some not so good. Here are some thoughts on mission teams: “Are Short-Term Mission Trips Worth the Trouble?”
http://trevinwax.com/2008/11/25/are-short-term-mission-trips-worth-the-trouble/
SSBN:
You said to me:”It must be hard living in such a confusing world of your own making. I would answer your questions, but your really don’t want answers.”
Pitiful excuse, SSBN.
Your last sentence should read–I would answer your questions, but you (not your) really don’t want answers.
SSBN, when you continously mispell simple words it makes you look ??
Sorry, my secretary usually types all my correspondence. I think one characteristic of a “moderate” is, they cannot figure out what is essential to a matter and what is extraneous.
Your childish attempt at proving your intellectual superiority at the expense of missing the point, would ceratainly indicate moderate tendencies.
Unfortunately, you don’t seem to be astute enough to be able to tell the difference between a typo and a misspelling. So, how does that make you look?
Since others want to discuss matters of substance instead of the ad hominem attack of moderates (another characteristic of moderates, however, not limited to that group), I will not respond to you any further. Please feel free to have the last word.
I don’t proofread these things so I’m sure I may have typos or even some missing punctuation. Feel free to point that out. I have no ego needs that can be fulfilled by jousting with you.
Well since we have gone so far afield I have two nonrelated comments
1. Nolan Ryan along with Chuck Greenberg won the bidding for the Texas Rangers and
2. Scott Floyd has joined BHCarroll to start a Christian Counselling program – over under on swbts that move over immediately is 15. Check out the bhcti website.
Coinsidence, I don’t think so
now back to your regular programming
Matt:
You said to me:”Tom Parker,
I am the main administrator of this site. You speak of what you do not know… I once banned 007 for how he was conducting himself and I have deleted A LOT of 007s and Joe’s comments…
Of course you dont see consistency because you only see half of it. You have no idea how many times I have edited and deleted comments of Joe and 007. We allow more conversation than any other Baptist blog that I am aware of. Am I a perfect administrator? Definitely not… Do I try my best to be fair? Yes. You, Stephen, and others cannot attack Joe and CB for being unkind when you all carry yourself in the same manner, if not worse. Well, worse than CB, but maybe not Joe! sorry Joe ”
Tell me, Matt, how many of my comments have you deleted or edited?
CB:
Please let SSBN and I work out our ignorant issues.
Tom Parker,
Please do so. And if it is your wish, take all the pleasure you desire in your personal ignorance. Just eat, drink and be merry.
I went to SWBTS back in the 1990s. Before the mid-1990s, SWBTS was considered the most conservative SBC seminary. But even there, two professors caught my attention. Both were hired by Russell Dilday in 1992
First, there was Keith Putt who taught philosophy. Millard Erickson, in his 1998 book “Postmodernizing the Faith” that Putt denied substitutionary atonement and advocated deconstructionism. All of this was already well-known to students on campus at the time.
Second, there were was Jeff Pool, who in his 1998 book “Against Returning to Egypt” strongly rejected biblical inerrancy and substitutionary atonement. In fact, he spent over 10 pages arguing against substitutionary atonement.
The evidence concerning both these men can be found in libraries based on what they have written.
Question to moderates: should these men have been teaching at a SBC seminary? Is it important that SBC professors believe in substitutionary atonement? Is is important that pastors believe and preach substitutionary atonement?
Between Pagie Patterson enabling the careers of the Caner Brothers, and Dilday’s hiring of Jeff Pool, I’ll take Jeff Pool every time.
Why don’t you ask GAry Fenton at Dawson Memorial BC in Bham Alabama what he thinks; which among these two he favors; and if it is Jeff Pool ask him why his church continues to be a leading percentage giver to the CP in the state and why his staff hasn’t signed the BFM 2000.
CB Scott is in the area. Maybe he can give us a report.
Stephen,
You didn’t answer my question about SBC seminaries and substitutionary atonement. Should SBC seminaries hire and give tenure to professors who deny substitutionary atonement and teach future SBC pastors to do the same?
I said I would take Pool over the Caner Brothers.
Here is a list of books including Poole’s you probably never read:
http://www.helwys.com/books/pool.html
I have actually read 2 out of the 5 books.
Ergun Caner doesn’t teach at one of the 6 SBC seminaries.
Given a choice between a man who lied about his autobiography and one who denies substitutionary atonement, I would take the one who lied about his autobiography, because to deny substitutionary atonement is to deny the gospel. Of course, I think that neither one should teach at an SBC seminary.
This dialogue with Stephen is typical of dialogues I have had with SBC moderates. The conservative says, “There were professors at SBC seminaries who denied biblical inerrancy and substitutionary atonement and advocated open theism, annihilationism, and women pastors. Should these men have been teaching at SBC seminaries?” The moderate replies, “Conservatives are mean, hypocritical, and power-hungry.” Then they will tell some story about something really mean that a conservative did back in 1979 or 1983 (when most of us younger conservatives were in elementary school or had not even been born yet). Moderates don’t want to try to defend the doctrines taught by liberal SBC seminary professors in the past, because they know that the overwhelming majority of SBC pastors and church members disagree with these heresies. So moderates focus on making ad homenim attacks on SBC conservatives rather than trying to defend their own doctrinal positions.
Steve,
I think maybe it is time to go back to my challenge to you about the “book thing.” You seem to be getting a little uppity again and maybe a good early morning wager will help you. You remember my offer to you about books, personal experience and such don’t you Steve? If not, here it is again:
You may intimidate some of the folks here on the book thing, but not me. I will make a deal with you.
You bring your pen and paper to my home and count my “read through, dog-eared and marked up books and then we will travel to various libraries in this country and a couple of foreign countries, check their archives for the volumes I have checked out and we will count them. Afterwards, we will travel to your home, count your read, dog-eared and marked up books and then we will go to the Samford library and check their archives to see how many books you have checked out there. Then we will count your list.
But we will not be finished then Steve.
After all of that we will begin to conference call each person you have named in various comment threads and any others you might like to add. Then we can call all the people I will put on a list. When finished we will compare both lists and see which of us have actually known, or know and have a valid relationship with on both lists.
Still, we will not be finished Steve.
Finally we will both write our personal histories. We will then compare educations, general life experiences and our personal involvements with the SBC over the last 35 or so years. Afterward, you may call on any ten witnesses and I will do the same. These witnesses will be assigned to validate the data from each of us as to the truthfulness fo their findings.
Afterwards, you can come back here and tell me what I need to read and I will do the same for you.
1) Stephen isn’t man enough to answer questions about doctrine and biblical theology. That’s how moderates are. They know if they come out and admit what they really believe then real Christians will see them for what they are.
2) Of course Stephen doesn’t have a problem with that. His belief is basically the same as that heretic on Donnahue with Patterson that one time who basically said “Love God, love your neighbor and everything else is ok” when asked if someone could get to heaven without hearing about Jesus. Of course, the bible says something different. Real Christians recognize that.
Joe; it’s good to hear from the Independent Baptist on the Board.
You are Exhibit A of the Point no Less than Morris Chapman was making in His Farewell Convention address in Orlando this year before the Two Percenter, Ronnie Floyd, got the microphone on the GCR.
You Know Ronnie; Patterson and Pressler’s man in Arkansas since the early 80’s a product of Criswell’s School of the Prophets if I’m not mistaken.
On Doctrine and Biblical Theology and the questions that arise.
Tell me again, Joe about the great Job Criswell and Adrian Rogers, Doug Hudgins and Pressler were doing with those questions in the 60’s when the consensus is Martin King and his movement was revealing some of their inadequacies to the World.
Again Mark Noll; I’ll take Mark Noll over Mohler and Fred Wolfe and Jerry Sutton on the Baptist Matter of the Priesthood of the Believer if that maybe gives you a clue.
Well since you don’t believe in salvation through Christ, that would make sense, wouldn’t it.
Jeff, I attended in the 90’s also. Pool and Putt left shortly after I moved to the seminary. Fortunately, I had been warned and steered clear of them.
I was blessed to have very capable and very conservative mentors in Ted Cabal and Steve Lemke. Both men forced me to engage the issues and would not allow conservative views that were unsubstantiated. They were both very tough teachers, but great family men and men of faith.
Reply to From Law to Grace:
Former associate editor of the Alabama Baptist,Mark Baggett, said Judge Pressler’s definition of Cooperation was I’ll operate and You Cope.
That get’s to the heart of Trevin Wax interview about the CR. Ronnie Floyd a two percenter at Best was Patterson’s key man on the Map David Montoya reported on in the late 80’s. Such is the Heritage of the GCR.
David Montoya did not always report “facts” as they were. He often “refacted” them. David Montoya did get a rough deal once about his past life, but that does not negate his knack for “refacting” back in the day.
David Montoya has a chapter in Ed Babinski’s Leaving the Fold. I imagine it’s in the Samford Library if you want to check your facts there CB Scott.
David Montoya was on stage with Judge Pressler at Samford in October of 1990 with Wilmer C Fields son Randy, and the husband of a woman Pressler’s forces put on the SBC Excutive Committee, Mrs. Dorsett; or some such high level committee.
So two places for you to check your facts within 30 minutes of your home in good traffic.
Steve,
I don’t have to check the facts. My comment is correct. Montoya did “refact” some things. he also got a rough deal from Tenery’s paper.
While Mark Noll is definitely a great church historian, he is a Presbyterian who teaches at a Roman Catholic school, who has spent little time among Southern Baptists and has not written much about Baptist history. Even in his magnum opus, “America’s God,” he writes little about Baptists, because that was not his field. Therefore, I don’t know why Stephen keeps proclaiming Noll as the expert on what Baptists should believe and on what Baptist seminary professors should teach.
You forget what Noll said at Ridgecrest at the Inerrancy Conference in 87, it appears.
And before Notre Dame, Noll was at Billy Graham’s Wheaton College.
I’m sorry Criswell and Patterson never hired him at the School of the Prophets; the only way it appears in your eyes he would have any legitimacy.
Stephen,
Have you read Tom Nettles and L. Russ Bush “Baptists and the Bible”?
Poor Trevin. He managed to be the subject of the comment thread for a little while. Whatever topic is posted and whatever tagline is used in the title, it seems that every post of late ends up a vain battle between a handful of folks arguing over the exact same issue – liberal/moderate versus conservative. What’s really interesting is that at least two of the heavy hitters aren’t even southern baptist! I suggest these folks don the fluffy sumo wrestling suits and battle it out in a ring. We can charge admission and donate the proceeds to educating young minds of mush – Baylor for the moderates and Southwestern for the conservatives.
Darby,
I would rather you send the admission fees and side bet winnings to Southeastern. After all, I have won every battle thus far and I feel I should be allowed to determine the destination of the money I have earned.
This is still a free and capitalistic nation in spite of the last national election.
So be it. 🙂
Thank you Darby.
I realize it may seem that I am being greedy, but I work really hard here to bring a degree of reason and seriousness to these highly important and very delicate debates. Futures are at stake and fortunes hang in the balance.
Again, thank you for understanding and being in control of such a cooperative spirit.
Obviously you are not a moderate or a liberal and I am sure you do not live in Iowa or any place north of the Mason-Dixon line. 🙂
Trevin,
On the short term mission trips that your church has gone on, is your church partnering with an already established missionary or going in a the only missionary presence there? Thanks
Joe,
We have partnered with established missionaries. We’ve been involved in church planting, but it’s been assisting indigenous church leaders and American missionaries on the field.
What have you found are some good ways to help without getting “under foot” or have you ever found that to be a problem.
Always listen to the missionary. Tell them to be honest about their needs and the kind of ministry you can be effective in. Don’t try to create a cookie-cutter trip based on previous models. And I say it again, listen to the missionary. You will either leave them with fruit that needs follow-up or a mess that needs clean up.
Howell,
I agree, the autonomy of churches is pretty foundational for Southern Baptists but I’d still like it.
And no, the students don’t have to sign, just the faculty. I will be at Southwestern next semester, Lord willing, and I haven’t even been asked but the school is very clear where they stand on it.
Brandon,
Has any major SBC conservative leader demanded that churches and pastors sign the current version of the BFM? I have been a Southern Baptist my entire life, and you are the first Southern Baptist I have heard propose this. I have heard Presbyterians say that we should do this, but their church polity is much different than ours.
Brandon,
Thanks for your response. When you say “but I’d still like it,” do you mean that, despite local church autonomy, you would still like to see churches and/or pastors required to sign the BF&M? As a graduate of Southern (1997), I have no problem with the professors signing the Abstract of Principles and/or the Baptist Faith and Message.
I think all of our seminaries need to be confessional in nature and absolutely clear where they stand (Biblical and Conservative). I had professors when I started at Southern (1994) who were not conservative, but who had signed the Abstract. If you cannot teach within the doctrinal parameters, then you probably need to go elsewhere (which many did).
But to require or mandate that local pastors and autonomous churches (or even autonomous state conventions — BGAV and BGCT) sign the BF&M2000 would go along way toward redefining what it means to be Baptist. Theologically, methodologically, and politically (yes, there are politics w/i the Convention), I believe this would be extremely unwise. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Darby,
Who isn’t Southern Baptist? I guess I haven’t really looked into it.
Will the non-southern baptists please stand up…
or do something to identify yourselves. 🙂
Jim Champion and Robert,
You may be interested in Jeff’s comment about Jeff Pool and Keith Putt since you are always calling for names of non-conservatives at SWBTS during Dilday’s tenure.
Howell,
I didn’t realize that your questions about the BFM were actually an interview for your blog post! 😉
Brandon,
Good sense of humor! I’d be more than happy to interview you (serious offer) and give you an opportunity to expound on your “pipe dream” that pastors/churches should be required to sign the BF&M. It would probably be a lot of fun and we would find that we agree on a lot of issues. I think that if you can make a compelling case, then people will be willing to listen. There are obviously other younger pastors that share your opinion. If you would like to discuss this further, you can email me at howell88310@gmail.com. God bless,
Howell
Brandon:
You said:”I think the creed/statement of faith line is close for me there. The SBC schools and missionaries have to sign off on it and I think it would build accountability and unity if pastors who chose to associate with the SBC signed it (seeing as it’s the official position of the convention). I know that this is impossible because of autonomy, but it’s a pipe dream that I wish for.
For some reason BFM2000 detractors, namely Fox, think that I wish for this conformity of sorts because I want to further the CR and push liberals out. This is absolutely wrong. I don’t hate non-conservatives at all, but I wonder why they would associate with the SBC when they don’t even agree with the BFM2000.”
Two thoughts–You should make a motion at the next SBC for pastors and churches to be required to sign off on this man made document.
I for one am curious as to how much traction your dream has.
2nd thought–Does someone have to agree 100% with the BF&M to remain committed to the SBC?
Let’s look at it this way. The BFM is a creed if you have to sign it to be a part of something. For the churches, the BFM is a confession; an outline of the major tenets of what Southern Baptists believe. It is not exhaustive and is not perfect. Adherence to or belief in every article of the BFM is not required for churches or their members, including pastors.
For employees of SBC entities, the BFM is a creed. The word creed means “I believe” and SBC entities require their employees to affirm that they in fact believe the articles of faith articulated in the BFM. That is not a moral judgement on these entities as to whether this is good or bad, but the fact remains, if you MUST adhere to a statement of faith to belong to or work for X, then for X, that statement is a creed.
“The BFM is a creed if you have to sign it to be a part of something.”
No, Bill Mac, it is more like an employment contract rather than a creed. A creed is a life statement. An employment contract is a statement of agreement for employment. “I will abide by this as long as I work here” is the basic idea for signing the BF&M or a document like the Abstract of Principles.
Key words–“abide by”
CB: I see your point. Let me ask for a clarification. Are you saying that a potential SBC entity employee can, for example, believe that women pastors are biblically valid but, in his or her capacity as SBC employee agrees to do nothing to oppose or undermine what the BFM teaches about women pastors, then they can serve?
So when an SBC employee signs the BFM (or however it is done) they are agreeing to not act against it, rather than affirming that they in fact belief it?
If so, that certainly makes a difference.
Folks who cannot serve in the SBC
Billy Graham’s Daughter Anne Graham Lotz, though she did preach to Timothy George couple years ago at Samford
Laura Bush and her Mother in Law Barr
Huge Majority of the Bham National Headquarters Staff of the WMU
Gary Fenton, whose church leads the Bama Baptist Convention in percentage giving to the CProgram while Ronnie Floyd throws in about 2 percent for the Great Commission Resurgence.
If they were still alive, Earl Stallings, George Truett and Martin Luther King, Jr could not hold office in the SBC.
TRuett Cathy of Chic Fil A has several family members in leadership of SBC IMB, but he supported Kirby Godsey at Mercer. Remains a mystery for this man named after George Washington Truett
My Mother could not serve in the SBC cause she walked out on Charles Stanley’s Convention sermon in Atlanta in 86
All the folks in Birmingham and Alabama who understood what the ministry of Earl Stallings was about as opposed to that of Doug Hudgins at FBC Jackson,Mississippi.
Here is one for you; the most promising products andstrongest Baptists of achurch close to Bobby Welch are excluded from Southern Baptist life cause of the BFM and the Takeover.
Jimmy Jackson would exclude FBC Huntsville, Alabama from the Madison County Baptist Association, so I imagine all those folks are suspect.
I think Lucas Black of Speake, Al and Branson, Mo, raised Baptist and starring in Get Low; no place in Baptist life for him anymore in the SBC branch.
Some of the most gifted and promising youth of the churches that shaped my extended family cause they will not sign off. The Majority of my extended family of seven ordained ministers, several deacons and Sunday School teachers have been excluded from SBC influence cause of the BFM 20000
Missionary couples who visitted our home when in college have children whose views on Iraq and Afghanistan don’t square with the Caner brothers, so their children have no future in Southern Baptist Life.
So who does that leave in my experience to fill the boards and agencies of the SBC?
I guess it would be Joe Blackmon and his Independent Norrissite six day creation Texas Regular and Birch Society extended family and offspring, or their friends at Bible Camp who went to Sunday School in Judge Pressler’s class at 2nd Houston or the children of Criswell’s School of the Prophets.
I imagine that is the Egypt Jeff Pool fled.
Bill Mac,
My personal concept is that if you sign the BF&M, you are agreeing to teach within the parameters of its content. The BF&M is a good and faithful guide for cooperation. It is far from an exhaustive or “exacting” document. It is also a flawed document. It is in no way equal to Scripture. The BF&M was produced by fallen, yet well intentioned human beings. Therefore, the element of its being flawed is inherent in its “DNA.” The Scripture on the other hand was written by God. Therefore it is perfect. There is no possibility of its being flawed in any way.
I believe that any theologically sound person can sign the BF&M and teach within its parameters. I believe that those people who have stated that they signed the BF&M with caveat do so, not because they see such a blatant problem with the document, but because they have some skewered theological position that will arise at some point in their teaching or they have some personal agenda that will also come out at a later time.
Therefore, I believe that if a person cannot, in good conscience, sign the BF&M without caveat in order to work or teach in an SBC entity, he or she should not take a position where he or she shall receive compensation for their work. The BF&M is the guide for cooperation within SBC entities. It is not God’s revelation to man for knowing the Savior in personal relationship or for discipleship in following the Savior in obedience to His will for your life. That “position” is reserved only for the Bible, God’s inerrant Word.
Tom,
Making a motion at the next SBC would probably be a waste of time though I do have some time to think about it. 😉
To be honest, Tom, I haven’t put a TON of thought into it mainly because I know that autonomy kind of kills the thought. But, I guess pastors would need to sign off about as much as the convention entities do I would think. As far as I know, that’s 100%. I think if the SBC is against abortion, female pastors, same-sex marriage, etc. then it would make sense that someone who disagreed with the SBC to associate themselves elsewhere.
By the way, I am not against cooperating with other conventions or even denominations in evangelistic efforts (which I also get blasted for) but internally I’d like to see an agreement on these things.
The Baptist Faith and Message says: “Christ’s people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches.”
By forcing pastors and churches to sign the BFM, you would be violating the BFM itself.
The BFM 2000 is a violation of the Baptist conscience already; has violated the Spirit of the WMU; so what’s left to Violate.
Bill Mac,
Good point. That’s partially why I said earlier that the BFM and this thought process borders the line on creed/statement of faith. At my church, we do require elders to agree with both the BFM2000 and parts of the 1689 Confession and members to affirm to the BFM2000. We want a like-minded body as to avoid divisions and strife that dominate Baptist churches (many that I have been a part of).
Brandon:
You said:”To be honest, Tom, I haven’t put a TON of thought into it mainly because I know that autonomy kind of kills the thought. But, I guess pastors would need to sign off about as much as the convention entities do I would think. As far as I know, that’s 100%. I think if the SBC is against abortion, female pastors, same-sex marriage, etc. then it would make sense that someone who disagreed with the SBC to associate themselves elsewhere.
What I have a really big problem with is when you place abortion, female-pastors, and same-sex marriage together as if they are equal. I am just asking do you view these equally sinful?
Does God?
Tom,
You’re not going to bait me into saying something that I’m not saying.
I view them as listed in the BFM2000 along with the “etc.” that I mentioned.
What program at SWBTS will you begin in the Fall?
Brandon:
I really asked you a simple question. Let me ask it again–Are abortion, same-sex marriage and women preachers on the same level of sin for the framers of the 2000 BF&M.
I really am asking you a simple question. It is either yes or no.
Tom,
Again you’re leaving my point. NO, I don’t see women preaching as sinful because I think it’s a matter of interpretation.
That wasn’t my point at all. My point is that these things are distinct in the BFM2000 and the SBC since it confirms it. My point is that women are allowed to preach in the BGCT, CBF, UMC, etc. so it’d make more sense for them to align there. PCUSA just approved of gay pastors, so if you’re sympathetic towards homosexuality I would say go there, etc.
Don’t try and make it something that it isn’t.
Brandon:
You said:”Tom,
Again you’re leaving my point. NO, I don’t see women preaching as sinful because I think it’s a matter of interpretation.”
I’m very sure that others will show up shortly and tell you they believe these three are equally sinful.
Also I asked you–“2nd thought–Does someone have to agree 100% with the BF&M to remain committed to the SBC?”
BTW, I really can not see many SB sympathetic to homsexuality.
Jeff T, do you care to answer your own question?
“I’m very sure that others will show up shortly and tell you they believe these three are equally sinful.”
Tom Parker,
You may be correct. There may be someone who “will show up shortly” and say they believe what you are saying.
But I bet you a rolling hole in a donut against a fifty dollar gold piece that not one person who served on the BF&M 2000 committee believes that, male or female.
BTW, I really can not see many SB sympathetic to homsexuality
I’m sorry, I’m totally not seeing the problem with that.
CB and Jeff T:
I’m sure you would support the requirement if pastors and churches signing off on the 2000 BF&M.
Maybe you two guys can lead the program to get all of the 45,000 plus SB churches either into the fold by signing the 2000 BF&M (not the Bible) or out they go–Is that what you desire?
Have you both studied Baptist history?
We are not creedal people but the ?? has brought us to that point.
Are you guys really SB?
Tom Parker,
I signed to teach. But I would never sign it as a pastor of a local Southern Baptist church.
Why are you so sure I would sign it or vote that all churches and pastors sign it?
BTW, I have studied Baptist history and helped make a little. 🙂
I’m also not for making every pastor sign the BFM2K. Churches are autonomous and should remain so. BUT, all people working for the SBC should sign it. It’s a way to hold them accountable to represent what the majority of SB churches believe and hold to. Also, churches that cannot hold to the BFM2K probably need to consider…strongly consider…leaving and going where they do fit.
David
Well Tom Parker,
What do you say to that? Vol would not want churches to sign, nor would I.
You concept of Bible believing conservatives continues to unravel does it not?
And I said before- I think it is unnecessary and I like it just the way it is.
So Tom Parker,
There you go. As you can see, among young and old conservative alike, it is rather impossible for you to put us all in a potato sack, believing we are programed by some evil geniuses from up in a “sky box” in Houston to think and act alike.
BDW,
I’m transferring from DBU (pending financial aid) to finish up my BA in the undergrad program and then starting an MA or MDiv in Historical Theology/Church History.
Buy lots of books! That’s a big one.
Brandon, I think BDW is a history guy. You two could get together and argue minutae of Baptist history and NOT bore each other to death!
BDW recently did a review of Keith Durso’s bio of George Truett, and his father has a remarkable history of 2nd Ponce De Leon Church in Atlanta.
One thing Brandon can look at is the difference between Earl Stallings at FBC Bham in the sixties, and Doug Hudgins at FBC Jackson, Mississippi.
Had an interesting conversation this evening with a Bob Jones Student about such matters.
You know the institution the woman in The Ladykillers sends her money to.
Brandon, spend six dollars of that matriculation fee on Garry Wills book, and the book I linked above by Jeff Poole on the Baptist Conscience.
Fox,
After Pool’s offensive treatment of Scripture and the cross in “Against Returning to Egypt,” I will not read anything else by him.
No Christian would want to read anything by him.
I’m glad you read the book.
Have you read Michael Walzer’s book on The Exodus?
And I do hope you will read the chapters on the Southern Baptist Convention in The American Religion.
I confess, I have not read Pool’s book but I want to. What did you find so offensive?
Here is a review of Charles Marsh’s Wayward Chrisitian Soldiers; Marsh whose father was classmate of Adrian Rogers at NOBTS, and lifelong friends of Charles Pickering, Bush 43 Judicial Nominee, member of the SBC Peace Committee, now on the board of the AllianceDefense Fund.
Marsh has an upcoming bio of Dietrich Bonhoeffer which I imagine willl challlenge Timothy George on the Barmen Declaration; the publication aftermath certain to spark an interesting challenge to the embrace by World Magazine of the Metaxas bio of DB.
http://www.tnr.com/article/environment-energy/the-idolatry-america
Maybe as part of the rollout of the Marsh DB bio, there will be a panel at Mercer or somewhere where Marsh and Pool can discuss Inerrancy and the Lausanne Covenant, and the different directions taken by Francis Schaeffer and Al Mohler on one hand and NT Wright, Pool and Carlyle Marney on the other.
And if they could get to the legacy of the Texas Regulars and Jesse Helms, round it off with Pickering and the Alliance Defense fund; well to use a metaphor from Biblical discourse, could break some fallow ground.
And Brandon, where will you put this SBC Woman, in the Pulpit or the Kitchen?
I think she belongs in the Pulpit, though if she cooked a meal, I’d be honored to sit at the Table, Ask the blessing if deemed worthy, and Wash the Dishes and take the Trash Out.
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5423/9/
Brandon,
You should do a blog post on Pool’s book “Against Returning to Egypt” – especially since you seem to have found a copy in the library (I sold my copy years ago, and I don’t live near a theological library). See if the moderates are willing to defend what he taught. Remember, Pool was hired by Dilday at SWBTS in 1992 and taught there until 1997. If the CR never happened and Dilday was not fired, Pool would have taught at SWBTS for 30 years. Also, you could look for a copy of Pool’s University of Chicago dissertation (SWBTS had one in the library while I was there). Pool denies substitutionary atonement (and a lot of other things) in that dissertation.
Joe Blackmon:
Please remind me again what SB church you belong to, is it an Independent Baptist?
Wouldn’t the two be mutually exclusive? I mean, an Independant Baptist church wouldn’t, by definition, be an SBC church. Why don’t you worry about yourself and your unbiblical positions before you worry about where I go to church?
Tom Parker,
Joe would be theologically sound if he went to church on Mars among colonizers from Pluto. You on the other hand would seemingly have a problem with theological soundness if you went to church next door LifeWay in Nashville where the apostle Peter was the pastor and the apostle Paul was your Sunday School teacher.
Your true problem has nothing to do with you being in a Southern Baptist church or not. Your problem is that you are in diametric opposition to sound, basic, biblical theology. I don’t know if you would even make a good Methodist with your outlandish bent toward understanding the plain teachings of Scripture.
Stephen:
You said:”The BFM 2000 is a violation of the Baptist conscience already; has violated the Spirit of the WMU; so what’s left to Violate.”
Those in control of the SBC seem to never rest when there is even one person who has a little bit of freedom, they have to know that everyone is just like them, so somebody is going to have to sign off on a document or out you go.
BTW the greatest thing that ever happened with the WMU is that they are an auxillary. I know that has to drive those in charge of the SBC crazy.
They just can not control those women.
Maybe the SBC should have the “freedom” to be Mormon, or JW, in their theology, Tom? I mean, I hear you calling for “Freedom!” as if you’re William Wallace from Scotland. So, let’s have complete freedom to believe whatever we want to, and serve in the SBC as profs, missionaries, entity heads, etc. Let’s get those Mormons teaching at Southern. Let’s get those JW’s in NAMB. Let’s get the Jews out on the mission fields to do whatever they feel like doing. Let’s get the Presbyterians and the Assembly of God’s starting new churches for us in Colorado.
Tom, the cry for freedom is foolish….very, very foolish. There must be boundaries, or else heresy will abound. Now, freedom should exist in our country….most certainly. Everyone can believe whatever they want to believe…even if they think that a big mosquito is MS is god, and they want to worship it. But, when talkiing about the SBC….no way.
David
they have to know that everyone is just like them
Actually, they want to know that people who hold doctrines contrary to the clear teaching of scripture (women can be pastoretts, sex is not reserved only for a man and woman in the confines of marriage, the bible “contains” the word of God but it is not the word of God) are not allowed into any sort of leadership position within the church. Since the church is supposed to proclaim the truth of scripture and those beliefs above are contrary to the truth then anyone holding beliefs like that ought not be able to earn a living in the SBC and if they are earning a living in the SBC steps should be taken to see that they have to find another job.
Here is something for Trevin Wax and Svodoba and Brandon to think about.
Focussing on this quote:
I love to think, as I wrote back to him, that my grandfather’s faith might have evolved in this way if he had lived into our century. This Southern Baptist minister embodied the “depth theology” which the great rabbi Abra ham Joshua Heschel best de scribed—those places deep in our traditions where orthodoxy becomes paradox. For whether or not Muslims will go to heaven remains a real question in Southern Baptist belief and many other forms of Christianity. But in a place just as doctrinaire, compassion for the stranger, the outcast, the other is a command. The one is a question to be held, in the knowledge that its meaning will not be unlocked in this lifetime. The other is a command to be lived, breathed and embodied right now. The seeming contradiction between them is Mystery—a mystery which can form the basis of shared life between the righteous across boundaries even as they remain faithful to beliefs that set them apart.
From:
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=8602
Here is something for Stephen to think about.
From the quote:
The one is a question to be held, in the knowledge that its meaning will not be unlocked in this lifetime.
This is a dogmatic and closed minded statement [towards the idea that the meaning has been unlocked in this lifetime] and asserted without any reason given as a basis.
Now, back to Romans…
Did you read the entire article.
I hope in your lifetime you will do more thinking than WA Criswell, Adrian Rogers and Ed Mcateer and Jesse Helms did in theirs on this matter.
Stephen,
Here are quotes from Krista Tippett in italics from the article you referred to in #218:
His was a small, closed world defined by judgment.
She “judges” his world to be small, closed. She does not provide a basis for why her standard of judgment is true. She is also “closed” to what she describes as his “small, closed world”.
The meanness of the God C.T. preached…
Now she is “judging” C.T.’s God to be “mean”. How does she get to “determine” this? Does she have “infinite” understanding so as to make these kinds of judgments without fear of future discovery contradicting her or does all her “thinking” still leave her as extremely limited in what she can ever know?
Missing from view was a universe of thinking faith and spiritual inquiry I had found thriving just beneath the surface of extremes and platitudes.
Now she is “judging” things to be extreme and since the language of “extreme” has a negative connotation, then I would think she is “closed minded” towards everything she has judged to be extreme.
Somehow her modern education has not “liberated” her from judging and being closed minded.
“The meanness of the God C.T. preached…
Now she is “judging” C.T.’s God to be “mean”. How does she get to “determine” this? ”
Sometimes the way a person feels about his God comes through in what he says. That is, if he is a truthful person.
Christiane:
Thank you very much for helping the boys work through the hermeneutic here.
That was the whole point to begin with.
I hope you will continue to work with them line by line as God gives you strength and patience.
I’m a little weary.
Sunday School is a good thing. It is a deep conundrum to me why many on this board would want to call Sunday School Seminary like Pressler was obsessed on doing when he went after Jack Flanders at Baylor almost 50 years ago and these fellows here at The Voices persist in it till this day.
Ms. Tibbett has Light to share like Mark Noll and Marney and the endless Litany many of us have tried to share here on this board.
As Jesus said: Jerusalem, Jerusalem, How Often I have tried to get you to see the Light, and You would Not.
And yes, CB, that is a paraphrase; but most likely one of the more Truthful and honest utterances you will see on this board, Sunday August 8, 10.
Steve,
Do you not think that the “mystery” has already been revealed as to who will go to heaven as presented by the apostle Paul in his letter to the churches in and around Ephesus, when he said to them, “….when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ through the gospel.”
Steve there is no “mystery” or “real question” about who goes to heaven. The answer to that mystery was revealed long ago on a cross on a hill just outside of Jerusalem. Only those who repent of sin and believe the biblical gospel will go to heaven. All others are damned to eternity without hope of heaven or the tender joy of the eternal presence of the Lord.
For whether or not Muslims will go to heaven remains a real question in Southern Baptist belief and many other forms of Christianity.
When I’ve said things like “Anyone who got hurt in the CR got way better than they deserved” THIS is PRECISELY what I’m talking about. While not every moderate believes this, the people who believe this ARE moderates. Therefore, any moderates who got hurt got better than they deserved. Any people who got hurt because they sided with them because they felt the CR used political manuvers unfairly got better than they deserved because they DARED to side with something that would make a statement like that.
There is NOTHING that could be done to them that they didn’t deserve. The very fact that they still crawl of out their holes to publically say something like that proves that the CR didn’t go NEARLY far enough because if it had done to them what they deserved they wouldn’t show their face around again.
Double Knot 7:
What a suprise–you would want pastors and churches to sign off on the 2000 BF&M CREED.
Go for it.
Tom, that is not what he said.
Double Knot 7 and CB:
I really bet in gets in you alls crawl that the WMU is an auxillary and can not be made to sign off on the 2000 BF&M CREED.
If you will reread your history you can thank those men that just did not know what to do with women around the turn of the century of 1900–so they made them an auxillary.
Don’t you both just wish you could turn back the clock and fix that LITTLE problem?
How do you both sleep at night knowing there are these women you can not control?
Tom Parker,
I had the opportunity to be present once when the idea of bringing the WMU into the entity “network” of the SBC was being discussed rather heavily. I did not speak during the meeting relating to the matter, but I knew I would be against it for several reasons.
BTW, I don’t have any women in my life that I seek to “control” in the context you seem to suggest here. Nor would I want such a woman in my life.
Tom Parker, if you are having problems needing to “control” the women in your life, you are not going to be a happy man. If you would like, I can suggest some counsellors in either NC or AL who can help with with these control problems you seem to be having. So tell me. are you the frustrated youth guy in Alabama who can’t get a church? Or, are you the former Baptist who now works for the Presbyterian Ministers’ Fund in the Triad? Let me know. I can get someone to help you in either place.
Double KNot 7:
You said–“Maybe the SBC should have the “freedom” to be Mormon, or JW, in their theology, Tom? I mean, I hear you calling for “Freedom!” as if you’re William Wallace from Scotland. So, let’s have complete freedom to believe whatever we want to, and serve in the SBC as profs, missionaries, entity heads, etc. Let’s get those Mormons teaching at Southern. Let’s get those JW’s in NAMB. Let’s get the Jews out on the mission fields to do whatever they feel like doing. Let’s get the Presbyterians and the Assembly of God’s starting new churches for us in Colorado.
Tom, the cry for freedom is foolish….very, very foolish. There must be boundaries, or else heresy will abound. Now, freedom should exist in our country….most certainly. Everyone can believe whatever they want to believe…even if they think that a big mosquito is MS is god, and they want to worship it. But, when talkiing about the SBC….no way.”
I know knot freedom scares you and the others. But you are so totally missing my point that I will not even try and explain it to you.
David Miller:
I do believe that i can infer from Double Knot 7’s ridiculous response to me that he would support all pastors and churches having to sign off on the 2000 BF&M CREED.
What is your view of this issue?
1) You are misinterpreting Vol. I think you know it. He is saying we need to have doctrinal parameters for our denomination.
2) Like just about everyone on here, I believe that denominational employees should be held to the doctrinal standard which our convention has affirmed (BF&M 2000). Churches are autonomous and cannot be held to such a standard.
Tom, it is okay if you disagree with people. But you should disagree with what we say and not twist it.
Okay, I answered your question. Here’s one for you.
Is it wrong for us to demand that our denominational employees subscribe to our approved doctrinal standard?
David M:
I do not have a clue what 007 was railing about in his response to me–he’s got some sort of problem with freedom and Mormons and JW that had nothing to do with what I said.
OK, my bad, I’ll just ask him–007 would you wish to require all churches and pastors to sign off on the 2000 BF&M?
You said–“Churches are autonomous and cannot be held to such a standard.”
Do you know how much that statement by you makes me happy? May this autonomy never be watered down in any way.
To your question–“Is it wrong for us to demand that our denominational employees subscribe to our approved doctrinal standard?”
Here is my best attempt at an answer–Were these employees required to sign off on the 1963 BF&M before the 2000 BF&M?
Why not have these employees sign off on the Bible and not the 2000 BF&M?
To say, “all you have to do is sign off on the Bible” is nonsense, Tom. Mormons say they believe the Bible. Catholics say they believe the Bible. Presbyterians, Pentecostals and Bible churches believe the Bible.
The purpose of the BF&M is not to define what a Christian is but to define our common theological foundation as BAPTISTS. If you are going to take money from our offerings, teach in our schools, or lead our organizations, you have to assent to our commonly held doctrinal positions.
Imagine your church is without a pastor. When you go to hire a pastor, will you ask him doctrinal questions? Of course you will. If you are going to hire him, you want to know what he believes. Same thing with the denomination.
Once again Tom really never answers the question.
Then Dave why not take it to the next step and only accept money from Congregationally pure doctrine Churches if that is your defintion of a Baptist.
CB Scott for instance, says he knows the churches in Alabama that are suspect.
Have him go around to the top percentage CP and dollar amount CP givers with a committee that Donna Gaines and Ronnie Floyd appoints and go the Convention floor of the Bama state convention this fall, and say here is what we found about Dawson Memorial and FBC Sylacauga and Demopolis and Third Creek in Wilcox County and we will not take any more money from them cause the wife of one of the Deacons is a Sikh and she won’t sign the BFM 2000
Steve,
Please produce a statement by me which will validate your saying, “cb scott for instance, says he knows the churches in Alabama that are suspect.”
Huggy Bear Dave,
What are you thinking? Do you realize the question you asked Tom Parker? Let me refresh you. You asked Tom parker:
“When you go to hire a pastor, will you ask him doctrinal questions?”
Tom Parker ask “doctrinal questions????? 🙂 🙂 🙂
I think we all need to get around Huggy Bear Dave and have a group hug so we can all learn to get along. 🙂
I love you Huggy Bear, yes I do. 🙂
I love you too, Toady Frog Tom.
FYI, “Toady Frog Tom” is my affectionate name for Tom Parker if any of you did not know. 🙂
Feeling the love.
But I hope that Huggy Bear stuff doesn’t catch on, CB.
When I visit your church in the fall, I am going to put:
PASTOR- HUGGY BEAR DAVE on the church sign.
Dave,
I cannot for the life of me figure out why you dont want that to catch on…
May the bird of paradise fly up your nose.
May an elephant caress you with its toes.
May your wife be plagued with runners in her hose.
May the bird of paradise fly up your nose.
Fox,
You said above,”For whether or not Muslims will go to heaven remains a real question in Southern Baptist belief and many other forms of Christianity.” No, it does not. It does in your mind. But, the Bible plainly…and I mean very plain and clear…says that Jesus is the ONLY WAY to the Father. There is no other name given to men whereby we must be saved. There’s no other way to Heaven apart from the atoning death of Jesus. And, only those people who come to God thru repentance and faith in Jesus, and in His atoning work, will go to Heaven.
That leaves all unbelieving, unconverted Muslims and Jews out. They will not go to Heaven. They will go to Hell.
David
The Bible doesn’t say that all Jews and all ‘Muslims’ will go to hell.
There weren’t any ‘Muslims’ when the Bible was written.
It does say that anyone who does not repent of their sins and trust in Christ alone to save them will go to hell. Jews and Muslims have not repented of their sins and trusted Christ as their Savior. Therefore, all Jews and Muslims will go to hell.
Each.And.Every.One.Of.Them
No Exceptions.
Deal with it.
Oh, I forgot aboiut that moronic caveat that you require–“This of course assumes that they are no suffering from some sort of mental disablity which would prevent them from hearing/understanind that gospel.”
No David VolFan; Look back at the quote and the Link
I think it’s about 218
I did not say that, Krista Tippert, granddaughter of an Oklahoma Southern Baptist Preacher said that.
She has a program on NPR.
It talks about paradox and mystery and I apologize for having you strain to understand such abstract thought.
I should have known better.
Joe Blackmon and VolFan get to tell everybody on this board who is going to Hell and who is not and I point that out in one of the most colorful posts I have ever made on this board, truly a magnificent work of wonder, and it gets deleted.
In the best channelling of Billy Sunday and Criswell put downs I could muster and the zenmasters zap it.
I masterred the concept of just how NARROW they are. It is not fair to the millions out there in cyberspace who now will never have the opportunity to consider it.
What a travesty!!!!!!!!!!
Somebody here has very poor taste.
I don’t say who goes to heaven or hell. God’s word spells that out. All Christians recognize that.
Steve,
You either missed or ignored my response to you earlier relating to your comment #218.
I will post it again here for you to read if you will. Also, maybe L’s and Tom Parker will read it. Surely none of you would say you agree with the quote you posted in #218 would you?
Nonetheless, here is my response to you earlier:
Do you not think that the “mystery” has already been revealed as to who will go to heaven as presented by the apostle Paul in his letter to the churches in and around Ephesus, when he said to them, “….when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ through the gospel.”
Steve there is no “mystery” or “real question” about who goes to heaven. The answer to that mystery was revealed long ago on a cross on a hill just outside of Jerusalem. Only those who repent of sin and believe the biblical gospel will go to heaven. All others are damned to eternity without hope of heaven or the tender joy of the eternal presence of the Lord.
Tom,
I said above that I would not be for Pastor and Churches to have to sign off on the BFM2K in order to be a member of the SBC.
I did say that anyone who works for the SBC in any shape, fashion, and form should absolutely have to sign off on it..or not be hired, or be fired…whichever may be the case.
I think you know that I said that already.
David
Also, Tom, who wants to control women? lol Are you hallucinating again?
I do expect women to obey the Scriptures, just as I expect men to obey the Scriptures.
David
David Miller:
You said to me:”To say, “all you have to do is sign off on the Bible” is nonsense, Tom. Mormons say they believe the Bible. Catholics say they believe the Bible. Presbyterians, Pentecostals and Bible churches believe the Bible.
The purpose of the BF&M is not to define what a Christian is but to define our common theological foundation as BAPTISTS. If you are going to take money from our offerings, teach in our schools, or lead our organizations, you have to assent to our commonly held doctrinal positions.
Imagine your church is without a pastor. When you go to hire a pastor, will you ask him doctrinal questions? Of course you will. If you are going to hire him, you want to know what he believes. Same thing with the denomination”
Wow, the Bible is not sufficient to sign off on. What you CR guys have done to the SBC is unbelievable. Maybe you all will come up with some type of body scan to decide if we are allowed to be a part of “your” SBC. I feel confident Taliban Joe and Double Knot 7 would help in the development of this body scan.
You call what I said nonsense. I up the ante and call what you said about the Bible as double nonsense.
You all keep tinkering with the SBC till only a handful of you are left.
Jeff T, thanks for the compliment. It is a requirement of the SBC to not answer questions–just kidding.
QUOTE You all keep tinkering with the SBC till only a handful of you are left. END QUOTE
I’m sure it does not give much comfort to moderates that daily pray for the demise of the SBC to be able to say, “I told you so,” but the fact is the SBC is gaining ground, not losing it according to the last baptismal records we have.
This is not to say, we can and should do better, but it is to say, “The announcement of the death of the SBC seems a bit premature to me.”
I’m one of the “CR guys” that gets hit with the mud that some seem to delight in throwing. I’m also a “CR guy” that does not believe that being a moderate necessitate being lost — though often it does.
However, I do believe that anyone who feels there is “any other way to salvation but through the vicarious, substitutionary death” of Jesus Christ, has (in my humble understanding of the Bible) clearly placed himself or herself outside of the bounds of salvation.
As a CR type, I firmly believe that I must stick to this narrow way to salvation because it is the only true one. I don’t say this because I delight in anyone going to hell — quite the opposite.
I think it is dangerous for someone to suggest in anyway that such a Biblical view is akin to the “Taliban.” I think that is disgraceful — in my humble opinion.
Stephen:
You said in part of one of your sentences:
“Joe Blackmon and VolFan get to tell everybody on this board who is going to Hell and who is not .”
Is that not amazing how they know this–I know Taliban Joe has special powers but I did not know Double Knot 7 did.
I’m not sure I’m ever going to be CR material.
Yeah, Tom, it’s amazing that we can read the Bible that clearly spells out that only those who profess faith in Jesus Christ and repent of their sins will go to haven. It’s stunning what you can understand if you actually trying reading the text. You should try it sometime.
Each and every muslim will burn in hell forever without exception unless they place their faith in Christ and repent of thier sins.
Deal with it.
Fundamental to our faith is the belief that salvation is found only in Jesus, that there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved,” that Jesus is “The Way, the Truth and the Life” and that no one comes to the Father except by him.
That is basic Christian doctrine. Perhaps they could have stated it better, but the orthodox doctrine is that those who have the Son have life and those who do not have the Son of God do no have life.
That is not Vol or Joe making that decision, but the clear testimony of scripture. We are exclusivists – that Jesus is the only way.
Solus Christus.
Sola Fide.
Oh, and in case you missed it because this was directed as much at you as it was at Stepehn.
For whether or not Muslims will go to heaven remains a real question in Southern Baptist belief and many other forms of Christianity.
When I’ve said things like “Anyone who got hurt in the CR got way better than they deserved” THIS is PRECISELY what I’m talking about. While not every moderate believes this, the people who believe this ARE moderates. Therefore, any moderates who got hurt got better than they deserved. Any people who got hurt because they sided with them because they felt the CR used political manuvers unfairly got better than they deserved because they DARED to side with something that would make a statement like that.
There is NOTHING that could be done to them that they didn’t deserve. The very fact that they still crawl of out their holes to publically say something like that proves that the CR didn’t go NEARLY far enough because if it had done to them what they deserved they wouldn’t show their face around again.
Joe, I know you get blasted for speaking directly in regard to the exclusivity of Christ in regard to salvation. The moderates act as if you are “sitting in judgment.” They fail to realize you are not judging anyone — Jesus said the lack of belief brings judgment already. You are announcing a warning, which is part of the apostolic mission of the church — and therefore every minister of the gospel. I believe this is exactly what it means as a called out minister of the gospel to receive, “the keys of the kingdom.”
So, I really appreciate your principled approach to the gospel. It sounds harsh to some, but I think the most loving message we can give people is a clear, unmitigated warning about who GOD SAYS will or will not be given access to heaven.
I’m behind you 99.99% on this 🙂
I go overboard…a lot. I mean, I go beyond being just direct. But at the heart of it all is the conviction that salvation is only by grace thorugh faith in Christ when someone repents of their sins. When I see people claim to be Christians who won’t affirm that or who, worst of all, deny that I get a little “crunk”.
LOL
One problem for you, Joe, is that your ‘sound-bite mantra’ that people MUST adopt for ‘proof of their Christianity’ leads you to exhibit a behavior of more heat than light, if you feel frustrated.
You need to find some way to point others towards Christ, Joe.
For most of Christianity, from time immemorial, Christ has been much more than a ‘get-out-of-hell-free’ card.
So much more. To preach that He is simply a free-pass out of hell, and then to on treating people poorly, is not the witness that points towards Him. It points towards you.
I honestly don’t think you realize this. And I don’t think that is what you intend. Your intentions for people are good ones, Joe.
Study how Christ was with people. Learn from Him.
Go back to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and spend some time with Our Lord as He instructed His Apostles to teach others by His most holy example.
L’s,
The people with whom I am ugly are the ones who claim to already have found Christ and claim that there are other ways to heaaven than through Christ….like you, Stephen, etc. Pointing you to Christ would be useless. You think you’ve found Him which in and of itself should cause me to pity you. But then you and Stepehn want to deceive others as to how to find Christ. You want to lie about how a person can be right with God.
You presetn a different God (God is too loving to send anyone to hell), a different Jesus (Jesus is not the exclusive way of salvation), and a different gospel (just love people and God will have to accept you–unless you’re a conservative who believes in absolute truth). So am I harsh with people like that. You betcha. I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Is this how I would present the gospel to other people? Heck no.
SSBN,
I’m always somewhere between 99.97% and 99.99% behind Joe haha…
To Quote John McEnroe:
You Can’t be Serious
And Brandon here is one more grand Link I just stumbled on; Bill Moyers remarks at James Dunn’s retirement dinner a few years back in case you were still in High school and missed it.
http://tinyurl.com/9andm
Taliban Joe:
If it helps you I never read what your write, as a matter of fact the only way I know what you write is when you are quoted in someone elses comments.
So save your breath on me otherwise you are just wasting it.
It must be great to have those super powers. I just wish you would use them for good instead of evil.
You know, not many posts ago a person was being critical of people who were speaking harshly and not being nice — assuming of course that he never participated in such low behavior.
I see in this post that the aforementioned person refers to someone using the word, “Taliban.” Either the aforementioned person is really ignorant of what the Taliban stands for, or he is a big hypocrite for pointing out the “speck in another’s eye while ignoring the beam in his own” — or maybe both.
I’m sure the aforementioned person will post his justification for why his wrong is right because someone else is this or that.
I do not wish to get into a spitting match with the aforementioned person referenced anonymously — and I won’t. I just want to point out once again — the upmteenth time — that moderates focus on personalities (ad hominem attack) instead of sticking with principles. Some might accuse Joe of doing the same thing at times, but I have seen him many times try to get answers to principled questions. I can understand his frustration when he receives such vicious ad hominem attacks.
This is a huge part of almost any thread about any topic. Moderates want to keep focusing on personalities. When the aforementioned peson blasts me, as might be the case, I do not intend to respond. I am trying to point out a principle — focusing on personalities lead to straw men and red herrings, but shed little light on significant principles.
SSBN:
You said”You know, not many posts ago a person was being critical of people who were speaking harshly and not being nice — assuming of course that he never participated in such low behavior.
I see in this post that the aforementioned person refers to someone using the word, “Taliban.” Either the aforementioned person is really ignorant of what the Taliban stands for, or he is a big hypocrite for pointing out the “speck in another’s eye while ignoring the beam in his own” — or maybe both.
I’m sure the aforementioned person will post his justification for why his wrong is right because someone else is this or that.
I do not wish to get into a spitting match with the aforementioned person referenced anonymously — and I won’t. I just want to point out once again — the upmteenth time — that moderates focus on personalities (ad hominem attack) instead of sticking with principles. Some might accuse Joe of doing the same thing at times, but I have seen him many times try to get answers to principled questions. I can understand his frustration when he receives such vicious ad hominem attacks.
This is a huge part of almost any thread about any topic. Moderates want to keep focusing on personalities. When the aforementioned peson blasts me, as might be the case, I do not intend to respond. I am trying to point out a principle — focusing on personalities lead to straw men and red herrings, but shed little light on significant principles.”
If you are referring to someone why not just call them out. Let me figure this out Joe Blackmon and 007 and others can speak harshly and not so nice but let someone else do it and you feel the need to comment like you have above.
Know that is what I call exclusiveness.
BTW what is a moderate and what are you?
In all the time I’ve been posting neither Joe nor 007 have ever accused me of anything, attacked me for anything, or implied nasty things about me.
So, why would I have any reason to post anything like I did about the aforementioned person?
By the way: I intentionally did not use names to prove a point: for me it is about principles, not personalities. I do not know anything about the aforementioned person. He may be an Eagle Scout and a monk for all I know.
What I do know is this: the aforementioned person does not always tell the truth (he is intentionally deceitful in a couple of posts) and he attacks others in the same way he condemns attacks.
I’m not defending anybody (but perhaps myself). I’m trying to point out a principle: the aforementioned person spends a great deal of print in regard to personalities. He avoids any direct conversation about the issue (s).
For me, it has nothing to do (in this blog) about who is going to heaven and who is not. That’s a silly argument that a couple of moderates use to show they are angels — always up in the air harping about something.
I ascribe no judgment to you, the aforementioned person 🙂
Just address the issue: can a person be saved if he or she trusts in anything else but the shed blood of Jesus Christ. That’s a principle we can discuss, and I believe that is where the aforementioned person engaged me.
SSBN:
Here is a significant principle for you, SSBN
Fundamentalists like Taliban Joe and Double Knot Vol thrive on enemies:
http://www.sbctakeover.com/chapter15.htm
Stephen, that is not a significant principle. That is further proof that you have hatred in your heart for another person — a person that professes to be a believer.
I know you think your comment is cute — it’s just shallow.
SSBN:
I think you miss the point. Your depth perception is off.
Look at what Ms. Tippett said about paradox and mystery.
You are missing a chance for substance here that goes back a generation or two in Oklahoma and you opt for whether Taliban Joe and The Double Knot are cuter than I am.
You have never heard the Larry Nelson Family sing.
I have.
Deal with it.
David M:
You said, I’m assuming to me–“Fundamental to our faith is the belief that salvation is found only in Jesus, that there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved,” that Jesus is “The Way, the Truth and the Life” and that no one comes to the Father except by him.
That is basic Christian doctrine. Perhaps they could have stated it better, but the orthodox doctrine is that those who have the Son have life and those who do not have the Son of God do no have life.
That is not Vol or Joe making that decision, but the clear testimony of scripture. We are exclusivists – that Jesus is the only way.
Solus Christus.
Sola Fide.
Uh, were did I say otherwise.
We are exclusivists, but just not the kind that the CR created.
Stephen said otherwise, and that is what started this conversation.
No the Indie Brothers, Joe and Double Knot started this conversation setting themselves above the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares as if their reading of Scripture is the Final Word.
It is no more final than Criswell and His School of the Prophets or the BFM 2000.
I’ll go with The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, and the Light shone on Scripture of Charles Kimball and now Krista Tippett; two Baptist inflected Christians and scholars from Oklahoma; both much more virtuous and gifted than I am.
I find more light with them and the Parable of Jesus than I do with many folks on this board.
Some of it is reading ability.
I do hope to see how Brandon, Howell, and Ron West in Addition to Parker come away from the Tippett article.
At a minimum, once again, several of you are missing the point of mystery and paradox Tippett brings to the discussion.
Wheats and Tares:
http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-wheat-tares.html
Uh, were did I say otherwise.
When you said “Is that not amazing how they know this–I know Taliban Joe has special powers but I did not know Double Knot 7 did.”. It doesn’t take speicial powers to proclaim what the Bible says. Since you attribute what David and I say to “special powers” rather than the revealed word of God you demonstrate that you don’t believe salvation is exclusively through repentance from sin and faith in Christ alone.
You claim to be an exclusivists/i> doesn’t line up with what you babblle about.
There were many professors at SBC seminaries prior to the CR who were not exclusivists. For example, Molly Marshall (who taught at Southern from 1980-1995), in“No Salvation Outside the Church? A Critical Inquiry,” based on her doctoral dissertation, articulated her viewpoint that there are other ways to salvation than belief in Jesus Christ. In the dissertation she criticized those who approach a Muslim or Hindu as one “already condemned before God.” Marshall also argued that those who never hear the gospel will be given another opportunity to respond to God after death.
SSBN:
BTW, erveryone else here but you goes by a name. What is your name?
Tom Parker,
How often does one have to point out to you that no one knows what your real name is?
Are you the frustrated youth guy in Alabama who can’t become a pastor? Or are you the Presbyterian Ministers’ Fund guy who used to be Baptist, now living in the Triad?
None the less, it is pure hypocrisy for you to challenge SSBN, Toady Frog Tom.
No, wrong. That is nonsense and a disengenious (sp?) statement from somebody that obviously does not understand the Bible, or the doctrine of salvation.
Tom, that is none of your business and matters not. If you had started trolling a few weeks ago, you would know the answer to your question, not that you’d care.
Jeff:
You said:”There were many professors at SBC seminaries prior to the CR who were not exclusivists. For example, Molly Marshall (who taught at Southern from 1980-1995), in“No Salvation Outside the Church? A Critical Inquiry,” based on her doctoral dissertation, articulated her viewpoint that there are other ways to salvation than belief in Jesus Christ. In the dissertation she criticized those who approach a Muslim or Hindu as one “already condemned before God.” Marshall also argued that those who never hear the gospel will be given another opportunity to respond to God after death.”
Jeff, I’m confused you use the word many but only name one. Please go ahead and name all of them for us.
These tactics are getting mighty old.
I was never really good in English but I do know the difference between many and one.
Alan Neely served as professor of missions at Southeastern Baptist Seminary prior to the CR. In a 1990 journal article, Neely castigated Presnall Wood, then editor of the Texas Baptist Standard, for saying that those on the mission field who never come to faith in Christ are “lost” and in danger of hell. Neely said the idea that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation is “not my theology” because it “reflects arrogance, ignorance, and superficiality.” The idea that unbelievers need to hear of Christ or they will die and go to hell, Neely claimed, is not a “sound and wholesome reason” for responding to the Great Commission.
Dale Moody, who taught theology at Southern for 40 years prior to the CR, was also an inclusivist.
Oh, so you’re ok with Molly Marshall’s beliefs? That’s right, Don Quixote praised her and you of course agree with ANYTHING that he says.
Jeff:
Dale Moody, 40 years and yet you call him an inclusivist. I’m not sure I will just take your opinion on this one.
Your up to three. Is that what you meant by many?
Dale Moody – “it is possible to say that this general revelation of God has only a negative function that leaves man without excuse. But what kind of God is he who gives man enough knowledge to damn him but not enough to save him? The perception of God in creation has both negative and positive possibilities” (The Word of Truth, p. 59).
Moody also taught that Christians could lose their salvation.
Tom,
It’s unlikely that Jeff could list 100 off hand. Your request is ridiculous to say the least and doesn’t prove your point at all.
I can only prove my point regarding those who put their inclusivism into print. For every inclusivist who put his or her views into print, there were 5 or 10 who did not go into print.
Also, I don’t live next to a library, and I am dependent on whatever Google can call up.
CB Scott:
I assure you that I am Tom Parker, who are you, what is this CB all about and when should I and others expect to see the archives of the Blog you once hosted being made available to all again.
I believe TG followed your fine example and did the same thing.
Remind me and others why you no longer make it available for public display.
Oh, I know you just wanted to get a head start on the 15 years that the GCR committee was going to need to hide their work.
Keep playing your games CB is that like Citizens Band?
Nice try and as one of your famous friends is prone to say–lol.
Tom Parker,
I simply got tired of keeping up with my blog. There is really reason I killed it. Well, on second thought, I was told that if I just left it up that someone could take it over and put twisted stuff up using my name. I don’t know if that is true or not, but that is what I was told. Nonetheless, I own all of my words from that post. If there is anything you would like to ask me about, I will be glad to answer you.
I am different from you Tom Parker, I answer questions asked of me. I have nothing to hide.
Now tell me. Are you the frustrated youth guy who is trying to become a pastor here in Alabama but can’t get one due to your preaching ability? Or are you the Presbyterian Ministers’ Fund guy living in the Triad? I have heard both stories.
Which is true?
CB:
Regardless of how “bad” you think I am–I believe I’ve still got a long ways to reach the level of your good friend Joe B.
On a scale of 1 to 10 I would say my attacks are a 3 and his are a 11.
And I think he is learning from you everyday.
Tom Parker,
Read this one again:
Joe would be theologically sound if he went to church on Mars among colonizers from Pluto.
You on the other hand would seemingly have a problem with theological soundness if you went to a Baptist church next door to LifeWay in Nashville where the apostle Peter was the pastor and the apostle Paul was your Sunday School teacher.
Your true problem has nothing to do with you being in a Southern Baptist church or not. Your problem is that you are in diametric opposition to sound, basic, biblical theology. I don’t know if you would even make a good Methodist with your outlandish bent toward understanding the plain teachings of Scripture.
Comments 218 and 234 in case anybody missed them are the crux of the matter the last three days.
Steve,
You have yet to respond to my request of you concerning #234. Why have you not?
Okay, in re 234 CB; surely if you are serious about the BFM 2000 being the be all and end all of Baptist Faith and Practice you could go a long way toward a list; instead of begging the question of it being exhaustive or not.
It was a rhetorical question; suggestion like Criswell’s skunks and the stuff he made a career of.
Listen, we know Bob Tenery and the businessman from Marietta Ga who went after Winfred Moore and then Richard Jackson weren’t explicit when they were flinging it.
I had two email exchanges with JohnKillian today. He and I seem to have a more serene fellowship than you and I do. Probably not best for you to join us at the Bright Star.
But I remain hopeful you are reading Rash. I hope you get his collection of short stories soon; and things otherwise away from this blogsite are well.
Do take a shot at Ms. Tippett’s point about mystery and paradox and the hopeful signs of the evolution of Baptist thought on some matters. She makes a good point if you read her entire essay that seems to have gone over the head of everyone to date on this board; comment 218 or thereabout.
We both should bring it to John Killian’s attention. I think Mike Shaw would understand. He is a good fellow.
Steve,
I have not read Tippett’s essay other than what you quoted here today. But I am beyond positive that if you understood it, I certainly will.
Now would you respond to my comment, twice posted relating to the part of the essay you posted. You can find it the second time in comment #250.
BTW, as far as our relationship not being as serene as that of yours and John’s; the truth is Steve we do not actually have a relationship to make that comparison other than on blogs and the emails your Uncle Prentice sends me about you. I made the offer. You refused. That is your choice. Maybe it is my loss. I guess we will never know.
Steve,
I don’t get as heated up over the BF&M as do some. I don’t worry too much about the BF&M. I never did. Here is what I said about it earlier to Bill Mac:
“My personal concept is that if you sign the BF&M, you are agreeing to teach within the parameters of its content. The BF&M is a good and faithful guide for cooperation. It is far from an exhaustive or “exacting” document. It is also a flawed document. It is in no way equal to Scripture. The BF&M was produced by fallen, yet well intentioned human beings. Therefore, the element of its being flawed is inherent in its “DNA.” The Scripture on the other hand was written by God. Therefore it is perfect. There is no possibility of its being flawed in any way.
I believe that any theologically sound person can sign the BF&M and teach within its parameters. I believe that those people who have stated that they signed the BF&M with caveat do so, not because they see such a blatant problem with the document, but because they have some skewered theological position that will arise at some point in their teaching or they have some personal agenda that will also come out at a later time.
Therefore, I believe that if a person cannot, in good conscience, sign the BF&M without caveat in order to work or teach in an SBC entity, he or she should not take a position where he or she shall receive compensation for their work. The BF&M is the guide for cooperation within SBC entities. It is not God’s revelation to man for knowing the Savior in personal relationship or for discipleship in following the Savior in obedience to His will for your life. That “position” is reserved only for the Bible, God’s inerrant Word.”
Jeff:
You said:”I can only prove my point regarding those who put their inclusivism into print. For every inclusivist who put his or her views into print, there were 5 or 10 who did not go into print.
Also, I don’t live next to a library, and I am dependent on whatever Google can call up.”
You said many, so how many is many?
3?
Wow! I started to make the following remark in another one of my earlier comments to you but I wanted to give you the benefit of doubt.
You said–“There were many professors at SBC seminaries prior to the CR who were not exclusivists.”
But you are only able to Google up three names and then say “For every inclusivist who put his or her views into print, there were 5 or 10 who did not go into print.”
Proof please for this Enquirer news–otherwise my comment to you is are you familiar with the tactics of Joseph Mc?????
He made charges without proof that damaged people’s lives.
Once again using the famous CR tactics. Someone(s) must have taught you well.
Big Daddy Weave says: “I don’t believe Jimmy Carter is a pluralist. I read him to be an inclusivist. And among educated moderate Baptists (like Jimmy) that’s a very common and “academic” theological position. A well known Truett professor (and Texas Baptist) recently advocated inclusivism in a Letter to the Waco-Trib editor just two weeks ago.”
http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2007/08/texas-baptists-and-the-new-baptist-covenant-take-2.html
Always nice to see a BDW quote from a few years back.
Inclusivism was/is a common belief of neoorthodox theologians. Neoorthodoxy was a conservative response to liberalism as represented by folks like Schleirmacher and the modernist movement as described by William Hutchison. It’s a theological position that has always been situation between other positions on the left and right.
I made a B minus on Schleiermacher the fall of 72 right after Bill Bellinger left the building.
I think Howell and Tom Parker, maybe even Trevin Wax himself will want to follow what Charles Marsh makes of Schleiermacher in his bio of Dietrich Bonhoeffer next fall in contradistinction to the World Magazine embrace of Eric Metaxas.
I linked Marsh above somewhere before 218 but no one seems interested in taking an interest here on how it shaped or intersects Mohler’s lock in with Francis Schaeffer.
Trevin Wax interviewed Mohler at one point, but that all seems to have gotten lost here where folks hear the Voices but aren’t sure what they mean.
Francis Schaeffer is a person cited on a plaque which hung in Paige Patterson’s SEBTS office.
It is of interest to me that he has little or nothing to do with the SBC–rather the modern Fundamentalist movement.
Can anyone shed a little more light on who he is and how he became such an influence on Patterson?
Gene,
I take it that you were not a fan of “How Shall We Then Live?” or “The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture”??
I was there for the event Jeff Links. In fact was in a room with President Carter and Daniel Carro and Proff ‘Wilson of Mercer.
Was present also for a tremendous workshop with the Lt. Gov or Atty General of New Jersey and Suzi Payntor, leader of the CLC for BGCT.
It was a grand event, and the name of Jesus was boldly proclaimed.
In fact during the whole time I was there I did not see the first Double Knot or Taliban Joe carrying a sign that said anybody who doesn’t sign the BFM 2000 is going Straight to Hell.
Never saw it; nor did I see a booth for the Texas Regulars or the John Birch Society.
Saw a lot of Bibles and heard lots of enlightening discussions about what its words mean for our times. I did not see a booth there for Creationism; nor did I hear much talk about Inerrancy.
CB:
Read Fisher Humphreys nephew Charles Marsh on Francis Schaeffer. He’s a third rate culture critic; not a theologian and as Marsh points out was out to lunch on the Lausanne Covenant to the chagrin of even Billy Graham
Jeff:
OK maybe you are up to 4.
Keep up the good work.
The CR was necessary because of these 4 people. And there are many more, you’re just sure there are, but you do not know who they are, and you really do not have any proof.
I think I understand where you’re coming from and it scares me.
Tom Parker,
You have admitted in the past that you were not involved during the time of the CR. You have not read even three of the books Steve has mentioned, much less any that I would encourage you to read.
The only insight you have is from your beginning to read Wade’s blog. You refuse to believe anything a conservative says to you. You come here and talk about the need to honor the autonomy of local churches. Then you go over to Debbie’s Funhouse and talk about the need to ignore the autonomy of local churches in order to set up a sex offender registry.
The bottom line is, you are just a talking head who dislikes conservatives. Was it a conservative church that did not like your preaching style and refused to call you as pastor? Is that way you have this chip on your shoulder and berate a movement and the people involved without having any legitimate knowledge of either the people involved or the movement in general?
My point in posting the quote from Aaron Weaver was not to prove that Jimmy Carter was an inclusivist. Instead, I was pointing out that Aaron Weaver (a moderate Baptist who is extremely familiar with moderate Southern Baptist life) says that many moderate Southern Baptists are inclusivists.
Oh Hades why Not; Let’s make it five.
I Jump In it.
The CR was necessary to get Stephen Fox out of the Southern Baptist Convention cause he was Loud and Obnoxious.
Okay we got Five; who’ll make it Six.
John Stealy, Bill Leonard, Glen Hinson, John Durham; there’s ten. That should keep you up all night defending them.
Let’s not forget Foy “Abortions..eh…what’s the problem?” Valentine.
David
And WA Criswell all in for Roe V Wade.
When was the last time Double Knot you and Mohler read Gormley on Parsing the Politics of Abortion; and how many women in your community are you ready to sign off on for the Death Penalty who have had abortion.
Name names in your local community you want to lynch in the Public Square cause your Bible condemns them as murderers.
CB, you just split with Timothy George and Tom Corts on that one; put yourself outside the community of faith of Rick Lance and Bob Terry, cause they were honored to have Bill Leonard on the faculty of Samford.
And Martin Accad; delighted with him as well and he endorses Parham’s http://www.differentbookscommonword.org
So looks like way past time for you and Jimmy Jackson to start purging the Alabama Baptist Convention cause you got accommodationists in high places among your ranks.
Steve,
Leonard is a liberal. If Paul Pressler and Bob Tenery said Leonard was not a liberal, Leonard would still be a liberal.
Jeff: You are about four behind right out of the box. In one swoop I named 12 liberals channelling your definition and didn’t even break a sweat.
If these guys are all liberals then what would you call Jim Deloach, a trustee at SEBTS when they let Lolley go; also a classmate of Lolley and Bill Self; Deloach who once preached a two week Revival for my Dad.
I can’t remember if anybody got saved; I’d been saved for some time then.
Genealogy of Dissent, some of the greatest Baptists in my lifetime, now mostly written down in the Lambs Book of Life; by your definition Jeff you could probably put them all in the Libral column and should get you pretty near the 50 mark.
Where you gonna put Albert Lee SMith and Curtis Caine, Jesse Helms and Sam Currin; what column you gonna put those fellows that displaced all you so called Liberals.
Why don’t you get to know some of them better before you start categorizing them on Your Fallen Calculation Sheet.
The great book Why I am a Baptist is a great place to start on these folks you place as Outliers, the great enemies of Baptist Christian work, the threat to Bob Tenery and the Birch Society and the Texas Regulars.
And did youclick on the link to Earl Stallings. Get to know his heart before you chalk him up.
cb–
I happen to know all the ones you mention on a personal basis.
You can call them “well-rounded / intelligent / well-studied / circumspect,” but you do yourself a terrible judgmental error to call them “liberal.”
I was at Emory as President of the BSU when Thomas J.J. Altizer did his “God Is Dead” stuff. I have seen with my own eyes what a liberal is like.
The best you can do is locate your men named in the solid middle to the 60% level of “liberal.”
It is a shame when people throw that red-flag word at people who don’t deserve it. Republicans in this election year running out of intelligent debate start calling Domocrats “liberal.”
Is this your tactic in the above?????
At this point I have to assume “conservative” = not admitting to anything outside BF&M 2000 / “liberal” = people willing to be honest about the Bible and its content.
Kenneth Chafin, who used to teach at Southern, was inclusivist. That is #8.
Reinhold Niebuhr’s great nephew Gus put the liberal mess in perspective with Albert Lee SMith in DC in 1990 with Sam Donaldson on the panel.
But the takeover screwups start with the Birch Society and the Texas Regulars and Criswell’s 56 Speech to a Joint Session of the SC Legislature the Dixie Crats and Ed McAteer and anything a scintilla to the left of that is a Liberal.
What a Crock.
Gene,
I would not have named them if I had not known them in some context wherein I am confident they are/were liberals.
Also, if you will take the time to travel through this comment thread, you will find my position on the BF&M.
cb
Just as “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” so is “liberal.”
Sadly, your definition and name calling makes what I would call middle-of-the-road intelligent, yet believing, Professors / persons into a “godless / Bible-denying / liberal.”
They are all gone now so—what’s your beef??????
I suppose anyone having a degree from a non-fundamentalist institution always qualifies as a “liberal.” Would this be true???
How about the current Professors cited in the Burleson blog last November who now say “inerrant” is a poor word to describe the Bible????
They are saying the same things your list of “liberals” said in 1967-70 as I attended SEBTS!!!!
Flinging epithets at Professors–as is being done now with this foolish listing of names–is a total waste of good discussion time. It only shows the presuppositions of the writer coming from both camps, in my opinion.
Jeff: Here’s more for you; what BDW and me and our friends were planning to do at the Covenant:
http://forums.baptistlife.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5369&start=0
And here is the magnificent Session I attended and asked a provocative question, but I can no longer remember what it was:
I do remember DeForrest Soaries, the black Baptist Pastor and former Atty General of New Jersey said Justice Themes of Scripture were part of his Biblical DNA.
I never heard Jesse Helms or Pressler or Adrian Rogers say anything like that:
Faith and Public Policy
Thursday, January 31
2 – 3:15 p.m. and 3:45 – 5 p.m.
Room B406
Suzii Paynter – Director, Christian Life Commission, Austin, Texas
Lois Mitchell – Canadian Baptist Ministries, The Sharing Way, New Brunswick, Canada
DeForest Soaries – Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church, Somerset New Jersey
David Sapp- Moderator
David Sapp, the moderator,followed Russell Dilday and Robert Marsh at 2nd Ponce De Leon Church in Atlanta.
Sapp is now on the board of Christian Ethics Today magazine whose new Editor Pat Anderson is a graduate of Furman in the 60’s, was there with Baptist Preacher’s son Marshall Frady, the greatest social Justice Journalist of his day.
But Hades will freeze over before you hear much talk of things like that in the New Fundamentalist Exclusivist Taken Over Southern Baptist Convention cause it don’t square with Texas Regulars History of Baptist Witness in America; and God knows the Ronnie Floyd GCR Baptists and Taliban Joe and Double Knot don’t want too many youngsters thinking outside the box on things that really matter.
CB Scott wants the names of Liberals.
John Killian is a flaming Liberal cause he Invited me to hear the Larry Nelson Singers in his Church one Sunday evening at Maytown Baptist Church, February 09; and had lunch at the Bright Star, in Bessemer, Alabama with two known Liberals just a month or two before that; andlet One of the Liberals Ask a Blessing.
He is also known to be a Fan of Paul McCartney and enjoyed the White House event last week where President Obama presented McCartney the Gershwin prize in the presence of Emmy Lou Harris for whom SBC Peace Committee’s Jim Henry’s daughter Kate Campbell openned in Europe in 2002.
What more evidence do you want?
Jesus Christ Himself was a Liberal cause he went Home with the Tax Collector for Lunch, and there is No Evidence in the Scripture Jesus and the Tax Collector had been to a Tea Party Ralley that day.
So far we got 12 liberals:
Bill Leonard
WA Criswell……..
John Killian
Jesus Christ
The Tax Collector
and 8 or 9 more
!4 Liberals and counting.
Steve,
I am not the one who wanted names of liberals. I think that was Tom Parker. I already know their names.
Calling people names like you do is beneath someone of your great spiritual maturity.
CB:
You say you got tired of keeping up with it. I can understand that, but why remove all of the blogs you and others had put so much time into.
They might have been useful for historical reference.
Tom Parker,
Did you read the whole comment. I answered that question already. But, go ahead, feel free to ask about anything you desire from the blog. I will answer you.
So two millenia had to go by from the time of Our Lord’s Incarnation until the appearance on Earth of the Baptist Faith & Message 2K.
Right.
The Baptist Faith and Message is just a statement of what we, SB’s, believe the Bible plainly and clearly teaches…two millenia ago. It’s what we believe that anyone should believe, who is really holding to the clear teachings of the Bible.
David
Jesus is the only way to Heaven. I guess that’s a mean statement that I just made. Here’s another: anyone who dies outside of Christ will go to Hell forever. Here’s another MEAN statement: You can be as religious and do as many good deeds as Mother Theresa and still go to Hell. Why? Because being religious and doing good deeds does not save a person’s soul from eternal hell. It’s only by grace thru faith in Jesus that a person goes to Heaven. It’s only by grace. Wow, now that’s a really, really, really MEAN statement; aint it?
Now, are those mean statements? or true statements? Are these Biblical statements?
Tom, Fox, and others…here’s a mean statement…those people, who are lost and sexually abuse children will go to Hell and fry like a sausage. Now, you see, that’s a true statement that’s said in a mean way.
Signed,
Mean, Ugly, Nasty, Fundie
David
So let’s be sure we understand you correctly Double Knot; Mother Teresa is in Hell cause you said she was.
Is that what you are saying?
How about it SSBN, Jeff, Brandon and David Miller.
Is Double Knot right?
Mother Teresa is burning in Hell.
Is that what this board is about.
Is Al Mohler and Paige Patterson; Is Are they gonna sign on with Double Knot and the BFM 2000 on that one?
Let’s start naming other people in Hell cause BFM 2000 and Double Knot say there are.
Come on; don’t be shy.
Not that the facts ever hinder you from your accusations, but I’ve said at least three times: I have no way of knowing who is or who is not in hell — especially people I’ve never even met.
I have said, “If a person is trusting in anything but the shed blood of Christ’s substitutionary death,” then they have set themselves outside of the bounds of God’s sovereign grace.
Do you agree with that statement, Mr. Fox? It is not that I refuse to answer your question about who is in hell. I have answered it honestly, “I don’t know.”
Now, if you are a man of integrity and not just irritation, you can answer the question I posed above. Your answer will allow a useful dialogue on the principle of salvation.
I’ve tried to be congenial and answer your question, and would like a return of the favor.
Don’t be shy:)
Fox,
I’m not going to dare say whether or not Mother Teresa is in Hell, though you and your friends have stated that Criswell is in Hell… so I think we have an even balance on this blog.
I don’t know if Criswell is in Hell or not. I never said he was, just allowing he may be for his address to the Joint Session of the SC legislature in 56.
And his Skunk message in 88 in San Antonio.
In some ways he was a great stand up comedian, in those white shoes and the white zuit suit.
He and Marney apparently had some interesting conversations. I would love somebody of the quality, the perspective of Mark Noll or Steven Miller or Chandler Davidson to explore those.
That may have been Criswell at his best, in those conversations with Marney, but I don’t know; I was not there in the room.
It may have been his salvation, his conversations with Marney.
You have a point, I don’t want to be judged on my worst day either. I imagine you have had a bad day as well.
Steve,
You know that is not what he was saying. Vol did not say Mother Teresa is burning in Hell. Why do you say things of others that you know are untrue?
Fox, Fox, Fox….there you go again…reading without comprehension. Go back and read what I wrote. I said that someone could be AS RELIGIOUS and DO AS MANY GOOD DEEDS as Mother Theresa and still go to Hell. Now, I know that the concept of grace is probably foreign to you….but, Fox, the Bible teaches plainly that no one will get to Heaven by being “good” or “religious.” Salvation is by grace.
So, Fox, a person can be as religious as the Pope and still split Hell wide open.
David
I finally descended into the depths of BaptistLife.com.
Apparently, they are the smartest group of men in the world… according to them. They sound a lot like the CR men that they hate so much for being close-minded and focused on agendas.
I say this with honesty and intended kindness, the SBC would be better off if those who disagreed joined those of like-convictions and we all agreed on the Great Commission and left the rest to internal decisions. This blog is proof that the open cooperation breeds hate and strife. I’ve seen it in the local church, as well. BGCT vs. SBTC, but both get to claim the SBC and the SBC’s name is dragged through the mud.
Heartbreaking, to say the least.
I think Ben Cole is smarter than you,Brandon. Hopefully you will be as open to Light and Pilgrimage as him someday; but as an apologist for DoubleKnot and Taliban Joe; Al Mohler and Akin your promise, potential is stunted out of the gate and that is pretty sad.
Fox,
I don’t know that you have any clue if Ben or I is the smarter person.
I do not apologize for David or Joe, actually. Because you and I disagree that makes me stunted? Very CR-like chauvinism you are aiming at me, sir.
Ben Cole’s Exit Strategy was written up by Marty Duren if you want to google it; but this Texas Observer Article was one of the more fascinating reads about Him I ever came across.
He did come to Atlanta for the Jan 08 Covenant meeting. I was hoping he woulda been in the room for the Faith and Public Policy discussion with Suzy Paynter and Forrest DeSoaries but I did not see him there.
I do hope CB and Brandon will refresh their thinking with serious read of this article soon as they can make time for it.
Brandon may want to give it a blog entry of its own; fascinating fairly recent Southern Baptist history
http://www.texasobserver.org/archives/item/15147-2547-dont-stop-believing-renegade-bloggers-besiege-the-southern-baptist-convention
Steve,
Ben’s exit strategy was written by Ben. I read it before it was published.
BTW, We traveled together to the Carter Center and met with President Carter at the same time. And truthfully, neither of us got involved with him in his Baptist Covenant planning for basically the same reasons.
As I said earlier, your theology and his are not of the same material.
Ben works for a US Congressman now, a Republican. One of whom you would not appreciate his political leanings in the least.
CB,
I saw Ben at the New Baptist Covenant dressed in his best suit. He stood patiently in line and finally got his chance to approach President Carter and they seemed to have a nice conversation. Ben was definitely more favorable to Carter and the Covenant than you were…
Where did the BL.com folks proclaim that they are the smartest ?
Speaking of smarts, I observed Ben in the blogosphere and in the classroom at Baylor. He’s a true thinker and an amazing writer. I envied his ability to read an entire academic book in just a few short hours and absorb more than what others could absorb if they spent all day and night with the book.
On the who’s smarter question, Ben probably has us all beat by a mile or two.
I met him at the convention this year – he’s an impressive young man.
One more thing about the pilgrimage of Ben Cole.
If the legend is true that Stanley Hauerwas and Bailey Smith rode together to their HS Commencement outside Dallas in the late 50’s; then it may be in the great passenger seat of life, Ben Cole may wind up displacing Bailey Smith.
I’m not all that sure that our love affair with brilliance is really where we ought to be. My Dad, for example, was no scholar. He was just a common, blue-collar, hard-working father.
But, both he and my mom loved God with all their hearts and made sure I had the opportunity to discover the Lord as my savior.
I wonder how impressed God is with the intellectual powers of Ben Cole (whom I don’t know from the man in the moon).
I think we are treading on dangerous ground when we are so enamored with “intellect.” You really don’t have to be very “smart,” to understand God’s message. There’s a reason God made it that way, I think.
Just a humble rant from an intellectual lightweight.
Who said anything about having to be “smart” to understand God’s message?
You’ve sorta distorted where I was going with my comment. There’s no wrong in acknowledging that someone is smart. I’m in a university setting so I have a real appreciation for a thinker/writer like Ben Cole. I’m sure you can appreciate gifted folks in whatever profession you are in. I presume that would be the nuclear-powered ballistic nuclear-carrying submarine business, SSBN?
BDW just made a sterling point, SSBN. It’s the same point Jack Flanders was trying to make at Baylor when Judge Pressler brought his Junior Boys Sunday School Class to Waco and wanted Flanders to teach the same thing he was teaching the 11 year olds.
Some how he got his way in the SBC and now you have an entire denominational structure with an 11 year old mentality and intellectural curiousity.
That is the only point BDW was making.
I agree with you SSBN, my grandfather with an 8th grade education had more virtue than I have; but that isn’t because of textual criticism of the Bible; nor Ben Cole’s pilgrimage.
Big Daddy,
My comment related to a meeting at the Carter Center where we were asked to be involved. My comment was related to his not being involved in the development of the NBC specifically and the reasons he chose not to do so.
I know he went to the ’08 meeting….and why.
BDW,
Well, obviously you don’t have to be too sharp to be an SBC Voice. The guy isn’t too informed or thoughtful. You did a good job in reply.
– via William Thorton about me, for example.
It’s interesting that since you agree with them, Fox, Tom, etc. that you’re a bright young man but since I disagree I am uninformed and don’t know the real CR.
By their definition, wouldn’t we be equally uninformed and unable to comment on the CR?
Now Brandon you have this problem. How do you define yourself and Adrian Rogers on this matrix in regard the change in the definition of Evangelical that came with the election of Ronald Reagan.
It raises a question for my friend David Rogers as well in his recent blog at SBCImpact where he gave his Father a pass saying his Father in a sermon in 99 broke with Falwell’s Moral Majority.
Well Jesse Helms and Ed McAteer and Sam Currin had done a lot of damage by then.
So you have confusion on two fronts this morning.
You have BDW and the meeting at the Carter Center offering you one option, and Brackney here asking you to take a strong look at recent Baptist History in regard a key aspect of your tradition you are struggling to understand but seemed to have been derailed by forces you are unwilling to acknowledge, resist learning about:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16492
Somebody,maybe CB call Ben Cole. Worthy of him taking a look at this moment on The Voices.
What would you know of Ben Cole, Steve? I can assure you of this, he is not of the same theological persuasion as you seem to be on this comment thread.
I’m not sure Marty Duren wrote the blog I had in mind:
http://deepintheheart.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/how-things-play-out-ben-coles-exit-strategy/
Lee has an interesting take. Of course you know I think the whole enterprise is likely beyond redemption; even with the mediating testimony of Laura few days ago at ABP.
So CB, Why Did Ben Cole go to the 08 Covenant meeting in ATlanta?
And which Congressman does he work for now??
Steve,
I am sure no one on this board knows Ben as I do. It is because of my knowing him as I do that brought me to make the mistake of engaging you when you mentioned his name. I am sorry that I did that. I should not have done so and it was wrong of me.
Big Daddy,
I thank you, along with Dave Miller for you compliments toward Ben. What you said is true. He is a very bright young man. Dave is right in saying he is impressive.
Steve,
The answer to your questions would be too long and far too personal in nature to talk about in a comment thread if I answered you honestly. In addition, it would be improper for me to be the one to answer you for several reasons.
Therefore, in this case I will beg off and not answer your questions, hoping you will give me grace for refusing, especially due to the fact that I have said on more than one occasion that you may “ask me anything” you like relating to comments I make here.
In conclusion, I am sure that if you ever run into Ben and ask him your questions properly, he will answer you gracefully and truthfully.
Fox, Answer the question or are you as sly as a fox in discussion.
What’s heart breaking is your statement above. You are not going to have cookie cutter Baptists Brandon. And if you will look at your own comments, that is part of the problem. The attitude. You should apologize for Joe and at times David, although David at least can be civil. Joe on the other hand has an obvious spiritual problem. To not recognize that is ridiculous, not doing him any favors and wrong.
Christ constantly showed that it is about a relationship with Him first. With that comes right doctrine, but without relationship it’s just like being a Pharisee. That is his message. You are going to have disagreements. The question is do you play hard ball religion as you have here or is it going to be about Christ and him alone?
Debbie,
Be very glad that I don’t live near Enid.
Joe,
I am sure your comment means that you would not bring her any fresh baked bread, cakes, pies or homemade soup, right? I am sure you were not making any other implication whatsoever, right?
Don’t worry. They’re glad you don’t live near Enid. They’d hate to have to confuse you with the Westboro crowd from time to time.
Debbie, Your liberal buddies are calling people names too but I guess that is ok right? I am surprise you have time to leave your obession to comment hear.
Sure came across as a threat to me…
Jeff, you’re defending name callers which is obviously worse than being one of the name callers.
What are we? Seven?
You know I sometimes empathize with the moderates/liberals who comment here because I think often they are unfairly characterized and ridiculed. I myself don’t fit neatly into the SBC mold in some places. For example, I consider egalitarianism to be a minor error (like dispensationalism) rather than a hell wrought heresy. I’m a moderationist and although a republican, I think being joined at the hip with the republican party the way we are is shameful. I’m also a Calvinist and am at the wrong end of the resurging Calvinist/Reformed witchhunt currently happening.
That being said, when the idea gets thrown about that people get to heaven apart from faith in Christ, we have not only left the Baptist bus far behind, we are far outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity itself.
If faith in Christ is not necessary for salvation, then there is no point to Christianity at all. If faith in Christ is not necessary for salvation, then Jesus died a brutal death unnecessarily.
Bill Mac, you are absolutely right on in your analysis. It is one thing to debate this or that secondary idea in theology, but it is clear their are people on this blog who regularly imply or insinuate that salvation is discovered in some other way than faith in the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ.
In fact, this was a “key issue” that sparked the CR decades ago. It is also the reason why the moderates on this blog never give a clear testimony in regard to the reformation teaching of “Christ alone.”
Everything else on this blog is chatter — for good or ill — but the matter of “Christ alone,” is something that any Biblically-centered person must defend vigorously.
And there are a lot of folks who say Inerrancy of the Scripture is superior to or equal to Christ’s Death on the Cross and crusaded to codify it in Baptist life.
So pick your poison, Bill Mac and SSBN.
It wasn’t me who ushered in Resolution Number 5 in San Antonio or destroyed an SBC that was lurching toward it’s better self over some man made understanding of Scripture at the expense of emphasis on the Cross of Jesus.
No that would be the folks linked at the googled site on the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Stephen,
My comment wasn’t about inerrancy. My comment is that belief that salvation comes apart from faith in Christ is outside, far outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity, let alone Baptist doctrine. That isn’t to say some Baptists don’t hold to such heresy, but it is no doubt a tiny minority position. It is hardly a struggle within the SBC, such as there is over Calvinism.
In my opinion, elevating the doctrine of inerrancy to par with the doctrine of Christ alone is also a serious error, but I also would bet that is a minority view.
QUOTE And there are a lot of folks who say Inerrancy of the Scripture is superior to or equal to Christ’s Death on the Cross and crusaded to codify it in Baptist life. END QUOTE
Mr. Fox, do you own a farm? I’m just wondering because with all the straw-men you make, you either own a farm or you are very wealthy and can afford an almost limitless supply from the local feed store.
Straw Men, you have me mistaken for Robert Tenery and Paul Pressler and Sam Currin and Curtis Caine, there SSBN; and if you check the historical record they created a lot more havoc and chaos in American Christendom in the last 40 years than I could ever imagine.
So when you check the Definition next time of Straw Men in your Funk And Wagnalls; so sir that aint my picture in the Exhibit.
Steve,
Did you know Judge Sam Currin?
Steve,
I have been associated with conservative Southern Baptists for a long time now.
I am in great doubt “there are a lot of folks who say Inerrancy of the Scripture is superior to or equal to Christ’s Death on the Cross and crusaded to codify it in Baptist life” among conservatives in the SBC.
Therefore, I shall take up the mantle of Toady Frog Tom and say, “Name One.”
Inclusivism is founded on the premise that salvation is through Christ alone. To suggest otherwise reveals a lack of understanding of inclusivism.
Pluralism is something different. Ironically, it was only a few years back that the SBC has a pluralist address the Convention! For all the talk about the necessity of the Conservative Resurgence, it is interesting to see Southern Baptist leaders abandon their quest for doctrinal conformity in order to receive a few words from their favorite Republican, a theologically liberal Republican….
Big Daddy,
Just so no one will misunderstand you here, I am quite confident that you have stated elsewhere that you agree that “salvation is through Christ alone.”
BDW: Are you on the record anywhere in your Blog or elsewhere in regard Charles Kimball’s When Religion becomes Evil and or Parham’s Common Word Documentary?
Also do take a look at Ms. Tippert’s story about her Grandfather in the Christian Century. I think she makes a strong point.
Bush 41 nominated Pressler to the Ethics Council but we don’t know a lot about Bush 41 other than he was reluctant to play the religion card, at first, that Rove and 43 outlined for him.
At some point it would seem the ethics of all that would come into some discussion if Inclusivism trumps all; else why was Ronnie Floyd so compelled to torch Bill Clinton in Houston SBC 93?
Could it been some version of the old Tex Regulars and Birch Society deal with the oil companies that was gettin in Pressler’s pockets and Jesus was just a front for something else?
Jesus said in My House there are many mansions; and if it were not so I would have told you.
Maybe he told Criswell and Pressler, the Hunt Brothers and the Exxon Oil companies something he didn’t tell the rest of us.
Chandler Davidson raises the question obliquely.
I hope you will talk to Jimmy Allen about it; talk to folks who know something about Criswell’s relationship with Carlyle Marney before they all get away. See if Curtis Freeman is interested in pursuing the Criswell/Marney angle with you.
Inclusivism is also founded on the concept that there is saving truth in other religions like Islam and Hinduism. People of other faiths can be saved by Jesus even if they do not explicitly believe in Him.
It may be scholarly theology, but it is not Christian theology. And just to make sure that my slam on anyone who believes such tripe isn’t missed I am saying that anyone who is an inclusivist is not a Christian no matter what they profess to believe.
Imagine a father and son walking through a field…
Son: Dad, what’s that pillar of smoke over there?
Father: That? Don’t worry, Joe’s just burning books again.
When I think about Joe I think about Jimi Hendrix:
“Hey Joe,
Where you going with that gun
In YOur hand.
And here I paraphrase
Going down to shoot some liberals
Cause I caught em with some books in their hand.
Big Daddy, I won’t disagree with the apparent inconsistency with the Republican speaker, but I think there is a very real difference between a moderate representative in a rally type meeting and a liberal teaching and helping to form the minds and hearts of young preachers.
At least I see a difference in my opinion. For your purposes, I’m sure the inconsistency works to further your agenda. But, I think that is, in itself, hypocritical and self-serving — two attitudes that show up often in these blog things.
For my purposes? My agenda? Ok. I really have no agenda. Rarely, if ever, does anyone in the blogosphere change their mind about anything. So, I’m not trying to change minds – just express a viewpoint.
You really should find a way to use some variant of your name here. If everyone else can do it, you can too.
I think BDW has a grand point; I don’t speak for him but he probably wouldn’t mind you readin Hankins on Mohler; and his Dad Doug Weaver on Robert Marsh at 2nd Ponce.
Yes, salvation is through Christ alone. I *personally* know very few self-described Christians who would disagree; maybe one of the fellas I know at the local UU congregation would say something different; but then again, I’m not sure if the UUs I know would even call themselves Christian or consider themselves part of the Christian tradition anymore.
So, is “Big” your real first name?
I’m sorry I don’t feel compelled to live by your rules of “blogofication.” I chose something I could remember 🙂
And, I was using agenda in the way you were using “viewpoint.” Still, I think your “viewpoint” in using the example you did was not not a valid comparison.
And, I don’t know why it bothers you that I don’t use my name. You wouldn’t know it was my name, anyway. I don’t understand why that bothers you. Do you get me confused with some other SSBN? Is that not a name? I that not in fact my nickname? How do you know all of these things? And why does it matter? I really don’t care what you call yourself.
You’re anonymous and I’m not. That’s the difference. And it just strikes me as odd that a person who desires to make numerous comments on a Baptist blog about Baptist stuff can’t sign their name or a name.
By the way, you can click on my name above, it will take you straight to my website where you can read About Me, etc.
Well Big Daddy,
You know I am not anonymous. So tell these guys you believe salvation is through Christ alone just for old times sake.
What makes the difference. Say I used the name John Smith. Would I then cease to be anonymous? I don’t think it is a big deal.
Part of the reason — the main part is — I have a person that is an IT type and a bit strange. I used to use my name and he could take it every time it came up and send me porn and all kinds of spam.
I don’t know if you have ever tried to deal with this kind of problem, but it is nearly impossible. Nobody will get involved. So, I just stop using my name except on secure blogs that are not open to the public.
If this blog, or any other decided they had a problem with my SSBN, I’d graciously stopped posting. That’s why I would never post on your blog. I feel welcome here and so far you and Tom are the only ones complaining.
Sounds like you and Tom both have the same “viewpoint.”
I also am not trying to publish books or become famous. I’m over that spot in life.
I mean, its not like you and I are ever going to meet, let alone hang out. This is blogland. It is one place I can hang out, say my peace, and walk away. I just wish I were more disciplined and could avoid some of the name calling. I do try.
If I changed my name from SSBN to Fred, would that be more to your liking?
Fred: I think SSBN would be better as Fred, aslong as the first 7 times he identifies himself as Fred Aka SSBN or like Prince the artist formerly known as SSBN or something like that.
Fred would be a lot better.
Hearts and minds of young Preachers
That was exactly Bill Friday, one of the most respected men in North Carolina when he told Cecil Sherman the most significant thing to happen in the state in the decade of the 80’s was the fundamentalist takeover of SEBTS cause Pressler and Helms and all those folks Furgurson listed in his last chapter of Hard Right knew that in SEBTS they could reach into every hamlet and suburb in the state through the pulpit of the pervasive number of Baptist churches and over time change it from the civic virtue and integrity, change it from a headset of George Truett and Randall Lolley and Stewart Newman to fodder for Glenn Beck, Falwell, the Caner Brothers and every other type of resentful and small minded lopoppahiram and Hipoppalorum of Huey Long and George Wallace you could imagine.
Brandon:
You said to me:”Tom,
It’s unlikely that Jeff could list 100 off hand. Your request is ridiculous to say the least and doesn’t prove your point at all.”
Oh, he proves my point, make charges without evidence.
Are you saying your are ok with that tactic?
I do not think if he had 100 years he would get to a 100 names that could be proven.
No jury, just judge and executioner. How dandy. I’m sure Taliban Joe will help you inquest these invisible people.
If you are a rising voice in the SBC, the SBC is in for some rough days ahead, because you are young and ignorant of the CR, but you gladly use their tactics.
I will not wish you good luck in your endeavors in the SBC.
Tom Parker,
Give me your real name, address and phone number. Give me time to confirm what you give me to be factual and print it in a comment thread and I will give you 100 names of liberals plus a bonus of 10 more either employed or serving in elected positions in the SBC during the time of the “Great War.”
Do we have a deal?
“Today, it would appear, the covenant and thus the mission of the church could be defined with a greater measure of tolerance. This would not necessitate an abandonment of monotheism nor of the conviction that some sort of special revelation occurred through Israel and Christ and the church.
“It might necessitate, however, the acknowledgment that the one God has disclosed himself in particular ways through other cultures and religions besides these. Thus, as one discerns in the thought of Vatican II, Christianity might see its mission not so much in competition with the other world religions as in cooperation or in conjunction with them.”
–Hinson, E. Glenn. The Evangelization of the Roman Empire, (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1981), p. 287. Hinson taught at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Glenn Hinson was a dandy. Yes he was.
Theodore Clark, who taught at New Orleans Baptist Seminary, denied the deity of Christ and eternal hell in his book “Saved by His Life.”
Former Midwestern Baptist seminary professor Temp Sparkman’s “The Salvation and Nurture of the Child of God” equates child developmental psychology with growth and development as a child of God, arguing that all people are already saved because all people are already children of God.
Jeff,
I had forgotten about Temp Sparkman. Thanks for reminding me. Now I can make Tom Parker a better offer. Maybe he will change his mind and take the deal I offered him. 🙂
Tom,
Thanks, brother.
Stephen Fox:
You said:TJ: Two of the greatest preachers on the planet are women: Fleming Rutledge and Barbara Brown Taylor.
You ought to go hear em preach some time, in the flesh.
I have heard them both in the flesh; one Preaching on the Ole Axis of Evil.
Don’t let the wife know where you are and sneak out of the house or order and have delivered in a brown package of some kind Fleming’s Help My Unbelief.
Several sermons in there that will go straight to the heart of a lot of your nonsense and blunderbuss.”
Probably the best thing that could happen to some of these guys here is to hear a woman preacher in person.
Who knows they might change their minds.
“
I have heard several in person. I have heard some female Church of God preachers in the Appalachians who could preach the paint off the walls.
Sorry Tom Parker,
Hearing them did not change my mind. Although, I must confess, I have borrowed an illustration or two. 🙂
I’m married. I hear a woman preaching all the time 🙂
Tom and Fox,
I heard Jackie Roese preach live at Irving Bible out here in Dallas in 2008. She was good and I’ve never denied her or any woman’s talents. But, it isn’t about skill… it’s about Scripture and God’s created order.
Don’t make it into the weak argument that complementarians are close-minded sexists. Eesh.
CB:
You said to me:”Tom Parker, Give me your real name, address and phone number. Give me time to confirm what you give me to be factual and print..”
I see why you were such a good CR soldier.
Nice try, I’m not the one accusing past people both the living and death of crimes against the 2000 BF&M without evidence.
As your great friend Double Knot 7 often says–lol at your request.
Tom Parker,
I was just offering you an equitable deal. Naturally you have the option to refuse it. I no longer offer deals that cannot be refused. 🙂
BTW, It is true that you did not accuse anyone of “crimes against the BF&M.” You have falsely accused good men of “crimes” against God, men and women and children. In the future, I would wish you only to accuse good men of crimes against the BF&M. My rationale is that the men you falsely accuse are real people who can be hurt by the falsehoods you help spread. The BF&M is merely a document of human origin used a guide for cooperation among Southern Baptists.
I would appreciate any positive consideration you give to this request. Of course, the choice to comply is totally your choice.
Do we have a deal?
Tom,
You challenged CB, and now you won’t give him the chance to answer to it?
Christiane & Stephen,
I understand that one can reveal the way one truly feels about one’s God. However, what one truly feels about one’s God is according to some “standard”.
If the standard is not Scripture [which comes from the all knowing God], then how can one justify using any other standard [which would come from a “finite” and thus “limited in knowledge” source]?
Hi BENJI
Some have the Bible for their only standard, and some have the Eternal Word for their only standard. For the ones who honor the Eternal Word, the ‘logos’, above all else, the Holy Scriptures are then honored as the writings of men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
For those who have the Eternal Word as their only standard, it is known that He, the Lord Christ, after His Resurrection appeared to his disciples and ‘opened their minds’ to understand the Scriptures.
For those who have the Eternal Word as their only standard, it is known that His promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled at Pentecost, prior to the writings of the New Testament.
And it is known that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the canon of Scripture was formed by the Church.
The ‘Eternal Word’ pre-dates the Bible, as the Bible was written to testify to that in the words of St. John’s Gospel:
” In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be. What came to be
4 through Him was life, and this life was the light of the human race”
My ‘standard’ for my faith is the ‘Eternal Word’, the Lord Christ Himself, the Alpha and the Omega. The Bible was written to testify to Him, Who IS ‘the Word’.
Christianne,
According to you, the Eternal Word and the Bible are two different standards.
Allow me to assume that this is true for argument’s sake. Here is my question:
How do you know anything about the one standard [i.e. the Eternal Word] apart from the other standard [i.e. the Bible]?
Let’s see, how many are we up to now?
Former SBC seminary professors who taught inclusivism or worse:
Molly Marshall
Dale Moody
Alan Neely
Temp Sparkman
Glenn Hinson
Theodore Clark
Jeff Pool’s book “Against Returning to Egypt” is now on Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=5GCaEdwCk_4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Jeff+pool+against&hl=en&ei=vRxfTJS8EIGBlAfR6PmZCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Unfortunately, just the first 104 pages are available.
Thanks Jeff, 100 pages are better than nothing.
Now could you get us a transcript of the conversation Judge Pressler had with Richard Jackson in the hall of the SBC Excom in Nashville in Feb 89.
I Just remembered the name Lee Roberts, the Marietta Businessman who helped you fellows with the Takeover.
What do you know about him, Jaff?
So far Jeff, Pool is doing a good job with Jesus and Moses and Egypt. He has a strong statement about Jesus top of page 16 if you want to take a look.
Good for Paul and Silas and it’s good enough for me as the song goes.
So why do you want to stay in Egypt with Ed McAteer and the self appointed masters of the Bible.
I don’t understand.
Bill Leonard, who used to teach at Southern, sounds a lot like an inclusivist here:
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=16217
I think that we are up to 7 (and still counting) inclusivists who used to teach at SBC seminaries:
Molly Marshall
Dale Moody
Alan Neely
Temp Sparkman
Glenn Hinson
Theodore Clark
Bill Leonard
Jeff:
You said:”I think that we are up to 7 (and still counting) inclusivists who used to teach at SBC seminaries:
Molly Marshall
Dale Moody
Alan Neely
Temp Sparkman
Glenn Hinson
Theodore Clark
Bill Leonard”
And because of these seven–“many” by your own words the CR had to cut the heart right out of the SBC.
I’m sad to say I’m beginning to understand the CR mindset and for that I’m not impressed with it.
Henry N. Smith, a former Instructor of Missions at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in an article entitled, “Salvation in the Face of Many Faiths: Toward a Hermeneutic of Optimism” asserted that many participants in other religious faiths will be saved through their response to God as they know him through general revelation. Henry Smith, “Salvation in the Face of Many Faiths: Toward a Hermeneutic of Optimism,” Southwestern Journal of Theology, Spring 1993, pp. 26-31.
And, Jeff could go on and on and on…the longer he keeps researching…telling you all about the liberals that were in the SBC. Also, this doesnt even begin to touch all the liberals that came out of these seminaries, who were published a book. I mean, ministers like the Youth Pastor at a church in Memphis… who came out of Southern…who believed in universalism and felt that there was no need to go out on visitation to win “lost” people. He was let go by the church, BTW.
DAvid
SSBN:
You said to Stephen:
QUOTE And there are a lot of folks who say Inerrancy of the Scripture is superior to or equal to Christ’s Death on the Cross and crusaded to codify it in Baptist life. END QUOTE
Mr. Fox, do you own a farm? I’m just wondering because with all the straw-men you make, you either own a farm or you are very wealthy and can afford an almost limitless supply from the local feed store.”
SSBN or whomever you are there are no straw men just valid arguements that your side feels they never have to give an answer to.
Tom, I’d just like to remind you that neither you nor Mr. Fox have ever answered anyone. You have NEVER given any evidence to substantiate or validate your arguments.
I’m considered conservative (in regard to the CR) because I hold to the doctrine of inerrancy as basically outlined in the Chicago Statement. My point: I have a reason for being a “conservative” and you have not shown me where the Chicago Statement is invalid.
All you do is throw “poop” like a monkey at the zoo.
Show me the error of my ways. Show me in the Bible for example where God’s Holy Spirit teaches there is another way to salvation other than Jesus Christ. I probably won’t agree, but I’d be willing to listen.
Or, you can continue your monkey ways and throw “poop.”
In conclusion: in order to have a “valid” argument, you must first present an argument, not an ad hominem attack.
No SSBN, it’s you who is out to lunch.
Time and time again I have pointed out that one of the creators of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy at the Ridgecrest SBC conference of 87 said It was never intended to be used as Adrian Rogers and company was using it in the SBC.
So it is you who is out to lunch, you who is 23 years backward and counting on this matter.
And here is a link that proves the point you must have missed the first ten times I put it up for you as reference:
I think it is Chapter 9 that you should read first or in that vicinity.
Check the Chapter Titles or do I have to come to your house and read them to you:
Chapter 13 on Inerrancy for your homework tonight and then maybe for WEdnesday Prayer meeting read the Introduction
http://www.sbctakeover.com/chapter13.htm
QUOTE or do I have to come to your house END QUOTE
Is that some sort of “threat?”
No, I don’t know where you live. CB Scott is the real threat as he has threatened to come to my house and he is only a few miles away.
I am the one who is threatenned.
I just want you to read the Inerrancy chapter in the Takeover; just a clickaway.
I do threaten to call you bogus if you don’t read it; but that is all.
I am having sleepless nights cause I could look out my window anytime and See CB with that Godawful Texas Cowboy hat of his messing up my Lawn. (lol)
Brandon:
You said to me:”Tom,
Thanks, brother.”
Your welcome, thanks for being irenic.
Tom Parker,
Do you remember when you saw Wade us the word “irenic” in a post? I do. Right afterwards you began to use that word constantly. Some of us caught on and starting using it just to rag on you. Do you remember that time? Those were the days my friend….
It makes me want to sing:
“Those were the days my friend,
I thought they would never end,
We’d sing and dance for-ever and a day,
We’d live the life we choose,
We’d fight and never lose,
For we were young and sure to have our way.
Lalala lah lala lalala lah lala….”
Those were the days huh, Tom Parker. 🙂
Jeff T:
You said to Debbie K:
“Debbie, Your liberal buddies are calling people names too but I guess that is ok right? I am surprise you have time to leave your obession to comment hear.”
Not nice, Thomas. How do you define a liberal?
What are you?
Is Taliban Joe more your type of Christian?
You know Taliban Joe is having an effect on me–he has shown me just how easy it is to call people names, just like you just did with the L word.
And BTW you say she is obsessed. I don’t think so. But I’m sure since she is a woman, you really don’t mine trashing her do you?
I mean she is a woman.
Wow! If your CR guys could just get all of the women in the SB to just be quiet and only do what you guys tell them to do.
What are you going to do with the WMU?
How do you sleep at night? CB taught me how to ask that question?
Thanks, CB.
QUOTE Wow! If your CR guys could just get all of the women in the SB to just be quiet and only do what you guys tell them to do. END QUOTE
Tom, do you not care how offensive you are? Apparently not. I’ll say it again, using the term “Taliban” in reference to another believer (whether you agree or not), says a lot about you — and none of it is good.
And, you keep painting all CR Types as chauvinist pigs. This would bother me as a conservative person (not just in politics and theology, but in general), but then I consider the source.
As Forest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does.” Your responses to Joe are ten times more offensive than anything Joe says — and he can be offensive at times in my humble opinion.
I don’t care that this post is wasted on you. I am really just trying to balance the “good versus evil” of the blogosphere.
I feel dirty just reading some of your exchanges. In a way, I’m kind of shocked having gone back and read some of your earlier stuff.
Sad. That’s the word that comes to mind.
Tom and Stephen are such spiritual giants that its ok for them to call people names. They are perfect people who can correct their errant bibles. If you want to know what’s wrong just ask them, they have inerrant views on an errant Bible.
SSBN:
You CR guys do have a problem with the women as you equate their willingness to preach the gospel with homosexuality and same-sex marriage and abortion and it is codified in the 2000 BF&M CREED.
Pity.
I know you can’t see that can you?
Where did you ever get an idea like that. You didn’t use an emoticon, so I’m not sure if you are just kidding.
I don’t know any CR guy (though I don’t them all) that believes anything like what you are saying.
I also don’t know what you mean by “a willingness to preach the gospel.” I’m a CR guy and I certainly support anybody of any gender having a “willingness to preach the gospel.”
Jeff T:
You said to me:”Tom and Stephen are such spiritual giants that its ok for them to call people names. They are perfect people who can correct their errant bibles. If you want to know what’s wrong just ask them, they have inerrant views on an errant Bible.”
Talk about the pot and the kettle, that is you Jeffrey knowing mine and Stephen’s views on the Bible without one shread of evidence.
I call that name calling–what about you?
Nice name calling Jeffrey–Taliban Joe would be proud of you.
Not sure what you mean Inerrant Tom Parker.
Jeff T:
You said to me:”Not sure what you mean Inerrant Tom Parker”
I’m sure I used too many big words for you, Jeffrey.
Nice name calling, you are good or is that better.
Look, why don’t we do a group read and have a discussion,pick up Tuesday.
Here is the assignment, Chapter 13 of the Takeover I linked above for SSBN and his Preaching Wife.
Gene S has a degree from Auburn and I think has taught some Junior College. I have substitute taught in five states so I think we ought to be able to get through it; plus we have BDW and his doctorate from Baylor to help us with the footnotes and what not.
Best for all if Taliban Joe and Double Knot play Hooky cause they obviously can’t do anything but Memory Work.
Memory work is good, but won’t help at all as we launch out a little into the borders of Abstract thought, mystery and Paradox as we look at Holy Scripture.
Maybe BDW has a copy of the Unfetterrred Word at hand to help us with the tough spots.
But one chapter, Chapter 13
Let’s see how it plays.
Inerrant Fox, I would prefer the Bible, but I see that you put all books on the same footing as the Bible. Is that why you don’t believe one must repent of their sins because the Bible is just a book, an old one at that?
Jeff:
Here is a quote from the Intro from the Takeover of the SBC I’m trying to get you to read between now and Tuesday, the Intro and Chapter 13:
The political campaign described in this book was launched by Fundamentalists with the charge that the seminaries and denominational agencies were dominated by liberals. Fundamentalist leaders often implied a meaning for the term “liberal” that far exceeded the truth about seminary professors and denominational executives. For some, the term “liberal” is intended to describe an individual who:
1. Does not believe in the divine inspiration or spiritual truth value of the Bible.
2. Does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.
3. Does not believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
Given such a definition of liberal, it can be firmly asserted that there were never many true liberals in the Southern Baptist Convention. To put it another way, if a liberal-eating lion were set loose in Southern Baptist institutions prior to the Fundamentalist Takeover, he would soon have starved to death.
Wrong Steve,
He would have been shot to death before he ate one leg off of Glenn Hinson or Bill Leonard either one by none other than Dr. Paige Patterson, lion hunter extraordinaire. 🙂
How come John Killian and Gary Enfinger and Wayne Dorsett could not convince Tom Corts and Timothy George that Bill Leonard was a flaming Liberal.
Because he was not.
One he is a great Christian of our Generation.
Two, one of the best Baptist Scholars of his Generation.
He is right at home with Ron Rash talking about Appalachian Religion.
And Three; I’ll skip three because you are a fan of Ron RAsh and maybe the Holy Spirit will work through his writings to confess your error some day.
Moment of Grace if you are unfamiliar with the notion.
True, given “your” very narrow, limited, unscholarly definition of a liberal, there were not many. Using the term as even moderate professors I had, as the “brotherhood of man, Fatherhood of God, and higher ethic of love,” then there were more liberals.
If you expand the definition to include people who believed that the Bible “contained the word of God but was not The Word of God,” there were an even larger number of liberals.
So, I agree that the definition of what is a liberal, does have a place in the discussion. But, why is your definition the one that should be used?
Just asking. Doubt you will answer.
Jeffrey T:
You said to Stephen:
“Inerrant Fox, I would prefer the Bible, but I see that you put all books on the same footing as the Bible. Is that why you don’t believe one must repent of their sins because the Bible is just a book, an old one at that?”
He is not doing that and you know that.
BTW why have you elevated the 2000 BF&M above the Bible?
The Bible is not good enough anymore for you CR guys it has to be added to the 2000 BF&M.
Kind of sounds like what another religion does.
It is either sign off on that 2000 BF&M or you just do not believe the Bible.
How clever of you guys.
But nice try.
I am stupid because I am arguing with Inerrant Tom. He is perfect, his Bible is not but he is….Inerrant, I surrender. You are smarter than me! I’ll just have to read my inerrant Bible.
Tom, I’m a CR guy and I don’t believe I ever accused you of “not believing the Bible.”
I don’t think I’ve ever accused Mr. Fox of not believing the Bible.
You two have never mentioned a Bible text and your understanding of it, so I don’t know if you believe it or not. Every time I’ve seen someone actually ask you or Mr. Fox a legitimate question about the Bible, you just start throwing poop like a monkey in a cage.
So, please don’t accuse me (a am a CR guy) of saying you don’t believe the Bible. I don’t know whether you do or not.
For example: I believe the Bible teaches in John 14:6 that Jesus is the Only Way (he odos). I believe this teaches the doctrine of the exclusivity of Jesus Christ and puts all other “ways” (Hinduism, etc) in a category that we might call ineffectual.
When I say “I believe the Bible,” this is what I mean. If you are saying, “You believe the Bible,” then you must agree this is what the Bible teaches. But, you refuse to answer this question, so how would I, or anyone else, be able to evaluate whether you believe the Bible or not.
So, please don’t accuse me of knowing something I do not know. I have no idea of whether you believe the Bible unless we discuss a Biblical matter.
Here is a grand essay by Martin Accad of the Baptist Seminary in Lebanon of which the Alabama Baptist Convention is a sponsor.
CB SCott is a member of the Alabama Baptist Convention.
Timothy George, Samford University, Bob Terry are all in good standing with Accad. I know, I was there for lecture and luncheon four or so years ago in Bham just outside the Samford Gate.
Accad has endorsed Parham’s Common Word.
So either CB Scott is an accomodationist or….
I don’t know.
Martin is grand and I endorse his essay:
http://conversation.lausanne.org/en/conversations/detail/10005#article_page_1
You know, I actually (naively) thought that this blog could be somehow useful in my pilgrimage of faith. But, there are so many trolls under the bridge that it has become almost impassable.
It is obvious that there can be very little discussion on anything of substance. I tried twice to react to the topic of the post, but it never went anywhere.
I feel like I am watching the monkeys at the Oakland zoo. The only difference is, “they were funny.”
SSBN or FRED:
You said:”You know, I actually (naively) thought that this blog could be somehow useful in my pilgrimage of faith. But, there are so many trolls under the bridge that it has become almost impassable.
It is obvious that there can be very little discussion on anything of substance. I tried twice to react to the topic of the post, but it never went anywhere.
I feel like I am watching the monkeys at the Oakland zoo. The only difference is, “they were funny.”
Uh, you said that only Stephen and I were complaining so when you say many trolls, you mean two–correct.
I would agree you are naive.
Maybe your new name should be Naive Fred.
SSBN or Naive Fred:
Stephen said to you:”QUOTE or do I have to come to your house END QUOTE
Is that some sort of “threat?”
Relax, us moderates don’t do the “threat” thing like your side does.
Did you mean to put a little smiley at the end of your comment.
My guess is that he just simply is willing to read to you.
I haven’t wondered off more than 20 miles or so recently.
It is CB Scott’s threat to come to my house that is more ominous than my prod to FRed to get him to read.
Tom Parker is right; I just want Fred and his wife to read the Takeover chapter on Inerrancy.
If they lived nearby and I could help; would be more than happy to help them with the big words or read to them at a church or Lyberry if that could move the discussion along a little.