Dan Vestal not a liberal??

I hear what you are saying. When you refer to liberal you are referring to a classic liberal. I remember my Systematic Theology prof at SEBTS, in the BP era, refer to this same line of reasoning. As I understand it a classic liberal denies the blood atonement, virgin birth, the veracity of Scripture and a host of other doctrines that are vital to the Faith.

However during the CR, you would call it a takeover, this definition was re-defined and that, I believe is how Dr. Moore makes his reference. Dr. Adrian Rogers defined it this way;
“I’d define a liberal Southern Baptist as a person who does not believe in the veracity, the exactitude, the integrity, the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scripture. Even if he believed that the Word was inspired in its purpose but not in its entirety, he may be right of the center in regard to Christendom but left of the center line in Southern Baptist circles.”

As you said, from the perspective of a Southern Baptist, there are many in the CBF that would be considered liberal.

Blessings,
Tim

“let me remind you that there were liberals within the SBC and when the various groups formed, liberal; liberal/moderate; moderate/liberal; moderate; moderate/conservative; conservative/moderate, the CBF was an acceptor of them all, except conservative.”

That’s just not true. Of course the CBF offered refuge to *practically* anyone and everyone. And yes there were a few classic liberals in the SBC. However, CBF was a refuge to quite a few conservatives or “inerrantists” as one Southern Baptist historian dubs them….

http://nathanafinn.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/the-varieties-of-sbc-conservatism-a-blog-essay/

“The first inerrantists to move away from the larger movement were those inerrantists who were either sympathetic to the pre-1979 status quo, were critical of some personalities or tactics among conservative leadership, or both. Many of these inerrantists comprise the “rank and file” of groups like CBF, and not a few of them now refuse to call themselves inerrantists because of what they perceive to be the “baggage” associated with that term in SBC circles.”

My point about Moore remains. If the definitions of fundamentalist and evangelical are subject to change – same goes for “liberal.” In a Southern Baptist context, yea – the liberal label might fit. But that’s the same junk JLG did to Rev. Enid. He was a “moderate” in the context of current SBC life. Looking at the bigger picture, the liberal label just doesn’t apply to almost all CBFers especially our leadership. You’d have a tough time applying an academic definition of “liberal” to leaders like Dan Vestal or Rob Nash. They believe too much. More later.

I would disagree once again that Dr. Moore broad-brushed the CBF as a bunch of liberals. With that said, let me remind you that there were liberals within the SBC and when the various groups formed, liberal; liberal/moderate; moderate/liberal; moderate; moderate/conservative; conservative/moderate, the CBF was an acceptor of them all, except conservative. Thus Dr. Moore is not off with what he said. Those in the SBC do view those in the CBF, as a whole, as liberal. Just as those in the CBF view those of us in the SBC as fundamentalist.

Allow me to get personal here. You have stated some time before that one thing you admired about me was my blunt honesty. As you stated it is a characteristic you have also. And as you admire that characteristic in me, so I do admire it in you. Having said that, I must call your attention to the inerrancy of Scripture that you and I seem to disagree. I am not asking if you hold a “high view” of scripture, I am asking if you believe the original autographs to be without error. Also, do you believe the text “becomes the Word of God” or do you believe the text already is the Word of God?

Blessings,
Tim

Devoid of any real scholarship? Did Hankins suggest that SBTS completely lacked scholarship? Or lacking in scholarship compared to top-tier evangelical seminaries? The latter is a valid criticism, I think.

I have my own criticisms. I felt Hankin’s subjects were often allowed to tell *their* side of the story without rebuttal. In my opinion, that wasn’t fair. However, Hankins acknowledged early on that he could not offer a moderate response at every turn.

“The engagement in this book make confessional conservatives look like mean Pharisees and the progressive evangelicals as irenic loving Jesus men.”

That’s a strong statement. Professors from SBTS like Greg Wills didn’t read Uneasy in Babylon that way. Of course he had criticisms. But Wills also offered up much praise.

Nonetheless, the general consensus is that Uneasy in Babylon is the most scholarly study of SBC conservatives to date…

One quote from Richard Land is quite relevant considering the recent homemaking news at SWBTS.

Hankins: What would Land’s America look like? On this question he is quite specific, more so than the more cautious Mohler. Land’s ideal is “America in 1955 without the racism and without the sexual discrimination against women.”

Many many many many many of us mainstream/moderate/centrist/goodwill/free & faithful/fellowship/etc. etc. Baptists hold to a very high view of Scripture and trust in the authority of the Bible….contrary to what you might think.

He is not hesitant to name names and take no prisoners unless the culprit in mind is moderate professors. The engagement in this book make confessional conservatives look like mean Pharisees and the progressive evangelicals as irenic loving Jesus men. I think the main alliance SB’s conservatives made with evangelicals were on cultural issues and the inerrancy of Scripture. This does seem to be a strong point of this tome.

Finally, you might notice the book was published by University of Alabama Press – that’s indication enough of its inadequacy (that’s for you C.B)

Perhaps you could enlighten us.

Chris

I didn’t say it was completely unrelated. However, Moore gives the impression that the CBF (as a whole) had a “mother-god worship service” at the General Assembly. As I pointed out, that’s not true.

And yes BWIM receives CBF funds. Since this happened in 2001, let’s not apply a 2005 partnership statement. I believe in accountability but that’s a completely different issue than what we have above in Russ Moore’s comments. He misrepresented the CBF as a whole in this instance to suit his agenda (i.e. CBF = liberal). As I side note, I will note that CBF doesn’t endorse every word and verse uttered at an auxillary event and/or by those in leadership positions. For instance, I don’t believe that the SBC endorses the imprecatory prayer of your former 2nd VP…..but like I said – that’s a separate issue.

And I do believe that “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error.”

The word Evangelical has been around for several centuries and obviously has been defined differently along the way. However, Dr. E.Y. Mullins did use this word to describe himself. My dad is writing a book on Mullins (rerelease of The Axioms of Religion) so I suspect that I could find a citation later.